Economy

Rant

Occupy Smoccupy

Posted 5 months ago|4 comments|295 views
Written by
The "Occupy" movement has taken the county from Wall Street to California. It has monopolized the media and the minds of the citizens. People of all ages, college students, mothers and fathers with their children, and grandmothers and grandfathers have had what amounts to sit-ins with 1960's style demonstrations.

I have to ask if anyone has noticed that this is the 21st century.

While this occupy strategy has worked to get the attention of the media, it has been treated with disregard and merely tolerated by the people who have the responsibility and the ability to make changes – our government leaders. Surely, someone among such a diverse group can imagine and develop a more sophisticated and universal approach to getting the message out about the citizens' discontent – a method that can be directed to the leaders of our country.

The thought that comes to mind is why someone has not put up a website where American citizens can vote. Most of America has access to the web either with a computer or with a smart phone. A website like this would give more Americans an opportunity to participate, and give Congress the chance to see what most of the American people think. I believe a website would be more reliable than the polls that are discussed on television, news magazines, and in the news.

Let us make the first vote a referendum for term limits in the House of Representatives and in the Senate – two terms each. I would vote YES for that. What about you? I do not believe that the founding fathers ever intended for the positions of Senator and Representative to be career positions. A person was supposed to serve for a term or two and go back to their regular means of earning a living. In addition, the Congress and passing laws, was not a full time job in the beginning. Now it seems, our Congress, men and women look especially hard for some reason to pass a law just to have something to do.

Let us make the next question on the ballot a referendum on whether to allow corporate money to pay for campaigning for elected officials. I would vote NO to that. Why not pay for elections out of public funds and limit the amount of money that is spent on campaigning? Keep corporations out of the position of buying our lawmakers' services and goodwill.

While we are at it, let's just vote on whether we like the stalemate between the two major parties: Democrats vs. Republicans. I vote NO; I don't like the stalemate. Members of both parties seem to do what is most expedient for themselves rather than what is best for the country.

While I realize of course, this would not be a legal referendum, it would at least reach most of the citizenry, and it would lend some truth to the guesswork and discussion by politicians and media personnel about what the majority of the American people really want.

I know there are many more topics on which Americans would like to express their opinions. I believe a website is the very best way. The security would have to be stringent. The voter registration information would have to be verified before anyone would give any credibility to the site.

Someone out there must have the expertise to do this and do it well.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
5 months ago: Very good rant Techie! This was well done and should have had a lot more readers and input.

Welcome to the site! I hope you contribute a lot more. We need some more feminine input.

I agree that we should have voting through the internet. Have you visited http://www.americanselect.org/

This is a pretty slick program that first asks you to pick the issues then nominate people to run for president. They claim to have 2 million people signed up so far and they claim they will have a candidate on the ballot in all 50 states.

I think they did a really good job with the program and at first I was really excited about it. But what if they could manipulate the votes?

I am leery of this effort because the site gives you the impression that the issues are pretty liberal and populist which would attract Democratic voters away from Obama and thus prove to be a spoiler.

I am even more afraid when you look at who is paying for the effort. It is funded by Arno Political Consultants who are accused of tricking people to register as Republicans and many other shady things like forging petitions for right wing causes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_E...

I think it would be good to have third or independent parties or to do away with parties altogether. First we need to change the system so 3rd party candidates are not spoilers. I would like to see instant runnoff voting to do both. http://www.instantrunoff.com/sapphire/ma...

You are right that the main thing wrong with politics is that the 1% are able to bribe politicians and buy elections, and with the Citizen's United case they can now spend unlimited amounts with no disclosure and their bribes are protected by the 1st amendment. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/01...

We need to get money out of politics. http://www.getmoneyout.com/

5 months ago: Thank you for your comments. I have not seen these sites; I will check them out.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
5 months ago: I think the recent fiasco with the "Supercommittee" illustrates what is wrong with our system.

They used to say that politics is the art of compromise, but the Republicans consider it war and refuse to compromise.

If the committee had a third independent arm with equal voting rights they could have avoided the partisan gridlock.

If they had 6 democrats, 6 Republicans, and 6 independent economists, they coud have crafted a plan very easily.

I would like to see that work for all of Congress.
1. Eliminate the filibuster and then have a simple majority vote to determine if some action needs to be done.
2 have three proposals crafted, one from the Democrats, one from the Republicans, and one from an independent panel of experts in the field being considered. None of the independents could have been influenced by special interests.
3. Have the congressmen use preference voting (3 pts. for their favorite, 2 pts. for their second choice and 1 pt. for their least favorite.) The one with the most points would win.

In most cases the expert bill would be selected which would be the best proposal and also best for the country. It would foster civility and cooperation because each side would be trying to attract those second choices and they would try to get the best ideas in their bill to attract those second choices to win.

This would minimize the effect of special interest money without needing a constitutional amendment - just a simple rule change.
5 months ago: Altruist,
Thank you for your comments. I think YOU should run for office. You seem to know more about getting government moving than the government leaders do. I wonder if any of them will see your posts.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.