{"id":7179,"date":"2017-05-22T04:29:17","date_gmt":"2017-05-22T04:29:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/?p=7179"},"modified":"2017-05-22T04:29:58","modified_gmt":"2017-05-22T04:29:58","slug":"take-back-election-process","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/blog\/2017\/05\/take-back-election-process\/","title":{"rendered":"Can We Take Back Our Election Process and Make the Parties Listen to Us? – Article by Tom DeWeese"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"The<\/a>Tom DeWeese<\/span>
\n<\/big><\/big><\/strong><\/div>\n
******************************<\/div>\n
\n

The clamor is growing louder every day. \u201cThey don\u2019t listen.\u201d \u201cWe have no real choice of candidates.\u201d \u201cThe system is rigged for the elite.\u201d \u201cThere\u2019s no difference between the two parties.\u201d<\/p>\n

You hear it every election. Endless talk about the need to create jobs, build the economy, make the nation a \u201cbetter place to live for our families,\u201d and, my favorite \u2013 \u201crestore trust!\u201d\u00a0 Who\u2019s not for those wonderful things?! The slogans work for Democrat and Republican alike. These so-called issues are interchangeable. They are, in fact, nothing more than empty rhetoric.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, do we hear a discussion about our money becoming more worthless every day from federal-government spending and rampant inflation? What about the destruction of our education system as it is used for behavior modification while true academics are eliminated for the curriculum? Does any candidate dare mention the hopelessness taking over our inner cities as federal welfare policies are enslaving whole generations to the ever-expanding government plantation? And of course there is the fear campaign in every city in the nation about the need to control development and population, leading to the utter destruction of private property.<\/p>\n

None of these issues are ever mentioned in local, state, or federal campaigns. Any candidate who tries is immediately labeled an extremist!<\/p>\n

So our political parties choose for us candidates that are \u201cacceptable,\u201d middle-of-the road, not rocking the boat, and not too extreme. In short, we are forced to choose the lesser of two evils. Election after election the drone goes on. And what are we to do? These are the candidates those in charge have chosen for us for city council, county commission, state legislature, Congress, and President. Yes, we have primaries to choose, but I think we all know those are pretty much rigged to assure the powers in charge get whom they want \u2013 just ask Bernie Sanders.<\/p>\n

Is it any wonder that there are millions of Americans who don\u2019t vote or participate in our nation\u2019s debate because they think it doesn\u2019t matter anyway? The \u201caverage voter\u201d increasingly feels that the decisions have been made for them.<\/p>\n

Those who hold conservative points of view that our nation should live within the Constitution now believe socialism is inevitable, so why bother going to the polls?<\/p>\n

The poor think they are simply pawns in a vice grip between big money and special interests which control the elections. Why bother? Helplessness now rules the world\u2019s greatest representative democracy. As people stay home or trudge to the polls to unenthusiastically vote for the next lesser of two evils, 93% of incumbents are routinely returned to office \u2013 year after year after year.<\/p>\n

The instant a candidate is elected and joins the ranks of the incumbents, he\/she begins the dance. Get the money for the next campaign. How? Special-interest groups, corporations, and foreign interests flood into their offices to make deals, promote their personal agendas, and show the way to fame, fortune, and perpetual office \u2013 if only the incumbents go along. They have the whole process well in hand. Campaigns become little more than big PR projects, promoted in positive platitudes, specifically designed to assure nothing negative sticks. Just get through it and keep the gravy train running.<\/p>\n

Above all, do not talk about controversial subjects like dollar values, global trade, or immigration; just stick to issues like health care and the environment \u2013 coincidentally, two issues bought and paid for by the special interests. See how it works?<\/p>\n

So year after year, we officially hold elections and politicians pontificate about how our going to the polls is a revered right, a valued tradition, the underpinning of a free society. And they wonder why there is such division in the nation. How did we end up in such a mess? We voted for these guys. But did we enjoy it? Are we satisfied with the results? Would we like to demand a do-over?<\/p>\n

So is it hopeless? Is there any way to change it? Do you want the people to, again, have control of the election process and of the choice of candidates offered? Do you want to force the power elites to listen to you? I\u2019ve got a solution.<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t despair. Don\u2019t give up. There is a logical, effective way out of this. But it won\u2019t happen by depending on political parties to lead the way. We have to take things into our own hands. We need an effective, binding form of protest to say \u201cNO\u201d to bad candidates. There is such a way.<\/p>\n

Imagine going into the voting booth and looking down the list of candidates offered. None really appeal. None seem to offer satisfaction as an answer to the issues that concern you. If only there was something else you could do. A write-in won\u2019t help. It would take such a difficult, expensive effort. It rarely works.<\/p>\n

Then you look further down the ballot. Something new. It says \u201cNONE OF THE ABOVE.\u201d It\u2019s a final choice after each of the candidates in every category, from president, to congress to city council. What does it mean?<\/p>\n

It means you have the power to decide who will hold office \u2013 not the power brokers. When the votes are tallied, if \u201cNONE OF THE ABOVE\u201d gets a majority of votes over any of the candidates listed, then \u201cNONE OF THE ABOVE\u201d wins. And that means none of those candidates will win the office. The office will remain vacant until a new election is held. To set up another election and fill the spot would work exactly like the process provided in the Constitution when an incumbent dies or resigns, and a special election is held. Now new candidates will have to try to win the public\u2019s support.<\/p>\n

Fixing the election process could be that simple. You, the voter, would be completely in the driver\u2019s seat with the power to reject candidates, forcing a new election with new choices. The political parties would be forced to provide candidates the people want \u2014 or face being rejected. They would have to talk about real issues \u2013 or face being rejected. Incumbents would have to answer for their actions in office \u2013 or face being rejected. \u201cNONE OF THE ABOVE.\u201d Period. The power of labor unions and international corporations would be broken.<\/p>\n

Think of the consequences. No longer would voters have to settle for the lesser of two evils. If all the candidates are bad \u2013 none would be able to force their way into office. It would mean that powerful special interests could no longer rely on their money to buy elections. They could buy all the ads they wanted, spend millions on \u201cvolunteers\u201d going door to door and sling their dirt, but if the voters aren\u2019t buying, none of it will save their candidate from being rejected by \u201cNONE OF THE ABOVE.\u201d<\/p>\n

Moreover, the power of entrenched incumbents who have been unbeatable because of their massive war chests and party ties would be broken. Picture John McCain or Nancy Pelosi unable to run for office because they were rejected by \u201cNONE OF THE ABOVE.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, in order to work, \u201cNONE OF THE ABOVE\u201d would have to be binding. It would have to have the power of law behind it. It cannot be just a \u201cprotest\u201d vote that has no other meaning.<\/p>\n

\u201cNONE OF THE ABOVE\u201d is completely non-partisan. There is no way to control its outcome. There is no need for a massive campaign chest to support \u201cNONE OF THE ABOVE,\u201d although it could certainly be done. But the option, once permanently placed on the ballot, would always be there. America\u2019s representative system would be restored.<\/p>\n

To get the job done, activists in every state would have to begin a campaign to demand that \u201cNONE OF THE ABOVE\u201d be given a permanent spot on the ballot. It would not require a Constitutional Amendment. It would have to be done state by state. Some states have ballot referendums and initiatives using petition drives to get an issue on the ballot so the people can decide. It\u2019s difficult and expensive to do, but popular ideas have a chance.<\/p>\n

In other states, \u201cNONE OF THE ABOVE\u201d advocates would have to find a friendly state representative or senator to introduce the idea before the state legislature and then get enough votes to pass it in both houses and then have it signed by the governor. The main drawback to that effort is that, if the effort is successful, then every one of those legislators is an incumbent who will have to face \u201cNONE OF THE ABOVE\u201d on the ballot for their re-election. They probably won\u2019t be too excited about the idea.<\/p>\n

So why would they support the idea? It would be only because supporters succeed in creating a strong movement of voters who demand it. No one is saying this will be an easy process. But such movements have succeeded before. For example, local activists could begin by demanding that candidates support the measure much like they now sign \u201cno tax\u201d pledges. In short, they would support it because there is strong popular support, and they simply have no choice.<\/p>\n

Of course, one of their main objections to the \u201cNONE OF THE ABOVE\u201d idea would be the requirement for holding a new election, should it win. “Too expensive,” our responsible public servants would say as they dismissed the idea. However, if it means getting better candidates, isn\u2019t it worth it to hold a new election, especially considering how much a very bad candidate would cost us if he actually got into office? \u00a0The fact is, such a need for a new election would probably not arise often once political power brokers began to understand that they must offer candidates acceptable to the people rather than to the special interests. That\u2019s all they really have to do. It\u2019s all we want. It only takes a couple of \u201cNone of the Above\u201d victories to see that the electorate is back in charge.<\/p>\n

The idea of \u201cNONE OF THE ABOVE\u201d has been around for a long time. Over the years, most states have had some kind of legislation introduced supporting the concept. Nevada actually has it on the ballot \u2013 but it is not binding. It doesn\u2019t force a new election. It is just a measure of protest. That\u2019s not good enough to make it effective.<\/p>\n

One of the reasons it has not been successful is because there has never been a serious national drive to promote the idea. However, with the growing dissatisfaction voters are feeling with the lack of quality candidates seeming to get worse every election, perhaps there has never been a better time to start a national discussion on the issue.<\/p>\n

The best part is that \u201cNONE OF THE ABOVE\u201d isn\u2019t a conservative or liberal idea. It\u2019s not a Republican of Democrat proposal. In fact, Republican leadership might see it as a good way to break the back of big labor\u2019s influence over elections. Equally, Democrats could see it as a way to stop the power and influence of the Republicans’ big-business money. However the parties want to look at it, the bottom line is that the voters win.<\/p>\n

This will be a long-term process and is primarily aimed at local, state, and congressional candidates. While it should certainly be used in presidential elections as well, the real power comes from rejecting the lower-level candidates.<\/p>\n

But all of that depends on the voters. Do you want to take back control, or are you satisfied to have your choices made for you behind closed doors? Because that\u2019s what we have now. How\u2019s that working for you?<\/p>\n

Tom DeWeese is President of the American Policy Center<\/a> and one of the nation\u2019s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Tom DeWeese ****************************** The clamor is growing louder every day. \u201cThey don\u2019t listen.\u201d \u201cWe have no real choice of candidates.\u201d \u201cThe system is rigged for the elite.\u201d \u201cThere\u2019s no difference between the two parties.\u201d You hear it every election. Endless talk about the need to create jobs, build the economy, make the nation a \u201cbetter place to live for our families,\u201d and, my favorite \u2013 \u201crestore trust!\u201d\u00a0 Who\u2019s not for those wonderful things?! The slogans work for Democrat and Republican…<\/p>\n

Read More Read More<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[4228,481,5173,28,69,5172,29,5171,1244,25,843,1344],"class_list":["post-7179","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics","tag-bernie-sanders","tag-campaign","tag-campaign-finance","tag-democrat","tag-election","tag-none-of-the-above","tag-republican","tag-tom-deweese","tag-two-party-system","tag-united-states","tag-vote","tag-voting"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7179","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7179"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7179\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7181,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7179\/revisions\/7181"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7179"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7179"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7179"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}