Friends Of the Article V Convention

You are here

Help with Search (new window)
Picture of Daniel Summars
A Large Part of the Problem is . . .
by Daniel Summars - Sunday, 3 January 2010, 04:23 PM
 
A large part of the problem is the perpetual rewarding of irresponsible incumbent politicians with 85-to-90% re-election rates.
The voter paradox:
  • most voters whine and complain and give incumbent politicians in Congress approval ratings as low as 11% ,
  • but then reward most of those same irresponsible incumbent politicians with 85% to 90% re-election rates,
  • and then wonder why government is corrupt, severely bloated, irresponsible, and seem to ignore the voters?
There's really no mystery why government is irresponsible, when most voters reward most politicians for it. 
Reward your children for bad behavior and see what happens.
Voter education is important too. We can learn the smart way or the hard way.
  • 40% to 50% of voters don't even vote.
  • Too many voters blindly pull the party-lever without even knowing all of the people on the ballot.
  • Too many voters have abdicated their own responsibility to THEIR party.
  • Too many voters lazily demonize the OTHER party and prefer to fuel and wallow the distracting, divisive, destructive partisan warfare.
  • Too many voters are too distracted with winning seats for THEIR own party instead of the nation's most pressing problems.
  • Too many voters choose to blame the OTHER party, rather than admit-to and fix problems in one's OWN party. Looking the other way is rampant.
  • Too many prefer to emphasize our lesser differences rather than unity on the majority of things we all agree upon (i.e. the problems and solutions).  Those that celebrate and emphasize differences, overshadows and destroys any chances for unity.  It's all about division.  Divided voters are distracted voters, and they are then unable to ever form a majority to oust the corrupt politicians.
  • Too many voters are single-issue voters, which makes them easy to manipulate.
  • Over 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money (usually the incumbent; who have many unfair advantages).
  • Too many voters complain about the unfairness of campaign finance, but then reward them for it with 85% to 90% re-election rates.  Yet, a tiny 0.15% of the total 200 million eligible voters make 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more).  How can the remaining 99.85% of all 200 million eligible voters compete with that?  Well, it certainly isn't by rewarding them with perpetual re-election is it?
At any rate, the logic (i.e. to simply stop repeat offenders by not re-electing them) is exactly what the voters will do anyway when things become painful enough, as evidenced by two of the highest anti-incumbent voting periods in American history (i.e. the American Civil War and the Great Depression).

Thus, simply recommending to do sooner what will mostly likely eventually happen later anyway will hopefully bring about reform sooner than later.
The longer it takes, the more longer and more painful any reforms will become.

The problem is not just corrupt politicians.
The largest problem is a disaffected, disinterested, apathetic, and complacent electorate.
But, in case you have not noticed, the anti-incumbent sentiments are growing as the nation's deterioration increases.
In Nov-2004, Congress' seat retention rates were 98.7% .
In Nov-2006, Congress' seat retention rates fell to 93.1% .
In Nov-2008, Congress' seat retention rates will be?   I'm guessing about 89%.
Only as that number decreases, and as voters become more responsible, will government become more responsible and accountable too.
That's how democracy works, and it is (unfortunately) slow; 2.00 steps forward and 1.99 steps backward.
Only a more engaged and educated electorate can make it better.
The voters will get their education.
The question is, will it be:
  1. The smart, peaceful, responsible way ?
  2. Or, the hard, painful way (again) ?
And then, maybe, Article V will have a chance. 
However, perpetually rewarding incumbent politicians for ignoring Article V won't, and will (instead) empower corrupt government to grow more and more corrupt. And if it is allowed to continue for too long, serious consequences (e.g. another Great Depression or Civil War) are not far fetched.  Not at all.

This doesn't mean that our nation's experiment in Democracy is a total failure, but it also does not mean we are immune from failure or demise.  The future and security of the nation is truly being threatened now, and it will fail and fall as many nations have through the millennia, if we allow the deterioration to progress too far.  Just look at these 10 systems that have been worsening for the last 30+ years. These systems did not all come about by mere coincidence.

The bottom line is this, and the future of Article V depends on it:
Government won't become more responsible and accountable until the voters do too.
Now, who can name 1, 5, 20, 50, 100, 200, 250, or even 268 (half of the 535 incumbent politicians in Congress) that support Article V of the U.S. Constitution ?

To date, which is VERY strange indeed . . . NOT a single ONE !

So, why keep rewarding them with perpetual re-election ?
Reply
Picture of Fred Gohlke
Re: A Large Part of the Problem is . . .
by Fred Gohlke - Monday, 3 December 2007, 01:53 PM
 
re: "So, why keep rewarding them with perpetual re-election?"

Because we have no alternative!

It is easy to cite the problems. It's much more difficult to understand why they occur. Until we are willing to look at the fact that political parties have usurped the right to select the candidates for public office, the circumstances you decry will continue.

As long as those with politic power write the rules by which that power is attained, disaster is inevitable.

Fred

Show parent | Reply
Picture of Daniel Summars
Re: A Large Part of the Problem is . . .
by Daniel Summars - Monday, 3 December 2007, 02:21 PM
 

Fred Gohlke wrote: Because we have no alternative!

Fred, perhaps there is a way?
Your argument (i.e. no alternatives) is common (e.g. CON # 01).
However, there are some smart things we can do.
Very important:  See STEP [3] below.
http://one-simple-idea.com/VotingGuidelines1.gif

Of course, it may take a while for enough voters to get it.
But they will most likely catch on eventually.
Why?
Because pain and misery is a good teacher.
In Nov-2004, Congress enjoyed a 98.7% seat-retention rate.
In Nov-2006, Congress' seat-retention rate fell to 93.1%.
In Nov-2008, Congress' seat-retention will be ?  I'm guessing 89%.
Voters will become less disinterested, apathetic, and complacent when they are jobless, homeless, and hungry.  And that has been the trend for over 30+ years. 
It's a built-in self-correction system, but it is threatened if we let the corruption grow too far for too long.

Show parent | Reply
Picture of Fred Gohlke
Re: A Large Part of the Problem is . . .
by Fred Gohlke - Monday, 3 December 2007, 09:15 PM
 
Please accept my apology. I should have learned my lesson in my previous attempt.

Fred

Show parent | Reply
Picture of Daniel Summars
Re: A Large Part of the Problem is . . .
by Daniel Summars - Tuesday, 4 December 2007, 08:27 AM
 

Fred wrote:  Please accept my apology. I should have learned my lesson in my previous attempt.

Apology accepted.
Fred,  I agree that the alternatives are often ALL bad.
And that's where STEP (3) comes in, and would be better than rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with 95% to 99% re-election rates.
There is no single solution, but education is an important part of the solution.
What is your recommendation?   That's right.  The two-party duopoly is attempting to block access for third-party and independent voters to the ballots and public office.    What do you recommend?    After all, it is the majority of voters that put them there, over and over.  The party seat-retention rate in Congress, since year 1980, is 96.5% .  Government won't become more responsible and accountable until enough the voters do. 

Fred wrote:   Because we have no alternative!

It is easy to cite the problems.  It's much more difficult to understand why they occur. Until we are willing to look at the fact that political parties have usurped the right to select the candidates for public office, the circumstances you decry will continue.


Yes, it is easier to cite the problems.
So, how do you recommend we solve problems?
What other choices do we have? 
Revolution? 
Revolution may be exactly what happens eventually (anyway) if voters keep rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election rates; when things get bad enough.  But it will be a shame when voters should, perhaps, first try something different (a peaceful approach first); such as simply not rewarding incumbent politians with perpetual re-election?

The two-party duopoly is a serious problem. No doubt about it.  Again, that's where  STEP (3) may help. 

By the way, the largest voting group is now independent voters (about 40% of 200 million eligible voters). The other voters are about evenly divided between the Republican and Democrat parties, and those two main parties are losing members. It is because a growing number of voters are not happy with THEIR party, and many are not merely switching parties.

Fred wrote:   As long as those with political power write the rules by which that power is attained, disaster is inevitable.

Yes, the system is rigged.  Again, that's where STEP (3) may help.

In Nov-2004, the seat-retention rate in Congress was 98.7%.
In Nov-2006, the seat-retention rate in Congress fell to 93.1%.
In Nov-2008, the seat-retention rate in Congress will be?  89% maybe?

Also, it should be noted that there is currently NOT a single Congress person that is willing to support and uphold Article V of the U.S. Constitution, and call an Article V Convention now.  That is a very strange don't  you think?  Even statistically, it is very strange.   When have all 535 Congress persons ever  agreed 100% on anything else?  Ever?   What is this telling us?   Regardless, should we be rewarding any politicians with perpetual re-election when they violate their oath to uphold the Constitution?


Show parent | Reply
Picture of Fred Gohlke
Re: A Large Part of the Problem is . . .
by Fred Gohlke - Thursday, 6 December 2007, 07:57 AM
 
re: "Yes, the system is rigged."

This is not something you can mention in passing. This is the precise cause of all the evils you lament. This is the reason the seat-retention rate in Congress is so high. This is the reason our government is a shambles.

This is NOT something that can be corrected with one simple idea or four easy steps. Until we understand HOW the American people's right to govern themselves was usurped, trying to correct the problem is a pipedream.

I'm not sure how you can draw the flow-chart above and not understand why "The largest problem is a disaffected, disinterested, apathetic, and complacent electorate." When the electorate has, as you show, no viable alternatives, what other result could you expect?

The first step in solving any problem is to identify the problem. The problem, in America, is that politicians have a stranglehold on our political process. If we are to correct it, the first step must be to acknowledge the problem, the second to understand how it occurred, the third to devise a method of correcting it and the fourth finding a way to implement the change.

It took us two hundred years to reach our present state of disarray. I fear it will take as long to straighten up the mess. Longer, if we continue to ignore the obvious:

As long as those with political power write the rules by which that power is attained, disaster is inevitable.

Fred

Show parent | Reply
Picture of Daniel Summars
Re: A Large Part of the Problem is . . .
by Daniel Summars - Thursday, 6 December 2007, 01:32 PM
 

_______________

Fred wrote:  re: "Yes, the system is rigged."

This is not something you can mention in passing. This is the precise cause of all the evils you lament. This is the reason the seat-retention rate in Congress is so high. This is the reason our government is a shambles.
_______________

Fred, I've given some thought to the problem and the root cause and do not in any way underestimate the importance of it.  I have dedicated more than one web-page about it. 

It's part of human nature, and understanding it can not be understated.  It's not really that complicated.  Humans have always had a problem with corruption because it is rooted in laziness, apathy, and complacency.  The problem is rooted in a very fundamental human trait.  Understanding that is important so that systems can be designed to account for the human factor.  Unfortunately, there are some people (cheaters), to varying degrees, that are always attempting to abuse the systems to reduce or eliminate transparency, accountability, and responsibility.
_______________
Fred wrote:  This is NOT something that can be corrected with one simple idea or four easy steps. Until we understand HOW the American people's right to govern themselves was usurped, trying to correct the problem is a pipedream.
_______________
There is no one single thing or silver bullet. 

However, there are many simple things that can be done to decrease corruption and  increase transparency, accountability, education, and responsibility.  One-Simple-Idea  (despite the name) is NOT only about the one idea of not rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election. It offers solutions too.  But these solutions first require the electorate to get involved sooner than later, when they are finally motivated by pain an misery instead of education.  That is, government won't become more responsible until the voters do.

That is, how the Americans' right to govern themselves was usurped is their OWN fault.  It's not just politicians.  It's ALL of us.  Voters allowed politicians to hijack the political system, and it is up to the electorate to fix it.
_______________

Fred wrote:  I'm not sure how you can draw the flow-chart above and not understand why "The largest problem is a disaffected, disinterested, apathetic, and complacent electorate." When the electorate has, as you show, no viable alternatives, what other result could you expect?

_______________
First of all, your conclusion is flawed.   I think I understand why a large part of the electorate is disaffected, and that electorate, itself, is largely to blame for it.  The blame can NOT merely be placed on politicians alone when those politicians are elected.  The majority of the electorate allowed the situation where most of their choices and alternatives are bad.  The electorate allowed it and the electorate will suffer for it.  At least, until it becomes too painful and the electorate finally chooses to do something about it.  There are many things the voters can do.  There are peaceful ways to do it.  For one thing, repeatedly rewarding incumbent politicians with 95% to 99% re-election rates doesn't make much sense, even if the choices stink.  Even if the choices all stink, it doesn't make any sense to repeatedly reward the incumbent politicians with re-election and empower them to grow more powerful and difficult to oust from office.  When things get bad enough, voters will repeat the massive anti-incumbent voting as they did in the Civil War and The Great Depression (two of the highest anti-incumbent voting periods in American History).  If that doesn't work (especially, if the electorate waits too long), less peaceful methods may result. That's the danger of waiting too long.   Either way, when will it get better (if ever)?  When it becomes too painful.  And we are well on our way, as evidence by this worsening  30+ year trend.
_______________

Fred wrote:  The first step in solving any problem is to identify the problem.
_______________
That's right. 
And blaming one group (i.e. politicians) is not the only problem.
We must recognize that WE are the problem, and the includes the politicians and the electorate.
It is US.  All of US.
It's human nature.
We must admit it, learn about it, education others about it, and design our systems to account for it, and mitigate the corruption that it breeds.
If not, we could eventually lose the right to vote and be faced with a dictatorship. 
History has shown this to happen over and over and over.  If we don't learn from it (which required education), we will suffer the painful consequences.  The U.S. is not invincible.  If it stays on the current path, it's demise is most likely a certainty based on what history shows us.
_______________

Fred wrote:  The problem, in America, is that politicians have a stranglehold on our political process.
_______________

That's not the root problem.
That's a symptom of the root problem.
The problem is not only the politicians.
The problem is ALL of us.
Half of the problem is the electorate.
If the electorate has bad choices, that's the electorate's fault too.

The electorate has a duty to get more choices on the ballots and stop blindly pulling the party-lever.
The fact that a party-designation is on the voting ballots is a lesson about laziness and Cheaters that put it there so that they can capitalize on the voters' laziness (i.e. lazily and blindly pulling the party-lever without even knowing all of the candidates on the ballot).

The electorate has a duty to stop re-electing (90% of the time) the candidate the spends the most money (which is the most often the incumbent).
The electorate has a duty to stop rewarding corrupt politicians with 95%-to-99% re-election rates.
The electorate must stop wallowing in the distracting partisan-warfare and allowing themselves to be manipulated by politicians that lie, cheat, steal, and violate the Constitution (which is currently all 535 members of Congress that are violating Article V of the U.S. Constitution).  

_______________

Fred wrote:   If we are to correct it, the first step must be to acknowledge the problem,  . . .

_______________

Yes, and the root problem is the human factor.  Laziness.  It must be acknowledged and well understood.  It has not been sufficiently acknowledged and/or understood. Too many people don't like to talk about it. Too many people don't like to think they are lazy.  Too many people talk a lot, but don't take action.   And the willingness of some (Cheaters) to capitalize on others' laziness for their own nefarious purposes is constantly underestimated and overlooked.  The party-lever is one of the Cheaters' greatest inventions. It is one of the powerful ways in which the Cheaters control and manipulate the electorate.  Pulling the party-lever is easy, and the voter leaves thinking they did a wonderful thing by blindly and loyally pulling the party-lever.  

Thus, there is insufficient attention given to the human factor, admitting it exists, the psychology surrounding it, the design of our systems, societies, laws, and government to emphasize Education, Transparency, and Accountability to account for it.

So, you can see, I've given it more thought than some think.

So, I've probably reached a few people.
FOAVC has reached a few people.

Fred, what, specifically, do you recommend ?

_______________ 

Fred wrote:  the second to understand how it occurred, . . .

_______________
How it happened is simple.  Laziness and ignorance let it happen.  Where there are people, there is corruption trying to find a toe-hold.  We can never underestimate how corruption is always looking for a place to grow and flourish.  We must thoroughly understand that so that we can reduce it and stop the beginnings of it.  It takes a lot of corruption to bring down a nation, but the best way to prevent it is to not allow the beginnings of it.
_______________

Fred wrote:  . . . the third to devise a method of correcting it and the fourth finding a way to implement the change.
  
_______________

And there are many ways to do that.
The first step is Education.
That's why I:
(1) created One-Simple-Idea.com
(2) become a member and coFounder of FOAVC.ORG
(3) become the Treasure of VOIDnow.org
(4) support many other organizations (via time, or monetarily)

Most people, naturally, seek security and prosperity with the least amount of effort and pain, but some (Cheaters) often resort to unethical (even illegal) methods.  Without sufficient   Conscience,  Education, Transparency, and Accountability, Corruption grows, and  Power can exacerbate the problem.  A lack of  Conscience  creates a lack of emphasis on  Education, which creates an environment ripe for Corruption.  A lack of Transparency creates opportunities for self gain.  A lack of Accountability means there are no consequences, and results in a lack of all Responsibility.

Only   Conscience,  Education,  Transparency,  Accountability,  and  Power  can yield  Responsibility,  and reduce  Corruption.

_______________

Fred wrote:   It took us two hundred years to reach our present state of disarray. I fear it will take as long to straighten up the mess. Longer, if we continue to ignore the obvious:

As long as those with political power write the rules by which that power is attained, disaster is inevitable. 
 
_______________
Yes, the longer corruption is allowed to grow, the more painful it will be later to stop it.  This is a lesson history has shown us over and over, but we keep forgetting and/or ignoring.  If corruption is allowed to grow long enough, it will threaten the security and future of the nation.  The danger is real.  The economy will probably begin to falter.  We may be seeing the signs of it already.  I am in no way diminishing the seriousness and eminent danger of the situation.

Yes, the deck is stacked.  However, the electorate still has an option, but the electorate must choose, and had better start using their vote more much wisely, and soon before it becomes totally useless and/or before the voters lose the right to vote altogether (or lose the ability to get an accurate vote-count).  There is no doubt that voting is currently not effectual as it should be, but it is largely the electorates own fault, because too many voters blindly and lazily pull the party-lever (often not even knowing all of the candidates on the ballot, much less their voting records), 40% to 50% don't even bother to vote at all, too many voters are one-issue voters, making them easy to manipulate and bribe with their own tax dollars, too many voters are too lazy to do any research on the candidates, too many voters choose to blame the OTHER party and wallow in the distracting, destructive, wasteful, and circular partisan warfare, which many politicians are all too eager to fuel.  Too many voters whine and complain and giver Congress record low approval ratings as low as 11%, but then do a very strange thing:  reward the incumbents with 95% to 99% re-election rates.  The very least they should do is vote for challengers if they already know most (if not all)  incumbents are corrupt and irresponsible.  and give Congress a low approval rating, but repeatedly re-elect and reward the same incumbents, giving them a cu$hy 90% to 95% re-election rate since 1996.

Our democracy is becoming increasingly delusional.  Joel Hirschhorn's book is largely about that delusion.  That is, the longer the electorate lazily allows the corruption to grow, the closer the electorate gets to losing their democracy.  The two-party duopoly is a huge problem, but only the electorate can change it, and that ain't gonna happen by repeatedly rewarding corrupt, FOR-SALE, irresponsible incumbent politicians with cu$hy 95% to 99% re-election rates. 

The very least the voters can do is to stop repeat offenders.
Don't reward irresponsible incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election.
Stop empowering the very persons who use and abuse us.
Keep voting them out until they get the message and some peer pressure amongst themselves to police their own sorry ranks.
Especially incumbents that choose to violate Article V of the U.S. Constitution (which is currently all 535 members of Congress).

Show parent | Reply
Picture of Fred Gohlke
Re: A Large Part of the Problem is . . .
by Fred Gohlke - Saturday, 8 December 2007, 04:55 PM
 
Daniel,

I've no wish to get involved in an exchange of polemics. However, hidden among the persistent attributions of laziness and ignorance to the American people are a few points worthy of comment, if you'd care to focus on them:

Corruption is not rooted in "laziness, apathy, and complacency". Corruption is rooted in the pursuit of self-interest. When we learn to harness our tendency to pursue our own interest, we'll know how to select the best among us to represent us in our government.

It will take time to examine this topic. We need to recognize, for example, that, while we can be herded as long as we see ourselves as part of a group, we have an equal tendency, as individuals, to be skeptical. The distinction is important because it contains the seeds of the way we can improve our political infrastructure.

re: "The fact that a party-designation is on the voting ballots is a lesson about laziness and Cheaters that put it there so that they can capitalize on the voters' laziness ..."

That's incorrect.

A party system developed in our nation because our early leaders used their standing to consolidate their power. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, two men who were intimately familiar with the way the non-partisan Constitutional Convention had sidestepped some issues and compromised others to produce an impressive document, did not have confidence in the judgment of their peers when they felt their vital interests were threatened.

Instead, either through ego or fear, they felt compelled to supplant reason with passion to enforce their will. They rallied support for their divergent views by forming political parties and creating rules to preserve them and aid their operation:

"The Democratic-Republicans and Federalists invented the modern political party -- with party names, voter loyalty, newspapers, state and local organizations, campaign managers, candidates, tickets, slogans, platforms, linkages across state lines, and patronage."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Republican_Party_(United_States)

These features advance party interest at the expense of the public interest. They show how political parties are an embodiment of human nature; they put self-interest above all other considerations. They function precisely as a thoughtful person would expect them to function.

Thus, a party-designation on voting ballots is not a lesson about laziness and cheaters. It shows how honest people, in this case, two of our most prominent founding fathers, can pursue their own interest in a way that ultimately works to the detriment of the very principles they espouse. This kind of result is sometimes called the law of unintended consequences.

We now live with those consequences and it is futile to rail against them. It makes more sense to think. Advances in communications, transportation and data processing over the past 200 years have given us the means to devise a more democratic method of selecting the people who represent us in our government. It would behoove us to do so.

Fred

Show parent | Reply
WW Fishing for Ideas
Re: A Large Part of the Problem is . . .
by Michael Densmore - Saturday, 8 December 2007, 09:18 PM
 

Er, Hmmm..

Instead, either through ego or fear, they felt compelled to supplant reason with passion to enforce their will. They rallied support for their divergent views by forming political parties and creating rules to preserve them and aid their operation:

"The Democratic-Republicans and Federalists invented the modern political party -- with party names, voter loyalty, newspapers, state and local organizations, campaign managers, candidates, tickets, slogans, platforms, linkages across state lines, and patronage."
I don't believe that.
Not based on what I see in the media today or thruought my life.  No. 
Fred can believe anything he wants to justify what's going on now.   You and d.a.n can argue until our fingertips are blue.
One party has ran this country since it's conception and the other has run interference for it.
We are where we are because of a single mindset that dates back to the Federalist party.  They are determined to win.
Dan's cycle of misconseption needs to be addressed.  It's been implemented every third generation in this country.
Fred.  Be constructive.  d.a.n  be constructive.
quit bitchin'
Show parent | Reply
Picture of Daniel Summars
Re: A Large Part of the Problem is . . .
by Daniel Summars - Monday, 10 December 2007, 12:02 PM
 
___________
Fred wrote:

Daniel,  I've no wish to get involved in an exchange of polemics. However, hidden among the persistent attributions of laziness and ignorance to the American people are a few points worthy of comment, if you'd care to focus on them:
__________
Polemics:
  1. The art or practice of argumentation or controversy.
  2. The practice of theological controversy to refute errors of doctrine.

__________

Fred wrote:  Corruption is not rooted in "laziness, apathy, and complacency". Corruption is rooted in the pursuit of self-interest. When we learn to harness our tendency to pursue our own interest, we'll know how to select the best among us to represent us in our government.
__________
That's debatable.
Self-interest is often (not always) selfishess.
Excessive self-interest is selfishness.
It can easily and plausibly be argued that selfishness is a rooted in laziness, since there is a natural human tendency to seek security and prosperity with the least pain and effort.  Likewise with complacency and apathy. And sufficient effort to change it often does not come about until the painful consequences provide sufficient motivation for change.  We're not really that far apart.  You can call it self-interest, and I can call it laziness.  Both most certainly exist in varying degrees, and it is the excess of either (or both) that we must thoroughtly understand so that we can design or systems with sufficient checks-and-balances.  For example, Artlce V was supposed to be one of those checks-and-balances that were designed into the system, but due to a lack of education, many Americans do not even know what Article V is, much less that it has been violated since year 1911.

__________

Fred wrote:  When we learn to harness our tendency to pursue our own interest, we'll know how to select the best among us to represent us in our government.
__________
Again, this is where the importance of Education comes in.
Take the following formula:

  • Corruption = Power - Conscience - Education - Transparency - Accountability
  • Responsibility = Power + Conscience + Education + Transparency + Accountability

Quantities of each are not defined. Equal amounts of each are not necessarily required.  But insufficient quantities of each can eventually lead to varying degress of Corruption and/or Responsibility.  Education is where we can start.  We can not easily strip Power from those that have it unless we first educate people to stop giving Power to those that abuse it.  Thus, Education is a good starting place.  The sooner we get our Education, the less painful consequences we will have to suffer.  However, we will get our Education one way or another.  The smart, responsible, peaceful way, or the hard and painful way.  Some painful lessons (Education) are probably already in the pipe-line.  

__________

Fred wrote:  When we learn to harness our tendency to pursue our own interest,
___________
I agree.  Once again, this is where Education becomes very important.  We must understand the human factor (this tendency that you speak of).  We are not really that far apart.  You also recognize the importance of understanding this tendency (the human factor).  Thus, to harness our tendency requires education so that we can avoid the painful consequences and build checks-and-balances into the design of our systems to help avoid repeating the same mistakes over and over.   And when it comes to choosing WHO to represent us, the biggest mistake we are making now is repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election rates of 95% to 99%.  But that will have painful consequences, and eventually lead to lower re-election rates, and hopefully (if in time) bring reform.  If not in time, it could lead to another civil war, another revoluation, war(s), or economic depression (i.e. like the Great Depression), and our Education arrives, yet again, the hard and painful way.  How do we learn to stop repeating history?   Education perhaps?   History is important, or we are doomed to repeat it.
__________

Fred wrote:  It will take time to examine this topic. We need to recognize, for example, that, while we can be herded as long as we see ourselves as part of a group, we have an equal tendency, as individuals, to be skeptical. The distinction is important because it contains the seeds of the way we can improve our political infrastructure.
___________
Yes, some dissent and skepticism is actually partriotic and healthy.  Blindly following can be dangerous (e.g. Germany, Japan, Italy, and many other nations in the 1930s and 1940s, etc.). 

And blindly pulling the party-lever is blindly following (as a part of a group).  Skepticism of that bad-habit is needed.  The party-lever is one of many clever mechanisms to capitalize on the some voters tendency to want to pull the party-lever (often without even knowing the candidates on the party-ticket, much less their voting records or platforms).
___________
Fred wrote: 

re:  d.a.n wrote: "The fact that a party-designation is on the voting ballots is a lesson about laziness and Cheaters that put it there so that they can capitalize on the voters' laziness ..."

That's incorrect.
____________
That's debatable.  I'm not necessarily referring to how parties came about, nor the history of it, nor exactly who did it.  You are absolutely correct about it being a way to  "consolidate their power".  

But what I am speaking to specifically is a voting mechanism, which is an actual voting-lever (or button) that allows voters to vote straight-one-party-ticket without even knowing all of the candidates on THEIR party-ballot, much less their voting records.  That is, this simple mechanism has made voting easier, and relieved the voters from the research they should do.  That is, they should be voting for who is MOST qualified, and not merely because they are on THEIR party's ballot.  That's all I'm really trying to address with the party-lever / button.  That's why I wish party designations were not allowed on voting ballots, because too many voters have abdicated their duty and responsibility to vote responsibly to THEIR party, and those parties are abusing and capitalizing on this process that makes voting easy.  And why is the act of voting being easy relavant?  It goes back to laziness.  It is easier to simply pull the party-lever (or push the party-button), rather than do the work to research and analyze all of the candidates on the ballot.  Thus, many voters blindly pull the party-lever and give their trust to THEIR party.  Is that working?  Is THEIR party really looking out for THEIR best interests?  No, I don't think so.  It appears too many politicians are too distracted with their own self-gain, and the growing and pressing problems facing the nation are evidence of that.  Thus, laziness is a factor and it quite plausibly follows that it is rooted in the basic human tendency to seek security and prosperity with the least effort and pain.  This is not said with malice. It is natural part of being human. However, understanding it better will help us live better with it.

___________
Fred wrote:  Instead, either through ego or fear, they felt compelled to supplant reason with passion to enforce their will. They rallied support for their divergent views by forming political parties and creating rules to preserve them and aid their operation:

"The Democratic-Republicans and Federalists invented the modern political party -- with party names, voter loyalty, newspapers, state and local organizations, campaign managers, candidates, tickets, slogans, platforms, linkages across state lines, and patronage."

These features advance party interest at the expense of the public interest.
_______________
Absolutely that the politicians in the two-party duopoly have excessive self-interest.  The two-party duopoly is a huge problem, as evidenced by their do-nothingness and the nation's growing problems, growing in number and severity.  But Where do these politicians get their power?   After all, theyh are still elected.  So the politicians still (at the moment) get it from the voters.  The two-party duopoly is  empowered by the voters that reward it with election.  Perhaps unwittingly?  However, there's a voter paradox:

  • Too many voters feel THEIR incumbent politicians are corrupt,
  • But too many voters still reward the incumbent politicians with 95% to 99% re-election rates. 

However, those percentages fell from 98.7% in Nov-2004 to 93.1% in Nov-2006, and may fall lower yet in Nov-2008, as more and more voters get their Education (the smart way, or the hard and painful way).  If we choose to learn the hard way, painful consequences help to motivate us to modify our behavior, and one obvious modification is to stop repeatedly rewarding irresponsible, FOR-SALE, incumbent politicians with 95% to 99% re-election rates.   It will most likely happen one way or another. However, the sooner the better, because the longer we wait the more painful consequences we bring upon ourselves.   There's really no complex riddle or conspiracy.  While human psychology can be complex, there are simple and obvious reasons for much of human behavior.

Another serious issue is that the government is controlled and influenced by some (not all) extremely wealthy people that abuse vast wealth to manipulate government, the media, and the two-party duopoly. For example, a tiny 0.15% of all 200 million eligible voters make 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more).  The remaining 99.85% of all 200 million voters can't compete with that by trying to out-spend them. The voters must educate themselves better and learn to use their votes more wisely and not merely vote for the candidate that spends the most money (which is what happens in over 90% of elections as evidenced by Congress' cu$hy 95% to 99% re-elections).

__________
Fred wrote:  They show how political parties are an embodiment of human nature; they put self-interest above all other considerations. They function precisely as a thoughtful person would expect them to function.
__________
Yes, but they lack an understanding of history to have the foresight to see where their excessive self-interest is leading them.  Thus, they are doomed to repeate history, over and over.  We do sometimes learn from history, but not always the first time.  Some mistakes are repeated many times before humans finally learn from it.  And then, finally, there is progress.

__________
Fred wrote:  Thus, a party-designation on voting ballots is not a lesson about laziness and cheaters. It shows how honest people, in this case, two of our most prominent founding fathers, can pursue their own interest in a way that ultimately works to the detriment of the very principles they espouse. This kind of result is sometimes called the law of unintended consequences.
__________
Well, that's debatable.  Yes, it can be debated that some of it is "unintended consequences".  However, history shows us to repeat many mistakes.  Thus, is it really unintended?  Should we have not learned from our mistakes?  And again, excessive self-interest is selfishness, and some could easily argue that excessive selfishness is rooted in laziness.   I do not disagree that excessive self-interest is a problem.  I'm merely trying to point out that excessive self-interest is rooted in laziness, and so are many other bad human traits.  

__________
Fred wrote:  We now live with those consequences and it is futile to rail against them.
__________
Well, I disagree. I think we should try to explain and educate as many people as possible about the problems and causes, if we ever hope to improve the system.  Again, Education is one of the primary goals.  We should embrace the positives and discourage (and rail against) the negatives.

__________
Fred wrote:  It makes more sense to think. Advances in communications, transportation and data processing over the past 200 years have given us the means to devise a more democratic method of selecting the people who represent us in our government. It would behoove us to do so.
__________
Yes, more thinking.
More Education, and sooner than later.
More thinking will lead to more analysis.
More analysis will lead to understanding.
More understanding will lead to Education and its importance (i.e. history).
More Education will lead to better designs, more Transparency, and more Accountability.
More Education, Transparency, and Accountability will lead to more Responsibility.
And Education can come in two forms.  Learning from our mistakes the smart way (via Education), or the hard way (via painful consequences).

There is some reason for feeling some hope.
For example, there have been some advances in the millennia:
(1) slavery is more widely considered wrong.
(2) war and conquest is more widely considered unlawful aggression.
(3) human rights are increasingly considered a goal to achieve.
(4) oppression and its many forms are increasingly rejected.

But we have many oppressive/regressive systems left to deal with, and the last 30 years has seen some things worsening in the U.S. 

But the government will not become more responsible and accountable until enough voters do too.  They can wait for their motivation to come the smart way, or the hard way (again).

Show parent | Reply
Picture of Fred Gohlke
Re: A Large Part of the Problem is . . .
by Fred Gohlke - Tuesday, 11 December 2007, 08:58 AM
 
Good Morning, Daniel

We do, indeed, have broad areas of agreement. For the moment, I'm going to focus on just one of them. I don't mean to imply that the other areas aren't important. They are, and they, too, need focus, but I believe we'll make better progress if we deal with each of them separately.

I will cite three excellent points you made about our electoral process and comment on them:

* "But what I am speaking to specifically is a voting mechanism, which is an actual voting-lever (or button) that allows voters to vote straight-one-party-ticket without even knowing all of the candidates on THEIR party-ballot, much less their voting records."

You call attention to the fact that our electoral process is flawed. That is an important observation because it is not widely recognized. It is also important to recognize how logical the "voting-lever" method can be made to sound. People who think it's the "best" method aren't stupid. They've been told, over and over again, what a wonderful system it is. So far no-one has explained the downside to them.

I would extend your comments to include the concept of campaigning, which is nothing but rabble-rousing, highlighted by lies, obfuscation, misdirection and hatred-inspiring rhetoric. We can do better than that. When we thoroughly understand the deficiencies, not only of the party-lever, but of the entire process we endure, we will do so.


* "That's why I wish party designations were not allowed on voting ballots, because too many voters have abdicated their duty and responsibility to vote responsibly to THEIR party, and those parties are abusing and capitalizing on this process that makes voting easy."

You express a wish to eliminate party designations on voting ballots. That's a worthwhile goal, but it is unlikely to happen as long as politicians control the voting process. Odd as it may seem, I think the public would support the politicians in blocking such a change. I'm pretty sure the public's attitude would be "I want to know where the candidate stands". We can say the public shouldn't feel that way, but what we say won't change their attitude.

Now that we've gained an insight into the danger of "party-lever" voting, inspired by campaigns which influence the lever pulling, we should (in my opinion) begin to consider alternatives. You have mentioned the possibility of a violent public reaction, and I agree it could happen. To my mind, it will be a tragedy if it occurs before we've carefully thought out an alternative to the "party-lever" mentality that burdens us. To revolt and go right back to the same political system we currently endure would be the height of folly.


* "Thus, many voters blindly pull the party-lever and give their trust to THEIR party. Is that working? Is THEIR party really looking out for THEIR best interests? No, I don't think so."

You refer to the operation of partisanship. This is one of the most difficult problems we face. Partisanship is natural for humans. In fact, it is healthy. We seek out and align ourselves with others who share our views. Through them, we hone our ideas and gain courage from the knowledge that we are not alone in our beliefs. Partisanship gives breadth, depth and volume to our voice. Partisanship is a vital part of society ... provided it is always a voice and never a power. The danger is not in partisanship, it is in allowing partisans to control government.

If we wish to stop blindly pulling a party-lever, we must develop a different way to select our political leaders. Since humans always pursue their own interest, how can we create an electoral process in which we tend to select people of intellect and integrity to represent us in our government? It may be a difficult task, but it is not impossible.

Fred

Show parent | Reply
Picture of Daniel Summars
Re: A Large Part of the Problem is . . .
by Daniel Summars - Tuesday, 11 December 2007, 02:04 PM
 

__________
Fred wrote:  The danger is not in partisanship, it is in allowing partisans to control government.
__________
Thanks Fred.   Yes, you are absolutely correct about that, and my previous comments failed to make that important distinction.  Partisanship by itself can be a good thing.  It is bad when it is blind-partisanship (or blind loyalty), and when there are partisans that seek to abuse that loyalty. Those that try to abuse party-loyalists for nefarious reasons could be called The Cheaters.  Also, loyalty can be a good thing, unless it is blind (or misplaced) loyalty.  That can happen to anyone, because we give our trust to those we elect.  At least, until they abuse that trust so much, and the consequences become so painful, that we decide to withdraw support from those Cheaters.

Therefore, I should be more careful.  The problem, as you correctly point out, is not with partisanship.  The problem is (as you say) the dishonest partisans (which I will call the Cheaters), who abuse the trust of their party members.  One of the ways they abuse party members is to seduce them into the partisan-warfare, which is a blame-game.  It capitalizes on some peoples' tendency to choose the easy path of blaming the OTHER party, while ignoring THEIR own party's faults (which are often identical to those of the OTHER party).   We've heard the comments about the "red-meat" that politicians put in their speeches to fire up their base?  Sometimes, these sound-bites and clever mechanisms are used as clever mechanisms to fuel the partisan-warfare, and some voters are too eager to wallow in it, because it is easier; easier to blame the OTHER party, and more convenient than introspection of THEIR own party.  The theory here again is that it often boils down to the path-of-least-resistance.   Like water finds the easiest path to flow, or electrons in an electric cable find the easiest path to flow.  Humans are often similar.  That is, until they learn (often the hard way) that the easy way is not always the best way (or, the easy way is not really easy in the long run; demonstrating the importance of foresight, history, and Education).

__________
Fred wrote:  If we wish to stop blindly pulling a party-lever, we must develop a different way to select our political leaders.
__________
I agree completely.  There are two (perhaps more) ways to reduce or stop that:

  2. Remove the barriers by the two-party duopoly for third party and independent candidates for access to the ballots, participating in the debates, and other election processes.
  3. Change the candidate selection process (which I think is severely flawed and exclusionary).
  4. Other Election Reforms (e.g. prohibit Gerrymandering, campaign finance reform, prohibit government FOR-SALE by some who abuse vast wealth to control and influence government, etc.).
  5. Reform the Voting System (i.e. approval system).
  6. Don't reward irresponsible incumbent politicians with re-election.
  7. All of the above.

__________
Fred wrote:  Since humans always pursue their own interest, how can we create an electoral process . . .
__________
How?  Some of the steps above, perhaps?  Education and understanding is a part of it.  In fact, it must begin with Education (whether we get it the smart way, or the hard way).

__________
Fred wrote:  . . .  in which we tend to select people of intellect and integrity to represent us in our government? It may be a difficult task, but it is not impossible.
__________
The problem is not so much that people of intellect and integrity are not available;  the problem is that corruption has become so common-place, and temptations and opportunities for self-gain (i.e. self-interest) are so numerous, and there is so little Transparency and Accountability, that almost anyone elected to office will become corrupt.  It takes a very extraodinarily honest and scrupulous person to reject the temptations. Also, the system punishes new incumbents (freshmen) that don't play along. The honest politicians hoping to make real reforms quickly learn that they will be shunned and isolated by the long-time senior incumbents if they don't accept the status quo.  Thus, Congress does not have the ability to police its own ranks.  Corruption is rampant, and we probably only see the tip of the iceberg once in a while when one of them becomes so incredibly arrogant and greedy to get caught (e.g. Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA), Duke Cunningham, Dan Rostenkowski, etc.).  And even then, they stand a good chance of getting a pardon, like Dan Rostenkowski, Scooter Libby, etc.

Yes, it is relatively simple, but very elusive.
Don't reward irresponsible incumbents with re-election.
It is not hard to understand, but seems impossible to make happen. 
It is not that the problem is terribly complex.
It is that we simply fail to see that there will be consequences much later.
In a sense, it is a problem due to a delayed feedback problem.
That is, if you touch a hot burner, the pain and feedback is immediate.
But if we vote unwisely, or don't even vote at all, the consequences are not immediate, and we fail to appreciate the future consequences.
By the time the painful consequences of a disaffected electorate are crystal clear to enough voters to take more interest in the process, the more difficult and longer it takes to solve the problems.

Currently, the voters have a few mechanisms at their disposal to get things moving in the right direction that do not require any new laws, or changes to existing laws, or amendments. One thing voters could do immediately, is send a loud-and-clear message to those in power:

  • Stop rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with 95% to 99% re-election rates.

The problem is that we fail to adequately understand this simple thing right under our very own noses, and that most politicians are very well aware of the extremely high re-election rates (96.5% on average in Congress since year 1980).  I don't think many Americans really realize how high the re-election rates in Congress are; thus the voter paradox:

  1. Most voters give Congress dismal approval ratings as low as 11%,
  2. But most voters reward Congress with 95% to 99% re-election rates.

Is it really any mystery that Congress is irresponsible, FOR-SALE, corrupt, and unaccountable if voters reward them with 95% to 99% re-election rates?

Yes, our choices may stink, but re-electing a corrupt incumbent empowers and rewards the incumbent to grow more powerful, corrupt, and difficult to vote out.  Thus, there are a few common-sense things we can do immediately to motivate politicians in power to do better. And there is a lot of room for improvement.  In the mean time, Do-Nothing Congress is predictably allowing the nation's pressing problems to grow dangerously in number and severity; widening the worsening disparity trend of the last 30+ years.

Again, Education is a big part of it.
And we are going to get that Education:
(a) the smart, peaceful, responsible way,
(b) or the hard, painful way (again).

Show parent | Reply
Picture of Fred Gohlke
Re: A Large Part of the Problem is . . .
by Fred Gohlke - Wednesday, 12 December 2007, 09:39 AM
 
Good Morning, Daniel

I agree, one of the central problems of party politics is the ease with which those we elect to represent us can abuse us.

You cite several things we can do to select better political leaders. Those things will require a considerable change from the status quo. To be effective over the long term, they must be embedded in an electoral process that inhibits the resurgence of the evils we endure today. I will outline one possibility as soon as we've built a proper foundation.

To that end, I'd like to offer comments on

* Political Parties in America
* The Pursuit Of Self-Interest
* The Need For Constraining Leaders
* Partisanship and the Will-To-Believe
* Corruptibility
* Lobbies

which are essential to understanding our political processes. The comments are intended to help us find a better way to select those we elect to represent our common interest. The comments are not offered in the sense of being "right", but in the sense of assertions to be questioned. I've done as much as I can to make them accurate, but don't kid myself that there aren't others with greater insight than my own. Since no one of us is so gifted as to understand all aspects of our political existence, my comments are intended as seeds. It is important for members of FOAVC to hone the ideas presented and improve them.

In terms of an Article V Convention, one can not have lived through the incredible flood of brainwashing we endured in 2001-2002 without gaining a healthy fear of the power of the media to inflame the public. We are not naive enough to imagine our nation will not be subjected to a similar deluge when we convene to amend our Constitution. If we are to forestall the power of vested interests to dictate our public attitude, we must devise a method of selecting our representatives that prefers people of intellect, judgment and integrity. My purpose is to work toward that end.

In an effort develop a coherent approach to solving our political problems, I will append a list of agreed points at the end of my posts. Those who dissent from the agreed points should express their disagreement as cogently as possible. Our goal is not to be "right". Our goal is to devise the best possible political process for all of us and for our homeland.

Do you think the points I mentioned above should be made on this thread or should we start a new thread? I've no preference, as long as all FOAVC members are encouraged to participate in the discussion.

Fred

AGREED POINTS:
* The danger is not in partisanship, it is in allowing partisans to control government.

Show parent | Reply
Picture of Daniel Summars
Re: A Large Part of the Problem is . . .
by Daniel Summars - Wednesday, 12 December 2007, 08:27 PM
 

Hello Fred,
__________
Fred wrote: You cite several things we can do to select better political leaders.
__________
Yes, there are some things we can do to improve the process, but that may take a while, and the status quo (incumbent politicians) may resist any changes (the status quo is the foe).  Therefore, my hope is to encourage more voters to do the thing that they will probably do later anyway, when sufficiently motivated by the consequences of failing to do it sooner.  Stop rewarding repeat offenders with perpetual re-election rates of 95% to 99%. 

That won't immediately reform the processes or create transparency, but there may not be any other peaceful approach for voters to provide the badly-needed motivation to incumbent politicians to pay any attention to the majority of voters.  After all, despite many polls showing the majority of Americans positions on many issues (e.g. illegal immigration, corruption, war in Iraq, etc.), the Congress and Executive Branch are clearly going against those popular positions. 
__________
Fred wrote:  Those things will require a considerable change from the status quo.
__________
Yes, it will be VERY difficult to change the status quo.  And it is unlikely the irresponsible, FOR-SALE, incumbent politicians will voluntarily bring about any badly-needed reforms to change the status quo.   After all, all 535 Congress persons are unanimously (which is statistically strange) violating Article V of the Constitution.

__________
Fred wrote:  To be effective over the long term, they must be embedded in an electoral process that inhibits the resurgence of the evils we endure today. I will outline one possibility as soon as we've built a proper foundation.
__________
Yes, I agree.  Incorporating (i.e. carfully designing) Transparency, Accountability, and Education into the electoral process and other government systems is paramount.  A lack of those fundamental components gives rise to Corruption:

  • Corruption= Power + Conscience + Education + Transparency + Accountability
  • Responsibility= Power - Conscience - Education - Transparency - Accountability

__________
Fred wrote:  To that end, I'd like to offer comments on:

  • Political Parties in America
  • The Pursuit Of Self-Interest
  • The Need For Constraining Leaders
  • Partisanship and the Will-To-Believe
  • Corruptibility
  • Lobbies

___________
By all means.  Some of my concerns on each of those are:

  • Political Parties in America (studies show that this is simply what often happens; and parties can't easily be out-lawed;  and parties themselves are probably not the root problem anyway; it is actually what those parties consist of:   people and attitudes)
  • The Pursuit Of Self-Interest (yes, this is a natural human trait, but excessive self-interest is not acceptable;  people that succumb completely to their own self-interest, and use and abuse others for their own purposes, is not acceptable, and that probably describes a large number (if not all) of irresponsible, FOR-SALE, incumbent politicians in the federal government)
  • The Need For Constraining Leaders (reforms and amendments are needed, but we have a Catch-22, until enough voters understand that rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with 95% to 99% re-election rates only makes them less likely to ever allow and reforms and/or amendments;  in fact, it will empower and reward them for giving themselves more cu$hy perk$ and unfair incumbent advantages)

  • Partisanship and the Will-To-Believe (yes, as you noted above, partisanship isn't necessarily bad, and neither is loyalty;  not unless it is blind-partisanship, and/or blind-loyalty; and/or blindly pulling the party-lever without really knowing who one is voting for, much less their voting records;  and that is part of the problem today, as evidenced by the voter paradox,  in which most voters give Congress dismally low approval ratings (as low as 11%), but then reward incumbent politicians with 95% to 99% re-election rates;  there is an obvious disconnect in logic, and it is most likely rooted in blind-partisanship and/or blind loyalties; and fueled by too many Cheaters within government, that are experts (master parasites) at capitalizing and abusing those loyalties, and fueling the circular, distracting, and destructive partisan-warfare)

  • Corruptibility (Yes, Corruption is always looking for a toe-hold, and thrives where there is insufficient Transparency, Education, Accountability, and Conscience;  and Power exacerbates all of it)
       
  • Lobbies (This is largely an abuse of vast wealth by some people (not all) that abuse vast wealth to influence and control government, as evidenced by the fact that 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more) come from a tiny 0.15% of all 200 million eligible voters; thus, the remaining 99.85% of all 200 million eligible voters don't have much of a chance of out-spending the vastly wealthy;  government should not be FOR-SALE, and elected officials should not be beholding to those that fill their campaign warchests; however, that's what we have; government is FOR-SALE, and it is rotten to the core)

    There are a number of regressive/oppresive systems in the U.S. that did not all come about by mere coincidence.
    __________
    Fred wrote:  . . . which are essential to understanding our political processes.  . . .  It is important for members of FOAVC to hone the ideas presented and improve them.
    __________
    Yes, the human factor is important (i.e. the tendency of self-interest), and should be kept in mind when designing government, organizations, societies, etc.  Our Founding Fathers tried hard (and did a good job) to build in checks-and-balances (e.g. Article V of the Constitution). What they did not anticipate was that Congress would blatantly violate it, and that a the majority of Americans would not notice or care about it.

    __________
    Fred wrote:  In terms of an Article V Convention, one can not have lived through the incredible flood of brainwashing we endured in 2001-2002 without gaining a healthy fear of the power of the media to inflame the public. We are not naive enough to imagine our nation will not be subjected to a similar deluge when we convene to amend our Constitution. If we are to forestall the power of vested interests to dictate our public attitude, we must devise a method of selecting our representatives that prefers people of intellect, judgment and integrity. My purpose is to work toward that end.
    ___________
    True.  The Main Stream Media is pathetic, but powerful. Therefore, it can be dangerous.  But the final responsibility eventually lies with the voters.  They must eventually learn (and often the hard way) that the Main Stream Media is a tool of the vastly wealthy to use to control the voters.  And it works, as evidenced by the fact that most elections are won 90% of the time by the candidate that spends the most money (who also has most access to the Main Stream Media).  The Main Stream Media was, in many ways,  complicit with many of the lies since 2001 that lead to the deaths and maiming of tens of thousands of people.

    So, yes, there are naturally those that fear Article V.

    However, there are constraining factors and safety mechanisms:
    1. For those fearing an Article V Convention, they should bear in mind that there may be something worse to fear than an Article V Convention?  Unchecked Corruption with no way to stop it. 
    2. Article V requires three fourths of all states to ratify any amendment.  That is a fairly steep requirement.  States have a sense of self-preservation and sovereignty that they want to preserve, and the states do not want to give up more power to the increasing bloated and corrupt federal government, or provide any other state(s) with more power than their own.  Also, many of the special interests won't be involved in the amendment process, and don't have the usual means for influencing such a convention.   
    3. If Congress is allowed to continue to violate the Constitution by ignoring Article V, what is next?  That's what the people should truly fear. 
    4. Article V is the ONLY mechanism by which the states can amend the Constitution when the Congress, with its many conflicts of interest, will not (e.g. term-limits, campaign finance reform, election reform, one-purpose-per-BILL, automatic annual raises for Congress, legalized graft and corporate welfare, Gerrymandering, abuse of the Presidential pardon, etc,, etc,. etc., and many other abuses of power).
    5. Are those that oppose Article V certain they want to forfeit the states' Article V rights and give complete control of the Constitution to Congress. If ONLY Congress can amend the Constitution, then ONLY Congress controls the Constitution.  Congress is already (despite 567 applications by all 50 states) attempting to Control the Constitution by ignoring Article V.  Why do the states keep submitting amendments when Congress can choose to ignore them indefinitely as long as Congress chooses to violate Article V of the Constitution? 
    6. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and no other law, case, or statement can trump it.  The Constitution is the law until it is amended and ratified by three fourths of all states.
    7. If we fear our own Constitution, and choose to ignore part of it, then we are condoning the violation of it.
    8. If we fear our own Constitutional right to propose amendments, then perhaps we have already waited too long?
    9. Article V is the very mechanism for limiting intended for amending the Constitution to limit or eliminate abuses of power. If the states forfeit that right, what is to stop Congress from more abuses of power?
    10. If most states don't want Article V (which is unlikely), or want it reworded, then they should propose an amendment to do so, instead of ignoring it, because ignoring any part of the Supreme Law of the Land may pave the way for more lawlessness.
    11. For those who believe that "whenever" actually means "whenver contemporaneously" or "propose amendments" actually means "same-subject amendments", where is the law, case, or Supreme Court statement that trumps the U.S. Constitution, and refutes the plain and simple meaning of "whenever", not to mention these many previous statements with regard to Article V and the rules of construction and interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
    12. Government won't become more responsible and accountable until enough voters become more responsible and accountable first. Hopefully, the states and voters won't wait until they are motivated by the painful consequences of their own apathy and complacency.  We can reform government the peaceful, logical, constitutional, and responsible way, or we can learn the hard way.
    13. Also, beware of those that breed fear of an Article V Convention, because the reasons may not be merely due to an unjustified fear of a runaway convention, but it could be because they like things the way they are and want to perpetuate the status quo.

    __________
    Fred wrote:  In an effort develop a coherent approach to solving our political problems, I will append a list of agreed points at the end of my posts. Those who dissent from the agreed points should express their disagreement as cogently as possible. Our goal is not to be "right". Our goal is to devise the best possible political process for all of us and for our homeland.
    ___________
    That's a good approach.   You brought up the fact that some fear an Article V Convention.  I think that fear is over-blown (due to reasons above) and fueled by some who want to prevent it from ever occurring.   What reasons can you think of for diminishing these fears?   What worries me is that if we allow Article V to be ignored forever, we will lose that Constitutional right forever. 

    __________
    Fred wrote:  Do you think the points I mentioned above should be made on this thread or should we start a new thread? I've no preference, as long as all FOAVC members are encouraged to participate in the discussion.
    __________
    Yes, this thread is fine.  If necessary, we can start a new thread (and pertinent comments can be transferred if necessary).

    __________
    Fred wrote: 
    AGREED POINTS:
    * The danger is not in partisanship, it is in allowing partisans to control government.
    __________
    Yes, I agree.  Some partisanship and loyalty can be good. It is only when those loyalties are misplaced or given away too freely that it can become a problem.  I think this is very much the case these days (i.e. the Voter Paradox).  Unfortunately, there are people that will try to abuse that trust, and abuse power to control, use, and abuse others.  Not all people are susceptible to corruption, but as power and the number of opportunities for self-gain (i.e. self-interest) grow, there is an increasing likelihood of corruption.  This is where an understanding of the human factor is important.  It isn't said with malice, but with the goal of designing systems with Transparency, Accountability, and promotes Education.  Cheaters are people that succumb to excessive self-interest.  And this is why Transparency, Education, and Accountability are so important (as evidenced by the studies at Transparency International and other similar organizations).

    • Show parent | Reply
    Picture of Michael Bindner
    Re: A Large Part of the Problem is . . .
    by Michael Bindner - Wednesday, 23 June 2010, 10:30 AM
     
    Party interest is placed before public interest - EXCEPT that both major parties believe (with good reason) that they are acting in the public interest.  Unless you are willing to violate their rights to freedom of association, the existence of congressional district partisan committees pretty much destroy the key assumption required for an Article V convention - that state assembly members will work to diminish the power of their congressional members.  Because they draw from the same population of voters, most of them will be on the same page legislatively, so the movement for an Article V convention must either capture one of the parties or create a new party around a set of common constitutional reform principles.  This is easier than it sounds - especially if the GOP self destructs.
    Show parent | Reply
    Picture of Harold Hellickson
    Re: A Large Part of the Problem is . . .
    by Harold Hellickson - Saturday, 19 June 2010, 11:34 AM
     

    America's Axis of Evil

    FACEBOOK submit to twitter submit to reddit submit to yahoo buzz submit to digg

    For opednews.com : Harold Hellickson - Writer

    The article opens with...

    The Democrat Party, the Republican Party, and Corporate Elite form the Axis of Evil within the U.S.A. The Axis of Evil most frequently meet in the Halls of Congress; Congress is their primary tool. The Axis of Evil, through the two political parties, own the Presidential Debate Commission (PDC). Primary weapons of the Axis of Evil are "think tanks," 35,000 Washington registered lobbyists, the PDC itself, cash in the form of political contributions to control Congress, and the availability of high paying jobs "when politicians are out of office."
    The PDC guarantees collaboration rather then competition between the Democrat and Republican duopoly to the exclusion of any opposing organization. The PDC assures the duopoly's monopoly and perpetuity will not be defeated by ballot.
    Show parent | Reply
    Picture of Kenneth Brown
    Re: A Large Part of the Problem is . . .
    by Kenneth Brown - Sunday, 6 December 2009, 08:59 PM
     
    Obama's War & SSI SubCulture:
    Obama might just be a big blow-hard because it appears that he does not know how to fight and win a war whether in Afghanistan or here at home. I do not believe Obama wants to win any war because, if he wanted to win, he would avoid a war of attrition/population control, like vietnam, by sending enough troops to crush the enemy as fast as possible, thus, saving innumerable lives. Instead,  Obama talks out three sides of where his sun don't shine: his Secular, Muslim, and Christian sides to appease deluded morons.... Obama does not listen to anyone we know, not his general who wanted 60,000 troops, or to the American people fighting the war of cultural conflict and subversion going on in our communities ( promoted, and aided, by our own Gov't) that seems to be rapidly spreading; the recent incident at Ft. Hood and the Muslim recruiting grounds within our jails and prisons are good examples of this.... People should not always play follow the leader-remember what happened with Hitler and a number of other famous dictators....
        So,lets devle into the darker side of Gov't corruption and investigate the fastest growing SSI subculture being created by our Gov't  today-all in order to bankrupt and undermine our Democratic Republic.... Our Gov't is carrying out a domestic foreign invasion here in the US by allowing millions of legal (those with visas and commonwealth status) and illegal immigrants to flood across our borders at will-many of which are ending up with some type mental and physical diagnosis placing them and/or their anchor baby children on SSI payrolls thus-bankrupting and underminding our schooling system both public and at home, our healthcare system both public and at home, our jails, prisons, institutions, our Religion, Culture, our Constitution, our form of Gov't and Voting.... Our Gov't gives these immigrants free food, free subsidized homes, cars, jobs, businesses, schooling, healthcare and are allowed to mysteriously vote.... Many of our communities have been transformed-in short periods of time-into third world socialized ghettos-boiling pots of cultural conflict and subversion with many of our young girls and women getting hooked on drugs, knocked up by multiple partners or having multiple abortions, and the list goes on.... Many of these legal and illegal immigrants that I've came into contact with are strongly anti-American and are subversive with their speech, lifestyles (displaying flags and gang colors from their own country in their homes, cars, clothing, and criminal activities) and attitudes.... These Gov't strongarm divide and conquer tatics being implimented against us have by and large leveled the American people and our playing field.... Many unemployed American men are being jailed, institutionalized, made homless, or diagnosed with something or another and placed on SSI-with medications.... Men and young men here in America have no rights to their children born or unborn and are increasingly encountering sexism in hiring practices, white men have no affirmative action protection, and over half the work force and half the homes with children in them today is made up of many single moms working in Gov't jobs, subsidized jobs, low paying jobs receiving Gov't SSI (with mental medications) benefits or some other  kinds of benefits  for themseleves and their children.... I have seen households with up to three children in it each receiving SSI with a Gov't program that pays a part of the mortgage and taxes on the house the Gov't is helping them purchase-and not one family member could speak proper english-if at all! They received in-home healthcare, in-home school tutoring, new to fairly new car, child care money for the boyfriend baby sitting, and the list goes on.... I really do not know how much longer the Gov't can support all this subsidized living while they, at the same time, are stripping out the private job sector and bankrupting the future unborn American.... Bob from Jamestown....
    Show parent | Reply