Moneyed Politicians

Think about it… a FREE solution to solving our political corruption problem. Gov. Walker should love it!

By Jack E. Lohman

Political corruption begins about two weeks into the first term, when money must be collected for the second term.  Thus if there is no second term this corruption is virtually eliminated.

Political terms should be doubled in length but limited to ONE, so politicians don’t/can’t give away the store to (a) raise cash for a second term and (b) to do stupid things to gain votes for re-election.

We pay a heavy price for a very messy and corrupt political system. If they weren’t political prostitutes we wouldn’t have to worry about it, but they are.  For that they should be ashamed, but we should also be for re-electing them.

With this system, when politicians are newly elected, they do not have to start spending 25-50% of their time dialing for dollars, because there is no second term. They can actually start working for the people as they are being paid to do. Unique, huh?

What if we really elect a winner…

… and the public doesn’t want them ousted? Though rare, I keep thinking of jewels like Senators Bill Proxmire and Gaylord Nelson, who’d still be respected politicians if alive today.

There is a solution: an extraordinary hurdle showing strong public support of overriding the system. Let the incumbent run for a second term on two conditions: (a) that he or she collects signatures exceeding 25% of the previous vote total, just to get on the ballot, and (b) that he or she wins 80% of the total votes to win the second term.

Or whatever…

Who could complain??? It would not cost taxpayers a penny, as would public funding of campaigns. And it wouldn’t violate the constitutional problems ala Citizens United. It’s a winner!!!

But oh, if a Fat Cat has invested heavily in a politician and they want them to stay “bought,” they will object to this system. Yet if the Fat Cats double down on their money the 80% requirement will kill their chances.

If they were not taking cash bribes from both sides of the issues, business and union, I doubt that any of us would care which party is elected.

So Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry got Scott Walkered?

By Jack E. Lohman

That just sucks.

.

.

Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry will not be on Virginia ballot

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry have failed to qualify for Virginia’s March 6 Republican primary, a development that adds to the challenges faced by the recent frontrunner in the GOP presidential race.

They failed to get 10,000 signatures to get on the Virginia ballot.

How are you liking it so far, guys

Because it gives both R’s and D’s an equally safe seat. So…

By Jack E. Lohman

…if you protect them equally, who are the losers???

The voters and taxpayers!!! Because the politicians of both stripes no longer worry about losing their seat because of their special-interest votes. They can vote against the best interests of the public and still win re-election. As 95% of incumbents win regularly, even though congress has only a 15% approval rate.

So no, it is not a “partisan plan” to protect one party over the other, it is a stacked deck to protect dishonest politicians from the voters. They may now sell their votes to special interests without fear of the voters casting them aside!

Indeed, even Wisconsin legislators are caught up in the mess, but of course they are as tainted.

Who will win? The politicians, NOT the taxpayers. It is a corrupt game to keep those in power who are destroying our world. It is anti-voter and anti-third party, but if Wisconsinites are smart it will backfire.

The Government Accountability Board, if not interfered with, could create non-partisan districts that are somewhat fair and logical, but “fair and logical” is not in the politician’s vocabulary.

Only IRV will negate the upcoming political tricks.

By Jack E. Lohman

Massive crossover voting in the primaries will put the weakest politicians on the ballot, and the fix is right in front of us.

We can thank the Occupy groups and Tea Partiers for bringing it to the forefront, but are our politicians wise enough to see ahead? And, at what point are these two groups going to realize that their common enemy is the same batch of politicians? From BOTH parties!

Lefties will vote for Cain in the primaries because they see him as easier for Obama to beat. But then Obama could lose to Cain because voters jumped to third-party candidates because of a massive distaste with both candidates.

And the same could happen with Thompson and Neumann and their run for Kohl’s senate seat.

Aren’t we smarter than this? Both political parties have shunned IRV because — at one time — it benefited third parties most. Now it could create a distasteful win no matter which way it goes.

See Instant Runoff Voting, it is time! and Irish presidential election with instant runoff voting: Voter choice without “spoilers”

Like many laws considered by our “esteemed” board(s) of directors, this one makes sense and thus will be hard to pass.

Absolutely not; unless you are tolerant of incompetence.

By Jack E. Lohman

So now the right-wing wants to change Wisconsin’s recall system because “their guys” were called on the carpet, and they conveniently cite “cost to taxpayers” as the reason. Now THAT will get the people’s attention; you bet!

Whether a Republican or Democrat is being recalled, the recall process is a very valid safety valve given to voters/taxpayers who find out after-the-fact that they put in charge the wrong politician. It’s a small part of our democracy left over, and it should be protected.

I can easily see that politicians would not want this extra voter oversight, but to the right-wingers promoting it I’d say “be careful of what you ask for, your turn will come.”

But sunlight is in order, and union member money and shareholder money should not be used without approval of the owner of the money. (What a novel concept.)

And the threshold of signatures is fair and should be maintained. Somebody put together a good recall system and it should be protected.

The “values” of it all

Yea, I’m talking about “conservatives” that preach “values” but tolerate their absence in our political system. You know; where we have politicians of both stripes having their campaigns funded by the Fat Cats that want in our pockets. And the citizen wackos who want to maintain our corrupt political system because they think they are benefiting from it.

Those “values” people should also want a fair, accurate voting system, but they don’t. I agree with voter-id, and the last thing we should do is return to paper ballots and stuffing boxes with fraudulent votes. I support electronic counting but agree that the software doing the counting should be disclosed to prevent fraudulent software. I like the card readers because they permit recounts.

But solutions on political reform seem to evade us. Maybe some day we’ll be smarter.

WHAT IS MOP?

By Robert Baroody
MoneyOuttaPolitics.org

It’s a very simple idea.

Most members of Congress have one overriding goal: to get elected, and then re-elected. Campaigns now cost obscene amounts of money. The really big bucks come from the largest corporations, narrowly focused interest groups, and extremely rich individuals.

The people behind the money are not stupid—they expect, and get, favors in return for their money. This is legal bribery. Also, politicians can spend as much of their own money as they want to—if a multimillionaire, they can spend millions of dollars to buy an office. It is unlimited.

This so-called system is the opposite of democracy. Americans are so disgusted that in any given contest more registered voters stay at home than vote for any one candidate. If things don’t change, and soon, the U.S. will become a banana republic where the richest 1% control everything. The rest of us will have to make do with the crumbs.

There are many reform proposals that look to change this situation. Most have merits, but, in the end, the ONLY real solution is to get Money Outta Politics (MOP). It really is that simple.

Here’s the plan: the 20% solution

Citizens commit to one-issue voting: the MOP bill. If a candidate pledges, in writing, to vote for MOP, a voter will deliberately put aside all the other political, economic, and social issues for that one election. No matter where the candidate stands on ANY other issue, if he/she supports MOP, you vote for; if not, against. Incumbents who refuse to endorse the MOP legislation are turned out of office.

This can be tough for many people. An incumbent may be good on many issues. An opposing candidate may stand for things you despise. But if that candidate is the only one who pledges to support MOP, or the incumbent will not, he/she will get your vote. Why? Because until we get money out of politics, ALL other issues will continue to be corrupted by big money campaign contributions.

Single-issue strategic voting was used successfully about 90 years ago. The issue was the prohibition of alcohol which was passed as a constitutional amendment even though the majority of the population were drinkers as were a bigger majority of Congress. The goodness or badness of prohibition is irrelevant. It is the strategy that is important.

It took only 10-20% of voters to demand a do-or-die vote to get prohibition passed. A candidate voted for prohibition because if they voted against it, the very worst thing in their life had a good chance of happening: they would be voted out and have to look for a real job. OK, but the majority should rule, not 20%.

Isn’t this strategy itself anti-democratic? No, it is not. Polls consistently show a majority of Americans believe that the system is broken. We are in crisis. It is time for a smaller group of committed citizens to take a leadership position. Exactly as did the patriots who founded our country. Patriots defend the Constitution against its enemies both foreign and domestic, whether from violence or corruption. These patriots, united in support of MOP, are the 20% solution.

Aside from fear—an excellent motivator for those having everything to lose—the passing of MOP would liberate those representatives who still believe in doing good for their constituents. A representative or senator will typically spend close to 50% of their time soliciting funds. Once MOP is passed they will be able to devote this wasted time to actually reading the bills they vote on and becoming better at serving we, the people.

*Warning: Electoral Disinfectant Solution Will Harm Plutocrats at 20% Concentration

For more detail see Money Outta Politics

Florida, Wisconsin and all states need Instant Runoff Voting!

By Jack E. Lohman

Will Wisconsin’s new Republican leadership give the voters what they want and need, Ranked Choice Voting (or IRV)? Will Governor-elect Scott Walker sign it if it gets to his desk?

When Bill Clinton attempted and failed to get Kendrick Meek to drop out of the Florida race for U.S. Senator, nobody had the foresight to say “Wait a minute, Instant Runoff Voting would solve the problem!”

Hell, they could have benefited from that even in 2000 when Ralph Nader took votes from Al Gore and Pat Buchanan took votes from George Bush! When will we learn???

There *IS* a better way!!!

Here’s how IRV would have worked in this particular race with three or more candidates:

1. Marco Rubio (R)
2. Charlie Crist (I)
3. Kendrick Meek (D)
4. None of the Above

Now pick your 1st, 2nd and 3rd choices. If Meek comes in last his votes are moved to the other two candidates in the order of the voter’s choice. If you voted for Meek and he lost, your vote would go to your second choice. Your vote is therefore not wasted, and nobody has to strategically drop out of the race.

Importantly, if None of the Above wins the majority of votes, the race is canceled and a new race must be run with all new candidates!

In Wisconsin’s own 77th Assembly district the final results were:

1. Hulsey , Brett Dem   49%
2. Manski , Ben Grn      31%
3. Redick , David GOP   19%
4. Olson , David CST       1%
5. None of the Above

What would have happened with a system like IRV? We’ll never know who would have won, but we do know that all of the voters would have had their votes better represent their choices. No votes would have been “thrown away.”

Why wouldn’t IRV be good?

Because it makes sense, and is fair and effective and politicians don’t like fair and effective.

1. Current R’s and D’s prefer the 50% odds they currently have, and they do not want third parties or independents in the mix.
2. IRV would allow people to vote without the fear of throwing their vote away. Current politicians don’t like that.
3. It would allow people to first vote for a third party or independent, and if that person did not win their vote would apply to the lesser of the other two evils (obviously, R’s and D’s don’t think they are evil!).
4. It would give third parties and independents a “chance,” and politicians don’t want this additional competition.

But the people do want competitive races, and would sometimes like to vote for a third-party candidate. One would think that the people count more than the politicians, but they don’t usually. How many Meek votes would have otherwise gone to Crist? How many people voted for Meek because they didn’t want to throw their vote away?

Note that if this ballot is too confusing, vote for only one candidate and it still works the old fashioned way.

Resource: Instant Runoff Voting

But the incumbents like it just fine, thank you…

By Jack E. Lohman

So here we have it. Some really smart politicians twisted the rules to make cross-party voting illegal. In the primary we must vote for candidates in one party or the other, but not a selection from both.

It’s a terrible idea. I prefer an open primary.

I’d like to vote for the least-worst candidate in both the Senate and House races. But if one is a Republican and the other a Democrat, the rules say I can’t do that. That essentially robs me of my right to vote in one of the races. This is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Yes, I can see that someone might cross-vote to elevate only the worst candidates in the opposing party, but that will be offset by the evil-doers on the opposing side. That is even possible with the current rules, but it is not justification for restrictions on voting or warping the system. It looks to be just more incumbent protection.

In 2008 I least-wanted to see Hillary Clinton as president, so I voted for Obama in the primary (now regrettably). But I also wanted to vote for Jim Burkee over Jim Sensenbrenner, knowing he was the better candidate. But Obama was a Democrat and he was a Republican and I couldn’t do that.

Burkee got only 20% of the Republican votes as a result of a lot of Republicans voting for Obama, and I’m sure F. Jim liked that just fine. Burkee could have won otherwise.

One thing that would satisfy both sides of the argument is Instant Runoff Voting for all offices. That would allow every voter to vote for three or more candidates, ranked by order of choice. If their first choice fails to win, their vote is transferred to their second choice, and so forth until one candidate gets 50%+1 vote. And it’s all computerized and automated, so it happens instantaneously.

Too simple for politicians to understand? No, it’s too fair because it would level the playing field for even third-parties, and fair is the last thing politicians want. But this year it may indeed be critical with all of the anti-incumbent rhetoric.

This is a clear “party control” thingy, all when the parties themselves are corrupt as hell and should be eliminated rather than coddled. I can only hope for another lawsuit or prosecution for the conspiracy it is.

So, now I’m inclined to vote for the most-worst party candidate in the primary and an independent in the November election. These are the games we have to play to outsmart the incumbents.