Moneyed Politicians

Yea, your favored R or D candidate could lose because of him! All because we refused to address our faulty voting system!!!

By Jack E. Lohman

And incidentally, he looks pretty good. Mike LaForrest is a new candidate for U.S. Senate and he and I share many of the same goals (like campaign and healthcare reform, and instant runoff voting). Though Tammy Baldwin is pretty good on these too.

But here’s the real issue: HE’S A SPOILER! He’s a good independent, as many of us Wisconsinites would like, and can’t be excluded by the primaries. He may just take the cake, or ruin it for the Republican or ruin it for the Democrat. That’s what a winner-take-all system does. A spoiler can kill it for the party that should have won.

One or both of these duopoly parties are not going to be a happy camper when the votes are counted.

But Mike needs 2000 Wisconsinite signatures to get on the ballot. Please sign HERE. If you can,  mail to him by June 1st

Mike plans to spend less than $1000 and will likely not win, but getting the candidates to talk about the issues is critical to all of us. It’ll even help Tammy.

Is there a fix?

Yes, but not for the 2012 elections, and probably not under Walker. It’s fair, and Walker doesn’t like fair.

It’s called Instant Runoff Voting, or Ranked Choice Voting. You have three votes, your 1st, 2nd and 3rd choices. Vote for your first choice and if he fails to garner 50%+1, your vote automatically accrues to your second choice, and so forth. But if that’s too confusing, vote only your first choice, as you do today.

Australia uses it in their national elections; the U.S. should too.

It boggles my mind that nobody in Wisconsin’s leadership parties saw this coming, or didn’t prevent the faulty elections of the past. It would have nullified the effects of the fake Democrats and fake Republicans, and totally nullified the effects of troublemaker crossover voting. AND it would have eliminated the dreaded “throwing your vote away” when you vote for your 3rd party candidate of choice.

It’s a win-win for everybody. This new legislature can do it.

Ranked Choice Voting is good for voters but bad for our two-party conspiracy. 

By Jack E. Lohman

You’d think that our politicians would get smart. Australia loves it!

The reason for the Romney-Santorum-Gingrich mess is BECAUSE of the Democrats crossing over to vote for the least attractive of the three Republicans. And Santorum is eating it up.

Even here in Wisconsin, when we have our own primaries, it’s all a very costly game. And indeed we should implement it on the Walker recall. (So GAB, the ball is in your court.)

With Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) there could be a dozen politicians on the ballot in November but the most popular would win. You’d vote for your 1st, 2nd and 3rd choices, and if your 1st choice didn’t get 50%+1 votes, your vote would go to your second choice. And so forth.

But if you don’t want all of this “choice” crap, vote for only one person, as before. What’s not to like about that?

Too easy?

• No games, and only ONE election!
• No more manipulated and destructive primaries!
• No more “throwing your vote away” on the lesser of two evils!
• No more crossover voting to disadvantage a candidate!
• Vote your heart!
• Less cost to the state taxpayers!
• Computerized or hand counts are easy!

No, the duopoly doesn’t like this because it might be a third-party win, and the cash flow would change. And so would their odds of winning.

And the special interests don’t like it because they’d lose control. Though it would slow but not stop them from funding (bribing) their favorite politician and receiving taxpayer-funded subsidies and favors in return; only public funding of campaigns would do that.

Eat your heart out. IF it is the right thing to do, it won’t happen!

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