CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Foxfyre]

If she has to prove that, you have to prove that limiting campaign contributions would result in better government. It never has in the past.

It is only logical that all things being equal with finances, the incumbent already has the name and face recognition and it is a lot more difficult for a newcomer to gain the attention of the public.

Name and face recognition, AND media coverage.

Exactly. They are going to cover statements and activity by those already in office which of course also increases the name and face recognition of those in office. Much less so those who are not in office.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Non sequitur!

This isn't that hard to grasp.

If campaigning is outlawed, then the media becomes the only source of promoting an agenda and candidate. We already know the media is nothing more or less than the propaganda wing of the democratic party, so we may as well end the charade of elections and have the DNC appoint our rulers outright.

Oh, and what of the unions? Will the public employee unions still tell their members what democrat to vote for? Of course they will. Will the union vote still be delivered in exchange for unions raiding the public treasury? Of course it will.

Your proposal ends any hope of a non-party member ever gaining office.

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem is a permanent political class that exists for its own self serving interests to increase its own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth.

They only exist because unlimited money has been allowed to corrupt the political system.

I don't understand why you are ignoring the root cause of the problem in this nation. Why bother with a new constitution if you are willing to allow it be as easily corrupted as the current one?

That is why I am discussing a new constitution, to make it more difficult for people to corrupt it as the current constitution has been corrupted. Why do you care how much money is involved if it can't buy any favors or benefits for anybody? Instead of giving government the power to limit what the people can do with their money--this of course would give incumbants a HUGE advantage more than they already have--why not limit the government as to what it can do for itself? Take away the ability of those in government to amass obscene fortunes via their positions, and you take away the incentive for the permanent political class to be a permanent political class.

We would likely again start electing honorable public servants again who go to Washington to serve their country instead of themselves, and who after awhile return home to work and live under the laws they pass for all of us.

We want the same objective but you are trying to "regulate" the symptom as opposed to dealing with the source of the problem.

I disagree. You are the one wanting to control it via more government regulation. I want to control it by removing a whole bunch of power from the federal government to regulate.

Not in the least. Making the bribing of elected officials and the corruption of elections into criminal offences is not government regulation. It is enforcing the rule of law as apposed to selling out our representative to the highest bidder which is what you are enabling.

You think the problem is bribing elected officials. Again I invite you to the real world in which the problem is not bribing elected officials. (That is already illegal by the way.) The problem is elected officials extorting money from the people for their own benefit. But either way, take away the ability for either to buy any benefits, and the problem is solved.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Government campaign financing favors incumbents.

Prove it!

If she has to prove that, you have to prove that limiting campaign contributions would result in better government. It never has in the past.

It is only logical that all things being equal with finances, the incumbent already has the name and face recognition and it is a lot more difficult for a newcomer to gain the attention of the public.

Thank you for making my point. Name recognition requires advertising. Having substantive debates requires being able to make a cogent point that will resonate with the voters.

As far as proving that limited campaign financing works just take a look at the rest of the civilized world that manages to get by with elections lasting a mere 6 weeks from start to finish once every 5 years or so. They swap parties in and out and incumbents lose their seats to newcomers all the time.

Do you need links for how that that works in those nations because I can provide you with them if you don't believe me.

 

[boedicca]

Government campaign financing favors incumbents.

Prove it!

If she has to prove that, you have to prove that limiting campaign contributions would result in better government. It never has in the past.

It is only logical that all things being equal with finances, the incumbent already has the name and face recognition and it is a lot more difficult for a newcomer to gain the attention of the public.

Thank you for making my point. Name recognition requires advertising. Having substantive debates requires being able to make a cogent point that will resonate with the voters.

As far as proving that limited campaign financing works just take a look at the rest of the civilized world that manages to get by with elections lasting a mere 6 weeks from start to finish once every 5 years or so. They swap parties in and out and incumbents lose their seats to newcomers all the time.

Do you need links for how that that works in those nations because I can provide you with them if you don't believe me.

Incumbents have the advantage in name recognition due to the news cycle. They get free sound bite quotes and interviews on public policy related issues and events to pump up their visibility. These are FREE PUBLICITY and not available to challengers.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Non sequitur!

This isn't that hard to grasp.

If campaigning is outlawed, then the media becomes the only source of promoting an agenda and candidate. We already know the media is nothing more or less than the propaganda wing of the democratic party, so we may as well end the charade of elections and have the DNC appoint our rulers outright.

Oh, and what of the unions? Will the public employee unions still tell their members what democrat to vote for? Of course they will. Will the union vote still be delivered in exchange for unions raiding the public treasury? Of course it will.

Your proposal ends any hope of a non-party member ever gaining office.

Your ignorance of how elections work in the rest of the civilized world is irrelevant. Elections with limited campaign financing replace parties and incumbents in power all the time.

 

[Derideo_Te]

They only exist because unlimited money has been allowed to corrupt the political system.

I don't understand why you are ignoring the root cause of the problem in this nation. Why bother with a new constitution if you are willing to allow it be as easily corrupted as the current one?

That is why I am discussing a new constitution, to make it more difficult for people to corrupt it as the current constitution has been corrupted. Why do you care how much money is involved if it can't buy any favors or benefits for anybody? Instead of giving government the power to limit what the people can do with their money--this of course would give incumbants a HUGE advantage more than they already have--why not limit the government as to what it can do for itself? Take away the ability of those in government to amass obscene fortunes via their positions, and you take away the incentive for the permanent political class to be a permanent political class.

We would likely again start electing honorable public servants again who go to Washington to serve their country instead of themselves, and who after awhile return home to work and live under the laws they pass for all of us.

We want the same objective but you are trying to "regulate" the symptom as opposed to dealing with the source of the problem.

I disagree. You are the one wanting to control it via more government regulation. I want to control it by removing a whole bunch of power from the federal government to regulate.

Not in the least. Making the bribing of elected officials and the corruption of elections into criminal offences is not government regulation. It is enforcing the rule of law as apposed to selling out our representative to the highest bidder which is what you are enabling.

You think the problem is bribing elected officials. Again I invite you to the real world in which the problem is not bribing elected officials. (That is already illegal by the way.) The problem is elected officials extorting money from the people for their own benefit. But either way, take away the ability for either to buy any benefits, and the problem is solved.

The onus is on you to prove that your "solution" will "solve the problem".

 

[Derideo_Te]

Government campaign financing favors incumbents.

Prove it!

If she has to prove that, you have to prove that limiting campaign contributions would result in better government. It never has in the past.

It is only logical that all things being equal with finances, the incumbent already has the name and face recognition and it is a lot more difficult for a newcomer to gain the attention of the public.

Thank you for making my point. Name recognition requires advertising. Having substantive debates requires being able to make a cogent point that will resonate with the voters.

As far as proving that limited campaign financing works just take a look at the rest of the civilized world that manages to get by with elections lasting a mere 6 weeks from start to finish once every 5 years or so. They swap parties in and out and incumbents lose their seats to newcomers all the time.

Do you need links for how that that works in those nations because I can provide you with them if you don't believe me.

Incumbents have the advantage in name recognition due to the news cycle. They get free sound bite quotes and interviews on public policy related issues and events to pump up their visibility. These are FREE PUBLICITY and not available to challengers.

And yet challengers win elections without that publicity. How does that happen?

 

[Foxfyre]

I think the federal government stepping in to resolve an issue before the populace resorted to open revolt was a good thing. Do you think bloodshed would have brought about a better resolution? Bodies in the street is preferable to having to serve someone of a different shade of brown at a diner counter? Have you ever seen bodies in the street?

I am generally satisfied with the way things are, yes. Any society is made up of people and I have no illusions about the nature of humanity. Nothing is going to be perfect. However, the notion that things will be better if it is just placed in the hands of local government is absurd. Local government is also made up of people. If you are going to be oppressed, it is far more likely it will come from local government than the federal government.

Uh ... No, I don't think the people being denied their rights would have benefited in the least from arming themselves and shooting their way through it ... In fact it wouldn't have benefitted them at all in my opinion. I also think that it was stupid to suggest it would have been an acceptable course of action worth considering in your original comment.

I can say that have no problem with any color person sitting next to me at a lunch counter ... And the Federal government doesn't dictate how I feel about others. Also ... I have seen, smelled and touched dead bodies in the street ... Put a few there myself. I just don't approve of people using outlandish scenarios to try and prove irrelevant points.

I don't know where you live ... But I still encounter more local people than Federal agents. That doesn't mean that federal concerns don't supersede local concerns. The federal government is not accountable to people in the same way at the local level ... And it was never intended to be that way in the Constitution. Local people absent federal problems shouldn't have to meet arbitrary federal requirements that don't appropriately address local matters.

Using the Justice Department to control local school policy is an example I can explain further if you need me to.

.

I recall "White Only" signs posted all over the place. Whether or not you are bothered doesn't matter if the local police would throw people in jail if they dared sit down next to you. Local government in action. You live in a country today where that doesn't happen, but the reason it doesn't happen is not because the local governments decided to just stop doing it.

If you were told by the government you couldn't drink from a public fountain, use a public park or sit in a restaurant because of the way you looked, would you think your rights were being secured?

Realizing that selective reading is a chronic message board problem, I will repeat one more time despite already pointing it out numerous times now. There are no more 'white only' signs anywhere in America. Public drinking fountains are for anybody to use. The Americans who would like to return to that indefensible system are so miniscule in number that they aren't worth the bandwidth to even mention.

A new constitution can very easily include a federal no discrimination clause based on hair, eye, skin color or whatever that would in no way violate the unalienable rights of the people to be who and what they are.

 

[boedicca]

Government campaign financing favors incumbents.

Prove it!

If she has to prove that, you have to prove that limiting campaign contributions would result in better government. It never has in the past.

It is only logical that all things being equal with finances, the incumbent already has the name and face recognition and it is a lot more difficult for a newcomer to gain the attention of the public.

Thank you for making my point. Name recognition requires advertising. Having substantive debates requires being able to make a cogent point that will resonate with the voters.

As far as proving that limited campaign financing works just take a look at the rest of the civilized world that manages to get by with elections lasting a mere 6 weeks from start to finish once every 5 years or so. They swap parties in and out and incumbents lose their seats to newcomers all the time.

Do you need links for how that that works in those nations because I can provide you with them if you don't believe me.

Incumbents have the advantage in name recognition due to the news cycle. They get free sound bite quotes and interviews on public policy related issues and events to pump up their visibility. These are FREE PUBLICITY and not available to challengers.

And yet challengers win elections without that publicity. How does that happen?

They aren't limited to the government provided financing that you are advocating.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Prove it!

If she has to prove that, you have to prove that limiting campaign contributions would result in better government. It never has in the past.

It is only logical that all things being equal with finances, the incumbent already has the name and face recognition and it is a lot more difficult for a newcomer to gain the attention of the public.

Thank you for making my point. Name recognition requires advertising. Having substantive debates requires being able to make a cogent point that will resonate with the voters.

As far as proving that limited campaign financing works just take a look at the rest of the civilized world that manages to get by with elections lasting a mere 6 weeks from start to finish once every 5 years or so. They swap parties in and out and incumbents lose their seats to newcomers all the time.

Do you need links for how that that works in those nations because I can provide you with them if you don't believe me.

Incumbents have the advantage in name recognition due to the news cycle. They get free sound bite quotes and interviews on public policy related issues and events to pump up their visibility. These are FREE PUBLICITY and not available to challengers.

And yet challengers win elections without that publicity. How does that happen?

They aren't limited to the government provided financing that you are advocating.

But they are in the rest of the civilized world's elections. So again, how does that happen?

 

[boedicca]

If she has to prove that, you have to prove that limiting campaign contributions would result in better government. It never has in the past.

It is only logical that all things being equal with finances, the incumbent already has the name and face recognition and it is a lot more difficult for a newcomer to gain the attention of the public.

Thank you for making my point. Name recognition requires advertising. Having substantive debates requires being able to make a cogent point that will resonate with the voters.

As far as proving that limited campaign financing works just take a look at the rest of the civilized world that manages to get by with elections lasting a mere 6 weeks from start to finish once every 5 years or so. They swap parties in and out and incumbents lose their seats to newcomers all the time.

Do you need links for how that that works in those nations because I can provide you with them if you don't believe me.

Incumbents have the advantage in name recognition due to the news cycle. They get free sound bite quotes and interviews on public policy related issues and events to pump up their visibility. These are FREE PUBLICITY and not available to challengers.

And yet challengers win elections without that publicity. How does that happen?

They aren't limited to the government provided financing that you are advocating.

But they are in the rest of the civilized world's elections. So again, how does that happen?

That works really well for Putin. For the Russian people? Not so much.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Thank you for making my point. Name recognition requires advertising. Having substantive debates requires being able to make a cogent point that will resonate with the voters.

As far as proving that limited campaign financing works just take a look at the rest of the civilized world that manages to get by with elections lasting a mere 6 weeks from start to finish once every 5 years or so. They swap parties in and out and incumbents lose their seats to newcomers all the time.

Do you need links for how that that works in those nations because I can provide you with them if you don't believe me.

Incumbents have the advantage in name recognition due to the news cycle. They get free sound bite quotes and interviews on public policy related issues and events to pump up their visibility. These are FREE PUBLICITY and not available to challengers.

And yet challengers win elections without that publicity. How does that happen?

They aren't limited to the government provided financing that you are advocating.

But they are in the rest of the civilized world's elections. So again, how does that happen?

That works really well for Putin. For the Russian people? Not so much.

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you have nothing to support your baseless position.

 

[Foxfyre]

If we dont change this constitution we are heading for a downfall.

Various Presidents, Congresses, and the Courts have been changing the existing one for the last 100 years or so with and without amendments. I wish there was a way to restore the basic fundamentals intended in the original and stop that slow erosion.

You want to reinstate slavery?

Slavery was never intended in the original. Would you like to ask another silly question?

Slavery, AKA 3/5ths of a person, was written into the original Constitution as passed and ratified by all 13 states.

Your "original intent" claim fails since it includes slavery.

... which, of course, is a ridiculous, naive, and intentionally distorted look at the 3/5 compromise.

The question at hand was how the black community would be counted relative to representation and taxation. It was NOT - and was never intended to be - a stamp of approval for slavery. It was a compromise between the northern states, and southern states - the northern states wanted blacks recognized as citizens, but were concerned that the resulting shift in population dynamics, would swing the balance of power to the southern states. Many felt that the resulting swing would mean that slavery would never be abolished. The south, on the other hand, wanted the power, but were unwilling to pay the high taxes - given their agricultural economy.

The resulting 3/5 compromise was an economic and power compromise - not a stamp of approval for slavery.

In fact, it can be said that the Constitution was the first time that the humanity of slaves was formally recognized. Until then, they had been simply 'property'.

But, hey --- it's always fun to be morally indignant across a 240 year gap - and ignore the political realities of the time.

Thank you for this even as I get extremely frustrated by those who can't seem to see American history in ANY other framework other than slavery. What ARE they teaching in schools these days that creates this phenomenon?

The fact is, virtually every one of the Founding fathers disapproved of slavery and said they could not morally or ethically justify it and would like to have abolished it in the original constitution. That includes those who were slave owners at the time. They did see to it that no states or territories that were not already slave states would adopt slavery and they did stop the importation of slaves effectively ending the slave trade. But at the time the Constitution was signed and sent out for ratification, it was more important to form a union of existing states and that was one issue the slave states would not compromise on. The Founders compromised on that issue on the strength of their belief that a free people, left to choose for themselves right and wrong, would come to get it right.

It should be noted that both Canada and Mexico had legalized slavery at the time our Constitution was ratified. Both eventually abolished it on moral and legal grounds as had 95% of Americans at the time the Civil War broke out.

 

[boedicca]

Incumbents have the advantage in name recognition due to the news cycle. They get free sound bite quotes and interviews on public policy related issues and events to pump up their visibility. These are FREE PUBLICITY and not available to challengers.

And yet challengers win elections without that publicity. How does that happen?

They aren't limited to the government provided financing that you are advocating.

But they are in the rest of the civilized world's elections. So again, how does that happen?

That works really well for Putin. For the Russian people? Not so much.

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you have nothing to support your baseless position.

I call shenanigans. Please provide a link to a credible source that shows that 100% of campaign financing in the rest of the civilized world is provided by the government.

 

[Foxfyre]

Government campaign financing favors incumbents.

Prove it!

If she has to prove that, you have to prove that limiting campaign contributions would result in better government. It never has in the past.

It is only logical that all things being equal with finances, the incumbent already has the name and face recognition and it is a lot more difficult for a newcomer to gain the attention of the public.

Thank you for making my point. Name recognition requires advertising. Having substantive debates requires being able to make a cogent point that will resonate with the voters.

As far as proving that limited campaign financing works just take a look at the rest of the civilized world that manages to get by with elections lasting a mere 6 weeks from start to finish once every 5 years or so. They swap parties in and out and incumbents lose their seats to newcomers all the time.

Do you need links for how that that works in those nations because I can provide you with them if you don't believe me.

What works in very small countries with much more homogenous and less free populations is irrelevant. The USA started out as a grand experiment with a concept that was virtually unknown and untried throughout human history. We don't march to anybody else's drummer. So join the parade behind our drum will you?

 

[Foxfyre]

And yet challengers win elections without that publicity. How does that happen?

They aren't limited to the government provided financing that you are advocating.

But they are in the rest of the civilized world's elections. So again, how does that happen?

That works really well for Putin. For the Russian people? Not so much.

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you have nothing to support your baseless position.

I call shenanigans. Please provide a link to a credible source that shows that 100% of campaign financing in the rest of the civilized world is provided by the government.

Not only that, but show me a government that provides 100% of the campaign financing that does not assign all the rights the people will have. Somebody once said that he who votes does not hold the power, but he who counts the vote holds all the power. Show me how a government that controls who and how much any candidate will receive for campaigning will not be tempted to rig that system in favor of itself.

 

[boedicca]

They aren't limited to the government provided financing that you are advocating.

But they are in the rest of the civilized world's elections. So again, how does that happen?

That works really well for Putin. For the Russian people? Not so much.

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you have nothing to support your baseless position.

I call shenanigans. Please provide a link to a credible source that shows that 100% of campaign financing in the rest of the civilized world is provided by the government.

Not only that, but show me a government that provides 100% of the campaign financing that does not assign all the rights the people will have. Somebody once said that he who votes does not hold the power, but he who counts the vote holds all the power. Show me how a government that controls who and how much any candidate will receive for campaigning will not be tempted to rig that system in favor of itself.

Rights "assigned" by the Government are not Rights...they are privileges that can be rescinded at the whim of the Controlling Elite.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And yet challengers win elections without that publicity. How does that happen?

They aren't limited to the government provided financing that you are advocating.

But they are in the rest of the civilized world's elections. So again, how does that happen?

That works really well for Putin. For the Russian people? Not so much.

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you have nothing to support your baseless position.

I call shenanigans. Please provide a link to a credible source that shows that 100% of campaign financing in the rest of the civilized world is provided by the government.

Certainly, just as soon as you provide the quote from me where I claimed that "100% of campaign financing in the rest of the civilized world is provided by the government".

You can't because I didn't so I will spare you the embarrassment of having to admit that you indulged in hyperbole and just provide you with two links. Yes, they show that some nations don't have campaign limits but they do have other restrictions that negate the impact of unlimited campaign spending. Try and figure out how that works from the links provided before you respond and save us both the time of doing that silly dance. Thank you.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/24/world/global-campaign-finance/

How Our Campaign Finance System Compares to Other Countries

 

[Derideo_Te]

Government campaign financing favors incumbents.

Prove it!

If she has to prove that, you have to prove that limiting campaign contributions would result in better government. It never has in the past.

It is only logical that all things being equal with finances, the incumbent already has the name and face recognition and it is a lot more difficult for a newcomer to gain the attention of the public.

Thank you for making my point. Name recognition requires advertising. Having substantive debates requires being able to make a cogent point that will resonate with the voters.

As far as proving that limited campaign financing works just take a look at the rest of the civilized world that manages to get by with elections lasting a mere 6 weeks from start to finish once every 5 years or so. They swap parties in and out and incumbents lose their seats to newcomers all the time.

Do you need links for how that that works in those nations because I can provide you with them if you don't believe me.

What works in very small countries with much more homogenous and less free populations is irrelevant. The USA started out as a grand experiment with a concept that was virtually unknown and untried throughout human history. We don't march to anybody else's drummer. So join the parade behind our drum will you?

Marching in lockstep over a cliff is not my style. I prefer solutions instead.