American citizens of all political philosophies can take back control of their government without violence or even a major protest.

Dwell

Member
Apr 25, 2023
105
39
21
Step one: Identify who is currently controlling the law-making branches of our state and federal governments.
People talk about red states and blue states to indicate which of the two major, political parties have majority control over the state's political functions, and, therefore, which party can skew the lawmaking process in their favor as well as which one has more influence on the outcome of all state and federal elections. So the answer to who is currently in control of our government is - our political parties.

Why this is a problem: Political parties can serve a useful purpose in a democratic government like ours by making citizens aware of the different options we can discuss for every issue we have. But when the parties cross the line and actively seek to control the government themselves, overriding citizens' constitutional rights to play an active role in the lawmaking process, they quickly become extremely divisive, start spreading baseless claims and propaganda, and end up in a state of near perpetual gridlock in congress because of their inability to make rational compromises. And those defects are contagious, quickly spreading through the general population. You have witnessed this yourself. People who believe they can't be brainwashed by propaganda are the easiest to brainwash because they won't believe it while it's happening to them. The bottom line is - our representatives are representing their own, often partisan, political opinions, instead of honestly working to find out what the majority of their constituents actually want so they can represent THEM.

Step two: Here's how we can fix this.

We notify all the representatives in our respective voting districts that we will no longer vote for or support them based on their own political beliefs and opinions. Instead, we will vote for candidates, and support those currently in office, based on what qualifications they have to actually be able represent their constituents instead of representing themselves, their party, or their major donors. The first qualification will be that they must pledge to set aside their own political beliefs in order to adequately represent the majority opinion of their constituents without bias. And we must hold them to that promise. There will be other qualifying factors we can discuss, such as experience, integrity etc., but that first one is the most important, assuming we elect people with an adequate level of competence for government positions. Keep in mind that the leadership skills we should be looking for in representatives are a little different from those we want in the people in the executive branches of our governments. Representatives should have the kind of authority we see in referees and arbitrators, not so much the kind we accept in bosses.

Why this can be effective: If enough of us give notice of these intentions to all of our representatives, we will certainly get their attention. Most representatives' lives revolve around getting elected and reelected, and they will recognize this as a serious threat to their electability if they refuse to take it seriously. Political parties will resist, of course, and dismiss this as nonsense. But if we persist, we can take government control out of the hands of political parties and give control back to the citizens of the United States, where it has always belonged. American citizens have always had the constitutional authority to hire and fire all of our lawmakers through the election process, giving citizens substantial control over the bills that are, eventually, written into law. All these years we have been electing lawmakers for the wrong reasons. We can change that now if we try.

Our role in this: Pardon me for using a politically unacceptable word here, but citizens have an "obligation" to accept and support the decision of the majority after a rational, honest discussion ends, and a vote has been taken. It's important that citizens also to know that reaching a compromise in American politics is a two-stage process. Stage one is carried out among citizens in the appropriate, local voting district. Stage-two is done in the state or federal congress and may require reconsideration at the local level.
 
Step one: Identify who is currently controlling the law-making branches of our state and federal governments.
People talk about red states and blue states to indicate which of the two major, political parties have majority control over the state's political functions, and, therefore, which party can skew the lawmaking process in their favor as well as which one has more influence on the outcome of all state and federal elections. So the answer to who is currently in control of our government is - our political parties.

Why this is a problem: Political parties can serve a useful purpose in a democratic government like ours by making citizens aware of the different options we can discuss for every issue we have. But when the parties cross the line and actively seek to control the government themselves, overriding citizens' constitutional rights to play an active role in the lawmaking process, they quickly become extremely divisive, start spreading baseless claims and propaganda, and end up in a state of near perpetual gridlock in congress because of their inability to make rational compromises. And those defects are contagious, quickly spreading through the general population. You have witnessed this yourself. People who believe they can't be brainwashed by propaganda are the easiest to brainwash because they won't believe it while it's happening to them. The bottom line is - our representatives are representing their own, often partisan, political opinions, instead of honestly working to find out what the majority of their constituents actually want so they can represent THEM.

Step two: Here's how we can fix this.

We notify all the representatives in our respective voting districts that we will no longer vote for or support them based on their own political beliefs and opinions. Instead, we will vote for candidates, and support those currently in office, based on what qualifications they have to actually be able represent their constituents instead of representing themselves, their party, or their major donors. The first qualification will be that they must pledge to set aside their own political beliefs in order to adequately represent the majority opinion of their constituents without bias. And we must hold them to that promise. There will be other qualifying factors we can discuss, such as experience, integrity etc., but that first one is the most important, assuming we elect people with an adequate level of competence for government positions. Keep in mind that the leadership skills we should be looking for in representatives are a little different from those we want in the people in the executive branches of our governments. Representatives should have the kind of authority we see in referees and arbitrators, not so much the kind we accept in bosses.

Why this can be effective: If enough of us give notice of these intentions to all of our representatives, we will certainly get their attention. Most representatives' lives revolve around getting elected and reelected, and they will recognize this as a serious threat to their electability if they refuse to take it seriously. Political parties will resist, of course, and dismiss this as nonsense. But if we persist, we can take government control out of the hands of political parties and give control back to the citizens of the United States, where it has always belonged. American citizens have always had the constitutional authority to hire and fire all of our lawmakers through the election process, giving citizens substantial control over the bills that are, eventually, written into law. All these years we have been electing lawmakers for the wrong reasons. We can change that now if we try.

Our role in this: Pardon me for using a politically unacceptable word here, but citizens have an "obligation" to accept and support the decision of the majority after a rational, honest discussion ends, and a vote has been taken. It's important that citizens also to know that reaching a compromise in American politics is a two-stage process. Stage one is carried out among citizens in the appropriate, local voting district. Stage-two is done in the state or federal congress and may require reconsideration at the local level.
Key phrase, "enough of us". That's where it falls apart, as most voters in this country don't do any research at all, they just hear their favorite talking head, listen to Oprah, vote for the "pretty one" or the one they'd like to have a beer with, anything EXCEPT how effective the candidate would be in actually governing the country. Heck, they'll think of the president as being in charge of us instead of working for us.
 
Key phrase, "enough of us". That's where it falls apart, as most voters in this country don't do any research at all, they just hear their favorite talking head, listen to Oprah, vote for the "pretty one" or the one they'd like to have a beer with, anything EXCEPT how effective the candidate would be in actually governing the country. Heck, they'll think of the president as being in charge of us instead of working for us.
I think the key word is "compromise" The country is so polarized that neither group can have ALL of what they want and have a population that has any desire to work together.
 
Key phrase, "enough of us". That's where it falls apart, as most voters in this country don't do any research at all, they just hear their favorite talking head, listen to Oprah, vote for the "pretty one" or the one they'd like to have a beer with, anything EXCEPT how effective the candidate would be in actually governing the country. Heck, they'll think of the president as being in charge of us instead of working for us.
I think the key word is "compromise" The country is so polarized that neither group can have ALL of what they want and have a population that has any desire to work together.
These are exactly the kind of things we need to address. And I know we aren't the only ones aware of these problems. Americans are almost completely lacking common sense at the moment, and I mean that in the very literal sense of the phrase "common sense" as meaning we have very little sense in common. But most Americans are smart enough to realize compromises are necessary. Heck, even our representatives know that compromises are necessary. The problem with them, though, is that their compromises are usually between the two parties and not among the citizens.
 
These are exactly the kind of things we need to address. And I know we aren't the only ones aware of these problems. Americans are almost completely lacking common sense at the moment, and I mean that in the very literal sense of the phrase "common sense" as meaning we have very little sense in common. But most Americans are smart enough to realize compromises are necessary. Heck, even our representatives know that compromises are necessary. The problem with them, though, is that their compromises are usually between the two parties and not among the citizens.
Unfortunately, compromise has become impossible on account of political positioning has gone to extremes.

The American experiment needs to be tested by the acceptance of one side or the other's extreme.

I can't name the particular 'extremes' on account of that turning the discussion into a political brawl. Here's hoping that doesn't happen until this one slides off the bottom of the board.

It can at least be a test of Americans to demonstrate a willingness to 'compromise'?
Will anybody meet the challenge?

As a Canadian, I can if I'm not disqualified by the lowbrows right out of the gate.

Good luck!
 
Key phrase, "enough of us". That's where it falls apart, as most voters in this country don't do any research at all, they just hear their favorite talking head, listen to Oprah, vote for the "pretty one" or the one they'd like to have a beer with, anything EXCEPT how effective the candidate would be in actually governing the country. Heck, they'll think of the president as being in charge of us instead of working for us.

But then you vote for the authoritarians who want to ban abortion, burn books and prosecute librarians.
 
But most Americans are smart enough to realize compromises are necessary. Heck, even our representatives know that compromises are necessary.
One of the most blatant lies that I've heard in the past two admins is "bipartisan (fill in the blank)" There hasn't been ANY legislation during that time, or before for that matter, that has been true bipartisan. If a bill is introduced by a party, you can rest assured that bill will get 100% of the sponsoring party's support. On rare occasion there will be one or two of the opposition party that will vote for it. This is not bipartisan. It seems this is the case 100% of the time with democrat sponsored legislation and just slightly less than 100% of the time with the GOP. Until this polarization stops and our representatives (LOL) return to what is in the interest of ALL Americans, we will see the deterioration of the country that we have seen over the last 30 years or so.
 
Thanks for the info. I was disappointed with the high level of useless political propaganda I saw on this forum, but figured I would take a shot at it anyway.

What forums would you suggest?
I can't suggest any other forums, because the rules forbid it, but also that it wouldn't serve any purpose here. Suffice to say that this system is different from another board on which a discussion has gone on for weeks or months.

More important right now in my opinion is we're about to put 'compromise' to the test! Is there any interest or appeal in doing that?

I'm thinking that is going to be very hard when half the country believes an election was stolen and the other half thinks it wasn't.
 
One of the most blatant lies that I've heard in the past two admins is "bipartisan (fill in the blank)"
I, too, don't care for the term "bipartisan". I don't see any sense at all in trying to achieve some kind of bipartisan cooperation. It still involves political parties. Political parties are still trying to gain control over our government.
Until this polarization stops and our representatives (LOL) return to what is in the interest of ALL Americans, we will see the deterioration of the country that we have seen over the last 30 years or so.
It's up to us to stop it. Our political parties can't.
 
More important right now in my opinion is we're about to put 'compromise' to the test! Is there any interest or appeal in doing that?

I'm thinking that is going to be very hard when half the country believes an election was stolen and the other half thinks it wasn't.
This is why I'm trying to get the message out that compromise is a necessary reality in in democratic society. The first step is relatively easy: Get about 50 million people to notify their representatives that they will no longer support or vote for representatives that only represent their own special interests.
 
Compromise in DC is bullshit. BI partisan bills take away more rights than one sided ones.
True. But I don't want to just complain about it. I want to do something about it. How hard could that be? I just need the help of 50 million people, give or take a few. Piece of cake! After that we face the hard work of actually addressing all of our other serious problems.
 
But then you vote for the authoritarians who want to ban abortion, burn books and prosecute librarians.
Nice attempt at creating a fight when there's no need for it. Go away if that's all you want to do.
 
Step one: Identify who is currently controlling the law-making branches of our state and federal governments.
People talk about red states and blue states to indicate which of the two major, political parties have majority control over the state's political functions, and, therefore, which party can skew the lawmaking process in their favor as well as which one has more influence on the outcome of all state and federal elections. So the answer to who is currently in control of our government is - our political parties.

Why this is a problem: Political parties can serve a useful purpose in a democratic government like ours by making citizens aware of the different options we can discuss for every issue we have. But when the parties cross the line and actively seek to control the government themselves, overriding citizens' constitutional rights to play an active role in the lawmaking process, they quickly become extremely divisive, start spreading baseless claims and propaganda, and end up in a state of near perpetual gridlock in congress because of their inability to make rational compromises. And those defects are contagious, quickly spreading through the general population. You have witnessed this yourself. People who believe they can't be brainwashed by propaganda are the easiest to brainwash because they won't believe it while it's happening to them. The bottom line is - our representatives are representing their own, often partisan, political opinions, instead of honestly working to find out what the majority of their constituents actually want so they can represent THEM.

Step two: Here's how we can fix this.

We notify all the representatives in our respective voting districts that we will no longer vote for or support them based on their own political beliefs and opinions. Instead, we will vote for candidates, and support those currently in office, based on what qualifications they have to actually be able represent their constituents instead of representing themselves, their party, or their major donors. The first qualification will be that they must pledge to set aside their own political beliefs in order to adequately represent the majority opinion of their constituents without bias. And we must hold them to that promise. There will be other qualifying factors we can discuss, such as experience, integrity etc., but that first one is the most important, assuming we elect people with an adequate level of competence for government positions. Keep in mind that the leadership skills we should be looking for in representatives are a little different from those we want in the people in the executive branches of our governments. Representatives should have the kind of authority we see in referees and arbitrators, not so much the kind we accept in bosses.

Why this can be effective: If enough of us give notice of these intentions to all of our representatives, we will certainly get their attention. Most representatives' lives revolve around getting elected and reelected, and they will recognize this as a serious threat to their electability if they refuse to take it seriously. Political parties will resist, of course, and dismiss this as nonsense. But if we persist, we can take government control out of the hands of political parties and give control back to the citizens of the United States, where it has always belonged. American citizens have always had the constitutional authority to hire and fire all of our lawmakers through the election process, giving citizens substantial control over the bills that are, eventually, written into law. All these years we have been electing lawmakers for the wrong reasons. We can change that now if we try.

Our role in this: Pardon me for using a politically unacceptable word here, but citizens have an "obligation" to accept and support the decision of the majority after a rational, honest discussion ends, and a vote has been taken. It's important that citizens also to know that reaching a compromise in American politics is a two-stage process. Stage one is carried out among citizens in the appropriate, local voting district. Stage-two is done in the state or federal congress and may require reconsideration at the local level.

You people.
 
This is why I'm trying to get the message out that compromise is a necessary reality in in democratic society. The first step is relatively easy: Get about 50 million people to notify their representatives that they will no longer support or vote for representatives that only represent their own special interests.

Are you 12?
 
True. But I don't want to just complain about it. I want to do something about it. How hard could that be? I just need the help of 50 million people, give or take a few. Piece of cake! After that we face the hard work of actually addressing all of our other serious problems.

What is our most serious problem?
 

Forum List

Back
Top