Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You overlook the Luiza equation .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.
You overlook the Luiza equation .
Over 90% of people / Sheeple / Normies have an IQ under 120. Near or fully stupid
Estimated 90% of them are Gulllible .
That's before considering their weaknesses .
Ergo , your proposal is of the Fruit and Nut variety .
imho
The political parties have a strangle hold on the US.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.
It's up to us to stop it. Our political parties can't.
Nope, you can't, duck. You have a screwed up country of your own to address. We don't need your unqualified help.
When authoritarians are running this government. Go figure.But then you vote for the authoritarians who want to ban abortion, burn books and prosecute librarians.
Noob. Still has stars in his eyes. LOL.Sorry, I had to laugh at the thread title.
I agree. But it's important to understand that this situation is entirely our fault. I realize most people here can't believe what I'm saying. That's too bad.The political parties have a strangle hold on the 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.
Nice to dream, isn't it? Personally, my dreams are much better and involve hot women.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.
This is why I say we are voting for representatives for the wrong reason. We vote for them based on how close our own political opinions match theirs. We need to start voting for them based on what qualifications they have that would enable them to adequately represent a large group of people with diverse opinions. This would require being able to lead a diverse group to a rational, majority compromise. Rational meaning free from false claims. If the final compromise was unconstitutional, the representative would inform them of that and, if they persist in demanding it, would explain what is necessary to change the constitution.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.
This is why I say we are voting for representatives for the wrong reason. We vote for them based on how close our own political opinions match theirs. We need to start voting for them based on what qualifications they have that would enable them to adequately represent a large group of people with diverse opinions. This would require being able to lead a diverse group to a rational, majority compromise. Rational meaning free from false claims. If the final compromise was unconstitutional, the representative would inform them of that and, if they persist in demanding it, would explain what is necessary to change the constitution.
As for presidents; We give our presidents some executive authority, and for good reason. There are many times when a president (or governor or mayor) needs to make quick decisions without having to consult congress. We have some control over our presidents through the checks and balances provided to our representatives by the constitution. Of course, that's assuming we can get our representatives to actually represent us instead of their own, special interests.
Given the prominence of your first requirement, why would we need any other qualifying factors?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.
Indeed. We need consensus not compromise.Compromise in DC is bullshit. BI partisan bills take away more rights than one sided ones.
The first requirement gets their attention. the other requirements specify the qualifications we'd be looking for.Given the prominence of your first requirement, why would we need any other qualifying factors?
But if all they're doing is regurgitating the will of the majority, why do any other qualifications matter?The first requirement gets their attention. the other requirements specify the qualifications we'd be looking for.
1. Among other things, they need certain capabilities to negotiate with other representatives, lead a diverse group to majority consensus, and write laws,But if all they're doing is regurgitating the will of the majority, why do any other qualifications matter?
Also, how do you plan on holding them to the mandate of following the will of the majority?
So, I'm not sure what changes you're proposing, other than just "don't vote like idiots", and I think that ship has already sailed.1. Among other things, they need certain capabilities to negotiate with other representatives, lead a diverse group to majority consensus, and write laws,
2. It's up to citizens in a representative's district to hold them to that.
What I'm proposing is that we stop voting for representatives that don't represent us. We believe if we vote for a rep with opinions similar to ours, that means he/she is representing us. In reality, that rep is still representing his/her own political opinions, not ours.So, I'm not sure what changes you're proposing, other than just "don't vote like idiots", and I think that ship has already sailed.
1. Among other things, they need certain capabilities to negotiate with other representatives, lead a diverse group to majority consensus, and write laws,
2. It's up to citizens in a representative's district to hold them to that.
