SECOND POST IN THIS SERIES
[If you didn’t have a chance to read the First Post - scroll down to the preceeding Post to get up to speed]
It is important to understand who these Posts are about. They are about ‘us’, about ‘we’ the common folks in America who are citizens and taxpayers.
WE = TEAM AMERICA
The beginning of the definition for TEAM AMERICA looks like this:
- We are neither far right or far left in the Political arena
- We represent approximately 80% of the voting population
- We are Christian - for the most part
- We judge not by color, looks, or religious preference but by character and performance
- We are hard working folks and haven’t got much time allocated for demonstrations
- We care about our fellow Americans and we care about our Country
- We will always step up and lend a hand in a crisis - FOR THE REST OF THE DEFINITION - CLICK ON ‘TEAM AMERICA’ ABOVE
WHAT ARE SOME CHANGES IN THE ELECTION PROCESS THAT SHOULD BE MADE?
In order to stimulate your inputs, we are putting forward some thoughts that we think should be debated and should be given careful consideration to bringing our election process into the 21st century.
CAMPAIGN SPENDING
In the First Post, this (money) was the trigger that launched this series. Understand, we are not endorsing or condemning any candidate in these Posts, but may use some of them as examples of what we are presenting.
OPINION: We should not be selecting (or electing) our candidates based on the criteria that he who spends the most has the best chance of winning.
‘Fair and Balanced’ is a slogan used by one of the leading TV Cable Broadcasting Companies. It would seem logical that a slogan similar to this also should be used when it comes to ‘presenting the candidates’ who are competing for election.
Romney, a candidate for President, has reportedly already spent approximately 35 million dollars of his own money along with having raised many millions of dollars - which most candidates have to do if they have any chance at all of getting elected. Under our present system, all of this okay.
Currently, under our present system, MONEY is not only a huge issue, it either directly or indirectly trumps all other related issues when it comes to our election process.
It is absolutely imperative that we develop a system whereby all ‘qualified’ candidates are on equal footing when it comes to their presentation to the ‘people’ - us - as to why they should be elected. ‘Qualified’ candidates is mentioned in brief here only to signal that in another discussion the process should involve narrowing the field based on each candidates qualifications - which should not include their ability to raise money nor their own personal fortunes in which they are willing to spend a percentage to try and achieve election.
Unfortunately, we know that there will be nothing close to ‘fair and balance’ when it comes to presentation of candidates by the media under today’s process of electing people. The general media is mentioned because it (the media) is the obvious recipient of much of those millions of dollars being spent in the campaign process.
That in itself does not make the media wrong under our current system, however as a result of this money it most likely produces the tendency to skew the supposed neutrality that they are thought by the ‘people’ to be embracing.
[If you think that the media is unbiased and neutral and just reporting the news instead of trying to make the news fit their own bias - think again - this incidentally is a distortion of the Consititution. A subject that will be discussed at a later date]
OPINION: It is thought that there are many qualified men and women in America who have excellent leadership, management, people skills, etc., who would be excellent candidates for President or Congress but who also would never run for election because of the current ‘legacy’ in Washington D.C. and who have no desire to be a ‘fund raiser’ nor neither can or want to spend their own money to run for office. Is that what we really want?
There are a number of other issues related to the question ‘DO WE NEED TO ADJUST THE ELECTION PROCESS AND BRING IT INTO THE 21st CENTURY? However, so as to keep a clear focus, it is felt we should tackle one issue at a time within this topic.
The first issue then becomes the spending issue and spawns the question: What would be the best way to assure that:
1) We people have the opportunity to vote for the very best candidates this Country can produce.
2) Are we casting our vote based our personal convictions and with clear understanding of ‘who’ the candidate is and ‘what’ the candidate stands for and ‘what’ the candidate can bring to that job, because there has been equal time of presentation?
VOTE
Be sure and VOTE - upper right hand corner. This is very important - we need to know what your thinking is and know that we are on the track in the direction being taken. Thank you.
REGISTER
Again, this is very important - let us know your thoughts, even it is just to say “I love your direction” or “I hate what you are trying to do”. Just click on ‘comments’ - bottom right hand corner and scroll down to the bottom of the page where the comments box is located - its that simple - make your comments and submit. This also will automatically register you so you can receive all of the next Posts on this subject. Thank you.
A BOOK OF INTEREST
Here is an excerpt from a new book that is right up near the top of the Best Sellers - ‘REAL CHANGE’ written by former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
“Americans believe overwhelmingly that we need a change in course. Americans are surprisingly united in this belief, and in the conviction that real change will never come from Washington. On this, like so many things, Americans are absolutely right.”
“The media tells us that America is divided between conservative red states and liberal blue states. They tell us that red and blue are equally divided - which is why elections are so close, why Congress seems gridlocked, and why nothing ever seems to get done in Washington.”
“But that’s simply not true. The reality is the American people are united on almost every important issue facing our country. The real division is between the red-white-blue America (about 85 percent of the Country) and a fringe on the left (about 15 percent of the Country). Not only have the media perpetuated the myth that the country is equally divided, but the elites on the left fringe have also insisted that their positions hold moral superiority. Neither is true.”
Click on the picture to the get more information.
THIS MIGHT BE CLOSE TO BEING CALLED ‘A MUST READ’
Even though you may not agree with everything, you will find it very thought provoking, it pushes one into expanding your own thought processes and truly makes you step out of the box (THIS IS CERTAINLY WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IN DECIDING THIS POST QUESTION - DOES THE U.S. ELECTION PROCESS NEED ADJUSTING?)
Dr. Larry Sabato, America’s best known political scientist, puts forth a road map on how to bring the U.S. Constitution into the St Century. “The Founding Fathers never intended for the Constitution to be timeless”. “No society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs to the living generation” - Thomas Jefferson”
This book will ask readers to set aside their own political loyalties, to look past the current ‘values’ debates and hot-button issues, to consider this very real possibility; that the failure of the nation to update the Constitution and the structure of government it originally bequeathed to us is at the root of our current political dysfunction.” - Larry J. Sabato (Author of A More Perfect Constitution)
Did you know that a mere 17% of the voters elect a majority of senators? “Americans feel increasingly disconnected from the political process - indeed, half or more don’t even vote in many elections. All of this would have horrified Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and the other founders.” Dr. Larry Sabato presents twenty three creative and dynamic proposals to reinvigorate American governance. Just click on the picture to order
Make it a great day for yourself and all those you come in contact with.


One Comment
Issues and Considerations for changes in Electoral College system.
Electoral College favors the interests of the two dominant parties. In 1992, Ross Perot won 19 percent of the people’s votes and zero electoral college votes.
Isn’t There a Problem Here? Critics of the Electoral College system, of which there are more than a few, point out that the system allows the possibility of a candidate actually losing the nationwide popular vote, but being elected president by the electoral vote. Can that happen? Yes, and it has.
A shift of a handful of votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in five of the last 12 presidential elections. The second-place candidate was elected in 2000 (Bush was appointed as President by the Supreme Court, although Gore won the popular votes), 1888, 1876, and 1824.
The 538 total electoral votes are a combination of the 435 U.S. representatives and 100 senators from each state. Three additional votes are given to the District of Columbia. The Republican and Democratic parties from each state select their own electors who essentially vote on party lines. “They’re usually party loyalists with pretty strong ties to their party,” said Paul Goran, an SIUC professor in political science.
A negative aspect of the electoral college is that it makes a most state’s vote an all-or-nothing event. This means that if one happens to live in a state where one party is considerably more popular than the other, then minority party votes in that state really don’t matter much.
Many people do not vote simply because they feel they already know the outcome of the state (Electoral College) vote. But a percentage basis would bring these people out, and ultimately increase the woeful national voting percentage.
Political analyst Lou Jacobson today listed 19 battleground states for the 2008 presidential election. The remaining 31 states are listed as either “safely Democratic” or “safely Republican.”
Under the U.S. Constitution, the states have exclusive and plenary (complete) power to allocate their electoral votes, and may change their state laws concerning the awarding of their electoral votes at any time. Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).
(October 6, 2007 - The National Popular Vote Association announced that its bill has 366 sponsors in 47 states for the 2007 state legislative sessions).
A potential compromise to this would be a percentage apportionment of the state’s electoral votes. For instance, Party A wins a state by a 60-40% majority over Party B. If the state has 20 electoral votes, Party A wins 12 while Party B wins only 8.
This would also create a more widespread interest in the election process, since all states would be kept in play.