WANTED The Right to Just Say "No"

[kliljedahl]

By
Raconteur at Large
Stephen Pizzo
February 2, 2006
Printed in its entirety by permission of the author

We have a lot of rights in this country – admittedly fewer than we did five years ago -- but still more than most folks in the world have. But we lack the one right that could really make a difference; the right to just say no to the candidates the parties provide us to choose between.

I know this is not a new idea -- see Voters for None of The Above – But it's time to consider this idea anew – and this time seriously. Allow voters faced with a choice that is hardly a choice at all, or a choice between evils, to vote. “None of the Above.” http://www.nota.org/

If such a choice were allowed, and a majority of voters selected None of the Above, a new election would be held within three months. The rejected candidates could run again, be replaced by new candidates, joined by third party or no-party candidates, or all the above. And if we reject that litter, then 90 days later they can try us again.

Sure it would be an added expense. But stop and think how many trillions of dollars have been squandered, wasted and passed out to cronies by the no-choice candidates we've been stuck with over the past decade alone. You could fund extra None of the Above elections with those wasted dollars until the sun burned itself out.

Such a change would sound the death knell for the two-party's business as usual system. Giving voters the right to nix party-backed candidates would force the two establishment parties to reconnect with voters at the grassroots level. Because, when a person can not just vote against you but toss you out of a race, you damn well better know what's really on their mind -- and not just from some polling firm that had a nice gal from Bangalore ask registered voters over the phone at dinner time one night, either – but up close, personal and often.

It would also end the careers of party apparachiks, and hacks, folks who have “paid their dues” and were finally “owed” promotion via party support to an elected office. These are the Trotskyites of American politics. Painfully mediocre men and women whose only talent is their abilty to worm their way through a party into positions of leadership. Yes, I am thinking here of the likes of Tom Delay and Hillary Clinton. Never underestimae a Trotskyite. If allowed they will worm their way right on up to their party's nomination for president. Never mind that they are mediocre, conniving, valueless individuals. Their parties will put them up because they know we voters will be left with really only two choices ... Tweedledee or Tweedledum – a 50/50 chance of winning.

Pretty good odds -- for a couple of losers.

So if we want to pour our energy into something that could really change the face – and faces – of government, this it. None of the Above. We just waste time and squander hope trying to take money out of politics. It always finds its way back in. But we can turn money into a double-edge sword by adding None of the Above to the ballot and requiring near real time, on-line financial contribution reporting. That would changed the whole equation for both candidates and donors. I have long maintained that trying to pass laws limiting campaign contributions is like trying to stop drugs from coming into the country. It's not supply that drives the process. It's demand.

So, require candidates to post all contributions over $100 on the FEC website withing 24 hours, with no contributions allowed during the final 48 hours of a campaign. Then watch the demand for big-dollar specialist money drops like a rock.

Imagine being able to pull up an up-to-the-minute donor sheet on-line before heading to the polls to see what special interest groups and industries are backing which candidates, and with how much dough. If you don't like the smell of what you see, you could wield the dreaded None of the above sword, sending everyone back to the locker room to either figure out how to come back in three months and redeem themselves or pursue other interests.

None of the Above and real time campaign finance reporting -- a formula that would renew American democracy in one election cycle. And please, don't try to tell me that real time campaign finance reporting is “too hard,” or “too expensive,” or not technically feasible. Really now! How stupid do they think we are? Do you know how many credit card and ATM card transactions are recorded and processed in real time every hour or every day? It can be done and it must be done. And then, those who get caught lying, cheating or stalling would not only face stiff fines, but if they won, would lose their ill-gained office.

Both these changes would be easy and popular. They would also be dirt cheap when compared to the results we've gotten being forced to pick between lesser of evils. Such a change would require some tinkering with the current procedures for succession to office, in the event voters say no to all candidates offered for President. But even that's not a huge problem. I suspect all that would require a Constitutional amendment, though. Then it would be up to each state to decide if they wanted to give their voters a similar right to reject candidates for state office.

Imagine if this had been the law in the last election. I would have voted None of the Above when faced with a choice between Kerry and Bush. And if enough others had as well Kerry and Bush would have had to either pack it in, or re-impress us 90 days later. Or, better yet, two actually qualified replacement candidates would have been offered to us.

Imagine that....


Why it's a good idea
From http://www.nota.org

1. All legitimate consent requires the ability to withhold consent; "None of the Above" gives the voter the ballot option to withhold consent from an election to office, just as voters can cast a "No" vote on a ballot question.
2. Would end the "must hire" elections where voters are often forced to vote for the least unacceptable candidate, the all too familiar "lesser evil."
3. A candidate must obtain voter consent to be elected, even if running unopposed.
4. Voters would decide the fate of the political parties' choices, instead of the parties deciding the voters' choices.
5. It should reduce negative campaigning by encouraging candidates to campaign for their own candidacy rather than against their opponent's candidacy.
6. Many voters and non voters, who now register their disapproval of all candidates for an office by not voting, could cast a meaningful vote.
7. The meaning of elections should become more clear, since voters would no longer be tempted to vote for a presumed losing candidate, with whom they really do not agree, as a protest vote.
8. Establishes flexible, voter controlled term limits of one term for every office, as the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended.
9. Campaign contributors who give to all candidates to insure "access" would no longer be sure they backed the winner; in general, buying elections should become a more uncertain enterprise.
10. Improves checks and balances between voters and political parties, especially needed in jurisdictions with one dominant political party or nearly identical alternatives.
11. Political parties would nominate candidates knowing those candidates must be a better choice for voters than "None of the Above."
12. Follow-up by-elections are far less costly than electing unacceptable candidates to office.
13. Office holders, knowing they face "None of the Above" in the next election, would be encouraged to insure their re-election by focusing more on doing a good job in office and less on attempting to prevent the emergence of an effective opposition candidate.
14. When pre-election polls include "None of the Above", the feedback from voters should help guide candidates and parties.
15. Even when "None of the Above" does not win or is a non-binding NOTA, the reported NOTA vote would help identify those offices for which voters might be more receptive to new candidates in a future election as well as limits the winner's mandate.
16. Provides a permanent option for voters to withhold consent that is independent of expensive and infrequent candidate based "reform" movements.
17. Should make public service more attractive by improving the quality of those elected to office.
18. Opportunities for election fraud should be reduced because fewer blank votes for an office would be cast.
19. Applies to all candidates and parties equally.
20. It is a relatively simple, fair, sensible, accomplishable and permanent improvement to our current system, hopefully making for a more democratic and ultimately stronger America.

"News With Nuts"



Keith’s Barbeque Central

[kliljedahl]

1. Kick for the morning

dropped like a rock last night



Keith’s Barbeque Central

[kliljedahl]

2. Re-kick and this morning too

Keith’s Barbeque Central