Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: How do we keep money out of politics if elections are still winner-takes-all?

Posted 3 years ago on Nov. 16, 2011, 6:37 p.m. EST by leebert (2)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

If districts in the USA are still single-member districts we'll end up in the same mess again and again, with tycoons divvying up districts to suit themselves, with votes being wasted as voters find themselves isolated away from like-minded voters, district-by-district and state-by-state.

You really want to threaten the status quo? Fight the Two-Party juggernaut at the basis of their power: Single Member Districts.

The Dems & Repubs cemented their hold power when they broadly instituted laws that banned cross-endorsement of candidates by two parties (say, Bull Moose & Democrats endorsing Teddy Roosevelt, or Republican & NY Conservative endorsing Ronald Reagan). These " anti-fusion" laws were instituted in response to Teddy Roosevelt's break-away Bull Moose Party. The Bull Moose breakaway was America's closest brush with a functional proportional representation.

There is nothing in the US Constitution that requires single-member districts. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent all the states from doing the following:

1). States apportioning their Congressional seats from proportional districts. Bill Clinton's first Civil Rights appointee, Lani Guinier, had once suggested this as a remedy for the Gerrymandering in North Carolina, & the GOP went ballistic, calling her a "radical."

2). States apportioning their Presidential electors proportionally. Nebraska & Maine already do this, district-by-district. Other options are available to the states.

You really wanna FIX the system? Start here.

4 Comments

4 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 3 years ago

Taking money out of politics is like redirecting a river with a paddle. The political system is outdated and needs to be removed all together and replaced with direct democracy. I don't understand why people still want a few to make decisions for everybody. http://www.occupyr.com/Strategy/thread.php?id=582

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 3 years ago

because most people would rather do other stuff. personally i'd much rather let computers figure it all out ; )

"We, therefore, the People of the United States of America, Assembled, in General Outrage, appealing to the supreme judgement of the world for the rectitude of Our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of this Nation and its Founding Principles, solemnly publish and declare, That these United States must be, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent of Corruption, of Greed, of gross Inequality, and that Government must cease to be a Plutocracy; and that We, as the Citizens of these United States, reaffirm Our Sovereign Right and Power to consent to Government, and to revoke Our consent; and We here resolve that this Nation will have a new birth of Democracy–and that government of the People, by the People, for the People, shall again prevail across the earth. — And for the support of this Declaration, We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor.

We are the 99%."

http://thedeclarationofdesperation.wordpress.com/

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 3 years ago

Wow! Your understanding of the political machinery could really lend a hand to OWS. Any suggestions for the 99% Declaration group? https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/ Thanks

[-] 1 points by leebert (2) 3 years ago

I'll check back tomorrow. Best regards -- leebert