A counter proposal. . Stop all commercial and special interest
groups from influencing the election and representation in the government for
the people. . Throw out the notion of representation by a persons
physical residence in favor of representation by chosen political philosophy or
wants. . Allow any one and every one to apply for the position of
government representation.. Require each candidate to prepare, post
and maintain a resume similar to those for employment. Do not allow other
campaigning. . Hold a state wide election. Voters would first
choose from a list of political philosophies or special wants. Second, the
voter would choose the candidate desired in that persuasion..
Counting the votes twice, one time by persuasion and Then by candidate. The
first count would determine the number of representatives for each political
philosophy the second for the candidate for positions in the philosophy.The object of this being to stop improper influence of government, allow
all people to participate and provide government more like the wants and desires
of the people.
I think Utah's caucus system is fine with the exceptions that:
I think that nominees should not commit to voting for a particular candidate but
should inform us of their preferred candidate if any. All caucuses should do
better job of encouraging speeches of up to five minutes from nominees, and
pertinent questions from attendees. Nominees should know who the
candidates are but the parties should be required to post the names and
positions of all the candidates well in advance, say a month ahead, of the
candidates who have filed up to that point. Perhaps it would be even better
just to hold the caucuses at least a month AFTER filings have closed.The caucus rules for each party should be printed in local newspapers in
addition to the times and places that caucuses meet. Media should prominently
publish the names and postitions of all candidates.
Having an "open mind" has its place in politics, but being "open
minded" takes a back-seat to standing up for liberty. We expect
those we elect to hold our liberties inviolate. We expect them to abandon their
office before they would ever vote against our liberties. We expect them to
honor those who have lived and died securing those liberties for us. NO ONE,
who expects an office holder to put liberty above office could ever vote for a
candidate who had voted to take our liberties away from us.If 535
members of Congress were held to that simple requirement, we would not be
subjected to illegal wire-taps, illegal "pat-downs" or "X-rays"
at the airport. We would not have a Congress who forced us to buy a product from
them or face imprisonment. We would not have a Congress who held themselves
exempt from the laws that they had passed. We would not have a Congress who
failed to pass a budget. We would not have a President who presumed that he was
a king who ruled by dictate.The process starts at the Caucus.
When people talk about our Liberty, our freedom, and our rights, the first
question that pops into my mind is just who is the our that that they are
talking about. The truth is they are most often only talking about their own
group, business, union, religion etc. etc. Thus they completely
miss the point that freedom, liberty, and rights are not totally infinite things
that can be given out to all in an infinite quantity. These things are merely
bargaining chips of life that are bought, sold and traded mostly by the people
we elect to govern us. And the gain of freedom for one means the
loss of freedom of another.