Changing the Political Paradigm

America today is populated by approximately 320 Million legal citizens.  Of those, we have, plus or minus, about 180 million legal voters who will consider exercising their right to vote in the 2016 presidential election.

Today, in early 2015, we are already beginning to see the potential entrants into the 2106 presidential election.  Of those potential candidates, the most recognizable and highest rated by the Main Stream Media (MSM) are Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. Both are the darlings of their respective Established parties and both are actively courting the funds necessary to mount a campaign. Now I would like all the readers of this blog to consider the following…

Since 1980 when Reagan was first elected, some 35 years ago, in only the past two years has there been neither a Clinton nor a Bush working in the executive branch of the government.  Think about it, Bush Senior was the VP and then President. He was replaced by “Bubba” Clinton who was replaced by Bush Junior.  When Obama was elected, he brought Hillary into the executive branch as Sec. State until she resigned in 2013.  She only left so she could prepare to run for the Presidency herself.  Just think about this for a few minutes.  Two families at the top of the political power structure for the past 3 and a half decades.  During this time, has the country become better?  Has the middle class quality of life been enhanced in any perceptible manner?  Is the world a safer place to live as a result of their stewardship?  Ask yourself these questions when you consider the choices to come in the 2016 Presidential election.

Now as we consider the potential nominees for the office of the President, the names which rise to the top are Ms. Clinton and Bush the 3^rd????  Folks, we are a country with more than 100 million people who meet the requirements to hold the office of president, isn't it reasonable to assume there are at least a few other people who are qualified to hold the office?  Don’t you think it better to have some fresh ideas and not build a family dynasty of politicians running the country for generation upon generation?

The founding fathers were adamant in their construction of the constitution that we would not have a king and that the government would be run from the bottom up by the ordinary citizens not from the top down by the central government with a few “elite” families directing what we should do and how we should think.  Isn't it about time we wash out the elitist families and get back to a government “Of the people, by the people and for the people”?  Electing Ms. Clinton or Mr. Bush in 2016 will just about seal the destruction of a government “Of the people, by the people and for the people” in my opinion.

I should also note here that there is very little consideration of a third party candidate who actually represents “We the people”.  This country’s politics have been taken over by the two established parties who have spent so much money and time to game the system that it is almost impossible for anyone who isn’t anointed by one or the other parties, to be competitive in a national election.  This MUST change if we are to remain a viable Republic which represents the people and not just the elites who use money to gain power.

One of the best methods to achieve this goal is to limit the amount of money which can be raised to launch and undertake a political campaign.  If you ask any of the myriad potential candidates what they are doing these days as they consider the reality of running for President, if they answer honestly, they will tell you that they are raising money.  I know this because two of them have already approached me with their requests to support them by making a contribution, but to also help them raise funds from my friends and colleagues.  They are also reaching out to all the large corporations and Political Action Committees to raise the large BILLION DOLLAR PLUS funding pools needed to run an effective campaign.  Yes, you read that right, in order to run a campaign for the office of the president of the United States today, a candidate must be able to raise over a BILLION DOLLARS in campaign funds. So I ask, how is anyone going to be able to do so without selling their soul to the donors of the almighty dollar?  Further I ask, is this in the best interest of the country and her average middle class citizens?

Our constitution was written with the intent for the citizens of the country to direct, from the ground up, not being directed by a few entrenched politicians dictating what happens from the office of the president down to the average citizen.  The President is supposed to work for you and I, we are not supposed to be told what we can do, how we should live and how much of our hard earned dollars we can keep by the central government in Washington DC.  Unfortunately, as long as we suffer the gamesmanship of two party rule and dynastic political families such as the Clintons and Bushes, only the wealthy who can afford to buy favor will succeed and the majority of us, especially those of you who choose to vote for the “least offensive” candidate will watch as the oligarchs destroy our once proud Republic.

So, some will say, “you are identifying a problem, but you offer no solution so what good are you doing?”  To that I say that there are really three things which can be accomplished with relative ease which can greatly enhance our ability to return the power to the people.

First and foremost, we have to get the money out of politics so that we reengage with truly patriotic idea people rather than those who have the connections to raise a billion dollars effectively.  I suggest that we can accomplish this through the following campaign finance reform…Limit campaign contributions to only registered voters, limit the amount contributed to today's federally mandated maximum, adjusted annually for inflation. Limit the number of times a contribution can be made to only twice per election cycle, once before and once after the primaries.  Registered voter contributors will be allowed to contribute said maximum to every candidate they wish to support, but the contributor, if asked, will have to show they had the funds available to make the contribution from their own funds, not having it provided to them by outside sources.  No contributions will be allowed by corporate, Union or PAC donors.

Second, we must push to modify the Electoral College voting process. Right now, almost all states require that the Electoral College votes go to the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state rather than within the jurisdiction in which the voter lives.  This is exactly what the Electoral College voting process was supposed to protect us from.  As an example, in Pennsylvania, the votes of the cities of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia determine which candidate will receive all 20 Electoral College votes from the state.  The same can be said for most every other state in the Union.  What happens in this case is that the candidates don’t have to listen to or even pay attention to the average citizen and they don’t have to campaign in most states.  The candidates are free to campaign in a small number of urban areas of the swing states to make sure they are able to gather a SLIM majority of the votes in each of the major URBAN centers of these swing states.  A simple fix to this problem would be to eliminate the winner take all voting process in each state and allow for the electoral votes to be partitioned to the candidates on a legislative district basis.  In other words, if the majority of voters in the 3^rd district of Pennsylvania vote for an independent, the 8^th district votes a majority for the Democratic candidate and the 11^th district votes for the Republican candidate, each candidate will receive a prorated allocation of the electoral votes.  In this manner, the candidates will have to work harder to gain the vote of the average citizen across the entirety of the country rather than just the few large cities in the swing states.

Third, I think we have to acknowledge that the current two establishment parties have so corrupted the system that it is almost impossible for an independent nominee to gain any traction.  In most states the established parties have legislated extremely restrictive ballot access requirements in order to limit “plurality voting”.  I ask, is this responsible reasoning?  Shouldn't we, the voting citizens of the United States, be given the benefit of the doubt to make their own choice?  Shouldn't we be given the right to draw our own conclusion and if that conclusion results in a plurality vote, well, can’t we still conclude that the best candidate, with the most effective message won the election?  I posit that we need to open the doors of entry for independent thinking Americans to become competitive in the national election process.  I honestly don’t know if this can be accomplished on a state by state basis, but I know that it has to happen or the country will be lost to the oligarchs and political dynasties of large, bureaucratic central government control.

Finally, refusing to support either of the established parties and refusing to contribute to the parties is a valid exercise of your rights as a citizen. If the candidates nominated by the established parties don’t reflect our views and the structure of the constitution as we see it, we can exercise our obligation to our country by staying away from the polls.  Yes, it is all our duty to exercise our right to vote, but a choice not to vote rather than vote for the “lesser of two evils”, for instance if Hillary and Jeb are the only choices, is a more valid choice than voting for the least offensive candidate from either of the two established parties who are rapidly destroying our great Republic.

Today our country, the most forward thinking experiment in the democratic process for over 200 years has become an overly regulated and bureaucratic shell of its past. We have become burdened by a debt which is going to sink our economy and is allowed to increase every day by an out of control Federal Reserve Bank - another central government manifestation.  We have a bureaucracy which enacts regulations and laws by edict rather than by the legislative process and finally, we have a central government collecting taxes and dictating to the states how much they will receive and what they can do with them. The overbearing regulations have all but destroyed the manufacturing sector of the country which results in one of the most negative balances of trade in the history of the world.  This will not change as long as we continue to allow the two established parties to game the political system in their favor.   It is time to take back the Republic from the established central parties and return it to the local citizens of our country.  Let us all do our part to see to the return of a government “of the people, by the people and for the people” by pushing our legislators to vote in favor of local control rather than central government control.