More National Elections

For all the power the Federal Government has, there really is only one national office elected nation-wide, and that is only once every four years. That office is the President (with the VP as a package deal). Not nearly enough input from the voters, in my opinion.

Therefore I suggest that the office of the Vice-President be voted for separately, and every TWO years. So, instead of just voting for your congressmen (or not) on off years, a national vote for VP can be a national referendum on the party in power. Plus, it would add power to the office as a real heir-apparent, next-in-line, president-in-training. And it would be hilarious to split tickets.

The third national office (after POTUS and VP) would occur every four years, but staggered two years off from the POTUS. That office should be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Yes, really. But, like the VP, he/she would only be allowed to vote in the case of a tie. Now at the moment there are 8 normal Justices plus the Chief, but 5/4 votes happen all the time. I also propose bumping up that number to 12 Justices plus the Chief Justice, making him the tie-breaker less likely. Could still work either way. Anyway, there are just so many issue voters (Abortion, 2nd amendment, gay marriage, etc) and all that weight is thrown behind Presidential selection, for good or ill, and his potential appointments to the court. Voters should be more directly involved in the process.

So, we have the President as the head of the Executive Branch, the VP as the head of the Senate and ostensibly the Legislative Branch, and the Chief Justice as the head of the Judicial Branch. And 2/3 elected every election year. These tweaks would make the national government much more representative and subject to the will of the American people. We are supposed to be a democratic republic, after all.

2012 shortlist

Presidential (& VP) candidates I would vote for in 2012:

Ron Paul (Texas Congressman)
Gary Johnson (Former Governer of NM)
Jesse Ventura (Former Governer of MN)
Judge Andrew Napolitano
Lew Rockwell
Pat Buchanan


There are more, but they are even more obscure, sadly.

The Republican Party needs only one tentpole

The way our electoral system is set up in America, there will always be two major parties, each trying to reach just over 50% of the populace. As such, strange bedfellows are all but a given (union workers & environmentalists, big business & religious conservatives, etc). This alliance on the Republican side is fracturing, and if things are not changed they will become the next Whig Party, and lost to history.

The Republican Party needs to stand for something, and they haven't in a looong time. Right now, the only thing keeping them together (and the Tea Parties as well) is standing against something: Barack Obama's agenda. Every so-called principal was abandoned during the Bush era, with the final nail in the coffin was the selection of presidential candidate John McCain, whose platform was reduced to "Lookit me, I'm a Veteran" and "Earmarks ur bad" and then 'suspending his campaign' to vote for the bailouts. If he'd stood up to Bush and voted against that egregious pork-filled government intervention in the marketplace, he might've won.

So, now the GOP is doing some soul searching. Well, better late than never. There is one thing, and only one thing that can save this party. One principal that can garner support from the unease and opposition to Barrack Obama, recruit young people, and do an end run around Rush Limbaugh fans without alienating them. What is this radical new idea, you say?

Fiscal Conservatism. Remember that?

Yeah, I know. Crazy idea. But wait, aren't Republicans for "tax cuts"? Ostensibly. But do you know what's even better than "tax cuts"? Spending cuts! Because cutting government revenue and increasing spending ('cause who's against that?) leads to... huuuge deficits. Which now threaten to destroy the country.

Actual fiscal conservatism means reducing the size and scope and spending of the federal government. No new spending, no more bailouts, no more entitlements, no more endless undeclared wars. We need to start rolling everything back, and certainly stop adding to the problem.

Nobody in my generation expects to have Social Security. It's a pyramid scheme. Phase it out. Anyone born in the 1960's gets 50% benefits, 70's get 25%. Boom. Done. Next.

Bring the troops home from Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Germany, Japan, and the rest of the freaking planet that can support itself yet we defend on our own dime. And stop all that foreign aid, real allies don't need bribes.

For goodness sakes, return issues like health care and education and illegal drugs to the states. See, they have to have balanced budgets. Many states will be able to figure something out, and other states will follow suit or people will move there themselves.

Stop all the fascist market regulations. Yes you read that right. The federal government requiring you to buy goods and services is horrendous. Shouldn't we have a freer marketplace than, say, China?

Do tax reform last. You read that right, LAST. We have tens of trillions of dollars in debt, and hundreds more in unfunded mandates. Take care of those first. For too long Republicans have done a targeted 1% tax cut and allowed 5% more in spending, and called themselves fiscal conservatives. This ends now.

Whatever your position (pro/anti) for the War on Terror/Drugs/Poverty/What-have-you, or abortion, school prayer, and so-called family values (insert definition here)... if we don't stop this monstrous federal growth and spending those other issues won't really matter because we won't have a country left.



Lurker
(Gary Johnson 2012)

Youtube question(s) for republican debate

I watched the last Democratic debate and enjoyed the fact that individuals posted questions to youtube.com and the candidates were forced to answer. It was still filtered thru CNN, but the randomness and straightforwardness was refreshing. Too bad most of the responses were rehearsed.

Anyway, I'm trying to thing of the perfect question to ask. I'm a Ron Paul supporter, so I'm tempted to address him directly to speak in favor of his more obscure views that would be in favor with the general public (drugs, taxes, anti-draft, war, UN, etc). However, if you've read any of my previous posts, you know I've got some strong views on some out of the mainstream issues: secession, new US states, space, anti-RIC, UFOs, citizenship, and countless others. This may be my chance to springboard one of my causes into the national arena... if it isn't too crazy and rejected.

In an attempt to have my cake and eat it too, I think I'll ask my family members to put forth some questions themselves. Using an Iraq war vet or a cute younger sibling might be more appealing. I also advocate that you, yes YOU submit your own question(s) to the candidates:

http://www.youtube.com/contest/RepublicanDebate

I'll mull my options over this weekend. Hopefully a few more Republican Candidates will sign on for the debate. So far its only Ron Paul and McCain....


Lurker
(N.A.S.A question or states rights to secede? Hmm...)