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.

Last time around, we fundamentaly changed elections with new tactics:

Money Bombs
The Blimp
Viral Youtube videos
Our own convention
Birth of the Tea Party
Virtual Marches (in World of Warcraft)
and so on and so on.


We need to reproduce this zany and creative grassroots tactics if we want to overthrow the Neocons and save our country!

Ideas:
November 5th (Guy Fawkes day) V for Vendetta event
Sky writing
Formal alliance with Log cabin republicans. San Fransisco march?
Declaration of Independence II
Ron Paul democrats in primaries (challenge Obama?)
Infiltration of sporting events and tv show audiences
crop circles and mazes
coast to coast march
underground comic book
Bar-hopping mobile debate groups
Fleet of Ron Paul vehicals: cars, semi-trucks, airplanes, train cars
Tap into the Arab Spring revolutions
Ron Paul Submarine to sail from Texas to New Hampshire


See, those are just off the top of my head. We can make this election feel like an actual revolution if we put our minds to it.

Ron Paul is no ordinary politician, why should he have an ordinary campaign?

Courting OBAMA voters by hook or by crook

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?287761-Courting-OBAMA-voters-by-hook-or-by-crook

If we [I]honestly[/I] want Ron Paul to [I]win[/I] the Republican nomination, we need Independants... and Democrats.

This means we need to go after former (and current) Obama supporters, and convince them to vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries.

There are two methods to do this. The first is to convince them Ron Paul REALLY WILL bring the troops home from Iraq and Afganistan, legalize drugs, close Gitmo, restore civil liberties, and all the other things Obamaniacs hoped to change.

The second (and more controversial) method is recruit democrats to sabotage the Republicans by nominating the "worst" canditate that Obama could "easily" defeat. Want to assure a second term for Obama? Register as a Republican and vote for Paul! He has no chance at all!

These primaries hinge on such a small percentage of the population. We need every possible vote we can, and we have an extra half of the electorate up for grabs. This one-two-punch strategy can shift the balance further in our direction.

THE REVOLUTION CONTINUES!

Proposed Congressional Yearly Schedule

One of the major problems with Congress is that it's members spends too little time with their constituents and too much time in Washington DC creating more and more laws they don't even have time to read.

So, I think we should revise the yearly congressional schedule that keeps each house in session for a week (5 workdays) at a time every other week, encouraging it's members to return home on a regular basis. Here's what it might look like:


Month, Week, (Holiday), Session.

Jan wk1 (3rd or later) Joint Session.
Jan wk2 Congressional Recess.
Jan wk3 (MLK Jr. Monday, Jan 20 inauguration) Joint Session.
Jan wk4 US House.

Feb wk1 US Senate.
Feb wk2 US House.
Feb wk3 (Monday: President's day) Recess.
Feb wk4 US Senate.

Mar wk1 US House.
Mar wk2 US Senate
Mar wk3 US House.
Mar wk4 US Senate.

Apr wk1-2 (Spring District work Period) Recess.
Apr wk3 Us House.
Apr wk4 (Arbor Day) US Senate.

May wk1 Us House.
May wk2 US Senate.
May wk3 Us House.
May wk4 US Senate.
May wk5 (Memorial day) Recess.

Jun wk1 Us House.
Jun wk2 US Senate.
Jun wk3 Us House.
Jun wk4 US Senate.

July wk1 (Independence Day Work Period) Recess.
July wk2 Us House.
July wk3 US Senate.
July wk4 Us House.
July wk5 US Senate.

Aug wk1 Joint Session.
Aug wk2+ (Summer District Work Period) Recess.

Sept wk1 (Labor Day) Recess.
Sept wk2 Joint Session.
Sept wk3 Us House.
Sept wk4 US Senate.

Oct wk1 (Target Adjournment) Joint Session.
Oct wk2 (Columbus Day) Recess.
Oct wk3 Joint Session.
Oct wk4 (Campaigning) Recess.

Nov wk1 (Elections) Recess.
Nov wk2 (Veterans Day) Recess.
Nov wk3 Joint Session.
Nov wk4 (Thanksgiving) Recess.

Dec wk1 Us House.
Dec wk2 Joint Session.
Dec wk3 US Senate.
Dec wk4+ (Holidays) Recess.


US House of Representatives and Senate in session 21 weeks max each, usually on alternating weeks. Any week with a Federal Holiday was given off for both Houses, or attempted anyway. This should maximize input from citizens, and minimize influence from Washington DC culture, since Congressmen would rarely stay for the weekend.


Lurker

How I would fix the economy

Believe it or not, there are some things the government can do to grow the economy: mostly they boiled down to getting out of the way.

1. Decrease the minimum wage. Yep, make it lower. To about the level illegals and waitresses are paid, lets say $4/hr. This would mean that workers are cheaper, and therefore you can hire more of them! Having a sucky job with poor pay is better than no job with no pay, especially these days.

2. Decouple health care from jobs. No other country on earth has health care determined by their employer, its a stupid holdover from 1950's union policies. Scrap it, and suddenly competition skyrockets, because everyone is in the same 'pool'. Also means employers have one less hassle and should make it cheaper to hire more people.

3. Deregulate small businesses. We need jobs desperately, and we need them now. Regulations are stifling job growth, so we nix most of them. Notice a pattern here?

4. Scrap income tax, and replace with a Value Added (think Sales) Tax. Income taxes are insane, arbitrary, and demeaning. Punishing people who earn (i.e. work) more is blatant classism, and subject to political whims and strategy (like now, for instance). Eliminate the system and replace with two 10% sales taxes, one for 'normal' government, and the other for Medicare/Medicaid/social security (and this time put the funds in SEPARATE accounts). This way, everyone puts in their fair share by definition, and saving is actually encouraged! And, by separating out the social programs (and labeling them as such) we have a real reminder of how atrociously large a percentage it is of federal spending on ever receipt. Of course, that brings us to....

5. Slash federal spending to 2000 levels, at least. Remember when we had balanced budgets, you know, under our last democratic president? Would it really be so cruel to do now what we did then?

Well, that's the gist of it. You know the rest, bring home the troops from everywhere overseas, end subsidies, that sort of thing. Boils down to shrink the public sector, grow the private sector.


Lurker

What the Tea Party is getting wrong: Immigration

The Tea Party was flawed almost from it's very inception.

I should know, I was there. The backbone of the movement is the Ron Paul supporters who were sadly ahead of their time. After the election of Obama and his massive expansion of the already atrociously huge big government fostered by Bush, our opposition went mainstream, and the Tea Party was born.

Thus the problems began. The only rallying cry everyone could agree on was OPPOSITION. They were unhappy about the bank bailouts (started by Bush), became obsessed with taxes, and coalesced against the insane Obamacare, all the while somehow missing the underlying principal:

Cut spending, cut spending, CUT $PENDING!

Then Arizona just had to pass their anti-illegal immigration bill. Believe me, I understand the reasons, the frustrations, and justifications for the bill. I was even glad when it passed.

But immigration should have NOTHING to do with the Tea Party movement. Why? Because it is an inherent contradiction to the already confused Tea Party platform: it complains the government isn't doing enough.

Yes, it is a huge issue. But all of the solutions presented (Amnesty, guest workers, national ID, border security) are an expansion of government, whereas government has been the problem all along.

A sad truth is that one of human beings principal motivations is convenience. Lets say you have a goal that you wish to accomplish; with one path being legal but inconvenient (time/$$$/consequence/etc) and the other path illegal but much less of a hassle overall. Guess which path gets chosen more? The vast majority of people only follow the law when it is, at most, as inconvenient as breaking said law.

The solution to this crime (like most!) is to LEGALIZE it. Make it AS convenient to immigrate into this country as it is to trek across the 130 degree Arizona deserts (that should tell you something right there). Ten year waiting periods? Employment requirements ahead of time? No wonder people are so frustrated by the current system that they are willing to risk death and deportation to get here rather than absurd bureaucratic ineffectual nonsense. That which is illegal is unregulated.

Additional solutions: Lower the minimum wage (illegals already work for less, brings down unemployment). Decouple health care from employment (legal employees cheaper to higher). Combine slimmed-down immigration offices with border posts (make the maze of bureaucracy a physical one, lasting minutes not years). The real solutions are LESS government.

Sadly, the Tea Party as it is today is incapable of this or any nuance. Therefore, they should just drop the issue altogether, or have a congruent organization rallying around this issue. Combining the messages of 'down with big gov' and 'gov screwing up' are just too confusing and alienate the movement even more.

Drop it, not helping.

Open letter to JD Hayworth running for Senate against McCain

Dear J.D. Hayworth,

You have declared war on big government "conservatives" by challenging McCain.

Start acting like it.


You need the following endorsements to get traction with the Tea Party movement:

Tucker Carlson

Pat Buchanan

Lew Rockwell (of LewRockwell.com)

Judge Andrew Nepolitano

Gov. Jesse Ventura

Gov. Gary Johnson (of New Mexico)

Barry Goldwater Jr.

Ron Paul and the rest of the Liberty Caucus


Main issues where you and Tea Party are in sync:

Anti-Tax

Anti-Bailouts

Anti-Cap & Trade

Anti-Obamacare (must apologize for 2003 Prescription Drug vote)

Pro-Constitution (must apologize for expansions of executive power)


You were swept into office in the '94 revolution, lost your way, and kicked out of office in 2006 for turning away from the principals of limited government along with the rest of the Republicans.

You are the poster boy for what the Republican party had become.

You have to show us that you "get it".

Stop trying to out-republican McCain, he has no principals and will say anything. You must take on the big government Washington beltway "conservatives" he represents, expose them for what they are.

Make this fight about the heart and soul of the Republican party. Start talking about the 9th and 10th amendments, not just the 2nd. Start talking about actual spending cuts and not just tax cuts. Put your Social Conservatism in a box because it's not going to win you any new voters.


I can help you become the national Tea Party spokesman that Palin is not. All you have to do is stop addressing issues and start addressing principals. If you want McCain's seat you have to rise to his stature.

The Tea Party is another American Revolution. Become our Patrick Henry.


"Give me liberty, or give me death!"


DH the Lurker

Good things about the Health Care Bill

Attention fellow Tea Partiers, Revolutionaries, and members of the Rebel Alliance. There are a few (a very few) good things to come out of the egregious Health Care Insurance legislation recently signed into law (grumble). Namely:

1. Insurance carriers can no longer drop you after you get sick. Say what you will, but one of the few proper roles of government is the enforcer of contracts. Your contract with insurance companies of any stripe is that you pay into the system with the understanding that if the unforeseeable happens, then one is financially covered, so to speak, and able to return to the status quo. It was and is outrageous that they only looked for and exploited loopholes after their services were required; other insurance companies don't get away with that... very often.

2. The end of big government republican Mitt Romney's political career. He signed the abysmal health care legislation that is tanking Massachusetts. The current Republican platform is totally anti and repeal, leaving no room for anyone remotely for it. Thank goodness. He would have guaranteed Obama another 4 years.

3. The Republican platform has almost become the Tea Party platform. Lower the deficit, limit and repeal big government programs, respect the Constitution, and the dropping of social conservatism (we'll see how long that lasts). We must join party leadership positions to crystallize and make permanent these planks in the platform.

4. The electorate is energized. Both sides have been rallying the troops for what seems like a year, getting everyone informed*, involved, and gearing up for the midterm election (where turnout is usually much lower than average). A healthy republic, depends on citizen participation, and their veto power.


So you see, it is not all bad. Demoncrats have been exposed for what they are, and all pretense of civil liberties have gone out the window.

Time for a revolution!


Lurker

End the Wars, Pay Down the Deficit

We the people are spending trillions of dollars on undeclared wars and policing the world.

Who thinks this is a good idea? Constitutional? Moral? Sustainable?

The Democrats were elected on an anti-war platform and are looking for something to cut that isn't a sacred entitlement. The Ron Paul Revolutionaries (the backbone of the Tea Party movement) are vehemently anti-deficit and in favor of a drastic reduction in military spending.

The time is now for the next stage in the Revolution.


The Federal Budget under Obama is way over a trillion dollars in the red this year and for many to come. Something has to give. Actually, many, many things have to give. But bringing the troops home from Iraq (125,000+), Afghanistan (~50,000), Germany (~57,000), Japan (~33,000) , Korea (~27,000), Italy (~10,000), UK (~10,000), and thousands more in dozens of other countries is a good start. Iraq and Afghanistan, say what you will, are not in any way the slightest overt military threat to us or their neighbors. And what's with all the leftover troops in the former Axis powers? Really? Not really a threat anymore, right? Now Korea is a whole 'nother issue, but even there I'd say our leaving would do more good than harm, leading to reunification sooner and ending that whole 60 year standoff behind us.

The purpose of the military (well, ours at least) should be very straight forward: a rapidly deployable destructive force pointed towards things you want to blow up and die. They aren't supposed to be nice, they are the exact opposite of politically correct, and anytime you have them trying to win over 'hearts and minds' instead of engaging the enemy... objectives become insubstantial and moral suffers.

Support our troops: bring them home. Stop bailing out the world.


Lurker

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)

Tea Party Health Care Reform Platform

As a long time proponent of limited government, a supporter of Ron Paul during his 2008 presidential campaign, and now an active participant in the Tea Party protests, I figured it is about time I lay out my health care positions. Even better, I'm going to simplify the counter-arguments against the Democrat/Obamacare proposals to only five basic precepts.

1. We can't afford it.
The federal government is spiraling towards bankruptcy. With all the bailouts, the falling revenues, overseas adventures, and countless social services, we literally can't afford to spend any more money. We're spending more than 100 billion dollars a month than we're taking in (or printing). We can't afford what we have now, and we want to spend more?!? If anything, we need to CUT SPENDING dramatically.

2. Tort Reform.
Doctors perform unnecessary (and expensive) tests so they don't get sued. They charge more to pay for malpractice insurance. We need an overhaul of the legal system so doctors can do what they think is best for the patients instead of covering their rears. If a doctor screws up he should lose his certification.

3. Lower costs by tossing regulations.
You can't buy health insurance across state lines, which reduces competition and keeps prices up. You can't go to unlicensed practitioners (who would be less expensive). Natural foods with legitimate health benefits are prohibited from advertising them at all by the FDA. Importing drugs from outside the country is illegal, and prescription drug companies have lobbied Congress for decades for "regulations" that keep competitors out and prices high. Countless mandates and regulations are stifling and overpowering free-market forces, creating burgeoning bureaucracies and inflating prices. Legalize drugs while your at it!

4. End subsidies that increase costs/rationing.
Medicare, Medicaid, Prescription Drug Benefits, even the VA are all making health care more expensive for the rest of us. This is because they pay up the maximum amount for services, patients get as much care as they can because they aren't paying for it (directly at least), and payments are immune to market forces so potential competitors cannot compete and prices stay high. So naturally the Democrats want to throw more government money into the pool, increasing the demand (but not the supply), which will inevitably lead to lines and rationing. Instead we need to prevent new people from going on these expensive programs, fulfill our obligations to people already on them, and eventually dismantle them entirely, and let the free market fulfill this obviously high demand for services.

5. Maximize choice and personal freedoms.
I cannot conceive of anything more small scale and local than my own body. Abandon all Federal oversight and turn the whole mess over to the states/counties/cities where people can vote for whatever crazy regulations they think they want, see what works, and flee the region when it all comes crashing down in flames. Will Democrats really want Conservatives making health determinations for them when they're back in power? Its my body, and 90% of the time I'm going to know whats best for me, not some distant bureaucracy.


Lurker


http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=172
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html

An Engineered Market

This is an email I received that is is quite enlightening:


All economies are engineered since the beginning of social organization. Once a group of hunter gatherers got to a critical mass of people the became a tribe and found consensus on a chief. part of the chief's responsibility was to control trade. If he did well then the tribe grew and prospered if not then they ceased to exist as a tribe or they got a new chief. Knowledge is not power and neither is action from knowledge. True power comes from the control of the action of others.

So how does this relate to our current economic situation? We have had 26 downturns in the economy with the worst being the "Great Depression" of 1929 to 1941. This was one was different because of its worldwide effect and its severity. The Depression has been raging since August of 1929. Unemployment is up to 25% of the population. Deflation has dropped prices of goods and commodities; farms and houses are going into foreclosure at an alarming rate. Almost 10,000 banks have closed and people are scared. Then suddenly in March 1933 everything gets better overnight. Coincidentally Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) takes over as President that very month. He starts his first 100 days passing New Deal programs at a record pace. But I thought everything got better in March 1933? Why did he enact all these programs if had already gotten better? I will look at that and more in this missive. I will some of the programs, agencies, and significant persons involved. I will discuss the success and failures of each of these and then decide whether the New Deal was a good deal or a bad deal.

The National Recovery Administration (NRA) was one of FDR’s first programs enacted. Its mandate was simple fix prices. It was run by Hugh Johnson appointed by FDR himself. Once prices were stabilized the workers would get higher wages through collective bargaining; sounds like a great idea doesn’t it. There were parades with thousands of citizens marching and showing their support. Now if prices stay the same and wages go up what happens to profits? The only way to make more money was to do more with less people, not a good way to reduce unemployment. Business started using the NRA codes to stifle competition and pushed to raise prices. In 1935 the Supreme Court declared the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) unconstitutional making the NRA defunct. Apparently Congress had delegated legislative power to the executive branch to approve codes with the force of law; sounds familiar doesn’t it.

FDR created the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) finding work projects for young men, the Federal Relief Administration giving half a billion to states to cover unemployment, and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to build dams for hydro-electric power. He created the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) as a watchdog for Wall Street, The Home Owner’s Loan Corporation to prevent foreclosures, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Civil Works Administration (CWA), and the Works Progress Administration (WPA). What does he get for all this enacting? The share our wealth society founded by Huey Long wanting to redistribute income and wealth, labor riots, strikes, a 3 percent decline in unemployment and a marginal rise in the Gross National Product (GNP).

The second new deal starts with the National Labor Relations Act by Senator Robert Wagoner. Now FDR gets a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) protecting their right to organize and collectively bargain. The Social Security Act creates a federal pension through a new payroll tax. The Wealth Tax Act hits the rich, inheritors, and corporate profits. The public utilities are reorganized under the Public Utility Holding Act. The Banking Act gives FDR the Federal Reserve Board where members are positions are presidential appointments. What does he get for all this? By 1938 the GNP is down, unemployment at 19% and the stock market plunges by 25 percent.

I believe the New Deal accomplished quite a few of its goals of social and political reform. I didn’t agree with Theodore Roosevelt’s grab for centralized executive power at the expense of congress and I agree with the Supreme Court finding the AAA and the NRA unconstitutional. This was definitely the time social reengineering or the American culture and psyche. In my opinion the New Deal did not get America out of the Great Depression. That was caused by World War II. It did prove that massive government spending can have an effect on the economy albeit a short term effect in my opinion. I am concerned that we are doomed to repeat this process with the current administration and economy. I learned a lot researching this and the similarity between now and then frankly scares the hell out of me.


My response:

Wow, that was quite an email. Tons of details I quite frankly wasn't familiar with. And filled with an alphabet soup of government acronyms. But really, you need to project all the way to the end of WWII, because the government grew and grew and life got even harder with shortages and rationing. The Great Depression didn't end until the massive government takeover of the economy was massively scaled back in the months and years after VJ day. That coupled with the ruinous destruction of the economies of the rest of the Western world, and the US economy grew at an unprecedented rate.

You also leave out the role of the Federal Reserve, astonishingly. Created in 1912, it created the credit bubble that fostered the 'roaring twenties' which popped in 1929. Then for the duration of the 30's it UNDERprinted the currency. There literally was almost no $$$ to be had. Plus all of the programs under FDR were funded with public debt, not to mention WWII.



Thoughts anyone?

Better representation: Increase Congress to 1000

The number of Representatives in Congress has been fixed at 435 since 1913, not long after the creation of the Federal Reserve and the income tax. Now originally, there were 30,000 people for every House Rep. When the number 435 was reached, there were about 212,000 people for every official in the House.

Today, there are over 700,000 people represented by only 1 congressman.

Does that sound right to you? Certainly not the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Now, I'm not advocating that we go back to the original ratio of 1/30000. That would be unwieldy, since we have at least 300 million Americans, resulting in a House with 10,000 members! Yikes!

Now why the heck am I bringing this apportionment issue up? Well many of you know that I want turnover in my political systems. Fewer voters means fewer voters to change their minds. Not only that, if you really want fresh blood and to minimize the effect of tenure, just make the pool larger.

The arbitrary number 435 is not written into the Constitution. Its merely an Act of Congress, so all it would take to change it is another Act. With the Democrats back in power (and feeling overconfident), and another census on the way, now is the time to build a bigger House. We can sell it as a way to cement their power, as well as being more democratic.

1500. That is how many house of Representative I want. Yes, this is a huge increase, but hey, so is the change from our population back then to now. The U.K. has 650 Members of Parliament, and we vastly outnumber them. Shouldn't we be more representative than merry ol England? With 1500 members of the house, we would be back to the ratio from the 1910's, about 1 to 200000. Less than the ideal beginnings, but not so large that it becomes impossible to work with.

Running some numbers: Wyoming would get at least 2 or 3, South Dakota gets 4, Montana 4 or 5. Previously all states under a million residents only got 1 representative! If we added Guam, US Virgin Islands, Northern Marianas Islands, and/or American Samoa (all with under 200,000) they would still only get one Rep, and not be in the same boat as the current 7 smallest states. Other potential states like Puerto Rico or New Zealand would get about 20 and 21 respectively. But I would probably fix the # at 1500 even if we added new states, but only by Act, not by changing the constitution.

California and Texas would have about 184 and 122 respectively, but they have gigantic populations. Of course, I would encourage large states to separate and add additional senators, but that's a separate argument. But larger state should have more of a voice in national politics. Plus more voices = more dissention.

So that's the thrust of my argument. More information in the websites listed below. All I want to do is make the government reflect the will of the people, and that's much easier when Representative actually represent small, specific populations. Of course, I still want them to run at large...



Lurker


http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment
http://fruitsandvotes.com/?p=328

I'm going to New Hampshire

Okay, its official, I am a Ron Paul fanatic. I donated alot of money again on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, helping to raise over 6 million dollars in one day. I'm on youtube most every day increasing the stats of RP videos. I've even registered as a Republican! And now, I've decided to go all the way by joining Operation Live Free Or Die ( www.operationlivefreeordie.com ) and am going to New Hampshire! I'll be there basically the first week of January, and will be helping the campaign by going door-to-door and convincing people personally to vote for Ron Paul for their primary on the 8th. I expect to be very cold, but hey, its all part of the adventure!

Remember, remember...

Last Monday Ron Paul raised over 4 million dollars in his effort to become the republican presidential candidate. I, personally, donated hundreds of dollars on that day. For those who know me, being the cheapskate that I am, this should emphasize just how important this rEVOLution is to me (of course, all my political posts over the years should be a big hint). I even had a hand in forming the idea of doing something that day.

So, the next "money bomb" day is looking like December 16th, the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party that started the American Revolution. A much more appropriate anniversary. So for those of you sitting on the fence, do a little research, and donate $100 (or $10, or whatever you can afford) and help start the second American Revolution!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG_OwTthS-E


Lurker

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...)