Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: One candidate's views on RKBA

  1. #1
    Regular Member colormered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Cache county, Utah, USA
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    Just came across this candidate's opinion on the right to keep and bear arms. Might be worth looking into....

    http://www.scottbradleyforsenate.com/sbradley/content/right-keep-and-bear-arms
    (couldn't figure out how to make it a hyperlink...)
    :celebrate
    :celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate :celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate :celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate

  2. #2
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    I haven't read everything on his site but I like the parts I have read....

    What Political affiliation does he claim?
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  3. #3
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    colormered wrote:
    http://www.scottbradleyforsenate.com/sbradley/content/right-keep-and-bear-arms
    (couldn't figure out how to make it a hyperlink...)
    http://www.scottbradleyforsenate.com...-and-bear-arms

    The United States Constitution Second Amendment states:
    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
    Without exception, those we refer to as the “Founding Fathers” of this Nation studied Blackstone’s Commentaries prior to the Revolutionary War. Therein Blackstone notes the right of self defense as one of mankind’s unalienable rights:
    “[Self-defense is] justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the laws of society.” (Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, [1765-1769])

    In keeping with that wisdom, the Second Amendment was included in this Nation’s Bill of Rights to assure the future protection of that God-given right.
    Notwithstanding the pronouncements of Presidents, Congressmen, Senators, Governors, and the media, the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, target shooting, plinking (that is, shooting at cans, etc.), collecting guns, or a “life style”. While these are often enjoyable and pleasant pastimes for those who participate in them, they are a minor side-benefit to this great God-given inalienable right. The truth of the matter is that the Second Amendment has everything to do with the preservation and protection of life, liberty, and property. It is the last line of defense for the individual, the family and the Nation.
    As a result of the efforts of many to “demonize” firearms, and to promote a false conception regarding the original purpose of the Second Amendment, there is an unprecedented effort underway today in our Nation to disarm the people of this Nation. In fact, to find anything anywhere near as premeditated and so determined on a nation-wide basis, we must go back to before this nation became a nation—we have to go back to 1775 when the King tried to disarm the “upstart” colonists. Most Americans do not realize that the issue of disarming the citizens was the issue that precipitated the ride of Paul Revere, and caused brave men to die at Lexington and Concord. On that fateful April day, the King’s officers had dispatched his troops to confiscate the powder and lead (the ammunition) of the colonists. This British attempt to deny the colonists’ right to keep and bear arms became a major driving force which rallied Americans throughout the colonies to armed resistance. This fundamental right—the importance of preserving the ability of every American to defend his liberties—became one of the principal arguments of our Founding Fathers for independence.
    Because of their personal experience with tyranny, and their understanding of the necessity of arms to prevent or overthrow tyranny, the Founding Fathers of this Nation had a clear, correct and unmistakable view of the subject. When we understand the position of the Founding Father on the individual right to keep and bear arms, we may better understand the reasons this God-given right was included in the Bill of Rights, and why it is imperative that we preserve it today. Due to space considerations, a few statements of the Founders will have to suffice.
    To facilitate the ratification of the Constitution, James Madison wrote:
    “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46)
    And later, while in Congress, Madison supported the concept of an armed citizenry being necessary to preserve the freedom of the Nation:
    “The right of the people to keep and bear … arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country …” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789)
    The intent that firearms be available universally was a common subject for comment during the American founding era:
    “Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…” (Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.), and
    “The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun.” (Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386)
    As the new Nation was being formed, Thomas Jefferson wrote in support of an armed citizenry:
    “No free men shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, Ford, Vol. 2, pg 27 [1776])
    And Samuel Adams, the “Father of the American Revolution” felt it natural for free men to be armed, saying:
    “The Constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
    Noah Webster saw an armed citizenry as essential to preserving liberty, asserting:
    “Before a standing army or a tyrannical government can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular (or professional) troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” (Noah Webster, “An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution.” [1787], Paul Leicester Ford, ed. Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States [Chicago, IL: 1888])
    Many have observed that the Second Amendment was written to assure that the other nine amendments and the Constitution were preserved in their entirety.
    And it is of note that the currently-vogue falsehood that the “militia” mentioned in the Second Amendment referred to the national guard (which was not even created until the 20th Century) may be debunked with many statements by this Nation’s founders. One statement which George Mason made in the debate at the ratification convention before the Virginia Assembly must suffice:
    “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” (George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788)
    Arms Required for Freedom Power to refuse, or to counter abuse of power sometimes becomes necessary. In his review of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, St. George Tucker, one of the preeminent constitutional scholars of America’s founding era, touches upon the necessity of the people being armed to insure the ability to ultimately enforce their rights if they are ever violated; and of governments which use the flimsiest or most obtuse rational as excuse for the disarming of the citizenry of the nation. Modern America suffers from this malady as a gullible, disinterested, and apathetic populous which falls for almost every contrived method to remove what Tucker terms the “true palladium [that which affords effectual defense, protection and safety] of liberty.”
    “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . .The right of self defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game; a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under the mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy; but the right of bearing arms is confined to Protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorize the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.” (St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings [1803], ed. Clyde N. Wilson [Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1999])
    The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution unequivocally protects the individual God-given right of all mankind to keep and bear arms to protect their lives, liberty, and property from tyrants and criminals, both foreign and domestic. It is a right that must not be infringed.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  4. #4
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    JoeSparky wrote:
    What Political affiliation does he claim?
    Constitution Party. It's a bummer that the "TEA Party" crowd hasn't helped the Constitution Party in the way that it has with the Republican Party.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  5. #5
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    Wow, never realized how hard pain medication is on one's reading ability.

    Guess I wasn't being overly cautious when I locked my guns up before I took my pain pills.



  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    Kevin Jensen wrote:
    Constitution Party. It's a bummer that the "TEA Party" crowd hasn't helped the Constitution Party in the way that it has with the Republican Party.
    I don't think the TEA Party has helped the Republican party nearly so much as it has really hurt some big time tax-and-spend (or borrow and spend) type incumbents who happen to have been elected as republicans.

    I'm certainly not at all opposed to 3rd parties. I'd like to see them be more viable. But they continue to attack this from the wrong end of the ballot. Rather than running a bunch of mostly unknown candidates for President or congress or even the State legislature, they need to be running candidates for county council, and in non-partisan races like city council and water districts and so on. Then run for the legislature, and then run for congress and president.

    For now, I've decided that my time and energy is better suited to getting solid pro-RKBA candidates elected as republicans or even democrats than it is trying to build up a new party that hasn't won a single race in Utah. To each his own.

    I will often vote 3rd party when I can't, in good conscious support either other candidate and when I'm convinced my vote for the 3rd party won't have a spoiler effect giving me the worse of the two evils. But I've pretty much given up wasting my limited and valuable time trying to get 3rd party candidates elected. And this is from a guy who is not only a former State party officer for one of the 3rd parties, but also ran as a legislative candidate as a member of a 3rd party once.

    That all said, 3rd party (and "also ran") candidates can have a positive effect on election if they can get their message out to enough voters that the major (party) candidates have to address those issues that they might have otherwise preferred to ignore or minimize.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    I will often vote 3rd party when I can't, in good conscious support either other candidate and when I'm convinced my vote for the 3rd party won't have a spoiler effect giving me the worse of the two evils. But I've pretty much given up wasting my limited and valuable time trying to get 3rd party candidates elected.
    +1

    But I actually take a little stronger position: I don't think any third party will ever be very relevant. There's a lot of fancy math that explains why Duverger's Law is so compelling, but it all really boils down to the spoiler effect. As any third party gains a little mindshare and a little success, it will draw votes and funding away from the major party to which it's ideologically closest, and the result will be to benefit the other major party. That failure then drives a consolidation of opposition to the other major party and the third party is immediately pushed out of the picture.

    From a historical perspective, it's very instructive to note that the US has basically never had a third party of significance in its entire history. Our voting system simply doesn't allow it (back to the math and Duverger's Law). If we changed to use approval voting or a ranked ballot or proportional representation, then other parties would become relevant. As it is, they never will, no matter how much we want them to.

    utahbagpiper wrote:
    That all said, 3rd party (and "also ran") candidates can have a positive effect on election if they can get their message out to enough voters that the major (party) candidates have to address those issues that they might have otherwise preferred to ignore or minimize.
    Yes, this is where third parties can have some effect, as a place for like-minded voters to organize and push their ideas.

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    Our voting system simply doesn't allow it (back to the math and Duverger's Law). If we changed to use approval voting or a ranked ballot or proportional representation, then other parties would become relevant. As it is, they never will, no matter how much we want them to.
    A bit off topic now, but it is not just our voting system but our government organization that makes life hard on third parties. Our system naturally favors 2 parties rather than having multiple parties and then having to form "coalition" governments as is more common among parliamentary systems.

    Even preferential voting does not solve this as the idiosyncrasies of the math there can result in eliminating your favored candidate such that your 2nd choice vote never flows to him. Only condorcet or some form of "acceptance" voting eliminates this possibility. And those voting methods introduce a host of additional problems including eliminating most practical possibility of hand counts of votes or easy verification that the announced winner actually won.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    35

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    utbagpiper wrote:
    I will often vote 3rd party when I can't, in good conscious support either other candidate and when I'm convinced my vote for the 3rd party won't have a spoiler effect giving me the worse of the two evils. But I've pretty much given up wasting my limited and valuable time trying to get 3rd party candidates elected.
    +1

    But I actually take a little stronger position: I don't think any third party will ever be very relevant.
    utahbagpiper wrote:
    That all said, 3rd party (and "also ran") candidates can have a positive effect on election if they can get their message out to enough voters that the major (party) candidates have to address those issues that they might have otherwise preferred to ignore or minimize.
    Yes, this is where third parties can have some effect, as a place for like-minded voters to organize and push their ideas.
    I didn't vote for a Republican (or a Democrat) at the national level in the last election. I even signed up for goooh.com because I think it's a novel idea, but I think some parts of Utah are getting it right anyway. Jason Chaffetz is my congrescritter, and I will vote for him if he runs again. Bennet is gone.

    All that gives me hope that at least around here the Republican party can be convinced to defend the constitution. Utah is a weird place (I love it), but if it can happen here, it can happen other places.

    If enough states pass laws like SB11 and HB143 maybe SCOTUS will actually have to start looking harder at the constitution. I think that would be good for gun and other rights.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    swillden wrote:
    Our voting system simply doesn't allow it (back to the math and Duverger's Law). If we changed to use approval voting or a ranked ballot or proportional representation, then other parties would become relevant. As it is, they never will, no matter how much we want them to.
    A bit off topic now, but it is not just our voting system but our government organization that makes life hard on third parties. Our system naturally favors 2 parties rather than having multiple parties and then having to form "coalition" governments as is more common among parliamentary systems.
    Yes, those are a feature of systems with proportional representation.

    utahbagpiper wrote:
    Even preferential voting does not solve this as the idiosyncrasies of the math there can result in eliminating your favored candidate such that your 2nd choice vote never flows to him.
    True with instant runoff voting, not so with many other methods, as you mention.

    utahbagpiper wrote:
    And those voting methods introduce a host of additional problems including eliminating most practical possibility of hand counts of votes or easy verification that the announced winner actually won.
    This isn't the case. Hand recounts and cascaded totals are almost as easy with pairwise systems like Condorcet methods as with our current method. Counts involve tallying into a matrix rather than into a vector, and cascading totals requires summing matrices rather than vectors, but it's quite straightforward.

    However, it's all moot, because the major parties would be the losers in a voting reform, and they're exactly the people who would have to approve it.

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    utahbagpiper wrote:
    And those voting methods introduce a host of additional problems including eliminating most practical possibility of hand counts of votes or easy verification that the announced winner actually won.
    This isn't the case. Hand recounts and cascaded totals are almost as easy with pairwise systems like Condorcet methods as with our current method. Counts involve tallying into a matrix rather than into a vector, and cascading totals requires summing matrices rather than vectors, but it's quite straightforward.

    However, it's all moot, because the major parties would be the losers in a voting reform, and they're exactly the people who would have to approve it.
    Well off topic now, but since no one is objecting and it is a friendly enough discussion...

    One of my personal, pet-dreams, is to get back to a hand counted ballot in each voting location or precinct. These totals would be posted locally, then called into the county recorder to be added together, with any applicable results then passed on up to the State level. I believe this system would greatly reduce the chance for material fraud in the tabulation of ballots. While I don't see this happening any time soon, the adoption of most preferential balloting systems would make it all but impossible.

    There is also the issue of how many people can really understand the mechanics of tabulating various preferential methods. Almost everyone knows how to tabulate a single winner election with one vote cast by each vote. The percentage of the population that even knows what a matrix is would probably scare those of us working in any field that required math beyond pre-calculus.

    There are also often un-explored psychological issues. Even with a fairly long list of candidates, most of us do a pretty good of picking our favorite and least favorite. But most people (a few overly analytic types being the exception) do a poor job of having any real rhyme or reason to how they rank the middle of the pack. It is these middle rankings that are of most importance to such systems as they claim to eliminate concerns about wasted (first choice) votes, but instead attempt to arrive at a consensus winner who is most liked (or at least, least objectionable) to the most people. My experience with the GOP's use of IRV in their internal elections suggests that even among delegates--some of the most politically savvy folks you will find--there are a lot who don't understand the voting methodology itself (as evidenced by spoiled ballots or ballots that while technically permissible are marked in clearly ignorant manners such as listing the same name multiple times), much less the tabulation method. Simply put, we should not ignore the human factor. We all know what it means to select ONE person for whom to cast our vote. Far too many do not and never will understand exactly how their multiple rankings may affect the outcome of an election.

    Multi-member districts and proportional representation also create a couple of couple of additional problems. First and foremost is loss of geographic representation. In theory, you and your neighbors may not have any common political beliefs. In practice, sharing backyards creates certain commonalities. As I often say, given the choice, most all NYC environmentalists will chose the most beautiful spot in Utah as the nation's nuclear/chemical waste dump before they will choose the most ugly part of NYC for that same purpose. Geographical representation--including giving rural areas MORE vote power contrary to flawed "one-man, one-vote" court rulings--such as in the US Senate is a critical check on the mob rule that comes of pure democracy.

    I don't think it is just the incumbent parties that lose if we make massive changes to our voting, tabulation, or allocation system; I think it is the citizens who lose.

    As I look around the world I can't find a nation using proportional representation or preferential balloting/tabulation that does a better job of respecting individual rights than does the USA. I don't think ProRep or Preferential Balloting necessarily cause that (though the loss or lack of geographic representation might be part of it). But neither do I see any evidence that using such systems necessarily correct whatever problems we think we have now.

    All the best.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    There is also the issue of how many people can really understand the mechanics of tabulating various preferential methods.
    For that reason, I think the best option is approval voting. It's trivial to understand both from the perspective of casting a ballot (mark all the candidates you support) and counting ballots. From a mathematical perspective it's far better than IRV and very nearly as good as Condorcet. And it's hugely better than the system we use. Among other things, it would allow third parties to gain real power.

    But of course it's all a pipe dream, because the Reps and the Dems will never go for it.

  13. #13
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    For that reason, I think the best option is approval voting. It's trivial to understand both from the perspective of casting a ballot (mark all the candidates you support) and counting ballots. From a mathematical perspective it's far better than IRV and very nearly as good as Condorcet. And it's hugely better than the system we use. Among other things, it would allow third parties to gain real power.

    But of course it's all a pipe dream, because the Reps and the Dems will never go for it.
    Approval may be less difficult than many others. One thing I learned with my experience with the use of IRV in the GOP internal races, however, is that before I ever again jump on the bandwagon of supporting any change in balloting or tabulation I want to be sure the effects of the change are well understood. I was initially very supportive of IRV. As it was explained to me and as I saw small, simple demonstrations of it, it had a lot of promise. Only when used on a larger scale did it become clear that were significant problems.

    But, at the end of the day, I'm not at all convinced there is anything materially wrong with our current balloting system. I think the real problem is voters themselves. We get what we vote for as far too many attempt to live at the expense of someone else or have government shield them from every offense, slight, and vicissitude of life.

    We are fortunate in Utah to enjoy our caucus/convention/primary system that gives regular people so much ability to run for office and to select party nominees without big money, name recognition, or media bias having nearly as much effect as in other States. I believe that protecting that system from media and other assaults, and recruiting and supporting the best candidates we can find within the existing parties will pay dividends sooner and easier than would attempts to increase the influence of 3rd parties via balloting or tabulation changes.

    Charles



    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    I was initially very supportive of IRV. As it was explained to me and as I saw small, simple demonstrations of it, it had a lot of promise. Only when used on a larger scale did it become clear that were significant problems.
    Should have asked a mathematician :-)

    utahbagpiper wrote:
    But, at the end of the day, I'm not at all convinced there is anything materially wrong with our current balloting system. I think the real problem is voters themselves. We get what we vote for as far too many attempt to live at the expense of someone else or have government shield them from every offense, slight, and vicissitude of life.
    I think you're talking about two different problems -- and they're BOTH problems.

    The majority-rules voting system drives the two-party system which acts as a filter that massively distorts voter preferences, and makes it easier for both politicians and lobbyists to manipulate the system to their own ends.

    Separate from that, the voters often vote for nanny government.

    It's even possible that should we improve the voting system, allowing third parties to become effective participants and allowing voters to more directly and accurately express their choices, that the voters will push us even further toward the nanny state. In other words, the first problem may be acting as a restraint on the second problem -- or may be exacerbating it. It's hard to really be sure.

    utahbagpiper wrote:
    We are fortunate in Utah to enjoy our caucus/convention/primary system that gives regular people so much ability to run for office and to select party nominees without big money, name recognition, or media bias having nearly as much effect as in other States. I believe that protecting that system from media and other assaults, and recruiting and supporting the best candidates we can find within the existing parties will pay dividends sooner and easier than would attempts to increase the influence of 3rd parties via balloting or tabulation changes.
    I think moving more governmental power to state and local levels, where those sorts of things are possible, would be a huge improvement. But I also think that the only reason the local system is so open and accessible is because it's seen as relatively unimportant by so many. The biggest danger to the accessible system you're talking about is the states' rights movement. Give the state substantially more power and influence and the money and media will start to focus at that level, and you'll have a microcosm of the existing two-party situation at the national level. Third parties will still have very limited opportunities.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •