In another thread Wertz stated that "if Americans as a whole embraced what the Statue of Liberty actually stands for, they would long ago have rejected the tyranny of an administration that has permanently changed what it means to be American."

My response is that I don't see a way for a majority of Americans to significantly affect what an administration does. We can't affect who gets elected. We can't affect who balances them.

First, those of us that are not registered in either of the major partys do not get to select who gets to be President. We get to choose between the people the parties want us to elect. Many cases this comes down to getting to choose between the lesser of the two evils as we see it. In 2004 I did not vote for Bush I voted against Kerry, a very weak Democratic Party candidate. Where was the Democratic Party nominee that I could vote for? Apparently they all decided Bush was unbeatable and so they held back for next time. When it came out that he was beatable they were left with the dregs who still almost beat Bush.

Why was Bush running again anyway? Why wasn't this a McCain/Gore race (or other good choices?) Because the Republicans felt comfortable with him. Would he have even been elected in 2000 if Republicans hadn't had the monopoly on selecting a candidate? Even then I would have felt much more comfortable with McCain than Bush. I voted for Bush against Gore because of 2 things. 1. I felt it was time for a change from the Clinton/Gore administration and 2. I thought it would be cool to have the first Father/Son Presidents since the Adams. Now if that isn't a good reason to vote for someone. Why was I doing it on such a frivolous basis? Because it didn't really matter who I voted for. I lived in Idaho. Bush was going to win that one.

Second, while we may have more say in the politicians elected to the Senate and House the Partys still exert way to much control regarding who keeps getting elected. Elect a third-party or Independent candidate and they basically are worthless because neither Party will have anything to do with them and so they can't get anything done. You can't use Senator James Jeffords as an example of how an Independent can be effective because he isn't independent in anything but name. He is simply a member of the Democratic Party with a different title.

Because of this many of us who are not affiliated with a particular party tend to feel disenfranchised because it doesn't matter how we vote, we are stuck with someone who does not represent us.

I have been trying to think of ways to get more people involved in the political process rather than just apathetic because what they do can't change anything. Party Politics are becoming too extremist because those of us in the middle seem to have given up. What can be done? That brings me to my questions:

1. Should the Primary Election process be changed to allow more people to have access to the political process.

2. If you answered no would you change your position if this was only done for the Presidential primary?

3. Is there any other change you feel would help and if so what is that?

I think too much emphasis is placed on the Presidency to begin with. No matter how we change the system around, there's no possible way that one person is going to represent the views of 300 million people. That's why we have a Congress, which all too often gets neglected by voters. If that's where the main attention was focused, we'd have a far more democratic system. Yes, we'd still have to deal with the problem of only two candidates, lesser-of-two-evils and all that, but because the elections would take place more locally, there'd be less opportunity for manipulation of the primary process by party bosses at the top.

Ultimately, even if the primary process isn't opened up the way you suggest, one would still expect the system to work in such a way that each party chooses the candidate that would best appeal to the voters at large (because they want to win). It doesn't work that way at the national level, because the process is so tightly controlled by the national party apparatuses. I don't think the people at the top even care all that much if the other party gains the majority for a little while, because it won't really affect them personally. But bring the process to a more local level, and the system should work more the way it's supposed to.

1. Should the Primary Election process be changed to allow more people to have access to the political process.

For one thing, this is a state by state basis. When I voted in the last primary, they asked me which primary ballot I wanted--Republican or Democrat. You don't declare a party in Ohio, you just pick the ballot you want. Instinctively, I asked for the Republican one even though an acquaintance of mine was running for judge in the Democratic primary. Sadly, I couldn't vote for her and she lost .

As it stands, the political process is fine as long as you identify more closely with one party over the other. If you are a 'tweener, then the process stinks. Many, many people vote strictly along Party lines and are not very informed about the positions the candidates support or why you should vote for one over the other.

That's just the reality of politics.

I remember my high school social studies teacher advising the class to register as Democrats, no matter our stance on the issues or candidates. In our area (Cuyahoga county, Ohio), there simply isn't much going on in the Republican Party. The primaries are usually a rubber stamp of one candidate. At least in the Democratic primaries, said the teacher, you had a choice.

2. If you answered no would you change your position if this was only done for the Presidential primary?
3. Is there any other change you feel would help and if so what is that?

People should get involved and help to structure who gets on the ballot. We need a weeding out process, which is what the primary process is all about. It should be done by the party faithful so that they put up the guy they want.

1.) As has been pointed out already, it is really within the power of the state, not necessarily a reform on the national level.

2.) I've got very mixed emotions on this one. Part of me wants to say that we're better off having a clearly-defined system of climbing to running for the top-job. Yet still, I like the idea of more than two people who likely got there because of back-stabbing galore being able to have a fair fight. The practical part of me says for what point and purpose would we change the rules for the Presidential Primary and none of the others, so I say lets leave them all alone and suffer like good Americans.

3.) Honesty in politics would be a wonderful start. Other than that, I think having people just sit down to prune the unnecessary bureaucracy from the process and allowing the most expedient and easy process for voting officials into office as opposed to the sideways-sideways-sideways waltz they must currently dance.

1. The supposed 'participatory' act of voting, as I see it, is purely symbolic. I believe the OP is correct in its assessment that we, as voters, have little to no effect on the actual elections of our presidents. As was pointed out, those of us who are not registered republicans or democrats really only choose between two people who were already chosen for us. A question worth considering: Is there even much of a difference between the two? When the vast possibilities of the entire political spectrum is considered, a choice between a republican and a democrat is an arbitrary one.

Then there is the electoral college. This process further quells whatever voice we had to begin with. In the 2004 election, for instance, I didn't vote. I live in Colorado, which votes republican most years. Had I decided to vote for a democrat, not one single person on the face of the planet, other than myself, would have even noticed. Does an unnoticed, anonymous action with no effect on the desired result even mean anything?

3. This is where I run into problems. Anyone can point out problems with the current system, but those complaints are rather empty without a suggestion to replace it. I must admit that I have no better solution. Can anyone think of a better way to do this which allows for more voter participation?

In my first reply at the top, I suggested localizing the process by focusing on Congress instead. The only effective way to bring this about that I can think of would be to get a movement among voters to reject congressional candidates who try to buy their votes with pork-barrel spending. Once vote-buying no longer becomes a viable option, then congressional races are much more likely to focus more on genuine policy issues.

On top of that, it would certainly help if we could get Congress to increase the number of congressional districts throughout the country and thereby reduce the size of each one, so as to get even more local participation.

This fits into one of my desires for Congress. I think we should dramatically increase the number of Representative in the House. I think that money has a more dramatic and more important impact on a district when it hits a certain size. We have not increased the number of representatives in the House since the beginning of the 19th century. The reason we stopped adding representatives was because we ran out of chairs. That is a pathetic reason for allowing the ratio of voters to representatives to escalate so dramatically.

We now have over 650,000 citizens per elected representative in the house. I would pay for the increase in the number of reps by cutting staff and making representatives share resources. Less aides and more elected repreesentives doing the work of Congress is the way I would improve this problem.

I think the primary system is workable. I think Americans have and walk away from a host of democratic powers. In the vacuum money and power help us make lose-lose decisions in most elections. I also think voting for third parties even when your candidates have no chance of winning is the easiest way to get the parties to shift their policies.

An increase in the number of representatives would certainly help. Its a great idea and a great start, but it appears to be a mere treatment of the symptoms. I prefer to diagnose the disease. Sure, less constituents per congressman = more participation in the voting process, but will this help the average American gain more influence on the actual construction of public policy? You may have more say in who your actual congressman is, but if there are a thousand congressman.......how much can your newly gained power actually influence law?

I don't wish to speak for everyone, but I really feel as if I have little to no say in this process we call law. In a supposed government of the people, I find it disturbing that the political process is so distant.

Because if everybody in the country has more say over who his or her Representative is, then the quality of each of those Reps will have improved, and therewith the quality of the entire House.

The current problem isn't merely that your vote is diluted among a hundred million others. It's that even the aggregate of those votes don't count for much when Congressmen can effectively shield themselves from public opinion through a variety of gambits.

The problem I see with political elections is that they're too political, if that makes any sense. They are time and time again manipulated by things like campagne money, name recognition, and the extremist party politics brought up in this thread. These things are irrelevant to the actual governing of a society, yet they are the primary determiners of who does the governing.

In other words, the qualities which win political elections are not the same as the qualities it takes to be a good leader. This, it seems to me, not only produces unqualified leaders, but also leads to much of the political apathy in America. Like the OP said, many people, like my self, feel they can't influence the political process.

When talking with a friend of mine about this very thing, he presented a bold but interesting suggestion. For those open-minded enough to take it seriously, tell me what you think....

Why not just get rid of this whole voting thing all together?

All the factors mentioned above "reduce the choice to next to no choice on the ballot," in his words. His solution: a lottery. It would be basically the same political structure that we have now. A bicameral legislative process, elected by lottery. All impeachment processes could be implemented as usual. Checks and balances, separation of powers, sunshine laws etc.... A lottery system may, in the long run, be more stable (and closer to a direct democracy) than we are now because it would produce more qualified, passionate leaders.

Anyway, I've just been toying with that idea as a hypothetical. Your thoughts?

Athens, Greece, tried government by lottery way back in the olden days when it was an independent city. The verdict from that time was that it turned government into even worse mob rule than direct democracy does. It's not terribly conducive to good deliberation and responsibility on the part of the legislators - more like impulsiveness and vindictiveness.

The idea of doing away with elections may have some merit, though, when it comes to the Presidency. Having that be an unelected position (assuming the idea would hold) would cause more attention to be devoted to Congress. Of course, getting the American people to go for it would be another matter, but it would have my seal of approval, anyway.

Blackstone, I'm impressed. Not many are aware that Athens tried a lottery system as a basis of government. I thought the idea would be completely foreign, but you've surprised me. From what little I understand of Athens, the reason the lottery system failed was that people were easily bought. The checks and balances we have today were certainly not present, and this lead to a dictatorship of sorts (or a mob rule, as you put it). Putting a blocker on the power any single branch can have would quell any attempts to gain a monopoly on power, would it not?

I only mean this as a method of getting people into office, not as an attempt to copy Athenian Democratic structures.

I truly think this system could alleviate some of the problems we have now. It would, in a weird sort of sense, take the politicians out of politics.

That's a fair point, but I still can't help but think that even if we had several branches that were all appointed the same way - by lot - then they'd still be easily demagoguable. I'm very wary myself of radical experiments with constitutional arrangements. When I think about what's at stake, I'd rather tread a bit carefully.

I think the goal of taking the politicians out of politics, to use your phrasing, can be accomplished to a high degree by making congressional districts smaller. Bringing the elections closer to the people tends to work against the big campaign spending and the grandstanding. But still having elections instead of random forces picking the Representatives helps to ensure that qualified people are chosen.

I'm somewhat torn on this one. I would be be for an open primary, but then you'd have people in one party purposely switching to throw the election for "the other side" if their own party candidate was unopposed or had a very weak opponent. People already have access to the political process, it's just a matter of people choosing to become active in county politics and to run for office themselves. Instead, people are gobbling up *news* about Brad and Angelina, not to mention other tripe. The system is more then open and responsive-it's people and their apathy that make it appear less than so.



Not at all-why should a party member of 12 years have their vote negated simply because another voter, who isn't a democrat or republican, feels entitled to vote on the former's primary?



Public funding of campaigns, none of the above option in voting, as well as election run-off voting.

If there's to be public funding, then there would have to be an absolute commitment to non-discrimination based on message. That commitment will be sorely tested once a candidate spewing vile, hateful rhetoric receives public funding and the taxpayers all ask aloud, "THIS is what our hard-earned tax dollars are being spent on?!"

And this would be a problem, how?

Once they ask that question, maybe the average voter will begin to take a look at the real issues, look at who's talking about the issues, who's just spouting vile, hateful rhetoric, and vote accordingly.

Keep in mind that a lot of negative campaigning happens because one candidate has more money to spend in in a close election, and uses it to demonize his opponent. I think that kind of thing would be a lot harder with equal funding of a much more limited nature.

Amlord, a question - there are several different ways in which run-off voting could be accomplished. What specifically do you have in mind?

It would be a problem because many taxpayers would react quite viscerally to seeing their money be used to promote the spread of repulsive views. It won't matter that much if the people spouting those views don't get elected. The fact that they're even being promoted at all with taxpayer money will not go over well at all.

In "clean" elections legislation, candidates seeking public funds have to reach a private donation or signature threshold in order to qualify for public funds. Nominal fringe candidates that you are speaking of in all likelihood, wouldn't be able to meet the qualifying standards that would entitle them to the money. This must be a tough requirement as the number of news stories about "out there" candidates spouting their message with public money is rather lacking.

Along another line of thought, who cares if it upsets them? Some people don't grasp the larger context of fairness, equality, and having a "clean" election system. Then again, the beauty of our country is not what you can say that is popular, it's often times what you can say that is unpopular that shows how great our freedoms are. The same holds true for candidates who have some "out there" views, but who for whatever reason, don't have enough money to be in the middle of the media and society contending for the public mind as money equals access. The fact that we would guarantee a candidate to get his views in the general public would be a demonstrable example that we do more than just provide lip service about "freedom of speech" when it's clear that those with money, have "more" speech, and thus, the very freedom is lopsided if you don't happen to be a millionaire or the rolodex of a party hack.

And of course there's the danger of it going in the other direction from what I've mentioned, whereby the system would reinforce the domination of major parties to the exclusion of those on the outside.


Under the current system, that's ture. But you first brought up the idea of public funding on this thread in response to a question asking what changes you think need to be made. I could only take that to mean you want to increase the amount of funding. That could have far-reaching effects of the kind I've described.


Umm, my guess is that they themselves would care. Word has it that they do have some influence on the way things are run around here. And if they then start using the system to begin discriminating against unpopular viewpoints, it could wind up making things worse than not having such a system to begin with.

Nothing is perfect, but when you have a system whereby most incumbents are unchallenged and return to the same office in over 90% of the incumbents who are up for re-election, then any effort is certainly desirable to change things, lest concentration occur.




I wasn't speaking of how things are under the current system. There are several states that utilize the clean election program. If there were egregious examples of fringe candidates getting hate messages out or that kind of thing, they most definitely would've surfaced in those states. Since we haven't heard of any, we can trust that thus far, this reform is pretty solid.

You write as though there's no way things could get worse. They can. It's certainly possible to make insiders even more entrenched, and that's what a system like this could wind up doing if it becomes too stringent.

One big downside about limiting overall spending too much is that it ends up giving more of an advantage to candidates favored by the media, who are in a position to make up for the lack of funds by essentially giving their preferred candidates - and their views - free advertising.

They already are entrenched, "clean" campaign financing increases competition. Arizona is a great example of the good that can come about from this. I won't highlight all of the details, but there are some necessary facts to consider. In 1998, 199 candidates were running for the Arizona state legislature. When 2002 rolled around and clean campaigning was in full force, 247 opted to run. In '98, 20 of 30 seats were uncontested. The number of uncontested in 2002?-try 9!. Over half of the people who ran said they did so due to public campaign financing and a greater majority said they didn't feel beholden to special interest groups. What do the facts say about retention? Interesting that we are discussing that-it just so happened that in 2002, seven of the nine state wide offices were won by "clean" candidates and 27 members of the state house of reps won. Competition increased, and so did the number of winners. You can find these and other facts regarding Arizona's clean campaign experience by clicking here. If you look at the state of Maine, you will find that 55% of maine's legislature consists of "clean elected officials & their senate is 77% "clean." Your fear of making incumbents more entrenched is clearly not the case in states that have tried to go this route.




A publicly financed campaign is one that will get media exposure as they can afford air time and printed ads. As it now stands in most states, candidates who can't raise a lot of money wallow in anonymity. Publicly financed campaigns get the person's message out there in the commons for the citizens to consider. I have yet to find an article by a candidate who ran under a clean election and who felt that they were somehow shorted in their race. As a matter of fact, clicking on my earlier links will show the opposite. Many are relieved that they can turn down special interest money and know that some legislative monkey won't be chasing them down reminding them of the $300.00 check that was sent once two years ago.

And the limits on spending will work more to the disadvantage of those whose agenda is at odds with the media's than of those whose agenda in line with the media's. It doesn't necessarily mean someone's going to get "shorted". It just means he'll be put at a distinct disadvantage.

Not at all-if the candidate is grossly outspent, he/she will have a clean campaign debit card to use to defeat "sham ads" and fly by night news stories. The limit is 6 times their original starting out money on hand. Could you provide an example of the media having it out for a candidate and totally drowning out a given candidate's ads or coverage?

They don't have to drown out his ads, and it's not about being grossly outspend, at least not in any measurable way. The press has tremendous power to make people look good or bad as it is now (selective quoting, selective reporting, etc.). It's often very subtle, which only makes it more difficult to combat. And when candidates' spending is limited, that makes it all the harder for candidates who don't meet with the press's favor.

I agree with Nebraska, the main issue is with voter apathy and for the most part, ignorance.

The parts are there for democracy, but most people seem content with a benenvolent tyranny. Yes, people are subjecting themselves to the two-party tyranny. Even democrats and republican voters are NOT getting any satisfaction. Look at the Presidental primary, Dean goes to Iowa and POOF! he is eliminated as a candidate after one small state. Candidates drop out before other states can even vote for them.

I think the system is messed up horribly and it's mainly due to the "don't throw your vote away on 3rd parties" attitude. People are mentally enslaved to the two-party tyranny. So both parties can act inappropriately and you have little recourse. Choose bad guy A or bad guy B, because guy C has no shot....

Democracy is broken in the USA and people seem content about it. It's very frustrating, but very little one can do. Most people don't have the time or energy to educate themselves or get involved.