The fact that he's a part of any party in immaterial. The thing I don't like about parties is that the voter is shafted, stuck with party A or B, rather than voting in a person, which is what a voter is doing. Consider the fact that any person in congress or senate may not vote in the same direction as his/her party betheren. Why ... would that make that person an individual, capable of making decisions, maybe. If people applaud individual thought, then why applaud drones to a party?
I would rather have a nice research on individuals running. Hey, how would you get the word out with it requiring so many millions of dollars? Hmmm ... how is this message available now ... internet.
I say abandon the old way of skipping over Indiana for it only votes one way, and instead have a webstie specifically designed for candidates, with researchers finding out everything on each person. Then you would elect a PERSON not a party.
It would then be down to popular vote eliminating the electoral college which has too many faults to be useful. The website would only show candidates and the resarch on each. The voting would still have to take place in a voting center, coupled with fingerprints required for voting. One person, one vote.
Think about all the corruption and scandal and decide if the web were available and research on each person, including (questionable ethics ... questionable financial deals ...) would all the presidents we've had ever make it? Ted Kennedy certainly would be out of there! Clinton would have had so many red flags on "questionable ..." that he'd look like a UN building. It is the better way. Real reasearch providing people (voters) with real possibilities as opposed to schmuck one, schmuck two, schmuck lesser-known than one or two, schmuck lesser-known than the other three.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Answering on the shock that I wouldn't vote for a Republican
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I disagree with the very first sentence, and skim read after that. I think, much like you said if you were the President you would be UNABLE to order troops into a conflict, even in the face over overwelming evidence, I also think you see it as your "duty" to not vote Republican, since they DO engage problems instead of burying their head in the sand and passing them on. If, as is predictable, the next President is a Democrat, he had better fix Social Security, since the Dems quashed Bush's offer to do so.
I think my evaluation of politicians DOES transcend party. This proven by the fact that the ONE Democrat I said I openly liked (Lieberman), has since had to leave his party and go Independent after being ostrasized by his party. However the Dems DO make it easy to dislike them en-mass (or mess is more like it) since they all adhere to the talking-points handed down. They speak with one, misguided voice.
Post a Comment