Face it, real meaningful change won't happen until these three things happen...

[tex-wyo-dem]

1.) Mandatory Publicly Financed Elections: In other words, taking big corporate and other private money out of elections. It's no coincidence that those with the biggest campaign war-chests also happen to be either Republicans (with the exception of the Ron Paul types) or "moderate" Dems who pander to the big monied corporate interests. When it comes time to pay the piper, they do so every time, in spades, without question.

2.) Break-up of the corporate monopoly of the media: What we hear, see and perceive with regards to elections and candidates and their messages is controlled by a hand-full of huge media conglomerates that manipulate, skew and homogenize information to the propaganda they want us as a society to accept. Twenty-five years ago, all major media (broadcast TV, cable news, newspapers, news magazines, radio stations, etc.) were owned by about 50 different, independent companies; today that number is six (Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann, Viacom and General Electric).

3.) Fully transparent, verifiable and publicly controlled election systems: Our elections are now nearly fully owned and operated by the corporate oligarchy with heavy doses of Republican ownership. These systems comprising of voting machines (hardware and software), tabulating software and infrastructure are not open to the public for oversight, inspection or review, but are proprietary to the company who did the confidential designs. To say there is a conflict of interest here is, well, quite and understatement.

Without these three things occurring, we liberals and progressives (a true majority in the U.S.) are on the outside looking in.

Imagine a day where a Richardson or Biden have the same amount of election funds to work with as a Clinton or Ghouliani. Imagine a day where, by law, the media must give equal time and consideration to Dodd or Edwards or Gravel or even Paul as they would to Obama or Mittens. Imagine a time where the American people actually get to choose candidates based on being able to equally consider and discuss the election platforms of Kucinich and Dodd as much as they would Clinton or Obama. My guess is that we would have some very different people as "front-runners."

[ellacott]

1. Excellent points n/t

[Morereason]

49. I would add.... we as a people also have to change or we will just embrace the same wrong ideologies

again.

We have serious issues as a culture. We are going to have to resolve those as well or we just end up compounding the problem elsewhere.

[Jackpine Radical]

61. Yes, but public opinion is heavily driven by the media.

Open up the media to a broader range of opinions, and you'll find a parallel effect in public opinion.

[Kucinich4America]

2. Let me be the first to kick and recommend this post

100% correct on all three points.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Amen!

I'm sick of having good candidates with different ideas dropping out after the first primaries for lack of funding and/or media exposure. I'm sick of having a "choice of cancer or polio" when I go to the polls in the GE.

[liberal N proud]

4. K&R #5

[RufusEarl]

5. I agree totally, i would also like to see a national primary voting day

are a national primary voting week.

Peace!

[Andy823]

13. Yep, we really need that

This fighting about which state goes first is not going to end when this election is over, it will be just as bad, if not worse come the next election. Something needs to change.

[LSK]

6. Edwards has spoken up quite vocally on 1 and 2

Not sure what he has said about #3 but Im sure hes open to a better system.

[tex-wyo-dem]

7. And that is one of the several reasons I support Edwards...

He seems to "get it" and is not afraid to speak out.

[jojo54]

8. Great post.

K & R.

[DangerDave921]

9. Agree in part

Yes to No. 1

As for No. 2, let's go back 25 years (your number) to when the media was owned by a more diverse group. Who was elected in 1980 and 1984? Ronald Reagan. Certainly no progressive, so the media ownership didn't really seem to result in a progressive president.

As for No. 3, I agree.

p.s. I am still against the fairness doctrine.

[tex-wyo-dem]

15. There are aspects of the fairness doctrine that I don't totally agree with either...

However, IMO elections should fall under the basic idea that anyone who qualifies to become a Democratic or Republican candidate should have, by law, equal consideration and exposure. This is the only way the people will be able to pick the most qualified candidate rather than the candidate being picked for us by the media and the powers-that-be.

WRT Reagan: I believe he was elected not so much due to media manipulation, but for a number of different reasons: everything from his camera friendly presence to the treasonous "October surprise."

[DangerDave921]

19. somewhat agree

I agree all "serious" candidates should get fair coverage. But the problem is how do you define who is a "serious" contender. If someone is getting 1% in polling, does that person warrant the same press coverage as the guy who polls 30%? What about the true fringe candidate who gets 10 people to show up at a speech? Should that person get the same coverage as the guy who gets 3,000 to attend?

By the results of the primaries thus far, Kucinich is not a serious candidate. He just isn't. So to try to force a news outlet to devote as much manpower to him as to the leading candidates is kind of silly.

And you say there should be equal exposure by law. How could a law actually work in this regard? Would a news station be fined if it showed 2 minutes on Hillary but only 30 seconds on Edwards? Who would monitor such a thing?

[tex-wyo-dem]

24. Often the reason that someone like Kucinich is not ever considered...

a "serious" candidate is because they *never* receive much media exposure. If they do, it is often condescending and snarky, almost like the media wants you to think a certain way about the candidate without telling you anything about the candidates positions...gee, imagine that. On the flip-side, candidates like Hillary have been getting media exposure about a possible run ever since her husband, who was also friendly to big monied interests, left office. This is a very effective technique and is reflected in the resulting polls where Kucinich has never broken more than a few percentage points.

In other words, the candidate never become viable if the media doesn't want them to be viable with the people never really having a say in the matter.

wrt "fringe" candidates: the truly fringe (i.e. position way outside the majority) would be weeded out by this process as their true colors would be there for everyone to see.

As far as laws for equal time: Many debates (at least the ones run by The League of Woman Voters) have run such a system with no problem. When news programs discuss candidates, I don't see a problem with granting each an equal amount of time for discussion, however, with our current "news" being more tabloid than informative, I can see where you would be confused.

[cascadiance]

33. Use the same criteria that public campaign financing uses today...

Public campaign financing has the same issue. You can't give everyone and their kid brother public financing to run. Make it a requirement that they get a certain percentage of the electorate for a given office to sign a petition and a $5 contribution or something like that. That way, it is still a reasonable requirement to get some degree of support for the position they run, without prohibiting most people from expressing their wishes that someone runs.

Perhaps even use the public campaign financing qualification as a litmus (and legal) test to help them determine who's guaranteed time and coverage for a given area of media to get coverage for a given election.

[DangerDave921]

34. exactly

If it's a free-for-all with public funding, then I'll just toss my hat into the ring next election cycle and wait for my $1 million check from Uncle Sam for my campaign.

How would public financing get started? I mean, how would we decide who, and when, candidates would start getting public funding?

[cascadiance]

35. Arizona and Maine already have rules that work...

Like I said, a candidate who wants to qualify for it would have to go out on his own or with volunteers, etc. to get X number of people in his potential constituency area to sign a petition and make a small donation of like $5. Most people won't sign a petition and donate $5 unless someone convinces them that they are a "serious" candidate and someone they want to consider. And $5 is low enough that most people would be willing to put it out to help get more "representative" people in office too. Until a potential candidate gets x number of signatures, they don't qualify for public campaign financing, and if you factor this in to a future fairness doctrine as well, the media also wouldn't be obligated to cover them either like they would someone who met the public campaign financing criteria. This way, a candidate kills two birds with one stone when he/she goes out and collects signatures to qualify for public campaign financing.

As for the Fairness Doctrine, I'd like to see something like it in place, but I recognize that it will have to be rewritten quite a bit to apply to today's media environment, when it is more than just the airwaves we are concerned about, but also satellite, cable, and telephone line transmission of media. Not to mention many other derivative forms of media such as DVDs, video games, the internet, etc. that makes it a lot more complex equation of what the public "owns" and has a right to demand something back for like they did with broadcast licenses with the original Fairness Doctrine. I think in each case you can make the case for the media company using some part of the commons to disseminate their information.

o Satellite transmission - limited locations of geocentric orbit above a country.
o Cable transmission - where the cables are installed in many areas is public-owned land.
o Internet transmission - the rules for satellite, cable, and over the air broadcasting would apply here too.

[harmonicon]

41. I'm shocked that people actually think the way you do

For starters, most polls are push polls, and when the pollsters don't exclude a candidate, it's of little concern, because the media has already decided that people won't be aware of candidates they don't like. Do you really not think Kucinich doesn't do as well in polls, and eve the primary elections so far, because people are equally familiar with him and his platform as they are with Clinton, Obama and Edwards, and just disagree with him? You don't see there being a correlation between being barred from debates, and being given little time in the debates he does take part in and his low numbers?

None of that should matter though. We are a democracy. So what if a minority of voters support any one candidate? If they're on the ballot, they should get equal exposure. I know it's a bit idealistic, but I would like to think that as a democracy we were offering more than the tyranny of the majority over a minority.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. In 2004, Kucinich had armies of volunteers in some states, including

Minnesota, Maine, Hawaii, Washington, and New Mexico. The volunteers used guerilla tactics to get around the media blackout--and it was a blackout here in Minnesota.

On the day that Kucinich spoke to a crowd of 2500 in Minneapolis' Northrop Auditorium, he also spoke to a union group of 25 (and a dinner meeting of about 100 members of the National Lawyers' Guild and an unknown number of people at a party in an art gallery). That same day, Edwards was in town and spoke to a group of 200 contributors. The newspaper article the next day gave a lot of space to Edwards and added that Kucinich had spoken to 25 union members.

Anyway, in Minnesota, Kucinich received 27% of the vote in the Twin Cities, where most of the volunteers were based, and 17% statewide. He got 15% in Maine, and other double-digit figures in Hawaii, Washington, and New Mexico.

Kucinich's showing depended entirely on the dedication of volunteers in any given area and led to some counter-intuitive results. For example, he got only 3% in Madison, Wisconsin, a famously liberal city, but was in the double digits in the cities of Viroqua and Ashland--thanks to volunteers. Despite his good showing in Washington, he got only 3% in Oregon--which went 7% for Nader in 2000 and would have gone much more for Nader if Bush hadn't been so scary (I know; I was there and had this discussion with lots of people.)

I do not think DK's campaign is being well run this time out. If the campaign director had had any smarts at all, s/he would have caled upon the volunteers from the previous cycle and found new ones in every state. I don't know what happened this time. I have heard some people wonder if there are moles in the campaign deliberately doing a bad job. It wouldn't be the first time in the history of electoral politics.

However, DK is an extremely serious candidate. He is, in fact, one of the two candidates who is talking about the country's real problems instead of feel-good fluff and media-endorsed conventional wisdom. People who diss him must live in some sort of protected bubble of affluence not to know that we need single-payer health care, renegotiated bilateral trade agreements, a reduction in the military spending that is draining our treasury dry, and living wage jobs for Americans.

[Uncle Joe]

10. I believe, you've nailed it, tex-wyo-dem.

Thanks for the thread.

:thumbsup:

[ShadesOfGrey]

11. Yep, you nailed it! k&r

[Andy823]

12. I agree

Now how do we get this done? I know we need to get a president in office that will push these things, and we need to get rid of some of the "good old boys" in both parties so we can really make these changes. But will that happen? Does any of our candidates have a plan to make these changes?

I really think Edwards does, but what about the other two?

[tex-wyo-dem]

17. These changes will not be easy by any stretch of the imagination...

The corporate oligarchy is heavily entrenched in Washington. To put it another way, their proxy control of politicians, elections and the media is worth $$$$$TRILLION$$$$$ and it will take some very brave souls as well as constant pressure from people like us to eradicate the cancer that is threatening the life of our democracy.

[harmonicon]

42. gee, there are only two others? I must be bad at counting.

[balantz]

14. Nailed It!

K&R

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. I fully agree, and humbly suggest a fourth

Break the duopoly and allow meaningful choice at the polls. As long as there is an exclusively either/or choice of candidates, there is no motivation at all to offer meaningful promises or to make good on those promises if one gets elected. All a candidate has to do is not be as evil as the other.

[tex-wyo-dem]

18. Thank you for your suggestion, and totally agree...

basically, if we can make 1. and 2. happen, there should no longer be the "duopoly," but a number of viable candidates all the way to the convention.

[TechBear_Seattle]

22. I'm talking about beyond the convention into the general election

Again, when it is an either/or choice of two and only two, all the candidates have to do is be less bad than the other candidate. If there were three or more viable candidates in the general election, maybe we could get good candidates rather than less bad candidates. I mean, choice is good. Right?

[tex-wyo-dem]

25. Oh, I totally agree...

what you are referring to, really, is a more than a "two party" system, maybe more like a parliamentary system, which I think would be better than what we currently have. However, I think a single party having more than one candidate it gets behind might be difficult.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. Yes, instant runoff voting so that people can express their preference

for a third party without facilitating the victory of their least-favorite candidate.

At the very least, it would be useful information for a victorious Democratic candidate to know that s/he was the second choice for a certain percentage of the electorate who actually preferred the Green or Socialist.

[Dinger]

20. Yes. And It Sure Is Strange That We Hear Nothing On This From The "Top" Candidates (nt)

[Triana]

37. They're not gonna rat on themselves - or those who butter their bread..

...nah. You'll never hear it from them 'cause they're part of the problem!

[Carolina]

21. K&R

[BR_Parkway]

23. In truth, most Republicans are also outside looking in - they're just

being led to believe that things will somehow be better for them, even though the official policies that benefit the corporate masters always undermine the well being of most middle class Repubs as well as Dems.

Why they are so intent on drinking the Kool-aid is beyond me, but it's taken almost 7 years of constant family feuds around the holiday tables and plenty of email debates for most of my (R) family to finally see that they've been just as financially screwed as the rest of us. Everytime lately that my Dad bitches about the price of gas, groceries and other basics, I've just been saying "Thank George". Lately he's made some comments that give me hope that he's the last in the family to wake up and smell the coffee.

[tex-wyo-dem]

27. Excellent, BR_Parkway!

It's people like you talking and getting the truth out to friends and family that will make any positive changes possible. I have watched many people I know vote over and over again against their better interests just because they would never vote for a "librul." Over time, however, I think I've made some headway with some.

[slipslidingaway]

26. Excellent K&R thank you n/t

[winston61]

28. Number Four:

The death of the two party system. This system is nothing but a dark shit hole that the country is swirling around.

[cascadiance]

29. I had a number four that would facilitate that... Instant Runoff Voting!

We need something that helps people not have to vote for the "least objectionable" candidate of the top two, and be able to vote their choice without fear of throwing it to the worst candidate (aka a George Bush of the future).

[winston61]

30. I agree-

instant run off voting and the death of the two party system would be a damn good start.

[ProgressIn2008]

31. Excellent, nothing in the country can truly change without these three things

at least. There's more that needs to be done, but this is a necessary set of steps. Support for these things are an effective way to gauge if talk of change is for real or cheap.

[femrap]

32. k and r

Your #1...here is Edwards not taking the Lobbyists' $$, yet Americans ignore this.

People have been complaining about this for years. And now that we have a candidate listening to them, they are enamored elsewhere. Fucking rich corp. boys have got us 'divided and conquered.'

[Mark Twain Girl]

36. Outstanding!! K&R

[NC_Nurse]

38. Excellent post!

So true. Sadly, we seem very far from these changes at present.

[frog92969]

39. To summarize: Democracy in America is a COMPLETE farce,

and until we all fight tooth and nail, and win, we'll get exactly what we deserve.
And if we don't do something soon, it'll be to late to try.

GREAT post!

[Blue Congress]

40. great response!

:toast:


http://peacecandidates.com/

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

43. I'd like to see a parliamentary system

where voters vote for a party and where compromises must be struck by forming coalitions between parties after the election. In that system, a variety of parties representing many views get represented in parliament and get a platform to address issues before the public. With our two party system, compromise occurs BEFORE the election through the nominating process, which narrows down the field to either slightly left of center (Democrats) or slightly right of center (Republicans, but in the case of Bush, extremely right of center) moderates and centrists. The result is that the final election offers candidates that most people don't like, but have to vote in because they hate the other option so much more.

[ExPatLeftist]

54. I agree that the parliamentary system is preferable...

...and am glad to now live in a nation with such a system and a true multi-party system. Although not perfect, I prefer it to the US system.

Unfortunately, with the entrenched two-party system in the US I do not see a resolution that could conceivably occur short of some sort of revolution. Of course, there already are many other parties in the US and they simply do not get attention, and people hedge their bets by voting for the lesser of two evils rather than "wasting" their vote on a smaller party. And rather than allowing for true change, people in both parties see the surge of a "third-party" candidate as an opportunity - a chance to take votes from the opposition rather than offer a viable alternative. See Perot, Nader, etc. If either party were to split in order to offer a true choice, then the other party would simply mop up all elections after that. The only way would be if both parties split at the same time, and that is a pipe-dream - it would end up being a maneuvering contest to see who could screw who and sweep into power with a huge "mandate"... I prefer a multiple party system, but do not see the feasibility of changing the US into such with such a deeply entrenched de facto 2-party system... Any ideas?

One thing I would disagree on in your post, however, is that the Democratic party in the US is slightly left of center and the Repubs are slightly right of center. On a global scale, both parties are right of center and not separated by much, and at least in the case of the Republicans, they are more than slightly to the right.

Here in Iceland, many people say, "In the US there are two parties - the right-wing party and the even further right wing party."

[southerncrone]

44. Then we would have a true democracy.

[Eurobabe]

45. K + R

[defendandprotect]

46. Where is the Democratic Party campaign for publickly financed elections --- ???

[defendandprotect]

47. Where is the Democratic Party campaign for breaking up monopoly media --- ???

[defendandprotect]

50. Where is the Democratic Party campaign to end stolen elections via computer--?

[defendandprotect]

51. In fact, in browsing the NY Times article last week on computers + stolen elections . ..

I realized that the lever machines had been in place for decades and actually served us
rather well!

And, 2000 and what the Bush campaign did made them seem totally untrustworthy ---

Obviously, lack of repair and maintence made them less than reliable in poorer areas --

but seemingly, it was a fairly good system.

Better than e-computer voting ---

and, btw, folks --- the computers came in during the mid-1960's ...so 2000 wasn't the first steal --- it was simply the NOISIEST, followed by a very NOISY 2004 in Ohio ---

[defendandprotect]

52. What would really happen with a large WRITE IN vote --- ???

Anyone know?

[ExPatLeftist]

57. I don't know....

But my estimate would be: A "standard" (non-write-in candidate) would still win by a large margin, there would then be a lot of news coverage and "analysis" of what the impact might be followed shortly by the standard "get over it" attitude and some Paris Hilton media fest and we would return to the status quo. Just like in 2000 with a stolen election and Constitutional crisis that people were supposed to just forget a week later for the "common good"...

[idiocracyhell]

48. You nailed it!

Without those three things happening in OUR democracy, we will continue to be run by corporate America and their political servants.

[tom_paine]

53. K & R

[Pooka Fey]

55. You said it. K&R

[ExPatLeftist]

56. I agree 100%

And have thought for some time that these are the three keys... And I think that most Americans would agree.

But how can we make this happen? It seems that the (legal) corruption and insane amounts of propaganda will keep the status quo for a long time... The only candidates that I think would really address any of this are Kucinich and Edwards, and then who knows... But the problems that they are trying to change are exactly the problems that are causing them to be ignored, and the lock is in. I think we would need a "stealth" candidate that would act as if s/he was a part of the system and after election would shake things up. For example, demanding a very public vote about lobby reform (abolishment), and scrutiny for those that vote status quo...

[KG]

58. unless the stranglehold of the 2-party system is broken, none the other 3 matter

[groovedaddy]

59. Break up corporate monopolies, period...energy, food, pharma, healthcare n/t

[Highway61]

60. A big K & R!

[metamars]

62. Solving the Media problem may be a lot easier than you think

While the media should be subject to vigorous anti-trust laws, the fact is that it was a problem 30 years ago, when it was not nearly as consolidated. I believe a more effective and quicker way to solve the problem is to bypass it - essentially by recreating it, but in a de-centralized manner. Media sources that betray the public trust can be easily ditched, by switching your subscriber fees quickly and easily to a more reliable source, via your computer. Please check out my proposal and attendant thread. BTW, with the current Writer's Guild strike going on, there has probably never been a better time to implement my proposal. Doing so may actually save the writers' livelihoods. My boilerplate:

Please see my proposal "Putting the NY Times Out of Business"

Putting the NY Times Out of Business
Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media

I have posted a proposal on the Randi Rhodes show forum for replacing our current media with a new, sustainable media that facilitates the selection of "filtering agents". You can think of these as honest gatekeepers that YOU trust - and that keep out trivial information, rather than very important information that groups with economic and other hidden agendas prefer to hide from you.

Broadband access is now up to 42% in the US, so it is quite possible to target TELEVISION, which is how about 48% of Americans get 30+ minutes of news per day (as opposed to only about 9% over the internet). See http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=282

The thread is entitled: "Putting the NY Times Out of Business"
The thread is subtitled: "Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media"

Link:
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=76406&hl=

PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO ANYBODY WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED

[MarkP]

63. I agree 100%

Things need to change!

[sazemisery]

64. Agreed K&R n/t

[L0oniX]

65. 4 ) Remove corporate person hood from the constitution.

[fascisthunter]

68. It isn't in the Constitution, I Thought....

it was a footnote written by an underling regarding a case around the turn of the century (1890's - 1900's). Thom Hartmann has written about this in Unequal Protection. From there it has been used as a precendent yet shouldn't have.

[L0oniX]

73. hmmm I thought it was an amendment but then I didn't look it up.

[bagrman]

69. Has anyone found the tallies for the Mich. Primary. I want to know where the votes went.

[wintersoulja]

70. when everyone unplugs their cable box

and steps outside to see what is really going on.
It is that simple.
Trying to effect change through a system so completely corrupt, while believing what war profiteers and their puppets tell you?
Not gonna happen.

[old guy]

71. Face it, real meaningful change won't happen. Period.

[DrFunkenstein]

72. These Are Some of The Most Important Aspects of The Progressive Agenda, But

With a strong liberal candidate with an ability to frame the issues to bring on moderates - and maybe even some conservatives - we can still pass major health care and energy reforms.

That said, I completely agree that creating a mandate for election reform is essential to our broken down democratic process.

[Mark D.]

74. I'd Like To Include These.

4) A two count, one nationwide system of voting. Optically
scanned, BUT, hand-counted also, mandatory, every time.
Eliminating the need for a recount as you get one for each
voting place. Done publicly with bi-partisan / non-partisan
oversight to ensure transparency and no illegal tampering.
Yes - I've already suggested this to Brad at BradBlog.com.

5) Make Lobbying illegal, if any money is involved in it...

6) An 'end the argument amendment' that won't give either
side total 'victory' but most of what they want, to end use
of homophobia to get the regressives out to vote GOP in all
the elections. Delcare marriage is Man / Woman across the
nation (for the right) BUT a civil union gets rights equal to
marriage nationwide (for the left). End the divisive debate.

7) Re-instate music class in all schools, that results in far
more intelligent kids, and intelligence is the best defense
against fear-mongering, divisive, deceptive GOP tactics.

8) Mandatory political education. So kids know...despite
crap their parents may try to instill in them, who is doing
what, and why. They'll ultimately learn the GOP works for
the rich/corporate/elite/debt-based currency system, not
'the little guy' they try to fool, with a divisive, fear based
and bigoted bumper-sticker rhetoric and would never win
elections if they based their argument on relevant issues.

9) Switch to currency NOT issued with interest by an elite
group of bankers. The last three presidents who tried this
(Lincoln, Garfield, JFK) were killed in office for trying that.
The only presidents who were killed in office. So, such a
president may not survive for angering those Bilderbergs.

10) World-wide it'd be nice if the World Bank and others,
like a Federal Reserve were done away with, to eliminate
how devastating this monetary system is to all countries.

11) While at it, world-wide separation of church/state,
so religion can't be used to start wars or oppress many,
at the whim of the monied elite to generate profit/debt.

That means no more illegality of birth control/abortion,
since those are done by theocracies. This isn't what a
small number of well-intended & misunderstanding anti
-globalists call ' Eugenics '. This is a way to help ease
& eliminate the 3rd world state the elite want to grow.