The political spectrum of the US, or the accepted political discourse

[nadinbrzezinski]

one of the reason why folks do not seem too alarmed by the media playing king maker is because of the narrow political discourse accepted in this country. This is why somebody like Dennis Kucinich is painted as a radical... never mind he is truly center left (when you look at a table of political discourse). In fact, a real socialist, or communist would not be able to run in this country. Why? Never mind most Americans don't know the difference (and yes there are differences between a classic marxist, a neo-marxists, a Socialist, a green socialist and a Communist... I think I covered all of them) they would simply be run out of town on a red scare.

Regardless, Progressives in the US are only allowed to be slightly left of center, to be able to participate in the political discourse, and even that is with limits. There are reasons for this, and the corporate structure who CONTROLS the access to the means of communication, will close those airwaves to anybody who is critical of them... hence why they weeded out populists, consitionalists and foreign policy experts, leaving a narrow band of candidates that ARE pro corporate and neo liberal in nature, best case, plain out fascist worst case.

But until Americans learn more about political systems and do not allow the media to plain out scare them from liberals (I will remind you them founding fathers were not only liberals but radicals by the standard of the age), nothing will change. People will continue to happily play along in the narrow political sand box determined by those who benefit from empire and corporate rule. Oh and yes, it does have a definition, given by one of the masters of the art... fascism... and it is as right wing as you can get without falling off the table.

By the way, when does American Idol (or one of the multiple clones) start? We cannot forget the role of bread and circuses in this, first described by Cicero, two thousand years ago.

[John Q. Citizen]

1. Very true. Which is one reason we have 3 competing almost identical healthcare plans that all suck

and use public tax dollars to fatten up private health insurance companies.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. And why national health single payer plans will not be proposed

never mind we the people want it

[Tom Joad]

63. and pretty much the same plans for Iraq. obamamccainhillary promised

at least 4 more years. McCain has promised a hundred. that's the "difference"

[pinto]

3. One possibility to chip away at the narrow framework you describe is to

frame liberal approaches in terms folks can relate with. Some of our bombast plays into marginalization, imho. Liberal populists did this well in their heyday and FDR sold the New Deal in terms that ignored the cries of 'socialism!' leveled at his legislative agendas.

I think it was the Sufis, iirc, that maintained the best way to speak to a region was in their own dress and terms. No one listens if you get dismissed out of hand.

Within limits, I think it's a good approach.

:hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Things like national health care can be framed in temrs of new deal

absolutely. The problem that you have right now is that those who control the access to means of communication will NOT allow you to use that frame either

I fear it will have to be done the old fashioned way... with the use of underground papers

[pinto]

5. Another good option, as well as organizational groups - unions,

local political organizations, local social organizations, churches, etc. etc.

Make it a - what's the term when you can't get a song out of your head? - anyway, that.

Thanks for the response. I like looking for solutions *almost* as much as defining the problem. :thumbsup:

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Me too, and unions are a way too, and they need to grow once again

but I fear at this point we need alternate means, since the powers that be will close down any discussion on any of this

[Jim Sagle]

61. I think the term you're looking for is "earwig."

[John Q. Citizen]

7. I would frame single payer as "self-insuring." Many people don't understand what

single payer means.

The three plans pro-offered have co-opted the term "universal healthcare" but they are based on the state mandated private car insurance model.

People would laugh if they called manditory private auto insurance "universal auto insurance" because everyone knows that after years of that system there are still lots of unisurered drivers on the road.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. This is when we need to explain it to folks and USE examples of a model

that works (cough Canada cough)...

But I don't expect that from our wonderful so-called leaders anymore

[Greyhound]

6. Most of the "New Deal" was done through executive order.

Which potential executive has the patriotic will to do anything like that?

[pinto]

9. Didn't realize that. Yet it's hallmark had to be sold and then enacted as law.

[Djinn]

34. if the New Deal was patriotic

it would have looked at long term structural changes to stop the exploitation of those who work by those who own. It did nothing of the sort. It was PURELY a means to save capitalism and prop up the system by which worker will always be screwed.

That the New Deal, JFK, Carter et al are perceived as progressive policies/politicians is part of the problem in the US.

[Greyhound]

38. Bingo! We have a winner!

FDR co-opted the real left's agenda and then, most importantly, preserved the corrupt system to return and finish the job they started.

It is pretty sad that so few of the citizens of this country have such little knowledge of what it was meant to be. That goes for both sides, BTW.

[L. Coyote]

8. All I need to know is, "Is my Junta Collaborator payoff check on the way?" LOL

Now that we all know Bush is a crook who emptied the treasury many times, they decided to cut everyone in on the action! :rofl:

Just send everyone some money (except those "non-voting" illegal workers).

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. They want you to SPEND that money

me, will SAVE IT... last time around I invested it in politics, this time around, I will not even do that with it

The whole system stinks, majorly

[water]

13. It's more important to look at which direction someone wants to take the country...

...and how quickly they wish to do so, rather than their absolute current platform.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. We had that discusion before

it is not about a person... but a spectrum OF ACCEPTED POLITICAL DISCOURSE

By definition the US is right now a right wing country... by definition, given that corporations also write legislation it is also a fascist country... never mind these facts will not be allowed on your local news, or the national discussion.

In fact, Jefferson and Madison would not have an effect in the current environment since they would not be allowed to have ANY airtime. That is the current reality and why people who are all but radicals are painted as such... while the true radicals are not. See kucinich and see huckabee and mainstream media.

[water]

15. I agree that this country is center-right-authoritarian.

The disagreement was in calling, say, Edwards center right. If he ran in Europe, he would not run as a conservative.

Likewise, France's Sarkozy would run as a Republican, even though his absolute political platform is to the left of the Democratic Party.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Once again Zarkozy's platform is NEO LIBERAL and by definition

center right... once again I gave you readings on neo liberal thought... you will not sell me a neo liberal as a lefty, not today, not ever.

Oh and I never called Edwards center right, he is slightly center left, and in fact quite moderate. Oh never mind the media painted him as a radical populist and anti corporate.

[water]

17. You are applying a vicious double-standard.

If you consider someone "neo-liberal", despite his positions being to the left of the Democratic Party (and probably to the left of DK), he gets to be called center-right. Why don't absolute positions apply to the other side as well?

And you can easily substitute BO or HC for JE.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Double standard? Sarkozy called himself a neo liberal during the campaign

who am I to doubt him?

And I have not substituted anybody.

HRC is right of center, and would be a member of a CONSERVATIVE party in Europe

Both DK and JE are left of center and would be part of a LIBERAL party in Europe... even though DK may even be considered a member of a socialist party

It is the US where these three individuals are members of the same party... because of the quirks of our political system

[water]

21. There is no way HC/BO would NOT run for a labor party!

Why does it matter what Sarkozy calls himself? We need to set the rules here.

If the criteria is a candidate's platform, Sarkozy is to the left of Democrats.

If the criteria is a candidate's self-proclaimed ideology (and the direction the candidate wants to take his/her country), Sarkozy is to the economic-right of Republicans.

I'm arguing for the second. You?

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. What part of Zarcozy is a neo liberal are you purposely missing

You telling met that destroying unions (what he wants to do) is left of center?

What do you think the brouhaha is about?

You telling me that privatizing college education (which has been free for the last forty years) is left of center?

WOW

As I said, he is a follower of Chicago School Economics, (in many ways so is HRC), these are neo liberal policies

Care to tell me why the adopted the monicker neo liberal? Friedman was candid... confuse the living daylights out of people...

Now as to Hillary Clinton, in Europe she woudl run under a conservative banner. LABOR is NOT conservative... at least old style labor. One of the major conquests of Tony Blair was bringing neo liberal thinking to the Labor party, just as the DLC has done that with the Dems, they are fellow travelers

SP

[water]

23. No, I totally agree with you about Sarkozy, which is why I totally disagree with you...

...about labeling Democrats center right.

It should be purely about the direction they want to take the country.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. The DLC IS center right

they are NEO LIBERAL...

http://theblogsofwar.typepad.com/the_blogs_of_war/neoliberalism/index.html

http://theblogsofwar.typepad.com/the_blogs_of_war/neoliberalism/index.html

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_poverty_of_neoliberalism

http://fragments.awedge.net/?tag=neoliberalism

If a cat is black, a cat is black, no matter how you want to tell me that it is white

[water]

25. Again, why the double standard? :)

You have to look at the direction each candidate wants to take the country. Look at that, and nothing else.

I really don't see your obsession of defining "neo-liberal". If you want to define the DLC as center-right, in which ways to they want to take the country to the right?

Want to call Obama/Clinton center-right? Is raising taxes, freezing interest rates, increases wage controls, and instituting massive government spending in health-care right wing?

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. What double standard?

Members of the DLC ARE neo liberal and RIGHT OF CENTER

You want to look at this candidate by candidate, your issue. I am looking at this using ACCEPTED political science analysis tools

And if a person (or in this case a movement) has elements that are RIGHT OF CENTER... like the DLC does RIGHT NOW... who am I to doubt them or question them?

Sorry if you cannot accept that, or if you think that is a double standard.

Reality is, neo liberal thinking benefits the corporations since it is pro-corporate... and given that both HRC and Barak are members of the DLC... they are both pro corporate. And McCain, we know he is also neo liberal... and so is Romney.

They are just to different degrees. So from the POV of a corporation, mission accomplished. Populists have been silenced.

[water]

30. No, you're just trying to drum up hysteria that the left-wing politicians in this country are...

...actually right wing.

You correctly pointed out that Sarkozy -- despite his policies being to the far left of the Democratic Party -- is actually economically right-wing. He wants to move his country to economically to the right of where it is today.

Democrats want to their country to the left of where it is today.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Ok let me ask you

did you read the material I linked for you on the DLC?

No, you did not

It is a well known fact that the DLC is neo liberal. It is also a well known fact that even Mr. Clinton has said this openly.

It is also a well known fact that not all democrats are left leaning. In fact, surprise surprise, some of them are blue dogs, and right of center, they have a name CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS (and surprise, surprise, many of them belong to the DLC... and a few, Biden comes to mind, have even signed PNAC documents),

If you think that somebody is automatically left wing just because they have a D behind their name... then you need to do some serious research. And of all the candidates we fielded this year, we had to left leaning candidates, Edwards and Kucinich... one Libertarian, Gravel, one Constitutionalist (DoDD), and the rest DLC.

Once again, even if you have a problem understanding this... the DLC falls in the Conservative wing of the party... as in very conservative wing of the democratic party.

Sorry, them are the breaks.

Of course, the other possibility is that you are DLC and hate to be exposed for what Chicago School thinking truly is... right wing and pro corporative and against any kind of statism that helps the people... corporate welfare is fine, thank you.

And if you expect HRC or any other member of the DLC to suddenly run a very progressive agenda.. I have a bridge to sell you... though it has happened in the past... when all went to hell in a hand-basket, a very conservative democrat rolled up his sleeves and enacted the new deal... did I mention he did not run on it, but had no choice?

[Djinn]

39. Nuance

Is raising taxes

depends on what you do with the tax, and how the tax is allocated (eg Thatcher poll tax)

freezing interest rates

far as I knew this was set by an independent body

increases wage controls

what do you mean by this? an increase in the fed minimum wage would not be considered right wing but when the increase still leaves people working for poverty wages it can hardly be viewed as left wing.

increasing wage controls could very well be right wing given these controls cover a range of actions

and instituting massive government spending in health-care right wing?

The way it is being proposed by Obama and HRC YES it is right wing, it is a HUGE transfer of PUBLIC funds to PRIVATE insurers.

They are most definitely NOT proposing a NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE which could be viewed as left wing.

Your post illustrates the OP point - the things you view as "left" are anything but.

[water]

41. The President techincally can't propose bills, either.

Raising taxes is not economically right-wing. You can't spin it any other way, I'm sorry. Now, if you believe that a poll-tax is economically right-wing (I don't know why it would be, economical-right-wing philosophy is generally considered to be capitalist) that's fine, but Democrats aren't proposing that and it doesn't serve a use in this discussion.

Increasing the minimum wage is left-wing, no matter how much it's increased. You could say "it's not very left-wing to raise it not very much", but it's left-wing to even have a minimum wage. If someone wants to cut corporate taxes a little bit, is that not economically right-wing?

Your point on health-care is odd. How do you define "right-wing", then? Most would define it as capitalist. Transferring money seized by taxes to another entity is not capitalist... it's anti-capitalist.

[Djinn]

42. explain how flat taxes are left?

part of the problem with discussing political theory with Americans is they think right wing means capitalist - it doesn't.

If a govt institutes a FLAT tax it disproportionally effects the poor, flat taxes or any taxes that are not graduated are right wing.

Point on health care is not odd at all, not to anyone with a proper grasp of political and economic theory, none of your candidates are proposing anything other than a transfer of wealth into PRIVATE hands, NONE are proposing ACTUAL national health, ajnd it's not like it's a hard ask - hundreds of nations have been doing it for years.

As for the "president can't technically ...." who cares? I was discussing the lack of left action on behalf of DEMOCRATS

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. You can imagine my bemusement when discussing political and economic

theory with highly propagandized and ignorant fellow travelers. (and what is worst, they are proud of it)

Thankfully I did NOT grow up in the US, so I have seen real extremes (on both sides), and have a good grasp of political and economic theory

By the way... the two health care plans are classic neoliberal thought.

By the way, my only beef, flat taxes, they are libertarian... and though mostly libertarians are right wing... a few (gravel comes to mind) are also left wing. The end result is the same... a sharpening in the division between the rich and poor

[water]

56. We're starting to veer off topic.

I've posted before about the inconsistencies in how people define "left" and "right", and how, in modern use, the two words aren't opposites. I don't really want to veer into that topic again, so I'll bring this discussion back to the main point:

I don't see the usefulness in defining a candidate's political persuasion by their absolute political platform. You really have to look at the direction he or she is trying to take the country. You can argue that the direction Hillary and Obama are trying to take the country aren't actually left-wing (the direction can't honestly be described as right wing, either, if you want to make that argument), but you can't argue that based on their platforms, they are center right.

I am libertarian, and if I lived in North Korea, I would most certainly want reforms. If I was pushing for a system where everyone was allowed to keep 20% of the product of their labor, that doesn't make me a far-far-far left liberal/communist. It makes me a libertarian trying to push an existing system in my direction, one bit at a time. Using the absolute platform to define political persuasion, I'd be much further left than anyone here.

Again, I don't want to get into an argument where we are saying "X policy is left-wing" or "Y policy is right-wing". I don't even think it's useful to define politicians as "left" or "right", or even "libertarian" or "statist". Just look at each individual proposal and decide whether it's a good or bad idea.

As an aside question, what would you define as "centrist"?

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. Centrist tend to be moderates that do not push anything too far in any direction

but you are the one NOT wanting to follow traditional poli sci definitions

Once again... I will repeat this... both Obama and Hillary ARE members of the DLC. The DLC is center right... and neoliberal

Does not matter how many times you want to twist that. This is reality.

Their ideology and what they want to do with the country conforms with Chicago school thinking. A small example, their health care program, which involves the PRIVATE sector, since it is in their belief far more efficient, never mind that is what we have right now and it is all but efficient.

What they want to do is transfer funds from the public to the private sector, and that is neo liberal at its core.

[Quantess]

62. I wondered why the sudden silence.

...water just got tombstoned.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. That was fast...

....

[Selatius]

67. He and I got into it over a WEEK ago over capitalism. He adds competition in the def. of capitalism.

My assertion was that just because private ownership of capital exists doesn't necessarily mean that a free market mechanism or a mechanism of competition exists either. A privately owned monopoly is prima facie evidence of capitalism without a free market mechanism. Free market competition could exist either in capitalism or even socialism (free market socialism) as well as all points in between the two poles.

For the record, I favor market socialism/market mixed economy whereby the state establishes a form of public investment mechanism whose purpose is to educate workers about cooperativism as well as to fund the start-up of new worker co-ops, capitalize existing co-ops, and buy out failed/failing firms or any other willing firm to be reorganized into worker co-operatives. This public investment mechanism should feature localized control, and state control is involved in as far as allocating funding to the local branches. I guess the nearest real-world example could be the SBA except that it would have a preference for cooperative firms instead of capitalist firms.

David Schweickart's work Economic Democracy: A Socialism That Would Really Work is a good blueprint.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. Fascinating reads

I am betting he didn't link to them either.

:-)

[Djinn]

57. agree

While I wouldn't neccesarily say flat taxes are libertarian (or that most libbers are right wing - maybe in the US but anarcho-syndicalism/anarcho socialism are well understood elsewhere) agree that it's all about making the rich even richer by making the poor even more so.

And yep - both proposed "health" plans are neo-liberal in their entirity

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. You know what is also part of my bemusement

you can show many horses to water, lead them in to water, but they will not read what this is.

As to the US... the libertarian party takes all... from your average anarchist to your right wing extremists... but it is the right wing that sets the tone for the party.

(And it is because of this extremely large tent that the Libertarians have a hell of a time getting anywhere half way organized in the US)

Of course as the post suggest, our left wing extremists are truly tame and to the right of most left wing extremist anywhere else in the world.

[Djinn]

37. Sorry

but Obama & HRC's records on IR (which even if considered progressive in the US - which they're most definitely NOT - they are NOT progressive by world labor standards not even close(would NOT see them as a member of any real LABOR party. Unfortunately UK's Labor Party has long ditched it's pro worker views and may well accept both him and HRC.

Very few UNIONS view them as even remotely left

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Thank Tony Blair for it

just as the DLC... in the US and the Democratic party

[Djinn]

60. yep

anagram of Tony Blair = I'm tory plan B

In Australia, the lurch to left for our "Labor" party was started by the ex head of the ACTU (peak union body)...depressingly he's still viewed by many Australian left leaning folks as a messiah, when in fact he actually a very naughty boy.

[DutchLiberal]

54. In The Netherlands, where I live, HRC and Obama would be member of the right-wing party.

We have a right-wing party called VVD (People's Party for Freedom and Democracy) which is on the right and (very) conservative when it comes to economics, wages, labor, war, the military, immigration, health care, privatization etc. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton would fit in perfectly in that party!

But, they are liberal when it comes to gay marriage, opposition to death penalty, decriminalizing marijuana, abortion rights and euthanasia. And both Obama and Hillary Clinton would be even TOO conservative to support those issues which come from an ALREADY right-wing conservative party.

It is just too bad that SO MANY Dutch people think Hillary Clinton is a progressive liberal. Even the otherwise smart and educated people think so. You know why? Because the Republicans are SO facist, *even* HRC looks liberal.

[Angiewnsb]

19. Control of reporting of the state of humanity also controls political discourse

Agree wholeheartedly that political discourse in this country is
completely limited and narrow. Not reporting on the true
state of humanity today in the news helps keep it limited.
If the news that we were confronted with on television and
in our daily news - and even in our favorite internet sources -
truly reflected the dismal state of humanity today (which don't now)
people would demand political discourse that was responsive to it.
Did you know 1/4 of humanity are still forced to live without
electricity, for example? Or that 41 percent of humanity still
have to shit in the streets because they are not provided with
any sanitation, for another? If the front page news we saw
every day truly concerned stories affecting the largest number
of human beings in the most serious life and death ways, you know,
the most pressing issues facing humanity today, then
the failure of any of the political discourse in this country
to address that would become apparent to anyone.

Angie
www.WhatNewsShouldBe.org

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Welcome to DU

:hi:

And yes I knew those facts...

[Djinn]

36. Bit of an assumption

and one I don't see reflected around me, very few people in Europe (or Australia/NZ) would accept any Democrats as centre left. Edwards association with organised Labor may see him viewed as centre left by some in the US but his actual views on IR don't look centre left AT ALL from the perspective of the rest of the world, he'd be viewed as centre at best (with the knowledge the centre is really right these days)

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. You are right, he is center with some positions slightly to the left

Kucinich is center left, and by world standards, moderate at that.

;-)

[KoKo]

26. Oprah Rules....we need to know this. And Dems are as Happy with this as Repugs..

and many DU'ers are also very happy with this. :shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Many Du'ers are incapable of doing any independent thinking

Or realize what is truly going on?

Where did they go for the lobotomy? In many ways it is similar to the freeper mentality of party before country...

[KoKo]

29. KOOL AID...in the WATER....

I have No Idea.... Think I've belonged to an "Alien Site" all these years. I just must have ignored the "woo...woo" and been seeing what I wanted to. :shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Let's keep avoiding the kool aid, shall we?

and if I get any, I want mine strawberry flavored

:-)

[KoKo]

33. I've gone beyond that...to drink what they're drinking...

it's gotta have some major tranquilizers in it.... I might need some, too to choke it all down...ayyy....headache.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. Let me see what I can find in this house, and I know EXACTLY what you mean

:-)

[KG]

35. until the stranglehold of the 2-party system is broken, this country is headed for trouble.

[Emit]

40. And our own Democratic Party is part of this, too, with their superdelegate

process that allows them better control over the nomination process. Can't have the common voter choosing radical, insurgent candidate, now, can we? :sarcasm:

The superdelegate process allows for the appearance of democracy, and provides the illusion that the "establishment candidates" are a lot more popular than they really are, IMO.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. One of the many problems

my first reform... hold a national primary... no more small states deciding for the rest of us. We have ONE primary over the whole country

[Dark]

48. Ha. Yea, Kucinich would've been beloved if only he hadn't been oppressed by the nasty media.

Sure. Then why is it that Ron Paul managed to raise more than any other Repub candidate in Q4 without any airtime coverage?

With that, he could have made campaign hisotry. He chose not to, but he could have.

If Ron Paul, someone Dennis would accept as his Running mate managed to raise that kind of money without the media attention beforehand, how come Dennis couldn't?

Face it. It isn't the media, it's America. Americans just don't care. That's why half the country thought there was too much primary coverage, and half couldn't even tell you who won Iowa. People really just want to be left alone from the government and want to not be bothered with it either.

That's why American Idol and the other crap is popular but the politics aren't: Americans DON'T GIVE A FUCK. We don't. The media is just giving the people what they want.

You want to change the media? Make politics more interesting. Maybe some naked women or violent gladiator championships.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. If you want to believe that, fine

I guess you have a right to do so.

By the way, do tell me, where exactly is Dr Paul's campaign? Oh yes, in the dirt TOO, since it was also suppressed.

They don't want no populist on EITHER side

[Dark]

50. It wasn't suppressed. He hasn't spent any of his money.

He had millions, yet he spent hardly any of it.

Could you have imagined the reaction had he funneled it into New Hampshire, with all its libertarians? He would have won the primary there, and galvanized the paulistas beyond anything we'd seen before. Yet instead, he decided not to spend his money. I don't know why, but had he used it and his supporters, he would be a frontrunner now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Ok, here is the big question

WHY?

And yes, his campaign was ALSO surpressed

[Dark]

53. Maybe he's saving the money up for an independent bid. Maybe he has a secret plan a la 9ui11iani.

Maybe he's just a crook.

But whatever the reason, he didn't spend the money. With +$20 million before New Hampshire, the frontrunner status was his.

He chose not to.

The big question for Kucinich supporters is if Paul, a (for the U.S.) rather far right representative could raise +$20 million in a quarter, why couldn't the (for the U.S.) far left representative raise +$20 million in 2007. Not even $10 million. Not even $5 million.

He barely raised $3 million THE ENTIRE YEAR OF 2007.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00003572

But of course, despite all other Dems to the right of him out raising him, it was the nasty media that destoryed him.

[stimbox]

66. That's easy. The far right and libertarians have more money than the left. n/t

[Disturbed]

52. Most Americans don't care about Politics. They find it boring

unless there is an entertainment aspect to it, like the "horse race" we are experiencing now.
Scandals, esp. of the sexual variety elicit some response then fade as other sensational "News"
is displayed on the tv screen ad nauseum.

Amerika truly needs a new Electoral System but will never get one because the
two dominant power parties will never allow the change.

The Electoral System

Repeal the 12th amendment, reforming the electoral college, standardizing party qualifications in the states, qualified and free access to public airwaves.

1.Uniform Ballot Access
2.Loosen Third Party Ballot Restrictions
3.Universal Voter Registration
4.Election Day Holiday
5.Equal Media Access/Debate Inclusion
6.Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)
7.Secure Voting Machines
8.Public Campaign Financing
9.Direct Popular Vote Election of the President
10.Congressional Representation

[Dark]

55. I agree with most of those.

The equal media access is already there (candidates have the ability to buy the same amount of air time. Anything more would violate freedom of speech.)

THe public financing could raise some issues on who could run.

Otherwise I agree.

[Helga Scow Stern]

65. Nice to find a small corner of sanity. n/t