Ron Paul Supporters Are Asleep

Seems most on this thread would rather go on an igno-RANT against what they "ASS-U-Me" it's all about than bother actually reading the web site you provided, but I read it. Thanks. I'm sure it'll grow in popularity and be a topic here again soon.

It won't solve everything, but it will help some things. I'm almost 40 and have *NEVER* had anyone but a liberal Democrat for my "representative"; I've voted against "my" "representative" literally every chance I've gotten, and yet, here we still are. :-/ I'd love to give DR a shot.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Join the Team! campaignforliberty.com

I want self-rule. Nothing else.

If Presidents were decided by popular vote and electoral college, then only states such as New York and California would decide who the country's president is.

I think that the big reason that America has devolved into an empire is because the republic has been hijacked by the richest most evil criminals on the planet.

I think that the number one reason that these super rich criminals have been able to get away with so much is because they have been able to purchase all of the mass media and thus control the minds of the masses.

In the past, you would need to be rich in order to afford to purchase mass media power such as a newspaper or a T.V. or radio station.

Fortunately for us all of this is coming to an end.

The elite knows that its days are numbered because of the internet. Anyone can put up a website that anyone in the world can visit. New generations are abandoning traditional media, and pretty soon the transition will be complete.

Ron Paul is already the president of the internet, and once the old media is completely shed, then a man like Ron Paul will be voted president of America.

I just hope that America will continue to exist long enough for that to occur.

Dr. Paul's article on the electoral system and why it is preferable to direct representation.

___________

Lisa C.

“Elections are short term efforts; revolutions are long term projects.”

--Ron Paul

Join the rEVOLution here: http://www.campaignforlib...

What's so bad about collective decisions made by voting?

* Elections allow only occasional, sudden changes in government, and sample voter opinion only on that one occasion.
* Elections are held at a time convenient for the government, not for voters.
* Not everyone can get their way, as we can when we make individual decisions among many choices.
* When a large number of people make a collective decision, the number of options must be small. The small number of people who determine these options retain most of the political power.
* All methods of collective decision-making involve ambiguities and spoiler effects. All methods are vulnerable to manipulation and strategy. The sole exception is a majority vote between two non-negotiable options, like a vote on whether to end a meeting.
* A voter's preferences are difficult to quantify, and any simple method of doing so (such as approval voting or ranked ballots) can only be a rough approximation.

Why can't elections handle a large number of options?
When there is a large number of choices, many problems emerge when everyone tries to choose at exactly the same time. Voters have to choose without knowing how everyone else is going to vote. This results in "vote splitting" that produces unpredictable and nonoptimal winners. It's also more difficult for candidates to run targeted campaigns, and for voters to find the candidates they prefer, if they can't operate at their own pace.

A common solution to this has been the two-round runoff election, where a few leading candidates are chosen from a large pool in a primary election, and a final winner is chosen in a second election. You could imagine that a three- or four-round runoff would be an even better way to prevent vote splitting and campaign confusion. Direct Representation can be seen as an extension of this idea, because it effectively uses a continuous runoff election to choose new legislators. Voters can make a new pledge at any time if they feel that their second-choice candidate is making more impressive progress toward membership in the legislature than their favorite. A candidate can win a seat at any time, given enough pledges. So DR is the ultimate solution to this problem with elections.
Wouldn't we have too many choices with DR?
Most Americans have gone shopping for a car, apartment, or breakfast cereal and faced hundreds of options to choose from. Usually, everyone finds a satisfactory solution without an unacceptable amount of effort - we usually ask friends for recommendations, do some research on our own, read ads, and make a decision. Would you surrender this power of choice to a system of shopping by vote?
What is the nature of the connection between legislators and constituents?
Under DR, legislators and their constituents would feel a stronger bond than they do now. The two will share a common ideology, and voters would make a tangible contribution to their legislators' power. Voters could retain the same legislator regardless of their location or mobility, and regardless of complicated and arbitrary district boundaries. So a strong loyalty can develop between the two.

This is complicated by the use of a secret ballot; voters cannot (and should not) publicly prove who holds their proxy. Anyone can claim to be a legislator's constituent, so to some extent legislators must be accountable to everyone - probably a valuable effect.
Couldn't the effect of DR be mimicked by PR?
PR is usually used with some form of districting to reduce the number of choices to a manageable level. PR voting techniques simply can't efficiently handle the amount of choice offered by DR: imagine ranking 100 candidates on a ballot! With so many choices, it makes sense to just choose individually. (See the questions about elections that appear above.)
Isn't DR like corporate democracy, which is terrible?
Corporate shareholders are allowed to vote on various management issues in proportion to the number of shares they hold, and can assign proxies to have others vote for them. This mechanism is almost useless because the existing management automatically receives the proxies of those who don't vote. Management also has a great deal of control over ballot access. Most information voters need to make an informed decision is kept secret. So corporate democracy is indeed terrible, but not because of its similarity to DR.
How would DR be implemented?
Use of DR would require a secure central database keeping track of people's proxies. Voting would occur at a kiosk at a government office, by mail using secure codes, or potentially over the internet. Though we would want even greater safeguards for our government, corporations have conducted proxy elections for decades, with billions of dollars at stake. So DR would be feasible.

* Local or State DR: Changes to state constitutions or city or county charters would be necessary to allow for DR and perhaps expand the size of the legislative body.
* Federal DR: It would be best to implement DR nationwide. However, if it is desirable to maintain the federal nature of the US government, it would be best to implement DR only among larger states to choose each state's delegation to the House of Representatives. Smaller states would use Interactive Representation. In any case, amendments to the Constitution would be necessary.

DR would be a substantial change from the current system, but it will not seem so radical after proportional and/or interactive representation have been used at the local or state level.
Don't multiparty legislatures cause instability?
They can in some countries where the executive branch is selected by the legislature. The separation of powers in our federal and state governments would prevent such problems. There are actually many multiparty legislatures in the world that are very stable.
Wouldn't DR preclude representation of local interests?
No, because people can and will choose representatives who live near them, live in a community with similar concerns, or can otherwise represent their local interests. This has been demonstrated in at-large PR elections in Cambridge, MA. People use their power of choice to ensure that their local interests are represented. This is vastly preferable to election methods that force this choice upon people, regardless of their other political interests.
Where did you get this great idea?
Direct Representation is not an entirely new concept. J. Francis Fisher and Simon Sterne made similar proposals for the United States in the 1860's. This site combines ideas from this older work with more modern concepts and packaging.

Commission on Presidential Debates - http://www.debates.org/pa...
National Ballot Access - http://www.directdemocrac...
Voters for none of the above - http://nota.org/
Black Box Voting - http://www.blackboxvoting...

we need representative rule to make up for the uneducated, and to protect the minority from the majority.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
http://will86aber.wordpre...

But no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector. SO what is a Super Delegate?

available and delivered our government would work. However, people have no clue what their responsibilities even are.

It sounds wonderful but our republic sounded wonderful too

Mike
"Fire Team for Freedom", "Operation Daily Paul" and "Revolutionary Business"
visit www.mikeandjake.com

The Electorial system like it or not is part of the Constitution as part of the regulations for electing a President.Those who install a Pro Fed system are the CFR,and the same person (Colonel House) helped usher in the Federal Reserve and the IRS to secure the debts,and was a founding member of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) whose agenda is to remove the sovereignty of the United States and usher in a One World Government.
Here's the Constitution

Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together
with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,
a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives
to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or
Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United
States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two
persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State
with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and
of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and
transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to
the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence
of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the
Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes
shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of
Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and
have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall
immediately choose by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a
Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like
Manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the Votes shall be
taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum
for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the
States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In
every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest
Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there
should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall choose from
them by Ballot the Vice-President.

The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on
which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the
United States.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at
the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office
of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not
have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a
Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death,
Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said
Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by
Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of
the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as
President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be
removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation,
which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he
shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other
Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following
Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of
President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

.

1. No matter which system you pick, if Americans are unwillingly to get involved in their government and local communities as they're now - only about half vote for president and some of the other numbers are truly sickening - no system of change will work. The bottom is going to have to fall out of this system before we see some real change and that's why having this liberty educational efforts are very important.

For a republic to prosper, you need informed, civic-minded citizens. It's hard to inform with the bias mainstream media, 15 percent of Americans reading newspapers and eight percent reading books.

2. Lobbying is one of the biggest problems we face as a country.But we can't really stop it because it's freedom of speech. We can strengthen the bribery laws, however. It's obvious they're buying bills with the billions they give. We need to launch a full, massive investigation into it and influence on legislation. We also need to publish a list of who has given to whom to monitor corruption. Same thing for the executive branch.

3. I'm in favor of national referendum. If Congress wants to ignore the will of the people or the executive branch, this is the check of the average folks. We can overturn bills we don't like and set up some laws.

4. We're all Americans. I can't stand how the MSM and its pawns want to continuing divide us along every line possible.

Direct Representation requires only a few simple rules to establish voting rights, control the size of the legislature, and ensure that power flows smoothly.

Rule 1: Basic rights

1. Each mature citizen has the right to have one vote be cast in a legislature.
2. Each voter has the right to secretly delegate his or her one vote (assign a proxy) to a member of the legislature.

A secret ballot is required to prevent voter intimidation and encourage legislators to represent everyone, not just their direct supporters.

Rule 2: Size limits of legislature

1. New representatives must hold at least a threshold number of proxies (perhaps 1/1000 of them) to be eligible to participate in the legislature.
2. A representative holding one percent (1/100) or more of the total number of proxies may not accept new proxies.
3. Participation of half of all proxies or 100 members (whichever is greater) is required for the legislature to do business.

The first part of this rule caps the size of the legislature. If power in the legislature becomes concentrated, the value inherent in different people's diversity of opinion, background, and skill is lost, so the second part of the rule prevents this.

Rule 3: Timing of transfers

A voter may only transfer a proxy when either:

1. The voter's birthday was no more than 28 days ago.
2. The voter's representative is no longer a member of the legislature.

This rule ensures that voters stay committed to their legislator for a reasonable minimum amount of time, and that the legislature changes gradually rather than abruptly or unpredictably.

Rule 4: New members

1. At any time of the year, a voter may issue or revoke pledges to transfer a proxy to a new candidate as soon as it is available. A new candidate is someone not participating in the legislature, but seeking to.
2. Pledges are counted toward the number of proxies necessary for participation.
3. When a new candidate to whom a voter has pledged becomes eligible to participate in the legislature, all of that voter's other pledges are revoked. The voter may not revoke that pledge, and may not make new pledges until the candidate receives the voter's proxy.

New members would gather pledges in campaigns similar to petition drives for ballot initiatives. A pledge has more meaning, though. You can pledge to as many candidates as you want, but as soon as one has enough to enter the legislator, you would be committed to that candidate. Your proxy will automatically transferred to that candidate at your next birthday (or if your current representative quits) and you would not be able to make other pledges until then.

The pledge system is a simple and reliable way to allow for the continuous introduction of members within the timing constraints of Rule 3. It gives voters a great deal of freedom to find a strong new candidate and provides that candidate at least a year of job security once elected.
Variations
These rules could be adapted to fit specific needs. For example:

* A small town council could use limits as high as 20 percent for the maximum and 5 percent for the minimum.
* A student government could restrict students to one vote transfer per semester, to better accommodate an academic calendar.

Commission on Presidential Debates - http://www.debates.org/pa...
National Ballot Access - http://www.directdemocrac...
Voters for none of the above - http://nota.org/
Black Box Voting - http://www.blackboxvoting...

This is not the perfect solution that you seem to think it is. Leadership would still come down to popularity, and since leaders would be chosen nationally, only those with national exposure would get popular. Consider the example of Obama. Given his huge presence in the press and his personality, he would rapidly become on of the most popular (and therefore powerful) congressmen.

Remember that people don't always choose the person who actually represents their views. They vote for the person they "like" -- a lot of that has to do with presentation.

This system would be a travesty as it would only serve to exaggerate the problems with the current system. By having elections for representatives at a local level, it makes it easier to campaign and become known without having to have millions of dollars and national media exposure. Ron Paul Republicans can run in their districts and actually have a chance against big corporation backed candidates. This is how Ron Paul himself was able to win in Texas.

No, I think our current system, flawed as it is, is a far better solution than the one proposed.

...I like it, so far. I'm adding it to "approval voting" and "JAIL 4 Judges" as improvements we ought to work to make, ASAP. There are others, of course....

Barring anything or anyone changing my mind, you've given me a new cool tool for making people think. Thanks. (The atrocity of an unending chain of liberal Democrats being deemed to be my "representative" for MY ENTIRE VOTING LIFE has long ago become a source of deep, abiding irritation for me, and has soured me on our present system of government. I'm certain we can do better.)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Join the Team! campaignforliberty.com

It is a way to fulfill the fundamental principle of a republic: that every voter deserves a voice in government. That voice should be one that the voter prefers most from among a wide range of options. This can only be achieved if voters choose their representatives individually, and if their choice is minimally affected by the choices of others. Direct Representation is designed to meet these criteria.

How does Direct Representation work?

In a Direct Republic:
* Within a month after your birthday, you could secretly choose any existing legislator to be your representative. At any time of the year, you could also make pledges to switch to a candidate who is trying to get enough votes to enter the legislature. You would be committed to the first such candidate who receives enough pledges to enter.

* Legislators would have voting power in proportion to the number of votes for them. There would be a maximum and minimum number of votes allowed, keeping the legislature’s size between (for example) 100 and 1000. For a city council, these limits could be as low as 5 and 20.

Voter's perspective:
In a Direct Republic, you could choose the best among hundreds of candidates, guaranteeing that you will have a powerful voice for your interests. Your vote would always have a real, incremental effect on the legislature. You could re-evaluate your choice and choose another every year at your convenience. A one-year delay would ensure that power flows smoothly and that people think carefully about their decision.

Candidate's perspective:
Candidates would enter the legislature through targeted campaigns that resemble petition drives, not through vicious, expensive battles against an opponent. Once they have gained enough pledges, they have a guaranteed job for at least a year, and gradually accumulate power.

Legislator's perspective:
Legislators' power would fluctuate slowly according to their effectiveness and popularity, giving them a degree of real-time feedback on their performance. Rather than ride the roller coaster of election cycles, they would maintain a continuous, low-key, targeted campaign. Their constituents would share common interests, and not be defined by arbitrary boundaries on a map, so they would be easy to represent.

The legislature:
The legislature as a whole would slowly evolve to match the national interest, rather than change drastically as parties alternately seize control. It would consist of coalitions of several parties that would cooperate on various issues.

Commission on Presidential Debates - http://www.debates.org/pa...
National Ballot Access - http://www.directdemocrac...
Voters for none of the above - http://nota.org/
Black Box Voting - http://www.blackboxvoting...

I agree with SEPDX. We should not get dogmatic in our approach. Obviously the Constitution is flawed in that it was not able to prevent us from reaching our current state of affairs. It seems like it was made to be just good enough to make all the Jeffersons and Hamiltons of the day happy so that they would accept it but flawed enough so "they" (the evil "they") could slowly erode it over time. Funny that if you look at the writing of Jefferson you can see that he saw this and gave us so many warnings that we could easily lose what we had attained.

Commission on Presidential Debates - http://www.debates.org/pa...
National Ballot Access - http://www.directdemocrac...
Voters for none of the above - http://nota.org/
Black Box Voting - http://www.blackboxvoting...

as laid out in the Constitution, on grounds that DR unfairly disadvantages less populous states, and therefore favors urban trends to determine lawmakers and thus laws.

Thankfully, the elector system is codified in the Constitution, and the likelihood of that changing by the prerequisite method of passing both houses and 2/3 of the states to ratify, it won't be happening.
And I certainly won't be campaigning for it.

As long as the people do hold their representatives in check then things work. The Fed is not the only problem. For example, having the Fed but remaining on a gold standard would eliminate the overspending on wars etc. we have today. It's the combination of the government (corrupt politicians and financial elite) being in bed with the Fed and the ignorance and apathy of the American constituency that is the reason we are in this mess.