Jan. 6 sentencing...

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
7,979
3,285
1,743
47
DFW
I’m on board. What’s the plan?
There are likely many things that can be done, but a start would be:
  1. More emphasis on platforms of candidates instead of vilification of opposing parties.
  2. Adoption of ranked choice voting to encourage broader voter appeal instead of polarizing candidates.
  3. Greater emphasis on voters’ civic duty. More participation in local politics instead of focusing on statewide and national politics where individual contributions hold lesser influence.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
12,977
4,671
1,743
I’m on board. What’s the plan?
There are likely many things that can be done, but a start would be:
  1. More emphasis on platforms of candidates instead of vilification of opposing parties.
  2. Adoption of ranked choice voting to encourage broader voter appeal instead of polarizing candidates.
  3. Greater emphasis on voters’ civic duty. More participation in local politics instead of focusing on statewide and national politics where individual contributions hold lesser influence.
I like numbers one and three. Number two I would love to see in regards to primary system. Find a way to keep all potential runners in the race until the end so that every state gets a chance to vote for every candidate.

When it comes to the presidential election I think it would be hard to do it since we have the electoral college in place. And I really don't think we need to do away with the electoral college.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Dec 9, 2013
1,723
591
743
52
There are likely many things that can be done, but a start would be:
  1. More emphasis on platforms of candidates instead of vilification of opposing parties.
  2. Adoption of ranked choice voting to encourage broader voter appeal instead of polarizing candidates.
  3. Greater emphasis on voters’ civic duty. More participation in local politics instead of focusing on statewide and national politics where individual contributions hold lesser influence.
Good start. I’d add.
1) End gerrymandering.
2) Eliminate PAC fundraising, spending and advertising.
3) Set contribution limits to a low # and make it a one time contribution.
4) Cap how much money can be raised and spent on an election.
5) Money can only be solicited via USPS.
6) Any nonprofit/temple/mosque/church that promotes a candidate or hosts one on their grounds within 6 months of an election loses their tax exempt status.
7) Any money that remains in a campaign after the election is immediately allocated to Defense Dept to the VA.
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
7,979
3,285
1,743
47
DFW
Good start. I’d add.
1) End gerrymandering.
2) Eliminate PAC fundraising, spending and advertising.
3) Set contribution limits to a low # and make it a one time contribution.
4) Cap how much money can be raised and spent on an election.
5) Money can only be solicited via USPS.
6) Any nonprofit/temple/mosque/church that promotes a candidate or hosts one on their grounds within 6 months of an election loses their tax exempt status.
7) Any money that remains in a campaign after the election is immediately allocated to Defense Dept to the VA.
I’m not sure how I didn’t think of #1. Good catch!

#5 is the one that gives me most pause. I know you’re trying to eliminate the email and social media campaigns that have become grift centers. I just wonder if that would trade problems.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
54,494
18,173
1,743
I like numbers one and three. Number two I would love to see in regards to primary system. Find a way to keep all potential runners in the race until the end so that every state gets a chance to vote for every candidate.
So you would not allow a group to form and work to get their nominee to elected? Is that a violation of our constitution?
 

gundysburner

Territorial Marshal
Jul 25, 2018
5,513
1,373
243
51
Boulder, CO
Good start. I’d add.
1) End gerrymandering.
2) Eliminate PAC fundraising, spending and advertising.
3) Set contribution limits to a low # and make it a one time contribution.
4) Cap how much money can be raised and spent on an election.
5) Money can only be solicited via USPS. Not sure I follow where you're going with this.
6) Any nonprofit/temple/mosque/church that promotes a candidate or hosts one on their grounds within 6 months of an election loses their tax exempt status. How would enforcement work on 'promoting' a candidate?
7) Any money that remains in a campaign after the election is immediately allocated to Defense Dept to the VA.
How do you feel about out of state money in local/state elections?

I really wrestle with this one with millions upon millions pouring into my state from out of state parties.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
54,494
18,173
1,743
Good start. I’d add.
1) End gerrymandering.
2) Eliminate PAC fundraising, spending and advertising.
3) Set contribution limits to a low # and make it a one time contribution.
4) Cap how much money can be raised and spent on an election.
5) Money can only be solicited via USPS.
6) Any nonprofit/temple/mosque/church that promotes a candidate or hosts one on their grounds within 6 months of an election loses their tax exempt status.
7) Any money that remains in a campaign after the election is immediately allocated to Defense Dept to the VA.
How do you end gerrymandering? Who would be in charge of defining districts? How do you prove gerrymandering?

7) Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
54,494
18,173
1,743
Without making all house seats statewide districts how do you end gerrymandering? States lose and gain representatives and states have to redesign districts to accommodate this.
Often is the case solutions aren't as easy as some want to make it. Especially, if they look at a solution through partisan eyes. We all have our own bias.
 

gundysburner

Territorial Marshal
Jul 25, 2018
5,513
1,373
243
51
Boulder, CO
Often is the case solutions aren't as easy as some want to make it. Especially, if they look at a solution through partisan eyes. We all have our own bias.
What's the cliche? 'The Devil is in the details.'

This holds true with so many issues, but solutions that people can feel good about always have alot of appeal on the surface.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
12,977
4,671
1,743
I like numbers one and three. Number two I would love to see in regards to primary system. Find a way to keep all potential runners in the race until the end so that every state gets a chance to vote for every candidate.
So you would not allow a group to form and work to get their nominee to elected? Is that a violation of our constitution?
Numbering in the posts were changed somewhere. Are you speaking about the one about contributions?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
7,979
3,285
1,743
47
DFW
How do you end gerrymandering? Who would be in charge of defining districts? How do you prove gerrymandering?

7) Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.
Without making all house seats statewide districts how do you end gerrymandering? States lose and gain representatives and states have to redesign districts to accommodate this.
You don’t leave the fox in charge of the henhouse. Take the control out of the hands of partisan politicians. Put a nonpartisan or cross-party council in charge of redistricting with specific rules about population balancing, contiguity, and shape of districts. This isn’t some unsolvable paradox. The real problem is neither party wants to give up control.
 
Dec 18, 2019
573
136
93
42
Central Oklahoma
You don’t leave the fox in charge of the henhouse. Take the control out of the hands of partisan politicians. Put a nonpartisan or cross-party council in charge of redistricting with specific rules about population balancing, contiguity, and shape of districts. This isn’t some unsolvable paradox. The real problem is neither party wants to give up control.
We can follow the NCAA model of non partisan investigations.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
54,494
18,173
1,743
Numbering in the posts were changed somewhere. Are you speaking about the one about contributions?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Find a way to keep all potential runners in the race until the end so that every state gets a chance to vote for every candidate.
My question is would you not allow a group to form and work to get their nominee to elected? Is that a violation of our constitution?
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
12,977
4,671
1,743
Numbering in the posts were changed somewhere. Are you speaking about the one about contributions?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Find a way to keep all potential runners in the race until the end so that every state gets a chance to vote for every candidate.
My question is would you not allow a group to form and work to get their nominee to elected? Is that a violation of our constitution?
I'm talking about the ranked choice voting be used for primaries. Use it as a way to try and avoid candidates dropping out before all the states have a chance to vote.
I'm not sure how that applies to what you are talking about, and I'm not even sure how that would work out of it would. I don't like the ranked choice regarding the general election because I don't think it would work well with the electoral college.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
54,494
18,173
1,743
I'm talking about the ranked choice voting be used for primaries. Use it as a way to try and avoid candidates dropping out before all the states have a chance to vote.
I'm not sure how that applies to what you are talking about, and I'm not even sure how that would work out of it would. I don't like the ranked choice regarding the general election because I don't think it would work well with the electoral college.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
They drop out in many cases to stop spending money and they don't have the financial support to continue. If we put names on the ballot of people who don't wish to be there how do we decide which names to put on the ballot?

Or if they haven't completed the necessary paperwork to be on the ballot who's going to do that for them?
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
36,696
10,822
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
Clinton News Network.....
Your ate up.

You can listen to the audio recording yourself of one of the guys involved in it bragging about it at a freaking PUBLIC event

Trump and some of his top advisers publicly encouragedthe "alternate electors" scheme in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, Nevada and New Mexico. But behind the scenes, Giuliani and Trump campaign officials actively choreographed the process, the sources said.
One fake elector from Michigan boasted at a recent event hosted by a local Republican organization that the Trump campaign directed the entire operation.
"We fought to seat the electors. The Trump campaign asked us to do that," Meshawn Maddock, co-chair of the Michigan Republican Party, said at a public event last week that was organized by the conservative group Stand Up Michigan, according to a recording obtained by CNN.
Listen to Meshawn Maddock describe the Trump campaign's involvement in the fake elector plot at a recent speech in Michigan
"[Matt Maddock] fought for investigations into every part of the election we could. He fought for a team of people to come and testify in front of the committee. We fought to seat the electors. Um, the Trump campaign asked us to do that -- under a lot of scrutiny for that today. My husband has, he's suffered for that a little bit in Lansing because it's not very popular, but you know when you represent the whole state of Michigan and that's what I see it now. I realize that even though you're going to vote for somebody to be your next state representative, your next state senator, the truth is, this body of people, they represent all of us.
Maddock was also one of the 16 Trump supporters from Michigan who served as fake electors and signed the illegitimate certificate that was sent to the National Archives.