Discuss how we can hasten progress towards enlarging representation. There are two primary components to this: 1) educating others in order to gain the necessary public support; and, 2) ensuring implementation via a constitutional amendment or other legal means.
Forum rules
This forum is only for discussion related to achieving the vision of a much larger House. All other discussion will be moved or deleted. No incivility or partisan advocacy allowed.
Post Reply
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2016 6:49 am
First Name: Thomas
Stance: Undecided

Build Consensus - have faith in that because it makes sense

Post by ClarkKent »

The Truth about Consensus :

2016 Independent & Third Party, on the Ballot, Candidate Interviews : These candidates specifically are the ONLY third option in their area/district

I believe if a candidate has gathered enough signatures to be on the ballot and has a statistical chance to win then a responsible media will include them in the debates and interview them, to educate and inform the public of their options.

Imagine if, We the People, elected even one independent or third party representative to Congress – in each of the 50 states. If that goal is seen as a national movement, perhaps it might make it easier for independent and third party candidates – they could ~ ride the wave.

There are 435 members in the US House of Representatives, elected every 2 years – it was designed that way on purpose, to be the least resistant, most peaceful and quickest path to reform, in our democratically elected Republic.

Talking with people regarding Congress is a lot less divisive then Presidential politics.

There are about 324 million people in the USA.

There are about 219 million people eligible to vote and about 146 million registered to vote.

42% are independent
29% are Democrats
26% are Republicans
<1% are special interests
Who has the most influence do you think?

If there were 10 issues important to you, and 5 issues had popular consensus and 5 didn't, which 5 would you prioritize first?

I advocate uniting and winning, instead of being divided & conquered.

There will be plenty of time to argue on things that we disagree about AFTER we pass legislation regarding important things we agree upon :

1. Accountability & Transparency reforms, freedom of information, integrity safeguards, auditing our government.

2. Civil Liberties, NSA privacy & spying, preserving the Bill of Rights, due process.

3. Corporate Cronyism, Lobbyists, no bid contracts, bailouts, the revolving door.

4. Military Spending, mission creep, regime change foreign policy, Congressional approval & oversight.

5. Ending the Drug War, reform the justice system, asset forfeiture, demilitarization of police, private prisons, mandatory minimums, quotas, racial profiling, industrial hemp.

6. Election reform, open primaries, Election Day holiday, fair debates, rank or score voting, none of the above option, paper trail.

7. Fair and Free Trade.

8. Promoting an environment of growth and opportunity, less regulation and more competition for small and mid-sized businesses.

Does competition matter?

The fundamental question is Not : whether one should vote for independent or 3rd party candidates - Rather : WHY? DO REPUBLICANS & DEMOCRATS REPRESS EQUAL COMPETITION IN DEBATES AND ELECTIONS? Who are they disallowing? (ask yourself this) because if they do that to Them - they ARE doing it to You and to all of Us - we ARE the independents and 3rd party's; as more people realize this (and the consequences thereof) there will be more questions, options, relevant information and choices.

Is WHAT matters - HOW the game is played?

I have faith that people given enough information and in an environment where they can think for themselves will do the right things - because they usually do and can understand and have empathy - and the ability to learn in many situations. There has been incremental positive change the more we are connected and can see what is going on - look at the printing press (Renaissance) - then TV (civil rights movement) then and now the internet - be realistic - this is over the course of hundreds of years and has had steps forward and back however the trajectory with more knowledge does lead towards justice and freedom and fairness. The more people see individuals the less they are blinded by the mob.
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 12:16 pm
First Name: Don
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Re: Build Consensus - have faith in that because it makes se

Post by dsoeg »

What may I ask does your post have to do with the mission of 30,000 dot org?

The basis as I understand of this website is in regard to Article the First, which would have set an upper limit for House districts at 50,000 as approved by the House in 1789 or 60,000 as approved by the Senate the same session of Congress. Unfortunately, what went forward for ratification to the states was a bastardization of the two which ultimately made no sense once the population grew sufficiently.

I have no idea what your post is about in regard to this.

The general idea of Article the First is that if you have a district with too large a population (such as we have currently throughout the US), that people cannot select a proper representative from their midst, but instead are force fed candidates by special interest and big money from which they must choose....hardly the founders idea of representation.

If we kept districts small, say no larger than 60,000 population, we would have around 6,000 House members...which would require a bit or reorganization as to how to handle it. Likely, most would mainly stay in their home districts.

Yes, it would be hard to pass legislation with such large numbers...but that would be great as most laws should not be passed as they exceed the authority as granted under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. We need to restore the Constitution so it works for the people instead of the special interests. We need to rescind most of the legislation passed over the last century and restore some sense or proportion to the federal government and restore it to in at least some semblance representing the will of We the People.

The concept of the Constitution was a limited federal government with most of what the feds do now in regard to social issues and regulatory control...left to the States or the people.

http://www.PolicyUSA.com is my website. it is a bit out of date as I have not updated it recently.
Post Reply