David,

You mentioned earlier that you would be having yard signs. A link to a "store" of sorts to purchase yard signs, bumper stickers and t-shirts (the main promotional materials I'm aware of) would be a nice touch. If necessary, you could set it up so that there would need to be X number of orders before you could fill it to keep costs down.

Stephanie, I will have a donation box set up this weekend. Hopefully in the next month or so, we will accumulate a small sum to set up the seed money to order some and make them available both here and on Ebay.

I have studied Jack Gargan's efforts in the past, and one of his biggest personal mistakes was putting himself into near bankruptcy. A mistake I hope not to repeat.

I have a few more months of work here at the homestead to complete our house, and shortly thereafter, I will have some disposeable funds to throw into this. Till then, we are strictly a shoestring operation.

You got me thinking though. We should hold a contest on this site for best logo, best bumper sticker slogan, best yard sign design. Great input, and thank you for helping keep this idea growing.

David, let me know how to help. This is right where I think we need to go...

Nice job.

Dennis

Those are good ideas:
(1) Yard signs;
(2) bumper stickers (the magnetic type maybe);
(3) slogans, artwork;
(4) contests;

David, By all means, do not bankrupt yourself. If there's not adequate support, you should not spend a lot of your own money on it.

Just now noticed the PayPal Donations link is up and running. It works great !

Dennis, thank you, very much for the encouragement. And thank you for the donation.

PayPal is indicating there is a problem with my account accepting credit card processing, so it is still pending. I have contacted them to resolve the problem.

Did PayPal give you any warning messages? Thanks again, Dennis.

Dan, thank you so very much for your donation and encouragement. I feel like we are building a team here, and it feels great, to finally being doing something positive to change things.

Your name will be on the honor roll before the end of the day.

No, things seemed to work o.k. on my end. I'll log back into see if anything is noted as a problem.

Dennis

David,

I certainly have no interest in seeing you risking bankruptcy. That's why I suggested having a total goal before the orders can be filled. But maybe I didn't explain that well enough.

While I'm not in that sort of business, I know buying in bulk is cheaper. So, it's more productive and cost effective to order 50 of a thing, instead of one. But only if you can use and/or sell all (or most) of the 50. So, if you take orders, either by taking actual billing info or contact info, and have a goal in mind--say you won't make an order until you have 25 interested customers, then you can garner support, have it gauged, while not indebting yourself.

So, if you have a place to record who was willing to order once you had the items available, you would be able to determine when it would be cost-effective to place the order.

So, if it costs $5/a piece to print up 50 shirts at a time, then you could ask for a $10 donation for the shirt + shipping and once you had twenty five orders you would have the funds to pay for all 50 shirts. Then, when you sell the other 25 it would be "profit" to use towards other aspects of the movement.

The Dems and the Reps do this sort of thing frequently, usually using much higher mark-ups because they can buy in more significant bulk. Then, they're still able to give some away free, because a lot of people already bought their own item which actually paid the expense of several of them.

The contest idea sounds great! Let me know if I can help you out there.

And, you're most certainly welcome. While we don't agree on everything, this is definitely something I can and will support you on.

BTW, you have another, albeit small, donation pending.

Dennis, thank you very much for your effort to contribute. PayPal is playing fast and loose with its customers. I am on their cheapest merchant account and their site states clearly that the level of service allows the acceptance of credit card payments.

However, when I try to accept your payment PayPal is telling me I have to upgrade the merchant to a 20$ month fee and 2.9% transaction fee, vs. the current no monthly fee and 1.9%. I have a dispute resolution email to them on their false advertising, but, it doesn't look like I can accept your payment without upgrading. Since I have absolutely no idea if any donations will be forthcoming on a monthly basis, it is too early to commit to the monthly fee upgrade on the account.

On my current service level their payment processing screen indicates payments drawn on a PayPal account or on a Bank are acceptable, but, not credit cards, despite their site saying the contrary elsewhere.

I will keep you updated when there is some resolution to this. Many thanks, we'll see what happens.

Stephanie, thank you for the donation to the cause and the great tips and feedback. We have $210 in the pot at this point. Time to get on the net and find out what it will cost to order T's and bumper stickers.

Something else we need is a jpg or gif logo that bloggers can display on their site in support of the VOID's efforts, linked to this site of course.

I can't help you much there, David. Our computer is severly lacking in graphics software, mostly because we don't use it and can't afford it. I'll see if I can recruit my brother to assist in that area. He does all sorts of CAD stuff and would probably have the skills you need.

David,
If you can post a mailing address , I would like to send you a check to help your cause.

David,
If you go with T shirts you first need a logo. Then the supplier will make a screen ($50-70). After that single color printing on a decent quality shirt will be $4-6.

Multi color printing is a bit more expensive, as are colored T shirts.

If you order shirts in advance of sale you have no idea what sizes to get in what quantities. Taking orders first is a safer avenue.

Stephanie, thanks, that would be great. I have cad and graphics experience, just no time, right now with everything else. A good graphic logo that can be used everywhere, bumper stickers, web site links, T-shirts, etc. will take some time and thought, and revisions.

We need something that will be a bit gimmicky too, causing people to ask: "What's That?", helping to spread the word. Something like "Are you VOIDing in 2006?" and "I'm a VOIDer, what's your excuse?" Of course, the site URL has to be included. A lot to think about and to simplify. There's only so much visible room on a bumper sticker.

Feel free however to toss around ideas, perhaps we will come up with something mentally before asking someone to spend time designing.

Great info, Steve. Muchas Gracias.

Everyone,

I am working on a combination volunteer sign up/guestlog page, and a volunteer staff page accessible only to those of us on the inside, where behind the scenes things can be discussed. Probably have that finished tomorrow sometime.

David,

I don't recommend you get too heavy into the curiosity approach. You may lose too many people who've been burned by that, my husband included.

Also, "VOIDer" doesn't sound gimmicky. It sounds kind of clunky to me.

Some brainstorming I've done...

"VOID out corruption!"

"VOID for voters' rights"

"Take control: VOID"

Also...
"...a volunteer staff page accessible only to those of us on the inside..."

I like that idea! It gives one a sense of priveledge and pride.

How about...

"I VOID, what's your excuse?"

"Is There a VOID In Your Life"

"Dont aVoid the Issue"

Here's some potential logos?
http://home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/VOID_Logo_01.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/VOID_Logo_02.jpg

d.a.n.,

I definitely like the second logo. Is there anyway it can be done in red, white & blue?

_______________________
Vote Out Incumbents Democracy to VOID irresponsible government
_______________________
VOID irresponsible government
_______________________
VOID bad government
_______________________
PROBLEM: irresponsible and unaccountable government
SOLUTION: VOID (Vote Out Incumbents Democracy)
_______________________
PROBLEM: irresponsible government that is without form, and void.
SOLUTION: VOID (Vote Out Incumbents Democracy)
_______________________
Restore the Balance of Power (not merely shift it) Between Government and the People.
_______________________
Peacefully force government to be responsible and accountable.
_______________________
Restore the Voice of the People
_______________________
Join VOID to wisely use your vote to have the most impact.
_______________________
ONE thing irresponsible government is hoping you never discover: VOID (Vote Out Incumbents Democracy)
_______________________
Maybe these will generate more ideas:
VOID DEFINITIONS:
adjective: 1: lacking any legal or binding force; "null and void" [syn: null] 2: containing nothing; "the earth was without form, and void" ; noun: 1: the state of nonexistence [syn: nothingness, nullity] 2: an empty area or space; "the huge desert voids"; "the emptiness of outer space"; "without their support he'll be ruling in a vacuum" [syn: vacancy, emptiness, vacuum] ; verb: 1: declare invalid; "The contract was annulled"; "void a plea" [syn: invalidate, annul, quash, avoid, nullify] [ant: validate] 2: clear (a room, house, place) of occupants or empty or clear (a place, receptacle, etc.) of something; "The chemist voided the glass bottle"; "The concert hall was voided of the audience" 3: take away the legal force of or render ineffective; "invalidateas a contract" [syn: invalidate, vitiate] [ant: validate] 4: excrete or discharge from the body [syn: evacuate, empty]
___________________

I definitely like the second logo. Is there anyway it can be done in red, white & blue?

Okay, I'm assuming the HTML tags here are the same for Watchblog. If not, I apologize, because this will get messy. Here it goes.

For conservatives:
"Conserve your rights:
Vote Out Incumbent Democracy"

For liberals:
"Liberate your rights:
Vote Out Incumbent Democracy"

So people know this isn't a partisan thing.

Also,
"Be responsible:
Vote Out Incumbent Democracy"

d.a.n.,

I like the problem/solution ones.

This'll be my last one tonight...I promise. No, really.

For the younger voters:
"Don't conform:
Vote Out Incumbent Democracy"

Here's a possible logo (in red, white, and blue).

http://home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/VOID_Logo.jpg

Stephanie wrote:

Be responsible:
Vote Out Incumbent Democracy

That's a good one, because it's really now up to the voters to be responsible to oust irresponsible and unaccountable government, because government won't do it or reform itself.

My only concern about the logo that d.a.n suggests is that the logo is generally associated with NO. NO Swimming, NO Smoking, NO Entry/Exit, NO Drinking, etc.

If someone sees a T shirt or sticker with that logo on it IMO the first reaction of the viewer is "This guy is against something".

An extreme example of a recognizable positive would be a logo with a picture of a gun and a logo of a hand with the thumb up. There is no mistaking that the viewer envisions the wearer as someone who is sending a pro gun message.

steve smith,
Valid point. I thought of that. I'll work on some additional (more positive) logos too.

I do like the new one d.a.n., but I see steve's point too.

OK. Here's another possible:
http://home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/VOID_Logo_CheckMark.jpg

Here's a possible VOID symbol. Some text could be placed on or around it perhaps:
http://home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/VOID_Symbol.jpg

I definitely like the check mark. Patriotic, positive and potent. Three great P words!

Great discussion, folks. I will join in when my todo list is done.

BTW, please sign in on the Supporter Guestbook, now on the front page. In addition, to become an official staff member of VOID, please click on the Help Wanted Link at to the top of the front page, which will take you to a form to be completed.

Thanks all for your tremendous enthusiasm and great thoughts.

Onward to the staff task management page, which will be passworded for staff only.

Dan, great work on the logos, man! One suggestion. Restore the voice of the people, is cliche'ish.

Can we come up with something that conveys 'putting voters in power over government', or, 'making politicians the voter's employees again', something along that line? Just a unrefined idea.

I love the red, white, and blue image with the checkmark. Fantastik!

Here's something along the same lines, but a little less cliche.

"Restore Political Power to the People."

Again, with the P's.

Or, something that's a little more clunky, but is also more to the point.

"Restore the Politicians' Power to the People"

How about...?

"Vote Corruption Out of Government"

Or

"Vote Corruption Out of Office"

Sure, you bet. That's a good point. Yes, "Restore the Voice of the People" is a bit weak, old, and cliche'ish.

How about a few of these possibles:
______________________
Restore Power to The People !
______________________
Peacefully Force Governent Reform
______________________
Peacefully Force a Balance Power Between Government and The People
______________________
Balance Power Between Government and The People
______________________
Government OF / BY / FOR The People
______________________
Restore Government OF / FOR /BY The People
______________________
Abolish The Political Class !
______________________
Restore Democracy !
______________________
Preserve Democracy !
______________________
Restore Democracy and Power to The People!
______________________
Something like that?
Any more ideas? What's the most brief, and conveys the best message?
______________________

Here's a party that makes some of the same valuable points about the imbalance of power: http://www.govforpeople.org/
http://www.govforpeople.org/covenant.html

I wish all third parties and independents could all unite, and combine in unison, to promote the one common goal, which is to Restore Government Of The People, For The People, By The People.
All third parties and independents shouldn't focus on their candidate, but all of them need to get on the ballots, and unite in the same message, and educate The People about the Political Class (the two main parties) that are taking turns being irresponsible and unaccountable.

All third parties and independents should help spread their message, which is really very simple.
___________________
THE PROBLEM: Irresponsible and Unaccountable Government
THE SOLUTION: Oust the irresponsible and unaccountable "Political Class" that threatens the future and security of the nation (i.e. VOID), and give The People more choices for people that are not for sale, not bought-and-paid for, don't peddle influence. All third parties and independents could jump at this opportunity to educate the people, explain the problem, and advocate the simple solution, and subsequently understand that voters have finally understand how to wisely use their vote to eliminate the self serving "Political Class" that uses and abuses the voters, and irresponsibly threatens democracy, and the future and security of the nation.
___________________

Instead of all third parties and independents trying to wrestle votes away from each other, posture their party and candidate to get more votes from each other, effectively sabotaging each others' party, focusing on minor differences to differentiate each other, they should all unite and offer more choices to the voters, and unite to focus on the most important (e.g. say the top ten), most uncontentious, un-brainer problems facing the nation, for the common good of the nation, to peacefully force government reform, and restore (not merely shift or strip) the balance of power between government and the people.

Hopefully, all third parties and independents won't miss this excellent opportunity for all of them to finally unite their main message, and finally have a voice.

Many third parties have common goals. If they all focus on the most important common goal, rather than dwell upon and get distracted by their minor less substantive differences, they could significantly change the political landscape, and finally focus on the overall health of the nation, for which we will all benefit, and finally be back on the right path. I'd venture to say that many solutions would suddenly start to almost magically fall into place if we could get back on the path of courage, and moral & fiscal responsibility, and accountability.

And, part of all third parties' message should also be to educate the people that they must continually hold government accountable, and may need to, repeatedly oust incumbents, until they finally get the message that the voters are fed up, and demand responsible and accountable government (before its too late, and we all learn the hard way by another repeat of history), and that it can easily be accomplished, with no single party/candidate, without a lot of money (which makes elections and government rotten), without the clever & distracting partisan bickering about unimportant issues, without much of anything else, but the one thing they still have (at the moment, that many have died and suffered to preserve): their vote

Stephanie, I like those!
Those are good (i.e. with the P's...reinforces the PEOPLE).
We are getting somewhere.

Working off d.a.n.'s idea, would there be a way for us to reach the various third party candidates and set up some sort of chart that spans the US, basically blocking off certain portions for the various third-party candidates, then all third-party and independents can unite in a single area, work together for a common goal (i.e. electing one t-p or i candidate for that area), but doing so knowing that the party they particularly support is getting that same kind of assistance and support in another area.

For example, I prefer to vote for the Constitution Party. However, I can see myself not only voting for, but working to elect a member of the Green Party or the Libertarian Party for Senator if I knew that the good folks in Minnesota were working to elect a member of the Constitution Party. In the ends, after the elections, each of the third parties would be represented in the Senate and Congress, but all the third-party voters would be represented by a "Third-Party" candidate, versus a Constitution or Green candidate.

Does this idea make sense to anyone? I'm writing while thinking, so it might not be coming out clearly.

Good Stephanie,
Yes, I also would support many people and parties, as long as they are not bought-and-paid for, and part of the irresponsible and unaccountable "Political Class". The great thing about such a grassroots movement is that it doesn't need vast amounts of money. But, it will need some to spread the word and logic. All third parties and independents (combined) could do that. This is their chance. Despite what a lot of politicians want us to believe (and I'm not trying to trivialize it either), it's not rocket-sciense. The main problem that all third parties want to achieve is government that's not for-sale, doesn't want to always over-complicate everything so it can be abused, and that will be responsible and accountable, and willing to bring transparency to government, to reduce corruption, and work on (instead of ignoring) the top 10 (or more) problems threatening the nation.
________________
By the way, I was thinking (but I'm not stuck or insistent on it or any of my suggestions...just offering up ideas) the VOID symbol (not the logo) could be inserted on various items (including the logo) and literature to create curiosity, questions, and inquiry. For example, someone might ask, what's that symbol that dots the "I" or within the lower right corner mean ?

The reply: VOID (Vote Out Incumbents Democracy) , which is the easiest, least expensive, most responsible way for the people to peacefully, and responsibly force government to be responsible and accountable too !

http://home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/VOID_Logo_CheckMark1.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/VOID_Logo_CheckMark2.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/VOID_Logo_CheckMark3.jpg

Politicians should be hired help.

Voters should govern.

Let Voters Govern Again.

Politicians need to know their place.

Put Politicians in their Place.

Voters should be boss!

Who's the Boss? VOID !

The Capital belongs to Voters!

They don't OWN this Country!

Vote - Ownership in Democracy (VOID)

Just some more brainstorming to throw into the mix... David

How about a scale of justice with Government on one end and People at the other end showing the scale in perfect balance. With a comment like "A PEACEFUL SOLUTION" Or,
A VOID symbol or comment also shown.

Stephanie and Dan, we are reading each other's minds. One of the first strategies that occured to me after the VOID jumped up, was to rally 3rd parties behind VOID.

We will be exploiting that connection to the nth degree at the beginning of next year, as 3rd parties start dressing up their websites and getting prepared fund raisers, mailings, and ad campaigns. If we can get them to back VOID, they will carry our message on their donor's dime.

David,
I like that one (Vote - Ownership In Democracy), because:
(1) it reinforces ownership and that we're all responsible
(2) it repeats the acronym (VOID)
(3) it repeats Vote and Democracy (Vote - Ownership In Democracy)
Perhaps we could use a logo with the same overall visual pattern, but have multiple versions with different slogans, depending on the suitability?

http://home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/VOID_Logo_CheckMark4.jpg

steve smith,
Yes, scales of justice could be very effective to show the imbalance-of-power or the need to restore the balance of power between government and the people. Let me work on that one.

Also, transparency is a goal too, because it is a major part of achieving responsibility and accountability.

Along that line, one simple demand voters should make is that government add transparency by allowing only ONE PURPOSE PER BILL, because as it is now, we can't tell why anyone votes for anything, except that each bill is loaded with million$ and billion$ in pork-barrel, graft, and waste. Voters can create a short list of such items and them measure Congress' progress by their willingness to pass these no-brainer, non-contentious, obvious, unarguably needed improvements.

Can anyone think of other, simple, constructive changes to simplify procedures and make government more transparent ? One area I haven't looked into much is the issue of GerryMandering, which is abused to shift votes.

David, Stephanie,
Yes, If all 3rd parties and independents advocate the same non-incumbent message, and they all get on the ballots, the voters will finally have more choices of candidates that aren't for sale and bought-and-paid for. I see you (David) have that message at the top of the blog window. That's great.
That great part is that third parties and independents don't have to combine their party identities (which are all a little different). They merely would be wise to unite the same goal, capitalize on this message, and combine their efforts to convince voters that they can do a better job than the two main parties, because they're not all bought-and-paid puppets of others that with vast power and money controlling the puppet strings. And it won't be hard to prove that our current government is for sale, and the voters should be responsible and do their part to reject the two main parites that are simply takin' turns runnin' the nation into the ground (as evidenced by the many many serious problems they continue to ignore).

OK, I'm clearly passionate about it and getting carried away, but it seems so very much the right thing to do.

First, in response to Steve...

I really like the scale of justice idea, but for a pamphlet instead of the VOID symbol. What I'm envisioning is one the front of the pamphlet having the scales out of balance (obviously with government being the heavy one) with a brief message of the nature of the imbalance (i.e. lack of transparency, fiscal irresponsibility, partisan politics, backroom deals, just a nice short list probably with VOID symbols for bullets).

Then, inside list the major attractive points of the VOID mentality, hopefully including ways to unite the third-parties. Using the VOID logo to emphasize our side. Then close it with something like "VOID...to restore balance to government" and show the scales finally balanced in the end.

Second, concerning reaching third parties...

I want to emphasize that at least to some the third parties are very different. Yes, they're all about balancing the government with the will of the people, and that's the good thing we can all get behind, but...

I'm opinionated and stubborn, as you've all probably noticed on WatchBlog, but I'm also flexible enough to learn from others. My interest and beliefs concerning politics have grown and matured since I started blogging with all you fine folks. You've each taught me some important points. I mean, I honestly thought voting Republican was a good choice last election. However, despite knowing that (for instance) the Libertarians would be better than what we have now, because they're not solidified in government the way Dems or Reps are, it would still kind of rankle for me to actually vote for one because I don't share their views. I'm conservative, I prefer the Constitution party. The Green party would be acceptable, I've voted for them before.

But, my point is, that to get all the people from all the third parties to unite under one candidate per area, and actually work to get OUR message as well as THEIR message across... that's what I believe it would take to get enough elected (and thus our message wouldn't be simply shifting power between Dems and Reps or vice versa). The problem with this, of course, is convincing the die-hards of the third parties that this is a good idea for THEM and for our nation. To do this, I believe we should have a plan that ensures, so long as everything works the way it should and everyone plays fair, that numerous candidates from each of the third parties (btw, are there more then the three I know about?) actually get into office at the federal level (I'm think Senate and Congress here), and because there's numerous people from each of the "minor" parties all the people from each of the third parties would be represented.

This, you might have noticed David, goes back to the whole you supporting Feingold thing and how much that bothered me. I think if we do it this way, we can use that idea that if these guys (or gals) are working at the federal level they can and do represent everyone to work to our advantage.

In order to do this we need:
1) to get as many third party people on-board as possible
2) strategize which third party candidate in each area that's up for election that we'll back, making sure that each third party as a whole is fairly represented
3) convince other disenfranchized voters how our plan works and what they can do and who in their area to effectively support

I'm envisioning a map here, gentleman. Military-style, or as close to that as I can get. I see a map of the US, blocked off in election lines for Senate & Congress.

We target areas that have these ingredients:
1) not solidly Rep or Dem, shaky ground
2) disenfranchized voters, people who are disappointed with their elected official (or should be), think DeLay here, his Dem counter-part probably thinks he's got a shot and I imagine us "stealing" it out from under his arrogant little boots (I have no idea who runs against DeLay, so this comment is nothing personal)
3) voters who want actual representation (or should)

Such locales are our red zones, and this is where I would think we should have the best chance.

An orange zone would have a weaker combination of those elements.

A yellow zone would have a "safe" candidate who seems to be doing his job (ignoring the fact that government as a whole isn't) and has solid support from his/her constituency.

We concentrate most heavily on the red zones, because that's where we're most likely to see success.

We do this by uniting the third party candidates and whipping the voters into a frenzy.

While, in this scenario, we don't take all the seats of the Senate and Congress, we make quite a splash for our first election cycle and scare the pants off the politicians.

Okay, so yes, my imagination is running over-time here and I'm much better at "What if?" then "What is...", but I think it could work. I mean, at least it could work if it were a novel. ;-)

Stephanie and Dan, great thoughts. My initial vision of VOID was however, that it be non-partisan. If we actively seek third party replacement candidates for D's and R's, VOID loses D's and R's who would join the VOID cause to demand politicians of any stripe, put the people's majority issues front and center, responsibly and accountably.

Anti-incumbency does not favor any party. It does favor challengers, regardless of party. In the real world of elections, that translates into Republicans unseating Democrats and Democrats unseating Republicans and 3rd party candidates unseating the two major parties. By promoting challengers of any stripe, save the really objectionable ones like Nazi or Socialist Parties, we achieve the goal of letting incumbents know the voters have taken power back for themselves.

If we stay non-partisan, all partisan, we can solicit action and support from all party constituents and even local parties. If we get pegged as liberal or conseravative or third party backers, VOID will lose its base from all the other parties don't you think?

David,

I understand what you're saying, but do you think the two major parties are willing to change or are even capable of it? I'm not talking the politicians themselves, but the parties as a whole? I fear that corruption has become such an integral part of the two party system, that we cannot excise the corruption without killing the parties themselves. And if that is the case, if the corruption is so integral to the system that it cannot be excised, then changing Democrat for Republican and vice versa will not actually change the amount of corruption, merely the type. Then, what we face is the sacrifice of effectiveness over universality.

Part of the benefit of this movement is that it's unexpected. If it works to switch from incumbents of one major party to the newbie of another, then in 2008 our goal would be all that much harder to achieve. Assuming we'd have the same or more support, all they'd have to do is flip-flop their support, since they can almost guarantee that the opposite two-party candidate will win. That's why I suggest rotating between the third party candidates. They're not in it enough to be in bed with all the government corruption... It's going to be easier for them never to start, then to stop after tasting the bitter sweet victory of corruption.

I'll put it to you this way. In the "DeLay Wants an Unfair Trial" thread, the Dems are saying DeLay wants an unfair trial because the judge is a Democrat and DeLay wants a different judge. The Reps are saying it's not unfair to ask for a different judge and that a Dem would do the same thing in that situation. The Dems are saying that's irrelevant, because a Dem isn't on trial.

In the end, it all sounds like "corruption is fine as long as it's my side being corrupted."

Is that mentality something that can really be fixed without out kicking both parties (at least temporarily) out of office?

I guess part of it, David, is I'm not sure if we just shift the power to the other party that they'll understand or believe that this movement had anything to do with it. The Dems on WatchBlog are still convinced that their losing the White House and the Senate and the Congress was a fluke, and it's all going to come back to them in 2006 and 2008 without them doing anything to make themselves more appealing to the American public. The die-hards of the two parties are so set in their own superiority that I can't see how this or anything would change that.

David,
I agree. It's unwise to exclude any party. Not even D's and R's should be excluded.
Thus, I'm going to change my web-site to say non-incumbent only (instead of NON-incumbent / NON-Main-Party).
It would be nice if voters would choose non-main-party candidates, but I see your point. It should be non-partisan. Many people will never leave their party. We can only hope that voters will prefer to vote for a non-main-party candidate. However, it's true that some are determined to stick to their D or R party . However, if they have a good 3rd party or independent choice, they should understand the benefits of voting for a non-main-party candidate.

But, I understand what you're saying, because there are so many D's and R's. For now, voting out incumbents, with no discrimination of any party for the candidates is the wisest approach. If it doesn't work, the movement could later advocate voting only for non-main-party candidates (but that would require a lot of 3rd parties getting on the ballots).

Afterall, none of them
want to be unseated, regardless of party, and it will still achieve the goal of making it difficult for big money influencers to control the process.
_______________________
Stephanie,
That's a good idea about using the VOID">VOID">http://home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/VOID_Symbol.jpg">VOID symbol for small bullets in literature.
Also like the elaboration on Steve's idea of the scales (imbalanced, and then balanced).

Regarding the 3rd parties, they're probably more alike on the most important issues, and differ only on most of the less important issues. It doesn't really matter that much.

They're goal is to first get on ballots, and all spread the common message to voters:
(1) to vote for non-incumbents with integrity, that aren't bought and paid for;
(2) that they promise to simplify and make government more transparent (via simplfications, ONE PURPOSE PER BILL, etc.), responsible, and accountable. Transparency and simplifications will make it possible for the people to see what's really going on.
(3) show the people a list of serious, no-brainer, non-contentious problems (that the two main parties are ignoring) they promise to earnestly address (e.g. some of the problems from this list)
(4) Vow to reject divisive partisan politics that distract us all from the important issues and problems threatening the future and security of the nation.
(5) Vow to encourage voters to continue to vote out incumbents and themselves, if they don't adequately address the list of problems they promised to address.

The 3rd parties and independents should not dwell on each others' differences. That will sabotage the goal. The first goal is for all 3rd parties to spread the non-incumbent message. Then, they may have a chance for election. Then they should not view this as a competition against other 3rd parties. It's a competition against incumbents in government that are irresponsible and unaccountable, and, as a whole, are failing the people.
________________________
Stephanie,
The map thing is an interesting idea. Have you seen the link David posted to the Green Papers on the main page?

Stephanie, I appreciate those concerns, and believe me, I share them.

But, when it comes to R and D parties, incumbency is the name of their game. Without incumbency, they can't plan to be a majority party, which of course is their ultimate goal.

Therefore, an anti-incumbency movement by voters has the potential of actually reshaping the machinery of political parties and realigning their priorities. Both major parties know the majority of Americans believe government is sold to the highest bidder.

An effective anti-incumbency movement has the potential to end that, by forcing the parties to back the will of the people and with successful enactments of that will, or lose their incumbency potential, and hence, hope for majority status.

This is at least the power of the fulcrum of anti-incumbency. It can lever the Republican and Democratic Parties as well as 3rd Parties to address and shape their agendas around issues a majority of Americans agree on, like minimizing corruption and special interest influence, and securing our nation against attack, and ending deficit spending with the least possible pain for voters and tax payers.

That is my vision. As Stephen Daugherty is currently arguing, visions often require adjustment when implemented. I do know one thing for sure, VOID brought you and I together in a common cause based on disappointment with the status quo. And that is power. I am hoping that power can be widely distributed among voters to wield against the status quo and reshape Washington so that politicians completely understand their political future is in the voter's hands, not donors, special interests, and behind the scenes power brokers.

d.a.n.,

I hadn't seen that, no. I'll take a look at it more closely tomorrow.

As for the non-partisan thing, I don't really see my approach as partisan. The corruption seems to be a mainstay for the two major parties. It's not their party I'm against, but the corruption that has made their parties so strong and has locked them into power.

This is the clincher I see, and you said it.

"Many people will never leave their party."

We can convince the die-hards to continue voting against the incumbents they don't like without a problem. They're going to do that anyway. I don't see our message convincing the die-hards that they should vote against their own incumbents, though...so the message is lost there.

For instance, were I a die-hard Republican, getting me to vote against Feingold would be easy. I'd do that anyway. Getting me to vote against Ryan (my Republican Congressional Representative) would be much more difficult. I've met Ryan. He's a nice guy. I spent a half an hour talking with his wife about our kids. It was great. Voting against him isn't an easy decision. Voting against him to replace him with a Democrat...that's even harder, and the effectiveness of that is less convincing. The Democrats in my state have already screwwed me and mine over quite a bit. I've little trust in the Democratic party left to me. Were I a die-hard Republican, there'd be no way I'd vote against Ryan knowing that he'd probably be replaced with a Democrat.

As for the unimportance of the "minor" issues... I understand why you say that, but I still think you're wrong. Think back to 2004 and how many people were motivated by those minor, devisive issues to vote at all. That gave the Reps the election! That's not minor and shouldn't be dismissed so easily. I'm not saying VOID should take a stance on those issues; VOID shouldn't. But, the voters do and it is important to them. By dismissing the importance of that issue, you are dismissing a significant block of voters who may be very receptive to this message. A great deal of people went out to vote and voted Republican, because of the family values they claimed to represent. Once solidly in office, the Republicans then screwwed these voters over big time. On the flip side, a great deal of people went out and voted Democrat instead of Green, Libertarian or Nader because they were so against the Republicans and their social platform.

I'm not saying VOID should take stances on devisive issues. That would be counter-productive, but so is belittle those issues. Saying any bit of fresh blood is better than an incumbent isn't going to be true for many voters and that's something we should just ignore.

Now, that I've said my piece, feel free to think up some stellar ways to tell me I'm wrong. As for me, it's 1:30 am and I have to be up at 6, so good night.

David,

I was writing my response while you were posting yours so I didn't see until after I posted mine. I'll read it more thoroughly and answer it tomorrow. So far, it makes sense, but I am too tired to try to understand it thoroughly at this point.

David, I've been out for a while. Did the PayPal issue ever get resolved? Also, a small suggestion. The site's colors are cool and invoke a sense of passiveness. I think you should consider some hot colors (reds, oranges, etc.) to increase the sense of heat and passion that the message of this site contains. I'm not a behaviorist, but I've heard that color stimulates response, and if you are looking to get people stirred up, the cool blues suggest the opposite... Just a thought.

D

Dennis, yes, it got resolved. I apologize, I thought I sent an email to that effect, but, perhaps it got lost in my shuffle over here. I upgraded the account to receive credit card donations.

You are quite right about colors having an emotional effect. The effect I was going for was cool, sound, rational reasoning behind VOID.

A great many who will visit this site for the first time will do so as skeptics. My reasoning was to try to insure their cool, sound, and rational acceptance of the Mission of VOID. As opposed to fueling their passions prior to understanding and acceptance.

That said, reasoning only goes so far. Your suggestion is very sound. I think the thing to do is apply a real world test once we are receiving a few hundred visitors a week. Monitor signups and donations for a month under one color set, and then another month under the other color set. Whichever color set has the highest numbers is the one we can stick with. What do you think?

David, Dennis,
Those are good points about the colors.
I appreciate both arguments.
It is somewhat revealing isn't it ?
Some people that visit my web-site say they like the content and agree with a lot of the non-incumbent message, and believe incumbents are irresponsible and unaccountble, but some do comment on the colors and visuals and many say they are extreme. But, that's my personality.
_______________________
"I don't have an attitude ! That's just the way I am."

While I am sure it's a given of the VOID objective, an issue that I have not seen covered yet is the QUALIFIED parameter.

Example : There has been public outcry regarding the qualifications of some recent appointees. I refer to Roberts, Bolton, Brown, Miers.

Understandably, since these are appointments, there are no non-incumbants to vote for. We can certainly speak up regarding reccomendations but, at least initially we will have limited impact in this regard.

My point is that I think it is incumbant (ha ha) on VOID to provide as much information as possible on the non-incumbant candidates QUALIFICATIONS to ensure that people don't simply vote for ANYONE.

We don't want to fall prey to the very thing that causes the outrage now of UNQUALIFIED people getting into highly responsible positions.

Forgive me if this has been covered elsewhere or is an unnecessary concern.

steve smith,
I think experience and qualifications are important, but it is more important that the candidates have integrity, refuse to peddle influence, refuse to be puppets of some that abuse vast wealth and power to control government.

The problem we have with incumbents and their lack of accountability is not just because you failed to accurately judge the character of the candidate. It's not because we are consistently bad judges of character. It is also the system (of cozy incumbency) that is flawed, dysfunctional, and breeds irresponsibility and unaccountability. Thus, it doesn't seem to matter WHO we vote for, because of what happens to politicians after being elected into a dysfunctional system. Since the system is dysfunctional, good and well-meaning politicians are powerless to create more responsible and accountable government; especially if we continue to consider each politician individually and never as one team or one entity.

steve smith,
Oh yeah, have you seen David's link to the Green Papers ?

I don't know if VOID can fairly and accurably endorse or criticize politicians, as much as just simply endorse the non-incumbency idea. Voters will figure out the qualifications and history through their own party's web-sites, advertising, etc.

But, yes, without endorsing or discriminating against any candidates (except incumbents), all the information available about politicians will probably get discussed at great length as the elections approach, and this web-site, and many other candidates, and parties' web-sites will be over-flowing with data on the candidates.

d.a.n,

Thanks for the link. My point is that I don't think we want the voting public to construe the VOID movement as a casual "change for the sake of change" position.

As advocates of a solution we need to be as informative as reasonably possible.

I agree 100% that endorsement and/or discrimination of non-incumbant candidates should not be a VOID mission but, "low key guidance" may have to be considered in instances where VOID credibility is in jeapordy.

Ahhh...good point. No, we don't want it to be misunderstood as promoting change just for the sake of change. I agree. We might want to start saving and compiling such questions as this, and a list of potential arguments, and pitfalls, and use them for an F.A.Q. (Frequently Asked Questions) page. We may want to save all the questions posted here, or that we hear, or read (with regard to VOID).

I like the idea on the testing of the site's appearance. You can work some of the "voice of the people" view into a feedback mechanism.

This is gaining some momentum and it is very encouraging to see. Well done David.

First, I'd like to assure you that you'll not lose my support if I don't agree. You are certainly more aware and more experienced than myself in the political arena. I do respect that and take it into consideration.

That being said, it seems that by including Dems & Reps into our qualified non-incumbents, we'll slow down the effectiveness of our approach. Not only are the anti-incumbent votes going to be split (thus not necessarily electing the non-incumbent), but even if we do switch a Democrat for an incumbent Republican (or vice versa) the awareness and the affect of what happened will be more removed from our efforts. Right now, the Dems think they'll win the next round of elections because the Reps are doing so poorly. The Reps think they'll win the next round of elections because the Dems are out of touch with the American people. (All this as per interactions observed on WatchBlog.) I don't know that they'll be willing to recognize how we may effect the election process. They'll think it will just line-up with their predictions and they won't feel our concerns are any more relavent to them than to an incumbent.

That is my concern. Or, one of many. Feel free to address it however you see fit, knowing that I support this movement whether we come to agree on this point or not.

I guess the end question we should ask ourselves is this: Are we more concerned with the votes we sway, or actual election wins? Both are valid motivations, but I'm not sure which we're going for now.

Also, I filled out a form from the Help Wanted section earlier (a day or two ago?). Have you received it or do I need to try again?

Sorry, that last one was for David.

Dan,

I would say your colors are difficult to read, other than that they don't bother me.

And a FAQ's sheet is a good idea. Preferably, it should be something that's easy to print off to vacillitate sharing it with others who don't want to look through an entire web site before their interest is piqued.

OK, I'll try some slighly different shades of the colors and fonts. Do you mean the text is hard to read because of the colors ?

Yes, it actually gives me a headache to read along your site for very long. The message makes it worth reading, but (for me at least) having the background darker than the text is actually physically painful. If you're background was lighter than you're text (think black on white versus white on black here), then it would be better. Also, I warn you away from putting neon colors together, they just seem to blend into together. Because I've a tendency to get migraines, I'm usually more sensative to these things than most people, but I've found once I point them out usually people agree with me. Since you were considering changing it anyway, I figured I might as well put my two cents in. ;-)

Thanks,
I'll work on toning down those extremes.

David,

Are the help wanted responses getting through?

NOTE: I sent a response (just in case it didn't get through for some reason).

Dave, all,

How about

Voice Of Independent Democracy? VOID

focuses on the positive, independent view of things and not partisan hackery..

Dennis

Steve, yes help wanteds are coming through.

Dennis, thanks. We have moved this discussion on logos over to the Staff Web site. Care to join us as a founding staff member of VOID? If so, click on the Help Wanted link at the top left of this page for a staff form to fill out.

Thanks.

--David

All,

The staff of VOID is working busily in the background. Probably won't be much new stuff on this site for the next week as we get organized. After next week though, look for a very robust beehive of activity taking place here and elsewhere as our staff moves out to spread the word, voters are taking back D.C. and VOIDing any incumbents who stand in the way.

My initial vision of VOID was however, that it be non-partisan. If we actively seek third party replacement candidates for D's and R's, VOID loses D's and R's who would join the VOID cause to demand politicians of any stripe, put the people's majority issues front and center, responsibly and accountably.

Your right David, VOID MUST say independent of party affilation. Once any party is endorsed then the movement will loose support.
VOID should ebdiese the canidate(s) and not the party. And I don't see anything wrong with endorsing multiple canidates for the same office. That way the voters will really have true choise.

More choices. Please !
I tired of only having a choice between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum , both often bought-and-paid-for.
Did you know 90% of all elections are won by the candidate that spends the most ? What kind of government is that ? It's government-for-sale. Did our fore-fathers ever foresee this happening? They did a good job, but this was one oversight that's threatening the future and security of the nation.

Your right David, VOID MUST say independent of party affilation. Once any party is endorsed then the movement will loose support. VOID should ebdiese the canidate(s) and not the party. And I don't see anything wrong with endorsing multiple canidates for the same office. That way the voters will really have true choise.

Ron, David,
Yes, I agree. Initially, I was thinking non-main-party. But, that's not really necessary. Non-incumbent is sufficient for The People to find good candidates. Besides, the problem is not that we're all poor judges of character, or keep voting for the wrong people. It's what happens after they're indoctrinated into the status-quo, business-as-usual, dysfunctional government system, where graft and corruption are S.O.P. (Standard Operating Procedure). The real problem is that those in office lack incentive to be responsible. This easy, simple, inexpensive, quick, safe, non-partisan solution could give the "Political Class" some incentive (if they want to keep their offices). Heck, wouldn't it be nice if they even started to police their own ranks to some degree? Sounds like science fiction, but it's theoretically possible. It's in the realm of possibilty. The wild card factor is whether people will ever realize it, and do such a simple thing to restore (not simply shift) the balance of power between the government and the people.
Because, this is the one thing polticians are hoping The People never discover and act upon.

I reckon one of yaall might have thought of this already, but I'll throw it out there anyway.
Any canidate endorced by VOID should be a fisical conservitive, and I'm sure you've thought of that.
How about if the canidate has held office anywhere their voting record be gotten, if possible, and printed out so we can see how they voted.

Hello Ron,
I could be wrong, but I think VOID will be non-partisan, and VOID will neither endorse or reject any candidate or party.
Voters and parties will continue to do that as always.
Personally, I'd like it if all voters went and voted non-incumbent and non-main party. But that would, unfotunately, make us partisan too. So, to be fair to all parties and candidates, we're simply recommending only one simple thing: vote for non-incumbents, until all holding office realize their career will be very short if they continue to be fiscally and morally bankrupt.

We hope all parties will join us and help us spread this simple solution.
But, main parties may have little reason or motive to pay heed at all. But, we hope all third parties and independents don't miss this opportunity, and help spread this message, which is in their best interest, and the best interest of the nation. We, The People, The Voters, are not trying to seize power, or disrupt the nation. On the contrary. We merely want to restore a balance of power (not simply shift it) between government and The People. This is the easiest, safest, quickest, most logical, most responsible thing the voters can do to peacefully force government to be responsible and accountable too. If the voters choose to do so, they are simply exercising their right to vote. Lets hope they choose this safe, peaceful approach. The alternative could be much worse, as our many serious problems continue to grow worse and worse, in number and severity. We're not invincible. We're becoming more and more vulnerable, and these many problems could all culminate to change life as we now know it. We are running out of time. How much time? I don't know. Read what some respected economists are saying. It may not be far away. It's not hard to see, due to our incredulous fiscal and immoral bankruptcy. Where will it all end? You don't have to have a crystal ball or be a rocket scientist to see we're crappin' in our own nest. Soon, that nest is going to be so full, the branch is going to snap, and we will finally feel the consequences of years and years (e.g. 45 years of growing the debt larger every year) spending, borrowing, printing money, toying with interest rates (designed to shrink debt with inflation), and irresponsible and unaccountable government.

Dan, no, you are not wrong. As our Mission Statement indicates, VOID is non-partisan, all partisan. Meaning our organization endorses and favors no parties, and welcomes registered voters of all parties to join the VOID bandwagon to rout out the old political backroom deals and partisan procrastination preserved in government by incumbents, and replace them with freshman who have a mandate from the voters. That mandate is solve America's problems or lose your first reelection bid.

I can live with no endorsement of any canidate. I was mistaken by thinking that maybe VOID would endorse canidates.
I reckon it's best without endorsements.

Ron, I think the point of VOID is to get the voters to do the research and make up their own minds. Endorsements are a slippery slope, because then we would have to explain why we would endorse one candidate over another. There are different political views within VOID but we come together on a common theme that government in general has been hijacked by career politicians, lobbyists and special interests. Maintaining objectivity is paramount to maintaing VOID's credibility as a voice for the general public. As for me, my goal with VOID is to educate and motivate the voter to make up their minds.

Ron,

I, like d.a.n., was of the non-incumbent, non-main party mindset, but the reasons to be entirely non-partisan are sound. Freshman elected official of any type would have reason enough to please their constituents, because they'll be grateful for the votes and probably surprised by their success. We can only hope that they'll take this chance they've been given to actually solve the problems this nation faces, instead of falling into the trap that their elders have laid for all elected officials.

__________________________
There are different political views within VOID but we come together on a common theme that government in general has been hijacked by career politicians, lobbyists and special interests.
__________________________

Well said. That's a great sentence. Yes, the PC ("Political Class") has hijacked democracy.

Packaging the message will be important. Education, as you and many have pointed out, can not be underestimated. Like Stephanie and David said, some people may not even really understand what the word incumbent means. Part of the education will be demonstrating to people (with powerful examples) that government is irresponsible. Packaging that message is important too.

For instance, one might say or write:

(a) Government is irresponsibly voting on pork-barrel, such as the $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation.

(b) Or: Government is irresponsibly voting on pork-barrel (such as $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation), when some of our troops do not yet have body armour, and many HUMVEEs need armour too. That's the sort of decisions your federal government is making weekly in this era of fiscal and moral bankruptcy, which is threatening our nation's future and security.

Another effective tool are historical quotes. One of my favorites is by Frederic Bastiat (1848), regarding a myth, the "great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else".

These are a few of the challenges. One being, how to most effectively, in the fewest words, inspire, anger, peak curiosity, even cause worry. Not only short and fast slogans, but several versions of the same idea, supported and reinforced by different evidence, presented the best way possible, to give the most bang for the buck.

And, sometimes, humor drives home an idea better than anything.

And, here's another good version, that I never put to paper (or keyboard) very well, but was well stated by David Remer (regarding our mission):

________________________
... to rout out the old political backroom deals and partisan procrastination preserved in government by incumbents...
_______________________

old Backroom deals....
Partisan Procrastination preserved....
Those two sets of only three words speak volumes.

And, everyone here, too, has written something that, similarly, says it best. We may want to identify, save, compile, and share these best sentences and justifications we each package a little differently to convey the same basic ideas.

Brevity is not my strong suit, but the importance of the most message-per-words can not be underestimated. Often, I'm told people get turned off by the information over-load. So, that's an issue we'll, unfortunately, be constantly battling with.

Therefore, some might consider saving what they write. Especially, when it hits a nerve, draws consensus, or says it best. Analyze it, and refine it. And use what others write too. For VOID, everything we write has a common goal. Anyone can use anything they want from my site, and hopefully, they won't mind if others use some of their well-written sentences, stories, and anecdotes to improve upon, and make our message as effective as possible i the fewest number of words.

__________________________
"I see PC people !"

"I see PC people !"

Good one d.a.n.

Lieberman should be notified by the Democratic Party that if his run as an
independent keeps the Democrats from gaining a majority in the Senate, he will no longer be welcome in the party as a candidate in the future.

In fact, why not tell him that just for declaring his intent to run as an independent? He's a whiner and poor sport. Go somewhere else but please stop defrauding the People, and stay out of the Congress. You give the Party a bad name.

Who wants him to win? He won't vote with the Democratic Party.

Why doesn't he become the AIPAC candidate instead of an independent candidate?

Good riddance from the Democratice Party, Mr. Lieberman, the hawk whiner. We are getting pretty fed up with the DLC fraud on the Party and the Lieberman/Hillary Clinton suckup to AIPAC.

Lieberman/Hillary is what is wrong with the Congress and with America. Let's clean it up.

Lieberman should be notified by the Democratic Party that if his run as an
independent keeps the Democrats from gaining a majority in the Senate, he will no longer be welcome in the party as a candidate in the future. In fact, why not tell him that just for
declaring his intent to run
as an independent?

Who wants him to win? He won't vote with the Democratic Party. Why doesn't he become the AIPAC
candidate instead of an
independent candidate.

Good riddance from the Democratice Party, Mr. Lieberman, the hawk whiner. We are getting pretty fed up with the DLC fraud on the Party and the Lieberman/Hillary Clinton suckup to AIPAC.

Lieberman/Hillary is what is wron with the Congress and with America. Let's clean it up.