I totally support voting out all incumbents, in fact I thought of it before I discovered VOID tonight. I would like to make one constructive suggestion: please don't advocate voting for a third party candidate if one is available. By doing this you reduce your chances of defeating the incumbent by wasting a vote that could have gone to the most likely successful challenger.
Politicians do not care about the message you send by voting for a third party candidate. They realize that just removes you from the equation. You're not going to help them but you won't harm them either so you simply disappear.
To be successful in this enterprise ( and I believe it can be successful ) you must keep your tone totally nonpartisan and you need to keep it simple and absolutely clear how a person must vote in order to make it count.
At the present time the House is feeling heat from constituents on illegal immigration and offering some legislation that favors enforcement and border control. The Senate will offer the guest worker program that the lobbyists favor in defiance to the will of the voters. The Senate is where the biggest problem lies. This is where you need to focus your attack.
As you have written, their reelection rates are staggering. But the Senate is actually more vulnerable to a " vote against" campaign than anyone else. As you stated, only a limited number of them from a limited number of states are up for reelection. You need to focus on those states only for the 2006 midterm election. You have available a small group of identifiable specific Senators who should be the named targets of your voting offensive. You have to make clear to your members and anyone they can influence that they must vote for the opposition candidate from the Republican or Democrat party. You cannot be successful in unseating the incumbent by throwing valuable votes away on noble but useless principle.
We as voters have long wasted our political power by voting all over the spectrum on moral principles or along party lines. That is what politicians thrive on. Lobbyists will always win until the Senate takes us seriously. If we successfully unseat most, if not all, of the 2006 incumbent Senators, and if it is not along party lines but strictly a defeat of incumbents then the message will have been sent.
It is my opinion that this should be continued in 2008 and 2010 and all currently sitting Senators should be expelled during those cycles. The men who have been there for twenty, thirty or more years are way too powerful for the good of America. They are more like princes or little kings and feel invulnerable. They control the Senate due to the seniority system and are able to intimidate and control all freshman Senators, forcing them to play the game and rewarding the compliant but punishing the men who may actually want to do what is right for the country.
The encouraging thing about the midterm elections is how few people actually vote in them. Forty percent of them will vote Republican, forty percent will vote Democrat. They neatly cancel each other out. The remaining twenty percent will decide the election. It is unlikely that they will vote in a united block one way or the other so potentially a third or more of those voters will cancel each other out. Are you beginning to see that it won't take a huge number of united focused voters to tip an election?
There are plenty of us who hate what is happening to America. We will take a chance on letting the political chips fall where they may. You need to create a passion among voters who have become apathetic because they feel their vote doesn't count. If they vote together in anger and in a focused, planned retaliation against all the men who have betrayed us their votes will count. We must forget all the useless liberal, conservative, anti-pro-abortion, gay-this, gay-that, black issue, white issue crap and join together as Americans to try to take back our country from the powerful wealthy interests who are remaking our nation against our will and without our consent. Corruption in the federal government has exploded in the last fourteen years and unless we build a united coalition to keep defeating these puppets of the lobbyists we are going to be seriously screwed.
Keep it simple. Don't go after too many targets at once. Make people understand that this is really possible to do and imagine the amazing feeling of satisfaction we will get if all the incumbent Senators get booted out this November. Imagine the rest of them contemplating their next campaign in 2008. Imagine the lobbyists who have invested about sixty million dollars to reelect their fair-haired boys. Wouldn't you like to see the look on their faces?
One other thing: voidnow.org is a little wierd. It implies that it's time to take a leak. Can't help it, it's the first thing that comes to mind. I realize that coming up with a good name is a tough proposition. Please don't be offended. I want you to succeed.
Best of luck to you and all who join you.
Glenn
Expand - Collapse Comment
Abbe Allen said at :
3:46 PM, 02 21 2006 | Permalink
I totally disagree that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. In many elections, there aren't two major party candidates running. For example, TX Congressional District 16. Sylvestre Reyes (D) is the incumbent and there is no Republican opposition. There is, however, a third party candidate. Needless to say, I'm going to vote for that "other" guy.
In the last presidential election, I knew that I didn't want to vote for the Democrat but I didn't want to vote for the Republican, either. I was foolish enough to let someone talk me out of voting against them both.
I contend that the only way we are ever going to pull the curtain down on the puppet show that has been going on for the past 20 years is to vote out both major party candidates wherever it is feasible.
Then, as the people who brought us this website have stated so eloquently, we are going to have to ride herd on whoever gets in there and make sure they never forget that the voters are in charge and the voters will not hesitate to vote them out the next time if they don't do our bidding and forget pork barrels and lobbyists with big checkbooks. We have got to stop letting our representatives SELL our government to the highest bidders.
Abbe Allen | February 21, 2006 3:46 PM
Reply to this comment
Expand - Collapse Comment
d.a.n said at :
12:00 AM, 02 22 2006 | Permalink
Abbe Allen,
Precisely. Also, when most elections are only won by a few percent of all votes, it becomes clear that the political landscape can be changed significantly by voting out irresponsible incumbents.
So, it wouldn't take that many voters to oust irresponsible incumbents, so that newcomers (who are usually outnumbered by irresponsible incumbents), may finally be able to pass some badly-needed, common-sense reforms.
d.a.n | February 22, 2006 12:00 AM
Reply to this comment
Expand - Collapse Comment
Abbe Allen said at :
6:54 AM, 02 22 2006 | Permalink
d.a.n. I totally agree. I believe that Ross Perot would have won when he ran had it not been for the political machine threatening his family so that he left the ticket than came back. There is no doubt that Dems and Reps felt threatened by him.
However, we were looking to change the most powerful positon in the world starting from the top down. They had the money and, it is a fact that in many cases, the Presidency being one of them, "he who has the gold makes the rules." That is why it is so important to start right now with the congress positions--the smallest voter base with the most voter control-- to start the changes we need.
If we can vote out 1/3 of the senate, that will send a powerful message.
Now's the time.
2008 will be too late.
Abbe Allen | February 22, 2006 6:54 AM
Reply to this comment
Expand - Collapse Comment
d.a.n said at :
8:41 AM, 02 22 2006 | Permalink
Yes, voters must start doing something now, unless they want to wait and learn the hard, painful way (again). I think if we can oust even a few percent of irresponsible incumbents, they may start getting the message. The problem is, many (not all) people will misbehave unless there are consequences. That way it is now, Congress and many in government can do just about anything they want, and are often above the law. Some literally, get away with felonies, and even if ever convicted, they get pardons.
The arrogance and irresponsibility, while possibly no worse historically than certain times in the past, is simply unacceptable. Voters need to learn to reject the brainwashing, clever distractions, partisan warfare, and stop allowing themselves to be fooled and manipulated.
So, yes, by all means, as you say...send a powerful message. Not just next election, but every election, always, until no more irresponsible incumbents exist, and government starts to also police their own ranks.
d.a.n | February 22, 2006 8:41 AM
Reply to this comment
Expand - Collapse Comment
d.a.n said at :
2:36 PM, 02 26 2006 | Permalink
Editor,
I would encourage voters to ignore party boundaries. And, voters also need more choices on the ballots, because many seats will essentially be unchallenged otherwise.
Also, since many elections are only won by a small percentage of all votes, any vote taken away from an irreponsible incumbent increases the challengers' chances.
Hence, more challengers, of any party is a good thing.
However, the objective would be better served if people ignore parties, vote for the best challenger regardless of party, take off the partisan blinders, give all parties equal consideration, and reject the assertions that 3rd parties and independents should be excluded.
The two main parties want to block access for 3rd parties to the election ballots, but voters should not allow that to happen.
What ever voters do ((a)vote responsibly to force government to be responsible too, or (b) learn the hard way again), the sooner the better, because the longer it continues as is, the more painful reforms are going to be.
d.a.n | February 26, 2006 2:36 PM
Reply to this comment
Expand - Collapse Comment
John Whitling said at :
8:37 PM, 09 05 2006 | Permalink
Republican, Democrat, or Independent, they are all a very real part of the problem. Congress run amok ... Congress voting for regard of Congress and it's contributors, not for regard to the good of the country. Voting for your rep will send a message that my rep's OK and Congress is OK. If everyone votes this way (as we have for many elections now) we send no message and nothing changes.
If you agree that we need change you MUST vote out incumbents at every opportunity. It's that simple.
John Whitling | September 5, 2006 8:37 PM
Reply to this comment