Community

First Steps: Hope And Courage

2011-12-14T06:42:15Z

No journey is ever begun until hope fills the first steps.

The American people want a capable government, able to bring back a robust economy, and healthy future for all American's benefit. Poll after poll reflects an approval rating of Congress in the teens or less. It is a gross distraction under any president's administration to accuse the president of being responsible for the incompetence and ineptitude of Congress. Our Constitution stipulates that Congress legislates and our President executes what Congress legislates. We are entering a presidential election year, and while the media wants to focus on the presidential race, it is the Congress which voters must attend to.

Failure to execute current law is not the source of most American's loss of faith in government. The source of the problem is this. Too many in Congress are unable or unwilling to act in the best interests of the people and the nation. They are acting instead on behalf of their special interest campaign donors, their Party or, a gerrymandered percentage of their constituents in their home state.

Unless voters can encourage themselves and each other to vote out incumbents routinely, until such time as Congress is filled with those dedicated to the welfare of our nation and all her people, America literally has no plan for curing what ails her. Our Congress is riddled with the cancer of greed and power, money influence and special corporate interests. And that cancer is growing inside our Congressional body. The American voters must administer the radioactive treatment on Election Day after Election Day, which will force this cancer into remission.

It is a daunting task to ask Americans to find hope and courage to act when the fate of our country is looking so bleak. The challenge remains, however, to go out and actively help fellow Americans to accept the reality of this cancer, and to accept the cure. It is a challenge because it calls for voters to abandon political party and ideology. The goal however is worth the challenge. We will restore to our nation a Congress of, by, and for the American people. A daunting task - a worthwhile end.

We each, individually and collectively, will continually suffer the consequences of a failed America. Go forth and vote for individual candidates who are committed to the reforms which will eradicate this cancer growing in our Congress, our political parties, and within the body of our nation's future.

Fear of, and cowering from, the future is not an option. We are not North Koreans. Action requires the courage to step forward. Action requires hope filling the first steps toward achieving the objective. Our forefathers and mothers mustered within themselves the courage and hope to act appropriately when our nation's future was threatened. Are we lesser Americans than they? It is a false pride that says, "I am an American", while failing to act appropriately on America's behalf.

Those of us who understand the truth of what is said here, have a duty and obligation to ourselves and our country, to help our fellow Americans come to the same understanding, regardless of difficulty or hardship.

The Deeper Meaning of Penn State Rapes

2011-11-13T17:09:39Z

The alleged sexual crimes committed against children at Penn State have been called sexual abuse and scandal. They are in fact, alleged crimes and torture of children. They are heinous, if the allegations are true. Outside an institution with a reputation and integrity to protect, almost any witness to such crime would call the police. Inside institutions of repute, however, too many such crimes against women, men, and children, go unreported, and covered up. Are our institutions more important than the innocent people harassed, abused, or even tortured, within them? So far, the answer seems to be, yes.

]]>
Nearly everyone would agree that parents have both power over, and responsibility for, the welfare of their children. We have laws designed to insure that parents who violate that responsibility are denied such power. Why should this concept be different within our society's institutions? Is it different?

This writer argues that within institutions, many hold the view that it is a different standard for the powerful in our institutions, and that their power, however used for right or wrong, is justified by the benefits received by those within that institution. There is no better example of this than the Penn State Athletic Department in which it is alleged, that an institutional cover-up of the crimes were employed. The rationale was simple.

The Athletic Dept. did more for the reputation and funding of the University over the years, than any other department within the institution. Ergo, a standard was adopted that said, above all else, do no harm to the Athletic Dept. regardless of the actions of that department. The reputation of the Department became more important than any individuals setting foot on the Penn State campus, including the children. Not even the laws of our nation and society were to take precedence over the reputation of the Penn State Athletic Department.

This is not an isolated instance in American institutions and society. The allegations of two of the four women claiming sexual harassment, are given credence by Presidential candidate Herman Cain's organization having settled financially with the two women. The "too big to fail banks" were created allowing them to become more central to the economy and nation than jobs, credit, investors, and all other businesses threatened with a lack of available cash to continue operations. Dow Chemical's reputation was more important than the Agent Orange which killed so many American soldiers via cancers, long after the Viet Nam War was over. The oil companies reputation and profits have been deemed more important than Asthma sufferers in our cities, and the fishery industry in our coastal regions (Exxon Valdez and Gulf of Mexico oil platform disaster). Political rivalry between Democrats and Republicans continues to deny our nation and all its working people an economic recovery that will allow us to effectively manage our debt in future years.

There is an old saying that had great credence during the founding of our nation. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Why has America abandoned such wisdom? America is being overrun by consequences of actions with entirely foreseeable futures. When President Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, overturning FDR's Glass-Steagal Act, it was apparent that the threat of too-big-to-fail banks had been raised to Depression era levels. It is big news today in the media the threat to us all of failing to invest in, and upgrade, our nation's infrastructure. It is foreseeable what will happen. America will lose the ability to compete economically with other nations. And yet, America is incapable of ponying up that ounce of prevention due to the GOP and Democratic Party institutions of political warfare.

What is lacking is a national consensus that demands responsible action, and is willing to deliver consequences to those in leadership who fail to live up to that responsibility. The 99%'ers, or Occupy Wall St. crowds, have offered this nation an opportunity to build that consensus with consequences on Election Day. But, support for their discontent remains tepid, and the American people remain largely divided by the sophisticated political distractions and divisions of our two party, bought and paid for, political system.

I personally believe the "Get The Money Out Of Politics" movement, calling for a constitutional amendment requiring public campaign financing of elections and banning corporate and organized campaign financing, is the answer for what ails America's failed leadership, political, and governing systems. If politicians no longer have to pander to special wealthy minority interests to get reelected, they will be forced to turn to the needs of the nation and the people at large for direction in law making and leadership, if reelection and seats of power are what they seek.

Of course, the current lot of incumbents in government will not willingly dump the current campaign financing system. It is what shores up their high probability of reelection (77% in 2010). Therefore, an all out campaign against incumbents in government, which seeks to elect challengers in support of getting the money out of politics, as recommended by Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy, is absolutely necessary.

If you don't vote, don't gripe; you are part of the problem, not the solution. If you vote for incumbents, or one of the two major parties, you are voting to keep the current failed government system in place. Only if you are voting out incumbents and for challengers, are you voting for the possibility of change for the better. As long as the Dem's and Republicans are allowed to continue to divide us voters, our national challenges will continue to march toward systemic failure and collapse, in the footsteps of Europe's Greece and Italy, where the institutions were allowed to protect themselves from public backlash resulting from the institution's own misdeeds and counter-productive acts.

Penn State is a warning of far deeper and more pervasive destructive forces at play in shaping our nation's future. Failure to act with outrage toward the perpetrators requires that ever more dire consequences will have to be paid in the future.

Half the Vote.

2011-10-31T17:30:37Z

Would you drive half a car, fly half a plane, drive a nail with half a hammer, or get half a flu shot? Some politician might use this photo to sell this car arguing that you only have to fill the gas tank once, the entire time you own it. Believe it or not, there are millions of voters who would believe the politician and vote for them.

]]> In America, on average, only about half of eligible voters exercise that right. Most of those who don't vote will justify their behavior with something like: "My vote won't make a difference". Most of those who do vote, believe in the potential of their vote making a difference. It is surprising, the consequences of everyone voting, or not voting, in 2012. Let's take a look.

Everyone Votes

In the case of around 90% of eligible voters showing up to vote, several consequences would break down the system for that election.

1) One consequence would get everyone's attention. The polling stations are ill-equipped to handle that many people wanting to vote. Lines would be interminably long, frustrations and anxiety would rise, fights would break out as people's frustrations and boredom of standing for hours in line reached a breaking point. Is there any excuse at all for America's democratic system failing to at least provide for the potential of nearly every American voting?

The political parties and machines operate on the assumption that turnout will range from 20% in non-presidential elections to as much as 65% in a presidential election year. Both parties work toward the end of keeping the opposing party's voters from showing up in numerous ways.

2) A consequence specific to the 2012 election would very likely be a wholesale rout of incumbents from office in the U.S. Congress. The polls indicate that only 9 to 13% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing. Additionally, only about 1/3 of Americans approve of the job their own representatives are doing. Obviously, there is enormous incentive by both the Democratic and Republican parties to insure that the maximum voter turnout is not the case in 2012. Their objective will be to maximize their own base's turnout while minimizing the opposing party's base turnout as well as Independents who could swing the election one way or the other.

3) Another consequence would show up huge in employer's pocketbooks. If around 90% of eligible voters voted in 2012, that day would record an enormous spike in employer's costs for doing business that day, as half or more of their work force was absent for half the day, (or more due to long voting lines) to cast their vote. It is hard to imagine why most employers would not join the Why Tuesday? crowd in calling for weekend elections in this event.

No One Votes.

Now let's consider the case where virtually no one shows up to vote in America.

The first and most obvious consequence would be the reelection of nearly every incumbent, except those cases where the challenger had more family and close friends showing to vote than the incumbent did, (possible, though not likely). As VOID has said many times since its founding, if the people don't vote, the politicians will reelect themselves.

The second consequence would be that these politicians would govern like dictators or Kings with birthright to power. With no threat of public reprisal at the polls, they would agree upon rules and laws that favored their incumbency and punished those who would challenge their authority.

The final result would be that one or the other Party would gain control of the lawmaking process long enough to pass laws and rules that virtually eliminated the other Party's power, and America would become a one party State like that of China or the Soviet Union.

The power of the vote cannot be overestimated. With the vote, Americans can potentially throw the entire personnel of elected leadership out of office and hand victorious challengers new orders on what results the public expects from them, lest they be thrown out of office, as well.

Since politicians will reelect themselves if given the opportunity, one of the primary functions of the public vote is to pose the threat of voting incumbents out of office. If politicians take seriously that public threat on Election Day, they will govern in ways that meet the approval of the majority of voters.

Since, the politicians in Congress are NOT governing in ways that meet the approval of the majority of voters, one can only conclude that these politicians do not fear the anti-incumbent potential of the voters. And there is historical evidence to support this view of our current politicians. In 2010, a near record year for the anti-incumbent movement, very nearly 3 out of 4 incumbents remained in office. Our politicians go to sleep at night comforted by the fact that regardless of how they govern, they have a 75% chance of being reelected. And if they govern to appease their reelection bank-rollers, their reelection odds go way up from there, since, with the money of their bank-rollers they can control the information the voters have access to around election time.

The system is rigged in favor of incumbents, and against the public and voters. Wall Street bank rolls the incumbents that favor Wall Street greed. And after the election, Main Street Americans foot the debt bill for all that favorable treatment for Wall Street. Wall Street, after all, has to be compensated for all those political contributions and lobbying costs to elect their protective incumbents. Wall Street doesn't work for free! Never has. Never will.

Only some vote.

When only about half of Americans vote, the majority of votes will go to the Two Parties in control. Therefore, the Two Party system is maintained, and the corruption of power by those two parties continues, without challenge or threat from Independents, third parties, or public mood or sentiment. The corruption of power in the absence of full participation public voting cannot be overestimated.

The majority of Americans in polling say they expect their representatives to strengthen this injured economy. Yet, every measure to do just that has either failed in Congress, or, sits idly on some clerk's desk gathering dust because the opposition Party won't allow it to come to the floor for a vote. The Two Parties in our government are using the government to wage political warfare with each other, and the American people are the collateral damage of that war.

Signs of our Times

Poverty in America is rising at an alarming rate, (15.1% in 2010), with an estimated 43 to 47 million Americans fallen into that category. The Middle Class that hasn't fallen into poverty, is dropping down in rungs on the Middle Class ladder. The upper 1% have seen their incomes rise hundreds of percent in the last few decades, while the middle class has seen their incomes rise about 40%. That means enormous sums of money that used to flow through our economy as consumption and production dollars, enriching nearly everyone in the consumer production cycle, are now absorbed into the financial markets as investments (increasingly overseas). In other words, this investment money is not flowing through our economy to create jobs and wealth and debt management for everyone, but, instead is being put to work by the wealthiest 1% to earn even more money in overseas economies.

We are a net import nation. This means that ever more of our consumer dollar is being sent to support job creation in other countries. Even the wealthiest who are earning more money on their already doubled, tripled, and quadrupled incomes, are, when they spend some of it, buying goods produced increasingly overseas (Rolls Royce, Bentley, Cartier, etc.).

Increasingly, as American dollars ship overseas, so too will go Americans with middle class savings for their retirement years, where their U.S. Dollar will buy the same goods and services for 60% or less of what they would have to pay in the U.S. for the same goods and services. India is already attracting US customers for medical care and treatment through a Tourist Medical Industry that provides quality surgical operations and treatments at half the cost of the American health system. Approximately 5.2 million Americans now have permanent residence overseas. Increasing, but small, numbers of these, are renouncing their U.S. citizenship every year.

Frustration with a broken political system and government is rising dramatically in all the polling data. This is giving rise to public demonstrations and protests, and increased public service costs to monitor and maintain order for these demonstrations.

States and municipalities are increasingly cutting public service expenditures to keep from bankrupting, and the losses of jobs in the areas like police, fire fighting, education, waste management, water treatment and provisioning, point directly to a future with increasingly negative outcomes for the public at large in American towns and cities, and even rural areas eventually and consumption and demand remain at or near flat.

The role of the voter.

Diminishing voting turnout is not what democratic elections should be about, especially in America: Egypt maybe; not here. A large number of States are, this year, proposing, or considering, legislation to make it harder, or impossible, for groups of Americans to vote. Some groups targeted are young college students, the elderly, the infirm, the poor and low wage workers, and millions of Americans who don't believe they can afford to take the time off from work, without negative repercussions.

Conceptually, the remedies are elementary. Politically, they are extremely difficult, unless Americans vote anti-incumbent until such conditions change.

One change needed is to move to a national Election Day holiday on a Weekend and require employers to provide a minimum half day off to all employees on Election Day, or extend the voting period out over 7 consecutive days so that everyone at work and school has the opportunity on their day off, to vote. In addition, facilitate one-time proof of eligibility registration and a nationalized registered voter database, duplicated by each State, and cross referenced with a nationalized birth and death database. These measures would virtually insure everyone the opportunity to vote, as well as secure everyone's right to vote, while ending the potential for many kinds of voter fraud.

A fundamental flaw with a Two Party system is its inevitable legislation toward the end of creating a one party system. Such a system will always work cooperatively through an agency like the Federal Elections Commission to discourage the formation and ballot access to Independent and third party candidates, not to mention minimizing their potential for fund-raising by making regulatory requirements prohibitive.

One of the primary purposes of the current political funding mechanisms is to preserve the power of the two party system while preventing the ascension of any third party or Independent movement from posing a threat to the power of the Two Party system.

There are no limits, however, on the extents to which one of the two parties, seeing its own demise in future elections, will go to protect its power in the two party system. This truism predicts that when one Party is so out of favor with the public as to risk losing its Two Party membership into the future, that party will go to the most extreme and corrupting measures to protect itself.

Some of those extents will include bringing government to a grinding halt on measures the nation needs to be addressed, with devastating consequences to the nation and people.

Another extremist measure will include leveraging the power of money in elections to offset the backlash of the public through propaganda and misinformation media campaigns. (We have already seen evidence aplenty of this taking place.)

Still another measure will be to change the laws to disadvantage the voters of the other party, or, change the rules within government to disadvantage the other Party.

Belief and Voting.

The act of voting requires that the voter believe that their time, effort, and consequences of voting will be worth it. From another vantage point, one of the objectives of a political party is to make the voters supporting the other party believe their time, effort, and consequences of voting, won't be worth it. There is general agreement that education is the most significant socio-economic predictor of voting behavior.

We have therefore, created a system in which each Party engages in misinformation campaigns to erode the other Party's voters belief that voting is worth it, and issue based Political Action Committees engage in efforts to restore in voters the belief that their vote will make a difference, if only on that one particular issue.

Central to this system is propaganda, information, and misinformation. (Is it a coincidence that America's education system is also declining?) The net result of such a system is to divide the people on so many fronts, that the two party system need not fear the voter on Election Day. The hope is that voters will be so confused as to not even bother to vote, or so torn between their choices, that they become single issue voters siding with one Party or the other.

The remedy is a consensus amongst the American people and the belief that acting on that consensus on Election Day will make a difference. That consensus now exists. Most Americans believe that our Congress is failing them. All that is left is for those Americans to register to vote, and vote anti-incumbent. If the reelection rate dropped to below 50%, both Parties would be forced to salvage their political futures by governing in a way that the majority of Americans would approve of.

Do your part.

Persuade a family member, friend, or acquaintance to vote, and to vote out incumbents and vote in challengers. It is far more important today, that our politicians get this message that the people are back in control of Election Day, than it is to choose better candidate. Any challenger will do, they will be just one of 535, and a bad one will on serve only one term.

Corruption in America

2011-10-12T12:11:58Z

"To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day." --Theodore Roosevelt.

There is a general perception among the majority of Americans today that our political system is corrupt and our government is failing as a result. Most recently, the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators speak to the very same kind of corruption which Theodore Roosevelt spoke of back in the 1920's. When government legalizes bribery and blackmail, these do not cease to be acts of corruption. This is precisely what has taken place in American government and politics, corrupting our system to the point of growing demonstrations in our American streets.

]]> . This is the single most egregious source of corruption of government by business. It is a Frankenstein resurrection of the 'Unholy Alliance' between politicians and the wealthy in the business world which Theodore Roosevelt spoke of. The political parties have become the bag men carrying the 'legal bribes and blackmail' from Wall Street to Capital Hill.

If the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party founders, who denounced this corruption of our government, are to succeed in reducing the corruption, they must commit to the daunting task of accomplishing a Constitutional Amendment. Specifically, they must force passage of an amendment which prohibits corporate person-hood and the funding of election campaigns by the business and incorporated entities (which includes unions). So far, the Occupy Wall Street crowd has not set forth an agenda for action other than to arrive in the streets in groups and express dissatisfaction with the status quo.

It is not hard to understand why, either. The instant the Occupy Wall Street "organizers" establish a political policy initiative for change, the business world and political parties will immediately seize upon the their agenda to promote it as a danger to society and America's future, with 100's of millions of dollars of support for waging this war against the Occupy Wall Street crowd. This is a real dilemma for the Occupy Wall Street movement.

In a nutshell, if they don't promote concrete policy initiatives using their anti-incumbent vote to enforce it, politicians will pay lip service to their concerns without actually changing anything. If however, they do advocate concrete policy initiatives, the full weight of corporate wealth will descend upon their movement to discredit their policy initiatives. There is a profound lesson to be noted by all in a little covered election recently in New York as Bloomberg reports:

Evidence that voters are angry enough to kick out their own party was apparent Tuesday night when Republican Bob Turner won a special election in a U.S. House district in New York City with voter registration weighted toward the Democrats. "We are unhappy. I'm telling you. I am the messenger. Heed us," Turner said in a victory speech aimed at Washington.

If the Occupy Wall Street movement continues to grow into 2012, it may achieve sufficient public support to, in effect, pre-neutralize the millions of dollars that will be spent to discredit the movement's political initiatives. They will, of course, have to make a very big and public deal about predicting the actions of the wealthy special interests against them, before they announce concrete steps to effect the removal of private sector money from American politics and government legislative processes.

By publicly predicting the backlash of the wealthy special interests against them, attempts by those wealthy special interests to subvert their agenda will become self-indicting, in the public eye, thus neutralizing the effect of that money in the media arrayed against the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Of course, all of this analysis assumes the Occupy Wall Street movement gets around to establishing a leadership capable of tactical and strategic action toward accomplishing their objective. To date, the Occupy Wall Street movement is leaderless, which is one of its strengths for the time being, as being leaderless provides wealthy special interests little target to spend money on discrediting.

A constitutional amendment to remove money from politics and legislation will likely take years and several election cycles to accomplish. The Wall Streeters are already attempting to demonize demonstrators as 'mobs' and people engaged in 'class warfare'. If the Occupy Wall Street movement is to become endurable, it seems clear they must align themselves with an anti-incumbent voting agenda which can publicly measure their growth and effect upon the political system. If they do this, and the incumbent reelection rate drops with each passing election, the strength and durability of their organization and growth will be self-evident, attracting ever more Americans to their ranks.

If the Occupy Wall Street movement fails to devise a way to publicly demonstrate their growing appeal and effectiveness in changing political reality, the public will lose interest, in very much the same way that the Tea Party has lost its allure to the public at large, for failing to produce positive, measurable results.

Underpinning the rise of public demonstrations by the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements are the fundamental issues of democracy and self-determination, and whether, or not, the will of the majority of the people can trump the wealthy special interest minority in shaping our nation's future. Many, mostly on the political right, argue that our nation was not founded as a democracy because of fears of mob rule. And they are quite accurate in that statement.

However, this is not the 18th century, and with amendments to the Constitution which elect the president and senators by popular vote (despite the enduring Electoral College), America has grown toward democracy over the 19th and 20th centuries. Wall Street champions the Republic and abhors the idea of democracy. Wall Street's influence upon government would be seriously diminished if the American people, as a majority, had the power to veto Wall Street's agenda.

This is the underlying domestic war taking place in America today, between the wealthy few percent and the rest of the American people who have lost faith and confidence in Wall Street, the government, and the political system to promote the general welfare for all Americans. On one side there are the Wall Streeters who believe democracy is an evil thing - mob rule. On the other side are those who believe democracy has a place in our Republic as an enduring American strength to force change when change is most needed. Ours is, after all, a democratic republic; which is to say that it is a republic in which its leaders are democratically elected.

This tension between these factions is as old as our founding fathers, but, it is a rarer occurrence in American history that this tension flows into the streets of America in the form of protests and demonstrations. In our system, to effect legislative or constitutional change, these protesters must translate their actions into voting behavior on Election Day. In other words, they must elect persons who will represent their desire for a Constitutional Amendment to remove the influence of private money from our governing processes. That will amount to an enormous anti-incumbent process, since few current politicians have supported the idea of such an amendment.

Ultimately, who wins will depend upon the enduring nature of the American people to sustain their activism. If they can sustain it, they will prevail, as the people did in India in removing British rule and as the South African people did in ending Apartheid and Afrikaner Rule. Ironically, the worst thing that could happen to the Occupy Wall Street movement is for the economy to recover. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of growth for the Occupy Wall Street movement, as long as the GOP continues its campaign against economic recovery solutions in their attempt to foil their arch enemy, the Democrats.

As long as the media focuses on the war between the political parties, the American people will lose at the hands of the inaction and gridlock by those political parties. If however, the media can be forced to address the war between wealthy corporate influence and the future of the average American family, the American people will continue to gain strength and power in this war for their future.

Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-07T13:00:05Z

The Occupy Wall Street movement has gone viral. The core of the movement is centered on the singular perception that it is not healthy for the nation, or majority of Americans, if 1% of the population controls the economy for their own benefit, while the other 99% experience declines in their financial and employment status. It is a perception that is nearly impossible to argue against with a straight face. Where is this movement going, however?

]]> OWS could potentially fizzle with the onset of Winter, making hours outdoors in protest insufferable, if not downright unhealthy. Or, the movement could decline over Winter, only to resurge next Spring with warmer weather. Lastly, the movement could continue with legs as a unifying theme that binds the American public together despite all efforts by the political leaders to divide them for their own purposes.

To express one's disappointment with the condition of America, however, does nothing to correct that condition. Only if two conditions are met, can the Occupy Wall Street movement effect positive change for America's tentative economic condition. First, the movement must adopt an action that effects the outcome of elections. And second, that effect must leave politicians in government no political choice but to pass into law, solutions that will appease the activist OWS voters.

In other words, the Occupy Wall Street movement must translate into sufficient anti-incumbent voting in November, 2012, as to leave politicians thinking they have no future in politics unless they address the concern of the OWS voters. Put another way, the OWS movement must embrace the Vote Out Incumbents Democracy strategy, if they are to have any lasting positive effect on the future of our country.

VOID will have more to say on what reforms will be required in order to set our nation back on sound footing for economic prosperity and opportunity going forward. We would very much appreciate your feedback on this topic.

Obviously, however, the first and foremost prerequisite to effecting positive change for America has to be getting the money influence out of politics. As long as our elected leaders and political parties can be bought and sold by the highest commercial bidders on Wall Street, there can be no positive future for the American people at large. But, that is only the first of many reforms that must be adopted as a demand by voters. Tell us what you think should follow.

Volunteers Needed

2011-10-03T07:54:44Z

VOID is an all-volunteer political action committee. If you have 1 to 2 hours per week you can contribute, we can find a role for you in our VOID organization. Click here to contact us about volunteering.

Fix America's Political System

2011-09-26T19:20:06Z

American voters and their democracy are under attack, as politicians seek to change election rules to benefit incumbents, regardless of the will of the majority of voters. America's workers are under attack as American corporations and companies, who contribute to election campaigns in record amounts, seek cheaper labor overseas. America's political system is broken. And it is ruining the the government which made this nation great. If voters do not remove these politicians responsible for America's decline, our democracy will be lost, and our vote rendered ever more meaningless.

]]> American education continues to fail the students of American citizens. The American economy continues to limp along at an anemic 1 to 2% growth rate, at a time when a 3.5 to 5% growth rate is required to get the unemployed back to work. The anarchists in Congress continue to block legislation that would grow the economy and put Americans back to work, while defending the tax breaks and loopholes for the wealthiest and corporations that would help pay down deficits and debt.

Our democracy is failing and the evidence could not be clearer. Take a look at the following polling issues of the majority of voters, which our politicians refuse to act upon.

1) the wealthiest and corporations should pay higher taxes to help bring down deficit spending (66% and 70%, respectively).

2) government should expand efforts, in the short term, to stimulate economic growth and grow jobs (53%).

3) to reduce deficits, defense spending should be reduced (51%).

4) cut medicare and medicaid spending, and cut social security (28% and 18%, respectively).

5) elected officials in the nation's capital are mostly influenced by the pressure they receive from campaign contributors (86%).

6) it is unacceptable for groups to spend heavily on political advertising in districts where they are not located (66%).

7) oppose cutting spending on education (67%).

8) cut spending on foreign aid (59%).

9) voter's own representative in Congress should NOT be reelected (57%).

Some would argue that America is not a democracy, but, a republic, in which the elected officials should decide policy without regard for the majority will of the public in this or that public opinion poll since, the public is both fickle and uninformed. While there are instances in history that can be offered up as evidence that this is a valid argument (American public opposed to entering war with Hitler until Pearl Harbor, for instance), it is illogical to argue that a government which denies the will of the public, routinely and persistently, is healthy or good for a society. The Arab Spring movement, or collapse of the Soviet Union, is clear evidence of that.

One might conclude from the above poll of 57% saying their own representative should not be reelected in 2012, that the reelection rate for Congresspersons in 2012 should reflect only 43% of incumbents being reelected in 2012. That, however, will NOT be the case. The reelection rate in 2012 will most likely be in the 65 to 77% range. A majority of Congress will be reelected, and that means the horrible policies and failures of the current Congress will continue in the 2013 and 14 Congress, after the elections. That is not what Americans signed up for, as voters. The political system is rigged to deny the voters their majority will.

There are many ways in which incumbent Congress persons have rigged the system. Here are just a few of the worst forms:

Gerrymandering 'safe' districts for incumbent parties and representatives. This involves splitting up populations and redrawing district maps to dilute the voter opposition to a particular party or Congress person in office.

Use of tax dollars by Representatives to mail out thinly veiled campaign materials touting the "outstanding performance" of the incumbent politician, which gives a financial advantage to the incumbent over any challenger.

A Two Party System which gives voters only a choice of the lesser of two evils, and which creates enormous barriers to the rise of any third or independent party from gaining sufficient ballot and media access to pose a challenge to the two party system. (See the bipartisan Federal Election Commission for evidence of this.)

Collecting massive sums of campaign contributions from a minority of the wealthiest (in exchange for legislation protecting those wealthiest person's interests), which negates the influence of the individual voter's and non-wealthy citizen's contributions and vote. Those massive sums of wealthy person contributions are put to work creating a campaign which will weaken voter's resolve to show up and vote, or, even persuade the individual voter that the problems in Congress are everyone else's fault, not the incumbent seeking reelection (who is protecting the interests of his/her wealthy campaign contributors).

Changing laws at State and Local levels to create burdens and barriers to citizens wanting to show up to vote. Many States are, at this very moment, moving legislation to shorten the time available, and increase the requirements for, early voting, which disadvantages seniors and the handicapped and those pressed for time to vote on a work day.

Conducting elections on a weekday work-day, instead of on the weekend or on an Election Day holiday, prevents millions of Americans concerned with keeping their jobs or with taking time off from work to vote, from showing up to vote. This clearly is biased against American workers, just the way businesses and corporations expect for their large contributions to incumbent politicians.

Still, despite all this rigging of the system by incumbent politicians seeking to protect their cushy political jobs with great pay and benefits, Americans succeeded in recent elections in dropping the reelection rate from an average of over 90% down to 77%. But, when only 33% of voters believe their own U.S. Congress representative should be reelected (2010), and 3 out of 4 are reelected, it is obvious that the system is rigged against the American public voter. And like all oppressed majorities in the world, to change the system to their advantage will require an enormous effort on the part of that majority.

All that is required for bad government to continue to grow, is to reelect incumbents responsible for bad government.

We have an obligation to ourselves and our children, to do whatever is necessary to vote in 2012, and convince as many others as we can, to do the same. The polls show us that the more we citizens vote, the more incumbents will be thrown out of office, and the more challengers will be reelected.

The politicians don't want us to vote - they will reelect themselves in our absence.

To remove them from office, we have only to show up and vote for challengers; who in their turn will want to be reelected, and will be forced to recognize that serving the people's interests is their ticket.

They Are Back and Speechifying

2010-11-15T23:17:48Z

Congress is back in session. Oh, how the speeches are flowing on C-Span 1 and 2. Some of it sounds wonderful. All of it sounds as deeply partisan as the Grand Canyon. But, there are clues that what is to come of it all, may have some real benefit for the American people and their future. Here are some positive things I am hearing in all that 'speechifying'.

]]> Sen. James Inhofe defended budget bloating earmarks today on the Senate floor, but, that is not as bad as it sounds. Sen. Inhofe, who has debated Sen. Tom Coburn on the earmarks issue, (Politico), today offered up the earmark reforms (PDF) championed by the non-partisan organization Public Citizen. Sen. Tom Coburn wants to end earmarks, altogether, at least in rhetoric. Both Senators have records of being addicted to earmark spending for various political purposes.

In concert, Senate minority leader McConnell said today,

There is simply no doubt that the abuse of this practice [earmarks] has caused Americans to view it as a symbol of the waste and out-of-control spending that every Republican in Washington is determined to fight. ... Unless people like me show the American people they are willing to follow through on their small or even symbolic things we risk losing them on the broader arguments to cut spending and rein in government.

Sen. McConnell was referencing a a moratorium on earmark spending (adding federal spending to bills that benefit Congress persons popularity in their home district, but which have nothing to do with the bill to which they are attached, e.g. turtle bridge under highway attached to a defense appropriations bill).

Sen. McConnell's comments follow those Sen. Jim DeMint, calling on the Republicans to follow in the footsteps of the House GOP by adopting a rule barring conference members from requesting earmarks. Last week, President Obama signaled a willingness to work with Senate Republicans on this issue.

It would appear many if not most of America's federal representatives are taking the anti-incumbent movement's common concerns, to heart.

Sen. Ron Wyden, today provided a lengthy oratory calling for a flat tax to make the U.S. income tax code simpler, flatter and fairer. American taxpayers, he says, deserve an understandable, equitable system that provides real tax relief to the middle-class, treats work and wealth equally, and begins to reduce the deficit. Wyden's main argument today on the Senate floor was that a flat tax reform can create up to 2 million jobs, dramatically lower the cost of tax computation and collection, and simplify the the process for all Americans. One can only hope that tax reform will be an issue taken up by the House and Senate in the year to come. Its time is long overdue.

The Washington Post reports: Some Democrats, many of whom will be on the ballot in 2012, reject the view that the Senate must move at a glacial pace, that only its most senior members get to determine the policy agenda, and that bipartisanship has outlived its usefulness.

"In the last election, voters said, 'Please work together.' I think they're going to move next to profanities," said Sen. Mark Udall (Colo.), a member of the Class of 2008.

The Post says Democratic upstarts such as Mark Udall, his cousin Tom Udall (N.M.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) and Mark Warner (Va.) are expected to wage a fresh campaign to change Senate operating procedures and give first-term lawmakers a greater say over Democratic strategy and how the party communicates with voters.

This could potentially bring the Senate closer to the issues that voters are most concerned about by giving Freshman and junior Senators, newly elected by the people, a more powerful role in shaping the Senate's policy agenda.

While observing these potentially positive Congressional reactions to November 2nd's election results, there were also a host of observations of politics as usual. The GOP is being pulled further to the conservative right by organizations like Americans for Prosperity warning Republicans they would be next to be targeted as incumbents if they don't do right wing conservative voter's bidding. If successful, these efforts will only serve to widen the political divide between the Republican House and Democratic Senate and White House, making bi-partisanship results even more difficult, if not impossible.

Democrats are mulling over a shake up of operational strategy to bring their public relations and communications operations into concert with their legislative agenda, to do a better job of selling it. Sen. Chuck Schumer is to head up this effort. This sounds to me like Democrats adopting some of the election strategy used by Republicans over the last 2 years, which means politics before governing as their priority list.

My crystal ball never worked as promised, but, I don't need one to know that pessimism and cynicism are not parents of solutions and progress. It is extremely disheartening to note that health care cost reform, the single greatest debt buster going forward, for the American people and federal government, is not the first and foremost item on Republican's and Democrat's agenda going forward.

Medicare and health care cost reform, is however, the 50 ton whale thrashing about our nation's economic future. Moving that whale back out to sea will require nothing less than a herculean effort at political reform which distances wealthy special interests from our representatives, freeing our politicians to act in the best interests of America's future. Earmark reform, and honest political party response to the anti-incumbent movement, may well be the first signs that such political reform may be forthcoming.

I, therefore, reserve the right to remain optimistic. Speechifying ain't governing, however. If that optimism be disappointed, our right to vote out incumbents remains intact and ready to exercise, again.

Elaine's Email

2010-11-04T17:40:39Z

[In response to election eve VOID newsletter, Elaine writes: ]

I think all these are good ideas. Elaine

]]>
/November 2. THE ONLY WAY THIS COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN IS IF YOU *GET OUT
AND VOTE*./

*If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only
take three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive the message.
Maybe it is time*.

*THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!!
*
*
* ********************************** *
**Congressional Reform Act of 2010**

1. Term Limits.

12 years only, one of the possible options below..

A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms
**
2. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when
they are out of office.
**
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social
Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social
Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.
**
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all
Americans do.
**
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional
pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

**6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in
the same health care system as the American people.
**
7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American
people.
**
8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective
1/1/11.

The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen.
Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

**
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and
back to work.**

**
If you agree with the above, pass it on. If not, just delete*

Bad year for Incumbents!

2010-10-31T18:01:56Z

It is proving to be a bad year for incumbents, and a good year of progress for the anti-incumbent movement. The political parties won't be able to ignore it for very much longer. Here is a review of incumbent effects in the 2010 elections and what they mean for the anti-incumbent movement.

]]> Senate:

The following Senators either chose not to run for re-election, or were defeated in the primary in their bid for re-election - 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans.

* Connecticut--Christopher Dodd
* Delaware--Ted Kaufman (special election)
* Illinois--Roland Burris
* Indiana--Evan Bayh
* North Dakota--Byron Dorgan
* Pennsylvania--Arlen Spector (defeated in primary)
* West Virginia--Carte Goodwin (special election)
* Florida--George LeMieux
* Kansas--Sam Brownback
* Kentucky--Jim Bunning
* Missouri--Kit Bond
* New Hampshire--Judd Gregg
* Ohio--George Voinovich
* Utah--Bob Bennett (defeated in primary)

The following Senators are seeking reelection but, face stiff challenges, a welcome change from the past when Senatorial seats were usually considered safe from challenges.

* Arkansas--Blanche Lincoln
* California--Barbara Boxer
* Nevada--Harry Reid
* New York--Kirsten Gillibrand (special election)
* Washington--Patty Murray
* Wisconsin--Russ Feingold
* Alaska--Lisa Murkowski (defeated in primary, running as write-in)

1 Senate Democrat, Arlen Spectre, and 2 Republicans, Lisa Murkowski and Bob Bennett, were defeated in the primaries.

House of Representatives:

In the House of Representatives, 17 Democrat and 20 Republican incumbents decided not even to try to keep their seats in the 2010 elections. A couple of them decided to run for other offices.

The following House incumbents were defeated in their primaries.
* Alabama's 5th congressional district: Parker Griffith (R)
* Michigan's 13th congressional district: Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D)
* South Carolina's 4th congressional district: Bob Inglis (R)
* West Virginia's 1st congressional district: Alan Mollohan (D)

The polling varies widely on how steep the losses will be for Democrats in the House, ranging from losing only a few seats, to losing as many as 60. But, they all show Democrats losing seats. The numbers are too voluminous and shifting to cover which Democrat and Republican incumbents are likely to lose, but, it appears from polls, the number will be considerably larger than the average of previous elections.

2010 is shaping up to be a difficult year for incumbents. On the heels of the 2006, and 2008 elections which were also difficult years for incumbents, the evidence is now overwhelming that an anti-incumbent movement is growing with each election. At some point, one, or both Parties are going to be forced to align their agenda with the anti-incumbent voters, if they want to recapture the prize of sustained incumbent reelections, and hold on to a majority in government for more than 4 years.

The average reelection rate in federal races prior to 1992 was 92%. Since 1992, it has dropped to 87%. There appears to be little doubt, that this rate will drop again as a result of the 2010 elections. What isn't in these calculations however, is the number of incumbents who read the writing on the wall and do not seek reelection as a result. This year has a record number of incumbents deciding not to run again, and their numbers are not reflected in the reelection rate percentages. They should be, and if they were, that 87% number would be significantly lower; perhaps as low as 77%.

It is a tough road, with billions of dollars spent to keep incumbents in office, to lower that rate. But, it is dropping. It won't be, however, until that rate approaches 60 or 50%, a coin's toss chance of being reelected, that the politicians and Parties will be forced to address the anti-incumbent voter's common demands.

It is not enough to just vote anti-incumbent. Each of us must persuade at least one other person in each election to do so as well, doubling our numbers each election. Time is running out. Our nation is on track for a crippling 20 trillion dollars in national debt by 2020. If that happens, America and her future will be severely crippled, and a 100 million or more Americans will be thrown out of work and suffer enormously.

If, for whatever reason, you are not able to persuade another voter to vote anti-incumbent, then donate to VOID and we will extend our persuasion to an ever wider number of voters. Time is short, and getting shorter with each election. Doubling the anti-incumbent voting each election is the only way we can beat that 20 trillion dollar national debt deadline in 2020.

[Data sources: Wikipedia - House, and Senate]

It's getting nasty out there!

2010-10-28T10:17:34Z

I have received reports of Vote Out Incumbents signs being stolen, and I have had one of my own stolen and another one vandalized, ripped to shreds. Those of us who have displayed our Vote Out Incumbent signs must be doing something right. Who would do such a thing as vandalize such a sign except a status quo Party supporter?

]]> Between the woman manhandled at the Rand Paul event, the journalist handcuffed by Alaskan Miller's private security force for asking embarrassing questions, to Tea Partyers threatening to investigate voter fraud at polling stations in Arizona, I believe it was, to the unprecedented 2 billion plus dollars spent on campaign and political advertising in an off year election, one can safely say, it is getting nasty out there.

Be careful and smart my fellow Vote Out Incumbent supporters. Emotions are running high amongst Republican and Democratic gladiators, and I would hate to get news that any of our VOID supporters were injured, arrested, or worse, for expressing their dismay with both political parties. VOID supporters are intelligent and our fight will be waged with our ballots and word of mouth to friends and family. Please do not attempt to persuade hothead partisan loyalists who view politics as a NFL playoff or world Soccer game spectator sport to wreak havoc and destruction over. We aren't going to persuade such persons in the first place.

When they accrue a bit more wisdom or become aware of the lack of difference between the Democratic and Republican politicians, they will seek us out and stand ready to be persuaded to our enlightened side.

We Voted. Proud to Have Done So.

2010-10-20T11:34:25Z

I dropped my wife at the airport an hour ago, at 5:30 this morning, to catch a plane for Colorado where her employer needs her for 5 weeks. That meant she had to early vote. We had planned to do this yesterday. 2 days ago, I took her to an urgent care clinic to be treated for a fast onset gastro-intestinal illness. They gave her a shot to halt the vomiting, an anti-biotic to kill the bug, and another med to ease the G.I. cramps. Needless to say, when I asked her yesterday if she was ready to go vote, her pale and drawn face looked up at me like I was crazy, and she said, "No, she didn't feel like going anywhere."

]]> I allowed a couple hours to go by, she was not feeling better, but, time was getting short and we had a 40 minute drive to get to the early voting station. I told her to get ready, we have to go and vote. She snapped at me angrily, saying, "Alright". We made the drive in silence. At the voting station we exited the car, she took my hand, and we walked into the building and voted. Half way home, she took my hand again, leaned over and kissed my cheek, thanking me for pulling her along. She said she was glad she voted as she held the mishap bowl in her lap with the other hand. I felt proud of her, and myself. I know she felt terrible, but, that made voting despite how she felt, that much more a source of pride.

Leaving our country's fate to the power brokers, is just too great a threat to our own future. We later discussed how nothing less than the career she loves, rests upon how she and millions of other Americans vote, and whether they vote, at all. She acknowledged that her job future depended upon her voting. I couldn't agree with her more. We did our duty to self and country. We hope and trust that you will do yours. We are after all, Americans, with a common future before us. We will prosper or fail together, and I can't think of anything more important these next two weeks for Americans than to take their future in their own hands and vote as if their livelihood depended on it. Because it does.

Voting Out Incumbents Takes Courage and Faith.

2010-10-15T10:05:35Z

In America, we are brought up believing in the two party system, as the only viable choices on Election Day, and that it is our civic duty to vote for one, or the other Party, and their incumbents and challengers. This is a deeply ingrained form of learning in the American psychology. It worked well for America for two centuries. But, it is not working for Americans today.

]]> Our political parties are no longer capable of managing our nation responsibly. And the reason is simple, they are no longer in the business of responsible management of our nation, for all the people and their children to come. That purpose has been traded in for a new objective, to acquire and maintain the power to pay back their wealthy campaign donors who contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to campaigns. And the party incumbents intend to and are expected to, pay those contributors back with your and my tax dollars. That is now how the two party system works, and their reason for wanting to be re-elected, if truth be told.

We are taught in our schools not to question the Principal or our teachers, even if we know they are wrong, or unfair. We are taught to comply with any requests made by law enforcement, even if we suspect that officer may be a fraud. We are taught not to question authority, but to yield to it. We have all been taught the phrase, you have to go along, to get along.

We are taught that there are penalties associated with questioning our Principal or teachers, our parents, or government officials. So, most Americans are hesitant to question authority, and no one presents themselves as authority more emphatically than Democratic and Republican party candidates at election time, regardless of how incompetent, crooked, or greedy their reasons for running for office. Four out of five Americans now believe our nation is headed in the wrong direction, and the majority also believed this was the case in 2008 when Republicans were in control. Isn't it time we voters questioned and challenged the authority of the Democratic and Republican party incumbents who have brought our nation to this point and oversee the future being worse for our children than it was for us? I think so. I know so.

But, Election Day rolls around and I find myself falling back into the old way of thinking, that one Party's candidate will be the lesser of the two party evils, and I feel myself pulled toward voting for my Parent's party incumbents. It is a very strong pull. I have a lifetime of thinking that one party is better than the other, and only a decade of experience proving that neither party's incumbents are in the business of managing this nation's future for my daughter's benefit. They are in the business of managing their own future, and that trumps all other priorities.

It takes faith to act differently than one has in the past. It takes the faith that acting differently will produce a better result. And it takes courage to assume the risk of being wrong. And make no mistake, when we try something new, we do risk being wrong. But, is there any doubt that the way our nation is currently being managed by the two political party's incumbents is wrong? Does it make any sense to vote for what we know is not working? It doesn't take any courage to vote the party line, even if we know it will be bad for our children. We only have to put ourselves on auto-pilot and dump the responsibility for the future getting worse on the politicians. But, if we love our children and care about their future and are willing ourselves, to take responsibility for their future, we must buck up the courage and faith that voting out incumbents who have brought us here, can't be any worse than voting for them to continue mismanaging the future of our children, as they are clearly doing.

In a democracy, ultimately it is the voters who are responsible for the future of their nation and children. They select their representatives who oversee that future. We voters must take that responsibility with both hands and remove the power of incumbency from BOTH parties, forcing them to acknowledge that we, the American people, will not tolerate incompetence, corruption, and stupidity in our elected leaders, any longer. Our future. Our responsibility as voters. Faith and courage to act in a new way on Election Day is required. Are you up to it? Am I up to it? My answer is yes. What's yours?

Billions of Political Dollars - Impotent.

2010-10-07T13:24:23Z

Party leaders, analysts, and political pundits are trying to make sense of the polling data, but, they simply can't. They want to predict November's race outcomes, but, they can't. The growing anti-incumbent movement is the reason.

]]> The only rational vote for a person dissatisfied with their government is against the incumbents producing those unsatisfactory results. The pundits and analysts simply don't yet understand this new movement, which is NOT individual policy oriented, but, general results based. Only thirty-two percent of 'Likely U.S. Voters' now say the country is heading in the right direction, according to the latest Rasmussen Poll on the topic. That is not a statement that favors one Party over another. It is a statement of rejection of the political system in general and government results overall.

Until one or the other of the two party's leadership, candidates and incumbents grasp the import of this new psychology of voters, neither Party will be able to hold on to a majority in our government. That is the new political reality - and all the wealthy special interest money in the world will prove impotent in changing this new reality. That is what makes the anti-incumbent movement so potentially powerful - it is impervious to the money flowing through the political system and its attempts to buy power.

Anti-Incumbent Voting Effects

2010-09-27T23:55:04Z

We have on our web site a new feature, allowing you to easily write your representatives and inform them that you have taken the anti-incumbent pledge. Doing so, will hasten our process of forcing politicians to address our demands for more accountable and responsible representation. Please click here to send your representatives your pledge. On the same page on our web site, you can also look up the candidates for your districts, and there is a link to register to vote for November's elections if you have not already done so.

]]> For those of you who want to be bold, we provide you the needed information to send letters to your local media editors for publication. We even provide you with sample letters. Feel free to modify them any way you wish. Be bold. Make a public statement in your local newspaper about voting anti-incumbent. click here to make a membership, or additional donation to keep our organization and efforts moving forward. It is one of the most important donations you can make this year.

The anti-incumbent movement is finally achieving some of its objectives. The polls and primaries are showing that predicting incumbent reelections is getting far more difficult. The polling is contradictory, causing the pundits to second guess their every prediction.

As you know, the strategy of voting out incumbents is to make politician's reelection unpredictable, forcing them to eventually address our common concerns, in order to win back our votes, and make reelection more predictable, again.

While our mission of better government and politics for us all, is still off in the wings, the analysts and politicians are being forced to ponder and acknowledge the new anti-incumbent movement skewing the polls and producing unexpected results in the election primaries. Which means our strategy is beginning to work, as expected.

Though there is no coordination or even contact between the Coffee and Tea Parties, VOID, and other anti-incumbent blogs and editorials, the combined effect is beginning to have an effect at the polls, and this is a very, very positive and encouraging development. The government we
have, is not serving and protecting our nation's future, or the common interests of most Americans seeking better and more affordable education, affordable health care, jobs and job security for ourselves and our children when they enter the work force, and security for our
savings and investments over our life times, not to mention affordable taxes well spent on protecting our nation's future.

These changes will occur as the incumbent reelection rate drops toward 80, 70, 60, and even 50%. America is taking the first steps in that direction. No policy, change, or action for the better ever comes free. There will be a short term price to be paid for incumbents losing
reelection bids in ever larger numbers. In the short run, It means that not all the challengers who win, will be the kind of representatives we seek. There will be opportunists who take advantage of the anti-incumbent movement for their own selfish purposes.

But, these few who win, with no good intentions, cannot remain in office, amidst a growing anti-incumbent wave sweeping the nation. They are a short term price we shall have to endure until our mission is accomplished - honest political reforms in favor of the voters, not the
politicians, and far better government and accountable representation. That is our goal, and we are on our way to achieving it thanks to your, and our, responsible efforts.