A: Most definitely, in the way elections are funded, the format and scope of campaigns, the qualifications of candidates, term limits, and the implementation of the Online Citizen's Account which would replace the House of Representatives. That, of course, would require the People's ratifying power (not to be confused with an Article V Convention of States) as provided to them by the 9th and 10th Amendments, and grandfathered in the Declaration of Independence, the ways and means left open for discussion. Along with election reform, there are other issues which require Constitutional reform..
A: Yes. But, I want to take democracy (which we bleed and fight for overseas) a step further. I am the first and only voice that seeks to introduce an ONLINE CITIZEN ACCOUNT and repeal the House of Reps. I want to see the day when the People have the ability to vote in and recall rogue Presidents and Senators, ratify Constitutional Amendments, vote in referendums and on Bills. That is my primary motivation.
A: Strongly support. Voter fraud is statistically insignificant. The real problem is the large portion of our population that feel disenfranchised. They do not vote, because they do not feel there is anyone for them to vote for. We have a representative government. It just does not represent us. We should make it as easy to vote as possible, and make it easier for independent and new party candidates to get on the ballot.
A: This is a joke. It's as easy to register to vote as it is to get a library card. The people wanting to reform voter registration by and large want non-citizens to vote. They should be laughed out of town. If anything, it should be HARDER to vote. I support an assessment every decade or so (it could be a WORTHY part of the mostly-unworthy dicennial census) whether a would-be voter knows English, and has basic reasoning capacities. If so, and for some reason you were denied the right to vote, we;ll help you get it straight. If not, stay home. Let others vote.
A: no
Stein: The issue here is that Congress barely has a 10% approval rating yet it is re-elected with a 95% probability. Something is wrong with this picture. One of the problems is that incumbency provides enormous advantages--we need to overturn this system of automatic re-election. Insuring that there will be turnover is one way to help the American people achieve a more democratic result.
OnTheIssues:And what about the number of years? One popular proposal is 12 years in either legislative chamber, which would mean 2 Senate terms or 6 House terms.
Stein: Well, the limit should be somewhere above 1 or 2 terms, but not lifetime incumbency--decades of incumbency is a problem.
Stein: The Confederate flag is a terrible symbol of white supremacy and slavery. It should be removed from all public locations. But this is only a symbol. We need to go deeper to erase the institutional racism that lives on post-slavery--we've had lynchings and the Drug War and discrimination--we should address the incredible legacy of the criminal slave culture, from the criminal institution of slavery. We need to take action beyond changing flags---we need to take action on [racial disparities in] employment and housing, and an end to healthcare disparity. When you add up the impacts of those disparities, the average African American has 14 years taken off their lives. The average African American family had 10 cents on dollar wealth [compared to white families]--and under Obama that dropped to even lower.
Stein: Earmarks grease the skids for corruption and for returning favors to campaign donors.
OnTheIssues: Is full disclosure enough?
Stein: They should be federally overturned; not only disclosed but easily challenged and removed. Currently it's very hard to find out about earmarks.--you have to be a full-time political junkie to figure it out. Earmarks should be disclosed, but there should be a simple procedure to challenge them.
Q: Support
A: Yes.
A: Yes, as well as additional transparency in connection with Super PACs and other types of organizations. I'm for Constitutional Amendment on campaign finance reform--the system is absolutely out of control. The only way is a Constitutional Amendment given the Supreme Court decision. I'm for an Amendment to rationalize the current political campaign system.
Q: You're referring to Citizens United, which allowed unlimited donations to PACs?
A: Yes, it was a mistake. I understand corporations are "persons" for contract purposes--but the definition of "person" for campaigns should be "persons who can vote." Corporations and unions cannot vote. And we need more transparency over 501(c)(4) SuperPACs. More campaign contributions with total transparency is good--more so than limits with loopholes--but what we have now it the worst of all worlds.
A: Strongly Support
A: Agree.
A: Strongly Support. In fact, We the People Reform Coalition is the ONLY proponent for comprehensive electoral reform, with an Election Integrity Pledge, a Statement of Demand to be read nationally in January 2012, and a two-page outline of an Electoral Reform Act of 2012 that will not only eradicate corporate contributions in all respects, but open ballot access, eradicate digital vote manipulation, and do the many other things that Ralph Nader, Christina Tobin, Jim Turner, Theresa Amato, and our many crowd-sourced contributors have been championing. We need to do it all--allowing ballot access restrictions to remain makes campaign finance reform meaningless. All national parties (this includes Green, Libertarian, and Reform) should be on all state ballots when they have a candidate for national office. This is part of our push for legislation in February-March 2012.
A: SUPPORT - crush the special interests - Also, if it means ease of third party ballot access as well, it is a must.
A: Support. Elections should be 100% free. The nation's choice should not be limited to the wealthiest or best fundraisers but should include all good candidates willing to step up and do the job. Money needs to be removed from the equation. No public official should be essentially owned by the highest contributor. All campaign funds and donations should be publically posted that includes even trivial things like lunches and gifts.
| |||
| 2020 Presidential contenders on Government Reform: | |||
|
Democrats running for President:
Sen.Michael Bennet (D-CO) V.P.Joe Biden (D-DE) Mayor Mike Bloomberg (I-NYC) Gov.Steve Bullock (D-MT) Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D-IN) Sen.Cory Booker (D-NJ) Secy.Julian Castro (D-TX) Gov.Lincoln Chafee (L-RI) Rep.John Delaney (D-MD) Rep.Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) Sen.Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) Gov.Deval Patrick (D-MA) Sen.Bernie Sanders (I-VT) CEO Tom Steyer (D-CA) Sen.Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) Marianne Williamson (D-CA) CEO Andrew Yang (D-NY) 2020 Third Party Candidates: Rep.Justin Amash (L-MI) CEO Don Blankenship (C-WV) Gov.Lincoln Chafee (L-RI) Howie Hawkins (G-NY) Gov.Jesse Ventura (I-MN) |
Republicans running for President:
V.P.Mike Pence(R-IN) Pres.Donald Trump(R-NY) Rep.Joe Walsh (R-IL) Gov.Bill Weld(R-MA & L-NY) 2020 Withdrawn Democratic Candidates: Sen.Stacey Abrams (D-GA) Mayor Bill de Blasio (D-NYC) Sen.Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) Sen.Mike Gravel (D-AK) Sen.Kamala Harris (D-CA) Gov.John Hickenlooper (D-CO) Gov.Jay Inslee (D-WA) Mayor Wayne Messam (D-FL) Rep.Seth Moulton (D-MA) Rep.Beto O`Rourke (D-TX) Rep.Tim Ryan (D-CA) Adm.Joe Sestak (D-PA) Rep.Eric Swalwell (D-CA) | ||
|
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
Click for details -- or send donations to: 1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140 E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org (We rely on your support!) | |||