Do you think some of the greedy rich few who have learned to basically buy elections in the United States of America are doing so in other countries as well?

The word, 'duped' is the key word. The dumbing down of our populace by the liberal educaters, that spend 15 minutes on history and our founding, but spend a week lauding diversity and the many uses of a cucumber, have made it possible to 'dupe' alot of folks. Good grief! The information, super-highway is changing all that and more and more people are educating themselves....thank God. What is your proposal for electoral reform?

t's on the liberal side, yes.. and on the conservative side as well. Which one isdoing more of it is a matter for endless debate. As for my electoral reform.... I'll get you a link... Don't let how simple it is fool you. The first election in the United States was in a crude sense, "rigged" and they never bothered to unrig it. http://www.sodahead.com/blog/...

Excellent suggestions....but the political hacks wouldn't want all that fairness! I kinda like the permanent ink on the finger to show that you did vote! Or a thumbprint on the ballot...something that there can be no arguement about and ACORN can't rig...much still to be discussed and fixed...keep up the good fight!

I like the thumb print idea as well... or a full hand print, better yet... but of course, it would have to be computer scanned, and checking a re-count would also have to be done by computer.... so there are limitations to that sort of thing as well. There will always be some inaccuracy in the system... some errors, and even some corruption and cheating... but the best way to keep such things to a minimum is to get more trustworthy people into the positions that can make the changes in the first place... and the best way to do that is to take away the power of corrupt rich people to buy a pair of candidates and gaurantee that one of them will win. My electoral reform would do just that.

It's possible... it would explain, a lot. There are a few countries though that I think are still independent. We're starting with the weakest links (Iraq and Afghanistan) and will probably work our way up. I wouldn't be surprised if after this war, we're ordered to invade the next neighboring country. Join us, or die. Isn't that the American way? They want to unite with Canada and Mexico. Mexico will probably be ok with that, but Canada? I wouldn't be surprised if we invaded. But by then the American people would have to have been so dumbed down. But it's only a matter of time. It'll make Australia wiggle in it's boots. But then, who's next, who are we saving for last, China? The vaccines are trying to cut down our biggest competitors, China and Russia... coincidence, I think not....

Yes, it is a complicated mess out there. That's for sure. You're right about Mexico, if you mean the people... I have asked around there. They love the idea. They would insist that their government ask the United States to take their whole country, except that they are afraid to stand up to their government. As for Canada... don't know. I think the USA will leave Canada alone, because the UK would likely step in otherwise. I know Panama's government is directly involved in trafficing drugs and weapons... and the people who control their politicians also have invested greatly in United States politics. In particular, they seemed to be supporting McCain big time... and were not at all happy with me for helping to keep him out.

its ok to be undecided in this issue... the rich have already decided it for us! why should we have an opinion? besides can we afford it?

gee gee

Yeah, I got one and it nearly cost me my life... so I know exactly what you mean.

The rich decide nothing unless we are weak to them. But how much do you need it life? The less you need money, the less it has control over you.

Hehe. I take it you are either rich or oblivious, or both... but nice thoughts, none the less.

I'm one who strives to be self-sufficient and diminish money in my future... it's hard, I'm not naive. But it's a goal. I don't want to use money, lol. I'll be truthful, I was given an annuity after my father's death, and that has enabled me to do research every day on many different things, as I currently do not have to work. But this research has shown me that there are new/old better ways, and money is not necessary to lead a full or satisfactory life, if one can learn how to do it.

Absolutely. Interdependence has both its good and bad points. In an overly populated area of course there is no real choice in the matter... but yes, this planet is big enough that it is still possible to get away from society. Personally, I would rather be a productive member of it... but that is my own preference. Unfortunately even if I did choose to live completely off the land, it's not likely that I could get to some place where I could give it a go in the Americas, and impossible for me to do without putting others at risk. Australia is my home now whether I like it or not. I hope the government here will be nice enough to allow me to like it.

I see where you're coming from, but in my opinion, the problem isn't the corporatist fatcats who buy the elections (ok...they're definitely PART of the problem), but the very concept of electoral democracy itself. There's no way any individual can be unconditionally free from tyranny in a society where 51% of random schmucks can vote away the other 49%'s freedom of choice. And that's if we're being extremely generous by presupposing that anywhere near that percentage of "American citizens" actually vote in most elections and feel they have a candidate who represents them among the increasingly identical Republicrats and Demublicans.

The concept of an electoral democracy is not where the flaw is. Sure, the current system would work pretty much like you said, in the absense of corruption... but it doesn't have to be that way. The flaw is actually in the format of the electoral process. Specifically, it is one sided because only those who want some candidate in more than they want some candidate out can actually be correctly represented and counted... since only positive votes are allowed. Nobody is allowed to "just say no" to a corrupt politician that they are afraid will win the election... so they vote for another that "has a chance" in order to keep that one out, even if the other seems almost as bad. Think about it. If people could vote directly against one of the candidates as an alternative option... it would no longer be a choice of which side of the same dirty coin any more... because the people could defeat the dirty money. They did it once already without the right to vote against anyone, but it wasn't easy to explain to Barack Obama's Senate staff how to pull it off or why it would work, and it won't catch those who buy political positions by surprise a second time.

Massive wealth must protect its stained and polluted existence wherever it feels threatened.

Unfortunately, that does seem to be the case with much of it. In truth, there's no reason why it should be that way. Thei universe and indead even this tiny planet is capable of providing more ... way more... than all of the humans who could stand to live together on one planet could possibly want. The problem is that rather than concentrate on making that happen, those with the most power and wealth seem to concentrate mainly on taking more away from others. Sure, there are those exceptions, who work hard, earn very well, and give what they can back to society... but they can't undo what the corrupt ones are doing.

You would have to be fairly naive to believe this isn't the case.
Absolute power corrupts, Absolutely.

Yes, it does seem that way.

The idea that other governments aren't susceptible to the same corruption and greed as that in the U.S. is naive and a bit pompous.

Yeah, exactly... and unfortunately, the biggest reason for the susceptibility has been copied both directly and indirectly from the USA, all over the world... and most people don't even seem to be able to see what the problem is. Now people from any country with enough money and the right connections can participate in over-riding the wishes of the people in that country and buying the results of their elections. Those who enjoy such a privilege really want to keep it that way... but it hurts everyone ... including those same people. They just don't understand that. :(

Without question...

So I wonder... do you think most people see that? It looks like most of those answering this poll do, but... are they the exception, or do you think most people can see that it's happening?

I think almost everyone sees this. The problem as I see it is that people do one of two things; they will either shrug their shoulders, say that's the way it is and do nothing about it, including not vote, or the will continuously vote these long term incumbents in and blame the other guys long term incumbent. Besides, as long as they have plasma tv, unlimited texting, all you can eat buffets and so on, why should they do anything? We're fat, dumb and happy.

Much of the American population, including here on SH talk tough, but when it comes down to it, with the exception of a few, they will do nothing. It's cynical but I believe accurate.

Yes, I think you pretty much nailed it. I have offered the solution, and many have seen and understood it, but... I still seemed to be alone in trying to do something about it. Think enough of them may ever wake up before its too late?

Only if there are enough people cushioning them from to much commitment. You follow me?

Yeah... nobody, or practically nobody, wants to take on such a task without knowing that they'll have lots of other people helping them along the way... and I can't blame them really. It's not easy. Still... it's important. I hope enough people will realize just how important.

With all due respect to you, TZ, I can blame them. I've hung them out and been castrated so many times because people suddenly become loose their gumption or never had it to begin with but talk a really good game.
But I still keep doing it because it's the right thing to do and that's just the way I'm built.

No doubt. Haven't see you in a while, hope you're OK. What country are you in and why are people after you? Is this something you can write about?

Well, yeah... I suppose I can talk about it. I don't think they will come after me here anyway... and after I get out of immigration detention, (if I ever get my Protection Visa,) I plan to settle down and raise a family, and let the work I have done on this issue continue pretty much without me. Not that I don't want to see the problem get fixed, but... I want my life to be spared. I still have other things to offer this world. Want to start a university some day, for example. Anyway... I'm in Australia. Had to leave the Americas because I was being hunted down there... first in Panama, and then in Bolivia and then in the USA, all because I explained to the wrong people in Panama how step one of my electoral reform plan could help the people in any country that has elections... including theirs.

I don't think that our greedy politics greed stops at our U.S. borders.

Unfortunately, I know it doesn't.

Welcome to what socialism really is dude, it is the aristocracy of political pull...

Can't say that I really understand what you mean by that. Care to elaborate, please?

Politics is fundamentally a socialist concept, as political corruption is, it is dealing for less loss of liberty at the expense of others liberty...

In the end, the people with the most tokens in the assumed jurisdiction of the government (royalty, elected elite, etc.) lose less liberty than the rest, no less slaves, but they are "more equal than others".

Now THAT was easy to understand... and yes, that's pretty much how it works. Of course, that would not be a problem in a society in which those with ambition and skill could rise over those without such things without actually pushing them further down in the process. The United States of America was intended to be such a place, but unfortunately fell short due to the exploitation of certain features of how its government works... at the top of which is the flaw in the electoral process that allows those with, as you said, the most tokens... to use their resources in a way that allows them to affect changes in the laws which increase the imbalance rather than help to keep it in check.

The problem is not the people who have stuff... it is the people who want what others have that do not want to earn it....

The problem is government in total, as it is a tool to do such an action...

It has been, and it is... but it does not have to be. The "idea" of government covers many areas... but of course governance is the root of it, and why people tollerate it in the first place. Although there are those few who would love to live in total anarchy where survival of the most ruthless is the rule, and also those few who honestly believe that in a world without laws people would simply learn to get along well on their own... most tend to agree that it's a good idea to kee people who think only of themselves from being able to do whatever they feel at everyone else's expense. This is where the idea of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people came in. The problem is that it was a good theory but failed in practice because a flaw in the process of electing that government allowed some of those who think only of themselves to use their collected wealth to pick the people running it so that they could change the laws to help them take even more from others.

That is far from what civilized people would do in absence of government, uncivilized people like government because it allows them to benefit from theft with no risk of retribution...

Not everyone who is born into or chooses to move into a society is or necessarily ever will be civilized. Having a government is to cociety a bit like having dedicated Internet servers is to the Internet. Not necessary, but can have the potential to make things run much more smoothly... and can also end up being the root of many problems. The trick, I think, is to do it right. To keep the power balanced and well distributed. Not easy, but worth the effort. The trouble is that there is no sysem currently in place which allows that to be done. The solution is actually quite simple... let people have an election system that represents the people's votes accurately. For example, it should allow opposing views to be counted as opposing, rather than simply as different from each other but not truely opposite. The unbalanced system of only being able to vote "for" someone, causes votes meant to be against someone to end up counted as for someone or not even cast. Easy to solve... but hard to get those in power to allow a solution for.

Regardless the trade off is give in Liberty for the sake of people who need government, therefore it is accepting obligation for nothing in return, in other words slavery. And no matter the role you play in the choosing process, all you are doing is bidding to have the master of your liking, in the hopes (not the guarantee) that the whip will less often be applied to you.

If we examine the true results of government, every war, every genocide, every shred of wealth they rob through taxation, regulation and inflation, the debasement of the human condition to that of a domesticated animal, etc, and stack it against nothing, nothing certainly comes across as the better choice...

I think one of the issues a lot of people have is they misunderstand what anarchy really is, they take for granted that anarchy must be violence in the streets and survival of the fittest....

Anarchy is living without the State, that is to say without arbitrary lawmakers, monopoly judges and enforcers and without a collective that has rights that individuals do not. An anarchist society has laws, judges and police, but these are subject to free market logic....