It's not a seperate issue at all!

Just like the abortion issue, we did not get to where we are today all at once, and we won't take it back all at once. One small step at a time. (Although, in most cases, it will take much longer to take it back than to get it in the first place.)

The example of abortion: Is it better than 1/10th of 1% of abortions are stopped or that none of them are stopped? What is the first step in getting them all banned?

We can elect conservatives at the local level who will support such reforms.

We can elect conservatives at the state level, if we build the grass-roots from the local leve.

In the meantime, we can support a liberal like George Bush as being the better choice between him and the liberal whacko Kerry.

Until we demand that the laws change so that it takes a majority to get get an elector, we are only going to have two choices. But, this can be done at the state level, since the states determine how electors are elected!

Demand that your state require a majority to elect an elector, and demand that your state distribute electors according to district, instead of the all-or-nothing system that most states use.

This would make a third (or fourth or fifth) party candidate viable.

Interestingly, one of the opponents of this is the NAACP. In most instances where a majority is, or has been, required (except where a district is majority black), they have filed suit, claiming that requiring a majority vote discriminates unfairly against them. So, special interests are the enemy of election reform that would make a third party candidate viable.

 

Amen! Brother Poncho. Preach It!

 

If you have 100 leaks in your waterbed, and you want to fix it, do you do something to slow down the leaking, or do you poke more holes in it?

If Bush is enacting evil legislation at a slower rate than Gore or Kerry would have, is that not better in order to give more time to mount some sort of plan for stopping the leaks?

How do you you get the individual states to change their election schemes? Do you do it by starting at the local, grassroots level, or do you do it by electing the greater of two evils at the national level? (Personally, I think it's by electing the lesser of two evils at the national level, since two choices are all we have due to the current system, and working from the grassroots up.)

 

I remember waterbeds, I don't have one anymore nor do I have a use for one.But if I had a waterbed with a 100 leaks in it I wouldn't repair it, I would replace it.

 

"And you want to fix it."

That was a qualifier in my statement.

How are you going to entirely replace the US government from the bottom to the top in one fell swoop?

Perhaps you could share your vast wisdom on complete government overthrow.

Edited to add: I don't really expect you to answer. Very many people who live in a pie-in-the-sky world in which all problems are immediately fixed with no hard work by the waving of a magic wand throw out these pipe dreams that sound really good, but with no realistic vision on how to fix it.

 

Intead your solution is to allow a corrupt government to rule and we will continue the same ol' same ol', voting the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately any great gains that have been made to replace corrupt government with better government is through violence and rebellion. in our country we have survived and made changes because of a Revolutionary War and a Civil War.
Yeah, starting over sounds like a great option to me.

 

Here is a metaphor for a complete change of all
levels of government:

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater

 

Yep! Lets git rid of them spoilt babies.

 

I gotta agree with you on that one Poncho. It makes very lttle difference if this tag team is working togethor or if it is dyfunctional , the government of the Good ol' U.S. of A no longer represents us but lobbbies with the most influence and money.