Posted by: shawn barr
Comment: #2
Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:18 AM
My first impression of your article was that it is anything but uniting. How are these quotes uniting:
"...current choice between fear and hope..."
"...modern-day Abe Lincoln or to a Westbrook Pegler in libstick."
"...choice between a uniter and a divider."
"That doesn't make us a Christian nation, as some would have it."
"That doesn't make us card carrying socialists."
"...a coward....is also the man who hides behind a pencil skirt..."
I suggest you take to heart your own quote of, "cast out the propagandists and fearmongers among us", because that is what your article is about.
|
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Comment: #3
Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:33 AM
Ma'am; with all due respect, the democracy we need cannot be reached with the democracy we have... The people need to rule, and they cannot rule with a course correction every two to four years.... We need a more perfect union... We need a union... How will that union ever be possible so long as neatly divided districts of huge numbers elect representatives??? If it is taken for granted that there will be losers and there will be winners we will never seek a situation where all of us are winners...So; It is likely that in this election, more than forty five percent of the voters will not have the president of their choice... How are they cut in??? Will they be cut in??? Should they be cut in??? Without the people being able to vote on every issue, to consent to the laws by which they are governed, they will not have democracy, and the government will not act as the people decide... If the people have no choice they will never be forced to learn about the issues that affect them, and today, we ard denied education because we are without political power, and are denied political power because we are uneducated...-Can government choose on our behalf better than we can ourselves choose??? You know better... No one would vote for the future we face, but it is the result of a past over which we had no control... Could it be better???. You might not consider it a victory if every defeated candidate for the house of representative were sent to Washignton too... It would be an incredible advance for democracy to have both sides in the same room representing those who voted directly for them....If the House went back to the original number specified in the constitution of no more than one representative for every thirty thousand, the quality of our democracy would improve by miles... This would be constitutional... The limits on the number of representatives was not a constitutional change, and it would not take a change of the constitution to repair... Let me suggest that you will not have a more perfect union with the present form of government unless and until you can send great numbers of representatives to thrash out our differences... Our electoral process divides people... Limited numbers of reps based upon divided districts only means the division is made more profound at every step of the process... You cannot unite the nation by dividing the people...Only by sending our divisions to Washington, and demanding that they act as fair judges, and give us justice, will we have a hope of union... When our representative is elected by division he has no incentive to seek unity, and he can go and unite with party in Washington... Make them find unity at home... Make them resolve differences away...No person can serve two masters...A good start toward democracy in this country is small districts sending great numbers of representatives with overwhelming consensus in their districts, demanding the will of the voters... No one votes democratic to see the republicans represented... If we do not have all people represented in government we cannot have democracy, and until we have democracy we will not have union, perfect or otherwise...Thanks...Sweeney
|
- 
- 
- 
