Stop Repeat Offenders:  PROs and CONs:
 


PROs  
CONs  
VOTING GUIDELINEs  
Important Notes and Warnings
 
 

RECOMMENDATION:

Stop  Repeat  Offenders !
Don't  Re-Elect  Them !

If in doubt, vote 'em out !


PROs:

[01]   Why?  Because most (if not all) incumbent politicians are corrupt, FOR-SALE, irresponsible, and incompetent. Proof of it would fill volumes. 

Keep the good ones (if there are any).
Vote out the bad ones. 

Should we let the possibility of a few good incumbent politicians (if such a thing exists) getting voted out of office get in the way of doing what it takes to get Congress to police its own ranks
?

Perhaps all incumbent politicians deserve to be voted out for not trying harder to see that at least more than half in Congress are adequately responsible and accountable
?

Perhaps all incumbent politicians deserve to be voted out for looking the other way
?

Can you list 10, 20, 50, 100, 150, 200, or even 268 (half of the total of 535) in Congress that are responsible

Can you list any that aren't FOR-SALE, bought-and-paid-for, don't peddle influence, truly embrace campaign finance reform,  don't vote on pork-barrel,  and don't look-the-other-way ?   Please take a moment to check out your Congress persons.  Be informed.  Making an uninformed vote is worse than not voting at all.   After all, do you want to have to explain why you gave your vote to someone crooked and/or irresponsible?
No?  Well perhaps that is because there aren't any?
One thing is fairly certain.  Incumbent politicians are likely to become more irresponsible and unaccountable as long as they are rewarded for it with 85% to 90% re-election rates.
[02]   If you do not like any of the candidates, then do not reward the incumbent by re-electing that person.  Vote for a challenger.
That is the best thing to do.  Why?  Because rewarding the existing incumbent by re-electing them allows them to grow more powerful.  So, don't merely choose to not vote at all.  If you have two (or more) bad choices, vote for a challenger (i.e. against the irresponsible incumbent).  That will reduce the power of that position, because newcomers (freshmen) to Congress will have less power and can do less damage.  It will also send a message to the newcomer (if elected).
[03]   Because, it sends a clear, unmistakable message to Congress.  Do the peoples' business, or you're gone.  The problem now is that 90% of Congress keep getting re-elected, over and over.  Hence, voters are repeatedly rewarding bad behavior; reinforcing bad behavior.
[04]   Because, it provides the peaceful force that few (if any) other methods can. 
[05]   Because, it is simple.  It is the one simple, common-sense, responsible thing that voters were supposed to be doing all along;  always.
[06] Because, it helps to create peer pressure among the politicians' own ranks within Congress.  Something that barely exists now (if at all).
[07]   Because, it creates immediate term-limits; why wait for Congress; they will never pass it, along with many other common-sense reforms.
[08]   Because, it balances power between government and The People, instead of Republicans and and Democrats, who simply take turns using and abusing the voters, and only carry the water for their big-money-donors.
[09]   Because, it reduces the significance of the circular, distracting, petty, partisan warfare, which irresponsible incumbent politicians love to fuel.
[10]   Because, it is a non-partisan approach; it reduces the excesses of the "IN PARTY" and the foot-dragging of the "OUT PARTY".   It sends BOTH a clear message to start solving problems, instead of ignoring problems and allowing them to grow in number and severity.
[11]   Because, it can reduce discourage waste, pork-barrel, graft, corporate welfare, corruption.  And, perhaps it will encourage Congress to finally pass some badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms that Congress has refused to pass for many decades (e.g. campaign finance reform, tax reform, election reform, balanced budget, One-Purpose-Per-BILL, immigration reform, etc.)
[12]   Because, it is inexpensive. There is no need to even send money to any politicians. Besides, most of us can not compete with the wealthy, since a mere 0.15% (300,000) of all eligible U.S. voters (200 million) made 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more).  Your $50, $100, $150 donations are wasted.  When 5% of the total U.S. population has 59% of all wealth, the majority of Americans can not out-spend those few that abuse vast wealth to control government.  Not when a mere 1% of the U.S. population has 40% of all wealth.  Government should not be FOR-SALE.
[13]   Because, it is quick, and we are running out of time.  The fiscal picture is disturbing. It can not last much longer. This current economy is an illusion funded with massive irresponsible borrowing, debt, spending and money-printing.  The total federal debt is over $23 trillion. The $10.7 Trillion National Debt would take 153 years (or longer) to pay off.
[14]   Because, it immediately eliminates the truly bad career politicians.
[15]   Because, it instantly cures the "jelly-brain" disease that some pandering politicians are almost immediately stricken with shortly after being elected to office, which makes them forget many (or all) of their campaign promises (i.e. "read my lips", "no nation building", etc.).
[16]   Because, it reduces the cu$hy pen$ion$ that each congress person will receive after only a few terms in Congress.
[17]   Because, it will encourage more challenging candidates to get on the ballots and give us more choices.
[18]   Because, it reduces the effect of Gerrymandering.
[19]   Because, what we are doing now is not working, is it ?   Voters are frustrated.  Continually re-electing incumbents is not working.  In fact, it is rewarding them;  empowering them; making them even more brazen and arrogant.
[20]   Because, it levels the playing field.  Incumbents have vastly unfair advantages (time, visibility, perk$ of office, big-money-donors, an office and staff in D.C. and their home state (funded by tax-payers) etc.).
[21]   Because, it increases the number of newcomers, who are always vastly out-numbered by incumbents that block any reforms that may  even remotely reduce the incumbents' power, opportunities for self-gain, or the security of their cu$hy, coveted seats.
[22]   Because, it creates unpredictability, which reduces the big-money-influence on a government that is already too FOR-SALE.
[23]   Because, it doesn't require that many people. Only 5% (4 million) of all eligible voters (200 million) voting for challengers could change the political landscape significantly. There can be power in small numbers too. It's not herding cats, expecting bi-partisan cooperation, or expecting the most brain-washed to become un-brainwashed. Only a few percent of the population is needed to have a significant impact.
[24]   Because, it is the only thing we haven't yet tried (not lately;not since 1933), and voting out bad politicians is what voters were supposed to be doing all along, always. We were never supposed to keep re-electing irresponsible incumbents due to blind party loyalty, partisan brainwashing, laziness, complacency, apathy, ignorance, or distracting petty partisan warfare.
[25]   Because, it may eventually enable someone to name at least 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible, accountable, are not bought-and-paid-for, and do not look the other way.
[26]   Because, a vote for an incumbent is a vote of approval for the way things are; for the status quo.  It rewards irresponsible behavior.
[27]   Because, a vote for a challenging candidate is a vote for changing the way things are.   Even if you don't like any of the candidates, do not reward the incumbent by re-electing that person you already know to be irresponsible.  Vote for a challenger, because rewarding the existing incumbent by re-electing them allows them to grow more powerful, corrupt, and irresponsible.
[28]   Because, it will increase Transparency = visibility and simplification of cleverly over-complicated processes to reveal and identify abusers, reveal the truth, create outrage, reduce opportunities for abuse, and discourage abuse and dishonesty;
[29]   Because, it will increase Accountability = consequences needed to encourage law enforcement, encourage ethical behavior, and discourage abuse and dishonesty;
[30]   Because, it will increase Responsibility = Power  +  Conscience  +  Education  +  Transparency  +  Accountability
[31]   Because, it will decrease  Corruption    = Power   -  Conscience   -   Education  -   Transparency  -   Accountability
[32]   Because, it is less important who you vote for, than whoever it is understands their career will be short if they are irresponsible too.
[33]   Because, it might be fun to finally see the truly bad, career politicians finally get the boot ?
[34]   Because, elected officials will finally get the message, and our pressing problems will start to get solved, instead of growing in number and severity, and subsequent improvements will naturally follow, and the country would flourish and prosper knowing it has a plan, and is on a better path.  Perhaps, taxes could eventually be lower, while still providing for the truly needy, a strong national defense, better and equal law enforcement, and protection, and equal opportunity for all citizens.  And, all the voters need to do is the one simple, common-sense, peaceful, non-partisan, safe, and responsible thing the voters were supposed to be doing all along, always.

 

S
top Repeat Offenders !
D
o  NOT  Re-Elect  Irresponsible,  Bought-and-Paid-For,  Look-the-Other-Way,  Incumbent  Politicians !
If in doubt, vote 'em out !

CONs:
[01]   Because we don't have good choices?  
You'll hear that excuse a lot.
Some voters say the alternatives are worse. 
But is that really true
?  
To hear some of these voters tell it, all of the alternatives are NAZIs , radicals , and nutcases.
Or is it because none of the alternatives are from THEIR party
?
After all, partisan loyalties are powerfully strong, which is why voters rarely (if ever) have any challenger(s) in THEIR own party to vote for. 
Since too many voters put THEIR party above all else, and most (if not all) politicians know this all too well, incumbent politicians enjoy very high (85%-to-90%) re-election rates, despite dismally low 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress.
That's only one of many clever mechanisms that make the incumbent politicians' cu$hy, coveted incumbencies more secure.
So, why reward the incumbent with re-election ?  Doesn't that simply allow (empower) them to grow more corrupt and powerful ?
If you don't like any of the candidates, then vote for a non-incumbent (i.e. challenger).  Do not let the incumbent grow stronger and more powerful.   Instead, vote for a challenger, because newcomers will have less power and less potential for doing damage.  Isn't it worse to vote for someone you already know is irresponsible, incompetent, and/or corrupt
?
[02]   Because anti-incumbent voters face the problem of the dog that finally catches the carŚwhat do they do next? Simply being "anti" something doesnĺt cut it when you have to be for something.  
Yes, someone said that too. 
The first obvious flaw in that logic is that the goal should not be to merely vote out incumbent politicians. 
The goal should be to vote out bad incumbent politicians.
Now, who can list 50, 100, 200, or merely 268 (half of 535) in Congress that deserve re-election
?  
Can you
lf you can, you will have done what no one else has been able to do for many years (if ever).
The root of the problem is that too many voters have the delusion that THEIR incumbent politicians are not the bad incumbent politicians, despite dismally low 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress.
And again, that is largely because of a very clever mechanism in which voters rarely have any challenger(s) in THEIR own party to vote for, and since too many voters put THEIR party above all else, and most (if not all) politicians know this all too well, incumbent politicians enjoy high (85%-to-90%) re-election rates.  That's only one of many clever mechanisms that make the incumbent politicians' cu$hy, coveted incumbencies more secure.
[03]   The other party is more corrupt than ours.  
Yes, someone said that.  In fact, many voters in BOTH say it all the time.  Is it working ?   However, it is often true that the  IN-PARTY  is actually more corrupt.  Unfortunately, voters keep letting the two main parties merely take turns at gettin' theirs, votin' themselves cu$hy perk$, retirement plans and raises (9 raises between 1997 and 2007), and paddin' their golden parachutes.   Despite the numerous debates about which party is more corrupt, does it matter?  Incumbent politicians in BOTH parties are so corrupt and irresponsible, does it matter which is the worst?  Infinity minus one is still infinity.
[04]   Why vote for Independents?  Independents can't think independently? 
Yes, someone said that too.  When both main-party candidates are irresponsible, why not consider a challenger?   After all, what sense does it make to reward irresponsible incumbents by repeatedly re-electing them (which allows them to grow more powerful and arrogant)?
[05]   Because that's the way I've always done it
It is that sort of blind party loyalty that is a large part of the problem.  Blindly pulling the party-lever is worse than not voting at all.
[06]   Because you lose experienced politicians.
Experienced at what?   Graft?   Pork-barrel?   Waste?   Corporate welfare?   Massive borrowing, debt, spending, and money-printing?   Ignoring the nation's ports and borders, ignoring illegal immigration, and then pitting illegal aliens and U.S. citizens agaisnt each other?   Selective enforcement and refusal to enforce existing laws?   Peddling influence and trolling for big-money-donors?  Carrying the water for their big-money donors that abuse vast wealth and power to influence government?    Refusing to ever pass any badly-needed reforms that may even remotely reduce the incumbents' power, opportunities for self-gain, or the security of their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies?   Voting them$elve$  cu$hy  perk$  and  rai$e$ ?  Starting unnecessary wars based on flawed and/or trumped-up intelligence?   Ignoring, using, and abusing the voters?   Abuse of eminent domain laws (upheld by the Supreme Court)?   Spying on Americans without a warrant?
[07]    Because it is too simple.
Really?   Why?   When was more complicated  better ?

VOTING GUIDELINEs:
   
[1] Research the candidates.  Look at their voting records (not merely what they say).  Avoid pulling the party-lever. Avoid being seduced into the circular, divisive, distracting, petty, partisan-warfare that pits voters against each other, and allows irresponsible incumbent politicians to enjoy their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies while ignoring the nation's pressing problems (problems that are growing in number and severity).  The party-lever and the partisan-warfare is how irresponsible incumbent politicians cleverly tap-into the voters' laziness The party-lever makes voting easy and fast. The partisan-warfare distracts the voters from more substantive issues, and distracts from the politicians' failure to do their job to adequately address those issues.
 
[2] Presidential elections usually have many candidates, so the likelihood of all candidates being equally unacceptable is low. 
  • (a) However, what can still easily happen (and often does) is that the front-runners are equally bad, and other better candidates have low probabilities of winning. The media is notorious for exacerbating and influencing the situation (giving no attention to candidates that aren't affiliated with the two-party duopoly).  If there is a good candidate, but that candidate is unlikely to win, and the front-runners are equally worse, then why not vote for the candidate that you feel is most qualified?  If the front-runners are equally worse, what does it matter?  Also, who knows?  Your favorite candidate may do much better than expected, and while your favorite candidate may not win, it may help keep the other candidates and the two-party duopoly more focused on the most important issues?
  • (b) For an  election of any office in which there are no good candidates, and no incumbent (i.e. all candidates are equally unacceptable), then why give any of the candidates your valuable vote?  If a write-in is allowed, do that instead.  It is perfectly acceptable to refuse to give your vote to any candidate if you believe none are acceptable. 
  • (c) Don't forget about Congress.  What can the next president accomplish if saddled with the same do-nothing Congress?
  • (d) Don't vote merely for the sake of voting, or blindly pull the party-lever, because an uninformed vote is worse than not voting. 
[3] Step [3] is very important.  If there are no good candidates (i.e. all candidates are about equally unacceptable), it is best to vote for a non-incumbent (i.e. challenger) rather than reward the irresponsible incumbent by allowing them to be re-elected, and allowing them to grow more powerful, corrupt, and irresponsible.  We were never supposed to re-elect irresponsible incumbents.  Unfortunately, that happens too often, merely because of blind party loyalty.  There's nothing wrong with party loyalty, but blind party loyalty merely empowers both main parties to keep taking turns being irresponsible, and keeps their incumbency rates high (e.g. 85% to 90%);  essentially rewarding Congress and telling Congress to continue being irresponsible, FOR-SALE, and corrupt.  Parties encourage straight-ticket voting, but that is the lazy way.  That is how parties tap-into your laziness to trick you into pulling the party-lever, instead of doing your own thinking for yourself.  Therefore, don't stay home if you don't like any of the candidates; vote against the incumbent.
 
[4] If there is a good candidate, vote for that candidate.  If all of the candidates are bad, then vote for a non-incumbent instead of rewarding the incumbent (or if there is no incumbent, then don't give your vote to any of them).  And, do not rely on party alone.   Don't blindly pull the party-lever (i.e. straight-ticket).   Study each candidates' voting records, philosophies, and/or platform.  While you may be tempted to merely vote for a candidate merely because they belong to a particular party,  they may not even remotely represent your beliefs.  An uninformed vote is worse than no vote.  
 
[5] If in doubt, vote 'em out !

   
VOTING GUIDELINEs Decision Chart:


Important Notes and Warnings:

[01] Beware of those (usually main-party loyalists) that try to tell you that your vote for a third party or independent candidate is a wasted vote.  Always vote for the best candidate, regardless of party.  Try to ignore party as much as possible. Don't blindly/lazily pull the party lever (i.e. vote straight-ticket) and vote for candidates you know nothing about.   Blind voting is worse than not voting at all. 
[02] Beware of those (usually main-party loyalists) that try to tell you that your vote for a third party or independent candidate is a vote for the other party.  Whoever you vote for is never a vote for someone else.   That is a clever argument, but it serves to empower and fuel the strangle-hold of the main-party duopoly.  Don't fall for it, because what those main-party loyalists fear and what irks them most is that you are disrupting their strategy.  That's a good thing.   Especially if you do not like the candidates of either main party. 
[03] Beware of those (usually main-party loyalists) that try to tell you that your vote is nothing but a protest vote.  Your vote is your vote.  Use it wisely.  
[04] Beware of those (usually main-party loyalists) that try to tell you that third parties can't win.  While third party candidates may not win, third parties can and do decide elections.  So, do not despair.  Your vote counts, regardless of those that try to tell you otherwise.
[05] Beware of those (usually main-party loyalists) that try to tell you that THEIR party is different.  The fact is, despite what politicians say, what the politicians of all parties do is actually very similar.   Especially the two main parties.  They want to maintain the strangle-hold of the two-party duopoly, which merely take turns being irresponsible, as evidenced by their handi-work and the nation's problems that continue to grow in number and severity.
[06] Beware of negative campaigning.  Much of the time, it is nothing but lies or twisted facts, or a mixture of some truths and some lies.  Do your own research.  Try to keep an open mind.
[07] Beware of those that try to convince you to abandon your common sense, or pick the lesser of two evils.  It's usually another ploy to maintain the strangle-hold of the two-party duopoly.  It should be noted that the two main parties are working hard to limit your choices.  Some states block access of third parties and independents to the ballots.  They do not want you to have other choices. 
[08] Beware of those that refute the indisputable logic of the guidelines (and flow chart) above.  Always vote for the most qualified candidate, regardless of party.   Don't pull the party-lever.  That's the lazy way.  Don't let parties do your thinking for you.   That is how we arrive at what we now have today, where the two main parties have a strangle-hold on the system, and work hard to limit your choices and block access to the ballots for third party and independent candidates.
 

The Problem and the Solution (account for the human factor)
CONGRESS' To-Do List (see what Congress has done since the NOV-2006 election)
Irresponsible Incumbents (what irresponsible incumbent politicians do while troops risk life and limb)
10+ Abuses in America (the reasons for the disparity trend for the last 30 years)
National Debt (it will take 143 years to pay off the National Debt)
Consider the Following Scenario (must we always learn the hard way?
Plunder of the Environment (population, arable land, over-fishing)
Solutions (common-sense, no-brainer reforms that politicians resist)
Help Educate Others (peacefully force government to be responsible and accountable too!)
Badly-Needed, Common-Sense Reforms
What Part of Whenever and Amendments (plural) does Congress not get?
The Cheater's Philosophy (learn to recognize their manipulation)
Frequently Asked Questions
   

home    Please feel free to offer your ideas to add to the list.