---

---

It's true that the balance of power between the branches of government has shifted over time, and executive orders have become more prominent—but it's an oversimplification to say that Congress has only adjusted budgets and tax rates since 2010.

Congress has passed major legislation even in recent years—such as the Affordable Care Act (2010), the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (2017), the CARES Act (2020), the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (2021), and the Inflation Reduction Act (2022). These are not minor tweaks—they shape healthcare, taxes, economic recovery, climate policy, and infrastructure.

As for executive orders, they often fill in gaps where Congress is deadlocked. While the concern about executive overreach is legitimate, it’s worth noting that many executive actions—like DACA—stem from real-world policy challenges that Congress has repeatedly failed to resolve. DACA, for example, came after years of failed bipartisan efforts to pass the DREAM Act. It didn’t come out of nowhere—it addressed the reality of undocumented children brought to the U.S. through no fault of their own, in the absence of congressional action.

Moreover, agencies like the EPA or CDC need some level of interpretive authority to function effectively, especially as science, technology, and society evolve faster than legislation. Executive appointees aren’t just inventing policy—they're implementing broad congressional mandates.

The deeper issue is gridlock and polarization in Congress, not just executive ambition. If we want less policymaking by executive order, we need a Congress willing and able to legislate on tough, often politically risky issues—not just a better balance of power, but a better functioning legislature.

I was including the 2010 Affordable Care Act as major, and I wouldn't include the others as major because they didn't really change regulatory structures or law.  Even though they were long and took a lot of effort to pass, they were more about taxes and spending.  But to your main point, you're absolutely right.
How do we get a better functioning legislature?

That's the million dollar question. A combination of electoral reform and getting away from zero-sum politics might be a good starting point. Easier said than done though. Especially with how polarizing everything is today.

We as voters can always demand more accountability and effectiveness from our representatives and start rewarding cooperation over obstruction, recognizing compromise as a sign of progress rather than a sign of weakness, an overall effort to secure partisan victories shouldn't be the goal. 

Not an easy lift for sure. However, not completely impossible.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

I was including the 2010 Affordable Care Act as major, and I wouldn't include the others as major because they didn't really change regulatory structures or law.  Even though they were long and took a lot of effort to pass, they were more about taxes and spending.  But to your main point, you're absolutely right.
How do we get a better functioning legislature?

That's the million dollar question. A combination of electoral reform and getting away from zero-sum politics might be a good starting point. Easier said than done though. Especially with how polarizing everything is today.

We as voters can always demand more accountability and effectiveness from our representatives and start rewarding cooperation over obstruction, recognizing compromise as a sign of progress rather than a sign of weakness, an overall effort to secure partisan victories shouldn't be the goal. 

Not an easy lift for sure. However, not completely impossible.

Electoral reform is the main thing for me.  Winning a primary election should never guarantee anyone a seat, whether that person is Aaron Bean or Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. All registered voters should have the opportunity to make a meaningful choice about who should represent them. Eliminating primaries, without doing anything else, would make things worse.  Ranked choice or approval voting are the best way to make primaries irrelevant.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I was including the 2010 Affordable Care Act as major, and I wouldn't include the others as major because they didn't really change regulatory structures or law.  Even though they were long and took a lot of effort to pass, they were more about taxes and spending.  But to your main point, you're absolutely right.
How do we get a better functioning legislature?

That's the million dollar question. A combination of electoral reform and getting away from zero-sum politics might be a good starting point. Easier said than done though. Especially with how polarizing everything is today.

We as voters can always demand more accountability and effectiveness from our representatives and start rewarding cooperation over obstruction, recognizing compromise as a sign of progress rather than a sign of weakness, an overall effort to secure partisan victories should be the goal. 

Not an easy lift for sure. However, not completely impossible.

Well, I believe George had it right.

George Washington famously warned against the dangers of political factions and parties in his Farewell Address. He believed that while parties might sometimes serve popular interests, they were ultimately likely to become tools for ambitious individuals to undermine the people's power and usurp government. Washington also cautioned that parties could lead to sectionalism, foreign influence, and a "spirit of revenge" that would harm national unity.

Now that doesn't appear to be practical in our current time.  A couple things we can do are:

a) All money donated to a candidate is sent to a central holding account for all. The candidate can draw down on that fund. Some general rules such as Limits on how much you can pay your relatives, other easy restrictions will need to be fleshed out.  After the election any remaining goes to the government. Heck there are some that run for office due as a business to earn money from the left over funds. Yea, they will drop out of the race, but only after getting the agreed upon donations from their opponents. (I am looking at you Bernie Sanders) 
b) Require all candidates disclose what their party affiliation is. There are place that actually do not allow this under the guise of non-partisan. (Sound familiar?)
c) a political party can only have one representative in an election. They can have all the preliminary elections they wish to select their representative ... own their own dime.

Just opinions ...

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

That's the million dollar question. A combination of electoral reform and getting away from zero-sum politics might be a good starting point. Easier said than done though. Especially with how polarizing everything is today.

We as voters can always demand more accountability and effectiveness from our representatives and start rewarding cooperation over obstruction, recognizing compromise as a sign of progress rather than a sign of weakness, an overall effort to secure partisan victories should be the goal. 

Not an easy lift for sure. However, not completely impossible.

Well, I believe George had it right.

George Washington famously warned against the dangers of political factions and parties in his Farewell Address. He believed that while parties might sometimes serve popular interests, they were ultimately likely to become tools for ambitious individuals to undermine the people's power and usurp government. Washington also cautioned that parties could lead to sectionalism, foreign influence, and a "spirit of revenge" that would harm national unity.

Now that doesn't appear to be practical in our current time.  A couple things we can do are:

a) All money donated to a candidate is sent to a central holding account for all. The candidate can draw down on that fund. Some general rules such as Limits on how much you can pay your relatives, other easy restrictions will need to be fleshed out.  After the election any remaining goes to the government. Heck there are some that run for office due as a business to earn money from the left over funds. Yea, they will drop out of the race, but only after getting the agreed upon donations from their opponents. (I am looking at you Bernie Sanders) 
b) Require all candidates disclose what their party affiliation is. There are place that actually do not allow this under the guise of non-partisan. (Sound familiar?)
c) a political party can only have one representative in an election. They can have all the preliminary elections they wish to select their representative ... own their own dime.

Just opinions ...

I am with you on a and C. 
I don't know about B. Orange County commission races are non partisan. It works pretty well, and the voters seem to know which is the Republican and which is the Democrat anyway. The nonpartisan thing is just their way of getting around a state law that would require a partisan closed primary if it was a partisan election. It allows them to have an open nonpartisan primary instead.

Closed primaries are fine, as long as the winner isn't basically guaranteed to win the general. If you only have two major parties, closed primaries become very bad, because you will have a lot of districts where all you have to do is win the primary and the general election result is basically guaranteed. So a reform should either look at nonpartisan open primaries, as Orange County did for its county commission, or use ranked choice or approval voting so that more viable candidates will participate in the general election and the primary doesn't matter as much.

Note that our all-wise Republican legislature has recently banned ranked choice voting statewide. They know that the clicque currently in power in Tallahassee would not stay in power if more voters were invited to participate and more choices were available. The donor class wants a small, simple clique to be in control, because that's less expensive than a complicated mismash of three or four parties that they would have to pay attention to.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

That's the million dollar question. A combination of electoral reform and getting away from zero-sum politics might be a good starting point. Easier said than done though. Especially with how polarizing everything is today.

We as voters can always demand more accountability and effectiveness from our representatives and start rewarding cooperation over obstruction, recognizing compromise as a sign of progress rather than a sign of weakness, an overall effort to secure partisan victories should be the goal. 

Not an easy lift for sure. However, not completely impossible.

Well, I believe George had it right.

George Washington famously warned against the dangers of political factions and parties in his Farewell Address. He believed that while parties might sometimes serve popular interests, they were ultimately likely to become tools for ambitious individuals to undermine the people's power and usurp government. Washington also cautioned that parties could lead to sectionalism, foreign influence, and a "spirit of revenge" that would harm national unity.

Now that doesn't appear to be practical in our current time.  A couple things we can do are:

a) All money donated to a candidate is sent to a central holding account for all. The candidate can draw down on that fund. Some general rules such as Limits on how much you can pay your relatives, other easy restrictions will need to be fleshed out.  After the election any remaining goes to the government. Heck there are some that run for office due as a business to earn money from the left over funds. Yea, they will drop out of the race, but only after getting the agreed upon donations from their opponents. (I am looking at you Bernie Sanders) 
b) Require all candidates disclose what their party affiliation is. There are place that actually do not allow this under the guise of non-partisan. (Sound familiar?)
c) a political party can only have one representative in an election. They can have all the preliminary elections they wish to select their representative ... own their own dime.

Just opinions ...

I like option A the most. It would radically level the playing field. Less chances of people grifting or running for profit. Minimizes the influence of mega-donors and super corporate PAC's. Voters ultimately deserve transparency. I also like the idea of having one representative per party in an election. Think it would at least force parties to take internal accountability a lot more seriously and reduce the overall spectacle of the election.

Washington's warnings are still relevant today. Entrenched partisanship, political theater and money-driven campaigns have helped sideline principle for power. Our current system is flawed, it's been flawed for decades now. We can have reform while still accepting parties, but, we do need to create systems that put us voters and governance ahead of profit and tribalism.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

Well, I believe George had it right.

George Washington famously warned against the dangers of political factions and parties in his Farewell Address. He believed that while parties might sometimes serve popular interests, they were ultimately likely to become tools for ambitious individuals to undermine the people's power and usurp government. Washington also cautioned that parties could lead to sectionalism, foreign influence, and a "spirit of revenge" that would harm national unity.

Now that doesn't appear to be practical in our current time.  A couple things we can do are:

a) All money donated to a candidate is sent to a central holding account for all. The candidate can draw down on that fund. Some general rules such as Limits on how much you can pay your relatives, other easy restrictions will need to be fleshed out.  After the election any remaining goes to the government. Heck there are some that run for office due as a business to earn money from the left over funds. Yea, they will drop out of the race, but only after getting the agreed upon donations from their opponents. (I am looking at you Bernie Sanders) 
b) Require all candidates disclose what their party affiliation is. There are place that actually do not allow this under the guise of non-partisan. (Sound familiar?)
c) a political party can only have one representative in an election. They can have all the preliminary elections they wish to select their representative ... own their own dime.

Just opinions ...

I am with you on a and C. 
I don't know about B. Orange County commission races are non partisan. It works pretty well, and the voters seem to know which is the Republican and which is the Democrat anyway. The nonpartisan thing is just their way of getting around a state law that would require a partisan closed primary if it was a partisan election. It allows them to have an open nonpartisan primary instead.

Closed primaries are fine, as long as the winner isn't basically guaranteed to win the general. If you only have two major parties, closed primaries become very bad, because you will have a lot of districts where all you have to do is win the primary and the general election result is basically guaranteed. So a reform should either look at nonpartisan open primaries, as Orange County did for its county commission, or use ranked choice or approval voting so that more viable candidates will participate in the general election and the primary doesn't matter as much.

Note that our all-wise Republican legislature has recently banned ranked choice voting statewide. They know that the clicque currently in power in Tallahassee would not stay in power if more voters were invited to participate and more choices were available. The donor class wants a small, simple clique to be in control, because that's less expensive than a complicated mismash of three or four parties that they would have to pay attention to.

Hey, I am all for political parties having preliminary elections in order to choose their ONE candidate. First they should pay for it not the taxpayer. Next the basic tactic of non-partisan preliminary to choose who runs in the main election was used artfully by one party in California. This can result in the voters only having one party's candidate in the main election. It resulted in one party rule. Nope ... one candidate from a political party in the main election. Anyone wanting something otherwise has an agenda they are not telling you about.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

I am with you on a and C. 
I don't know about B. Orange County commission races are non partisan. It works pretty well, and the voters seem to know which is the Republican and which is the Democrat anyway. The nonpartisan thing is just their way of getting around a state law that would require a partisan closed primary if it was a partisan election. It allows them to have an open nonpartisan primary instead.

Closed primaries are fine, as long as the winner isn't basically guaranteed to win the general. If you only have two major parties, closed primaries become very bad, because you will have a lot of districts where all you have to do is win the primary and the general election result is basically guaranteed. So a reform should either look at nonpartisan open primaries, as Orange County did for its county commission, or use ranked choice or approval voting so that more viable candidates will participate in the general election and the primary doesn't matter as much.

Note that our all-wise Republican legislature has recently banned ranked choice voting statewide. They know that the clicque currently in power in Tallahassee would not stay in power if more voters were invited to participate and more choices were available. The donor class wants a small, simple clique to be in control, because that's less expensive than a complicated mismash of three or four parties that they would have to pay attention to.

Hey, I am all for political parties having preliminary elections in order to choose their ONE candidate. First they should pay for it not the taxpayer. Next the basic tactic of non-partisan preliminary to choose who runs in the main election was used artfully by one party in California. This can result in the voters only having one party's candidate in the main election. It resulted in one party rule. Nope ... one candidate from a political party in the main election. Anyone wanting something otherwise has an agenda they are not telling you about.

California's system has been used and abused by both parties. 

The problem with a top two primary is it is vulnerable to clones, aka candidates that are too similar to each other.  You could have a very left leaning district, but if the Republicans are shrewd, they can entice three or four similar, decently funded left leaning candidates to run, and they split the left vote, leaving potentially two Republicans as the candidates who move forward.

Your one candidate per party rule doesn't really solve California's problem, all it changes is some of these clones will run as independents, they'll copy the target candidate's platform but not the party affiliation.  The publicly funded primaries we have in FL prevents this path because the partisan candidates gain credibility and name recognition during the partisan primaries and independent candidates can't compete.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Hey, I am all for political parties having preliminary elections in order to choose their ONE candidate. First they should pay for it not the taxpayer. Next the basic tactic of non-partisan preliminary to choose who runs in the main election was used artfully by one party in California. This can result in the voters only having one party's candidate in the main election. It resulted in one party rule. Nope ... one candidate from a political party in the main election. Anyone wanting something otherwise has an agenda they are not telling you about.

California's system has been used and abused by both parties. 

The problem with a top two primary is it is vulnerable to clones, aka candidates that are too similar to each other.  You could have a very left leaning district, but if the Republicans are shrewd, they can entice three or four similar, decently funded left leaning candidates to run, and they split the left vote, leaving potentially two Republicans as the candidates who move forward.

Your one candidate per party rule doesn't really solve California's problem, all it changes is some of these clones will run as independents, they'll copy the target candidate's platform but not the party affiliation.  The publicly funded primaries we have in FL prevents this path because the partisan candidates gain credibility and name recognition during the partisan primaries and independent candidates can't compete.

No reason to allow any party to be shrewd or for the public to pay for them selecting their candidate. They can pick their one candidate any way they want.  The primaries have become a public paid for sham. The dem's picked a candidate using the public primaries then had a backroom meeting and switched. LOL

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

California's system has been used and abused by both parties. 

The problem with a top two primary is it is vulnerable to clones, aka candidates that are too similar to each other.  You could have a very left leaning district, but if the Republicans are shrewd, they can entice three or four similar, decently funded left leaning candidates to run, and they split the left vote, leaving potentially two Republicans as the candidates who move forward.

Your one candidate per party rule doesn't really solve California's problem, all it changes is some of these clones will run as independents, they'll copy the target candidate's platform but not the party affiliation.  The publicly funded primaries we have in FL prevents this path because the partisan candidates gain credibility and name recognition during the partisan primaries and independent candidates can't compete.

No reason to allow any party to be shrewd or for the public to pay for them selecting their candidate. They can pick their one candidate any way they want.  The primaries have become a public paid for sham. The dem's picked a candidate using the public primaries then had a backroom meeting and switched. LOL

I think we agree about this. Except I proposed a solution. Ranked choice voting in the general election is the solution.. Do you think my solution works?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

No reason to allow any party to be shrewd or for the public to pay for them selecting their candidate. They can pick their one candidate any way they want.  The primaries have become a public paid for sham. The dem's picked a candidate using the public primaries then had a backroom meeting and switched. LOL

I think we agree about this. Except I proposed a solution. Ranked choice voting in the general election is the solution.. Do you think my solution works?

No I am against rank choice voting. In the event of a run off being needed I want to make the decision then, not in advance. It is the addition of another voting variable that can be manipulated or exploited. We do not need to add opportunities. I understand you may want this but there is no reason to have it unless there is something you are not forthcoming on? (KISS = Keep it simple stupid.) Besides if the political parties shoulder the cost of their primaries we will have the cash to do this when needed.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

---

I think we agree about this. Except I proposed a solution. Ranked choice voting in the general election is the solution.. Do you think my solution works?

No I am against rank choice voting. In the event of a run off being needed I want to make the decision then, not in advance. It is the addition of another voting variable that can be manipulated or exploited. We do not need to add opportunities. I understand you may want this but there is no reason to have it unless there is something you are not forthcoming on? (KISS = Keep it simple stupid.) Besides if the political parties shoulder the cost of their primaries we will have the cash to do this when needed.

You might be thinking of instant runoff voting.
A ranked choice ballot is a voting method, and instant runoff voting is a counting method.  The best counting method for ranked choice voting is Copeland or round-robin voting. Every vote is counted and no candidates are eliminated.

Even so, instant runoff voting is more familiar, it is used in Australia, and it would definitely encourage more compromise and less partisanship than what we have now.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Anybody that disagrees with the Cult of the Jackass is considered a Terrorist in their playbook.....

Declassified Docs: Biden Admin Branded COVID Dissenters ‘Domestic Violent Extremists’

Declassified intelligence records expose the Biden administration’s alarming decision to brand Americans opposing COVID-19 vaccine and mask mandates as “Domestic Violent Extremists” (DVEs). The documents, unveiled by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, reveal a chilling effort to label dissenters with a term typically reserved for serious threats.

https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/declassified-...extremists

The FBI report here: https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents...emists.pdf

---

No I am against rank choice voting. In the event of a run off being needed I want to make the decision then, not in advance. It is the addition of another voting variable that can be manipulated or exploited. We do not need to add opportunities. I understand you may want this but there is no reason to have it unless there is something you are not forthcoming on? (KISS = Keep it simple stupid.) Besides if the political parties shoulder the cost of their primaries we will have the cash to do this when needed.

You might be thinking of instant runoff voting.
A ranked choice ballot is a voting method, and instant runoff voting is a counting method.  The best counting method for ranked choice voting is Copeland or round-robin voting. Every vote is counted and no candidates are eliminated.

Even so, instant runoff voting is more familiar, it is used in Australia, and it would definitely encourage more compromise and less partisanship than what we have now.

No, one vote one person as we are doing now. Only US citizens allowed to vote. (non-felons) Anything else is being pushed to help someone fulfill an agenda. Maybe try to sell this scam to someone else as I see it for what it is.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

You might be thinking of instant runoff voting.
A ranked choice ballot is a voting method, and instant runoff voting is a counting method.  The best counting method for ranked choice voting is Copeland or round-robin voting. Every vote is counted and no candidates are eliminated.

Even so, instant runoff voting is more familiar, it is used in Australia, and it would definitely encourage more compromise and less partisanship than what we have now.

No, one vote one person as we are doing now. Only US citizens allowed to vote. (non-felons) Anything else is being pushed to help someone fulfill an agenda. Maybe try to sell this scam to someone else as I see it for what it is.

 It's still one person one vote, it's just every vote can express a first preference, second preference, etc. 

If you really think it should be one person, one mark per ballot per race, that is first past the post, and nothing will change. 

The only voting system besides first past the post that only lets voters make one mark per ballot is the Israeli voting system. Where you just vote for a party instead of a candidate. That barely works in tiny Israel. It would be worse here.

Also, you're getting distracted. Felons aren't the ones choosing candidates who only do theatrics and never compromise. Non citizens are a separate problem.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

No, one vote one person as we are doing now. Only US citizens allowed to vote. (non-felons) Anything else is being pushed to help someone fulfill an agenda. Maybe try to sell this scam to someone else as I see it for what it is.

 It's still one person one vote, it's just every vote can express a first preference, second preference, etc. 

If you really think it should be one person, one mark per ballot per race, that is first past the post, and nothing will change. 

The only voting system besides first past the post that only lets voters make one mark per ballot is the Israeli voting system. Where you just vote for a party instead of a candidate. That barely works in tiny Israel. It would be worse here.

Also, you're getting distracted.  Felons aren't the ones choosing candidates who only do theatrics and never compromise. Non citizens are a separate problem.

The method of voting is not the issue. I showed 3 things that would change things a lot. No reason to "fix" something that basic, simple and is not broken. The one vote one person is not broken. Why are you so intent upon fixing something not broken. I now suspect you of another agenda.

Non- citizens who are caught voting need to immediately be deported.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

 It's still one person one vote, it's just every vote can express a first preference, second preference, etc. 

If you really think it should be one person, one mark per ballot per race, that is first past the post, and nothing will change. 

The only voting system besides first past the post that only lets voters make one mark per ballot is the Israeli voting system. Where you just vote for a party instead of a candidate. That barely works in tiny Israel. It would be worse here.

Also, you're getting distracted.  Felons aren't the ones choosing candidates who only do theatrics and never compromise. Non citizens are a separate problem.

The method of voting is not the issue. I showed 3 things that would change things a lot. No reason to "fix" something that basic, simple and is not broken. The one vote one person is not broken. Why are you so intent upon fixing something not broken. I now suspect you of another agenda.

Non- citizens who are caught voting need to immediately be deported.

Your three things were, (a) all unused campaign funds will be kept by the government, (b) all candidates must disclose party ID, © each party only gets one candidate with no publicly funded primary for any candidate.

(a) Winning candidates today typically don't have significant unused funds, and if this were a rule the main thing that would change is there would be much more expensive galas right at the end.
(b) This is typically the case in Florida already, and in the areas where it isn't the case, not much changes.
(C ) All that's going to do is create lots of independent or small party candidates, and the main winning strategy will be to flood the zone with clones of your opponent to split your opponent's vote. With no change to Presidential primaries across the 50 states, the two main parties will still have an advantage for a little while, but for congressional races, that would become irrelevant fairly quickly. If joining a party doesn't give you access to a taxpayer subsidized primary, candidates simply won't join a party. You may welcome a new plethora of independent candidates, and to an extent I do too, but the winning candidate isn't going to be the one voters agree with most. It's going to be the one who does the best job winning the clone wars. There is a reason all 50 states, each acting on their own, eventually built a publicly funded partisan primary system, and if you get rid of it with out making any other change, you will find that out quickly.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The method of voting is not the issue. I showed 3 things that would change things a lot. No reason to "fix" something that basic, simple and is not broken. The one vote one person is not broken. Why are you so intent upon fixing something not broken. I now suspect you of another agenda.

Non- citizens who are caught voting need to immediately be deported.

Your three things were, (a) all unused campaign funds will be kept by the government, (b) all candidates must disclose party ID, © each party only gets one candidate with no publicly funded primary for any candidate.

(a) Winning candidates today typically don't have significant unused funds, and if this were a rule the main thing that would change is there would be much more expensive galas right at the end.
(b) This is typically the case in Florida already, and in the areas where it isn't the case, not much changes.
(C ) All that's going to do is create lots of independent or small party candidates, and the main winning strategy will be to flood the zone with clones of your opponent to split your opponent's vote. With no change to Presidential primaries across the 50 states, the two main parties will still have an advantage for a little while, but for congressional races, that would become irrelevant fairly quickly.  If joining a party doesn't give you access to a taxpayer subsidized primary, candidates simply won't join a party.  You may welcome a new plethora of independent candidates, and to an extent I do too, but the winning candidate isn't going to be the one voters agree with most.  It's going to be the one who does the best job winning the clone wars. There is a reason all 50 states, each acting on their own, eventually built a publicly funded partisan primary system, and if you get rid of it with out making any other change, you will find that out quickly.

( A ) Some candidates may throw expensive parties at the end. But over time, norms and reporting scrutiny could discourage such spending. The benefit is trying to restore our trust by ensuring campaign money ultimately serves a public purpose. 

( B ) Nationwide standardization would bring clarity across the board and help voters who move or vote across jurisdictions. It's about having the truth in advertising. Voters deserve to know this. We should know who these people are. Not just ideologically, but, what national or state-level organization is backing them and whether they represent a broader movement or a distinct interest group.

Even a little more transparency upgrades can have a lot of positive impacts. Helps reduce overall voter ignorance, and most importantly, it builds accountability. If you put a party label on your name you're also deciding to carry it's baggage. While it may be common in Florida. It should see a standardization. 

( C ) The heart of the reform is to end taxpayer funding of intra-party factional warfare and the abuse of and advantage of war chest spending. They lose their monopoly. Uh-oh. You mean they have to actually practice what they preach now? Absolutely. Us voters, the public, not the party insiders, we should decide who gets on the ballot. 

I welcome more independents. I welcome new movements. We're dying for it. That's what made this country so fun and free to begin with. Innovative parties, ideology, the American Spirit, actual politicians preaching to the people because they needed us. More candidates and more movements means richer policy debate and more diverse voter alignment.

Also, parties adapt. They either become more ideologically coherent and accountable, or they die, thus making room for new ones. 

This current system insulates the two primary parties by forcing us taxpayers to subsidize their internal contests. Change is difficult. It's a messy business. But we need it. It's all about reducing corruption, promoting transparency and honesty, democratizing access to the ballot and encouraging real competition and accountability.

Democracy should be less about making political elites comfortable and more about reflecting us, the people, the will of us.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."