Yeah, I almost made mention of that. I don't think you're wrong about that (in that it needs to changed... ranked choice isn't it, imo), but you're still not seeing the big picture.

I see the big picture but the problems I see there seem to be beyond what any government policy can fix.

What voting system is better than ranked choice?

---

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

It's the money, man. You have to get money out of politics. You need to make it personal donations only, cap it at the high end, then allow unlimited donations to a central pool that is evenly distributed among all qualified candidates (randomly, something like polls at 1% in any state pops into my head). It really doesn't matter which system you use if you get money out of politics. Same goes for insider trading. Pay the politicians more money, take away their ability to trade. Want to really make them work hard? Incentivize their service. How about a million dollars as a bonus for each year the people approve of their work. I'm just spit-balling here, but we HAVE to make them work for US.

---

It's the money, man. You have to get money out of politics. You need to make it personal donations only, cap it at the high end, then allow unlimited donations to a central pool that is evenly distributed among all qualified candidates (randomly, something like polls at 1% in any state pops into my head). It really doesn't matter which system you use if you get money out of politics. Same goes for insider trading. Pay the politicians more money, take away their ability to trade. Want to really make them work hard? Incentivize their service. How about a million dollars as a bonus for each year the people approve of their work. I'm just spit-balling here, but we HAVE to make them work for US.

How are you going to get people elected who want to get the money out of politics?

Suppose I'm a billionaire, and suppose you get all the changes to the law you want.

How are you going to stop me from using my own money to run ads supporting the candidates I like?

My idea can be implemented within the self-interest of the politicians currently in power.  In ME and AK, the catalyst was a statewide centrist incumbent candidate who was being punished by the partisan primaries.  That will continue to happen in the other 48 states.  How will your idea be catalyzed? Usually the incumbents are the ones with the connections to the sweet elite money.  They're not going to vote for getting rid of that.

Plus

Florida already has some of the strictest disclosure and cap requirements for campaign finance in the nation. Is it helping?

---

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

It's the money, man. You have to get money out of politics. You need to make it personal donations only, cap it at the high end, then allow unlimited donations to a central pool that is evenly distributed among all qualified candidates (randomly, something like polls at 1% in any state pops into my head). It really doesn't matter which system you use if you get money out of politics. Same goes for insider trading. Pay the politicians more money, take away their ability to trade. Want to really make them work hard? Incentivize their service. How about a million dollars as a bonus for each year the people approve of their work. I'm just spit-balling here, but we HAVE to make them work for US.

The only way to get money out of politics is the repeal the First Amendment.  Any billionaire or entity with enough money can buy a newspaper or TV channel and say whatever they want.  There is no law that can stop them that would be constitutional.

---

All you guys are doing is pointing out why the USA is doomed.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It's the money, man. You have to get money out of politics. You need to make it personal donations only, cap it at the high end, then allow unlimited donations to a central pool that is evenly distributed among all qualified candidates (randomly, something like polls at 1% in any state pops into my head). It really doesn't matter which system you use if you get money out of politics. Same goes for insider trading. Pay the politicians more money, take away their ability to trade. Want to really make them work hard? Incentivize their service. How about a million dollars as a bonus for each year the people approve of their work. I'm just spit-balling here, but we HAVE to make them work for US.

The only way to get money out of politics is the repeal the First Amendment.  Any billionaire or entity with enough money can buy a newspaper or TV channel and say whatever they want.  There is no law that can stop them that would be constitutional.

This is why we don't need billionaires. You guys love to pretend your hands are tied. There is no fight in you.

---

The only way to get money out of politics is the repeal the First Amendment.  Any billionaire or entity with enough money can buy a newspaper or TV channel and say whatever they want.  There is no law that can stop them that would be constitutional.

This is why we don't need billionaires. You guys love to pretend your hands are tied. There is no fight in you.

You are correct that the constitution would allow us to tax 100% of the income of a person who is already a billionaire.  The Constitution might even allow us to institute a wealth tax to hurt them even more (but my sense of the matter is it does not unless amended). 

However common sense says such a tax will never pass, and even if it passed, will never be effectively enforced.

---

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

That's not common sense. That's confirmation bias. It's what you think should happen, because that's what you've been told. Even though your eyes are seeing the results of these failed policies, your brain is trying to justify it.

---

I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I'm mildly surprised to learn that L2L was indeed the driving force behind the Occupy Wall Street movement.

So many of his posts in this thread are verbatim with the rhetoric of that movement.

I don't intend to make light of how conservatives treated that movement unfavorably at the time, but to point out that the system it sought to alter is the same one being discussed negatively here by folks that represent progressives, moderates, and conservatives.

The corruption issue and its roots (founded in a system that allows elite wealth to control and influence the masses) has long been and will continue to be a fatal flaw in our "Democracy vs. Absolute Capitalism" model.

It seems common sense to me to oppose it. And oddly, many folks from a variety of political angles do oppose it. But this stuff doesn't end up on ballots to just vote away.

So how do we change it?

Conservatives tried putting a "rogue agent" in the White House. That didn't change it. It supercharged it.
Maybe he was the wrong guy. Maybe whatever "outsider" you put there will always end up being a marionette at the end of the day.

What's next? How do you get the power out of the hands of those amongst the elite class of wealth who choose to exert influence on elections and policy?

---

I've gone on record here saying that I was wrong for not taking Occupy Wall Street seriously. They were 100% correct, and that movement went away, coincidentally, as soon as the media started focusing on racial issues. Corporations will happily distract us with that while they continue to pick our pockets. As to the what's next: it has to be grass roots. We have to collectively agree to keep voting for outsiders. I'd happily vote for a democratic outsider, so long as I knew they were going to go after the elites that are robbing us. At some point, a candidate is going to come along that stays focused on helping the American people.

---