Petitioning for grievances is one level of holding government accountable. But what really holds government's accountable non-violently? It's Direct Democracy of course. What's wrong with representative democracy? Problem is legislators act like dictators and special interest puppets, rejecting pleas to be more accountable. despite numerous government reforms like term limits and ethics laws, the root problems fail to be addressed such as special interests, rigged elections, partisan duelopolies, and irreconcilable differences plague the very integrity of controlling our government.
With the rise of multicultural influences from non-Western civilizations such as immigration from Third World hellholes which will give rise to socialist regimes through democratic elections. However, the real issue is a non-violent way of controlling government through citizens referendum.
What a citizens referendum will bring is an alternative to relying on politicians for policy making by holding them accountable by overriding any acts of Congress or Parliament. Special interests and unions will be furious about creating a Direct Democracy that not only puts direct power into the hands of citizens but also follows the election principles of the Founding Fathers while allowing any Westernized citizen of civic literacy to vote. The issue of property ownership being an election requirement should be considered as it could indicate you are a proud citizen of this state. However, civic literacy tests of reasonable nature are good enough.
What direct democracy in America should be structured on is the electoral college model where votes would be calculated based on representative districts. For example, votes would only count based the same way of a house of representatives. the popular vote would only count within their electoral district while the senate would rely on two votes per state. Large states like California should follow the same model as the Federal Government for representation such as having representatives based on population and within county borders while senators would be selected by county. This way Orange County has mostly conservative representatives while Los Angeles County is unable to unfairly overpower the Conservative opposition.
Armed conflicts exist in Third World Countries like Iraq and Somalia because one group tries to unfairly overpower another and the oppressed feel they have no choice but to engage in terrorism against enemies. How come Switzerland and New Zealand have far less moral for solving political conflicts through violence than Iraq and Somalia? the fact of the matter is that unlike "representative democracies", direct democracies don't have the same problem as special interests are unable to penetrate online voting, plus people can solve problems non-violently.
I feel the problem of low voter turnout is lack of faith in corrupt elections. Ending major party status, reducing voter fraud, and bringing proportional electoral results(such as electoral college) to large states will ensure not only fairness in elections but a Republican form of government, making it more difficult for special interests and dictator politicians to limit freedoms and consolidate power. Voting for politicians alone does not constitute proper control over government, especially when only two parties get all the goods and others get left with zero chances.
Switzerland's government is possibly the most accountable government in the World due to direct democracy alone, given the fact parliament's laws are subject to citizens veto. This means that issues such as repealing gun control, age restrictions, drug war, taxes, and other shit legislatures are too tied up to deal with could be repealed simply by obtaining citizen signatures of registered voters in a process that isn't mauled by time constraints, burdensome signature requirements, and corrupt executives.
However, the way I want direct democracy established is based on the electoral college model where voting would be proportionate in having votes counted within a single district while it is the district electoral vote that truly counts for the final casting. Popular vote only applies to districts.
Lawmaking could instead be done by districts counting popular votes and sending a delegate to count their position. for example, if funding for infrastructure was approved, the delegate hired would be required by law to submit a Yes vote in favor.
The current elections resemble those of 1930's Germany where checks and balances failed to stop Hitler's rise to power. What did Weimar Republic's judicial system do to curb Hitler's rise to power? Absolutely nothing. They just stood back citing "judicial restraint" and allowed Hitler to rise to power even though such consolidation and partisanship in favor of Nazism violated the Weimar constitution. Before Germany knew it, it went from a corrupt and flawed Constitutional republic in 1930 to a Totalitarian Nazi dictatorship in 1933. The Nazi Party was democratically elected just like the Democratic and Republican Parties in America are. during the Third Reich, elections were controlled by the Nazi Party as not only did they become the sole legal party but also counted votes for all plebiscites and referendums following January 1933. Elections in America are controlled in a similar fashion as Nazi Germany. No wonder Germany's annexation of Austria got 99% of the votes, the Nazis tampered with the results!
What needs to be accomplished? An independent non-partisan voter named Daniel Jeffs back in 2000-01 tried to get the US Supreme Court to make a landmark ruling revolutionizing and departisanizing elections in North America. That didn't happen as supreme court justices and America's judiciary is a lot like the judiciary of the Weimar Republic. Hopefully changing the way judges are appointed will bring more accountability and steer them away from partisan dictatorships.
The way judges should be appointed is based on the Pendleton civil Service reform which made merit the method of selecting bureaucrats. If judges were selected the same way bureaucrats under the Pendleton Civil Service act of 1880's were, judges would be more accountable and be subject to removal for turning any provision of our laws and constitution on it's head. Removal of judges would be decided by civil jury trial of the people. Judges would be selected based on their ethics, character, understanding of domestic law and constitutional law including original intent of such laws, and respect for the fact that all political power is inherent from the people. Any judge or justice in violation of these terms shall be subject to civil trial by a jury of concerned citizens. Currently the only way to forcibly remove a judge is through a broken and partisan congress. Most judges are very selfish and abusive with their power and assume they are above the will of the people. Assassinations or bodily harm attempts seem to be the most effective way practical at holding tyrannical officials accountable. However, if judges are to be held accountable once more, it needs to be treated like they're employees of the people, not a corrupt elite. How could the US Supreme Court involve itself with partisan politics. Do there need to be a bunch of terror attacks just to bring some shock to these pricks?! Larry Flynt was right about the US Supreme Court being a "bunch of assholes and token cunts!"
The last resort is use of revolutionary guerilla warfare involving bombings of law enforcement targets and recruitment of terrorists. The Arab Spring of 2011 proved very effective at regime change with Libya enduring a Civil War resulting in the overthrow of Qaddafi. The same things need to happen throughout Western Civilization. In fact, if only some suicidal person would strap a bomb to themselves and detonate it in the facilities where the enemies of our cause live it up and work(such as partisan courthouses and corrupt election commissions), not only igniting a revolution but creating sympathy for this martyr/victim, just like the martyrs of self-immolation only what makes it worth more is the blood of the enemies is shed alongside the suicidal martyr. Hopefully other suicidal or terminally ill people will help the resistance cause by strapping bombs to themselves and detonating them in front of pro-regime law enforcement officers resisting accountability.
Whether Messiah Daniel Jeffs, leader of Direct Democracy and non-partisan elections gets way either through armed conflict like in Iraq or Somalia or peacefully like Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Russia, etc. Protests in the winter of 2013 occurred in Bulgaria thanks in part to the broken democratic system.
Here are the questions which must be resolved.
- Does the two-party system adversely effect the rights, privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States?-yes
- Does the two-party system adversely effect the performance and accountability of the United States government?-yes
- Is the two-party system unconstitutional?-yes
- Should elections and the United States government be nonpartisan?-yes
- Do current voting systems violate citizens' rights to vote equally, confidently, accurately and efficiently?-yes
- Should voting systems be elevated and standardized throughout the United States?-yes
The Allies of World War II won because they never failed to use their last resort. The only thing we must accept in war is victory, even if much collateral damage is done! The US Supreme Court lacks the brazen of the World War II allied resistance but armed militants don't!
I do favor mixing non-violence with revolutionary guerilla tactics such as being as armed and dangerous as Al-Qaeda operatives at government branch buildings such as capitols, governor mansions, and supreme courthouses in the form of occupy style protesting. Hopefully Southern Nationalists can revive the Confederate States of America by doing the same thing.
We can't keep having elections like East Germany, Iran, and Russia! We need the National Citizen's Initiative for democracy! Remember, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance with citizens protecting liberty from tyrannical authority.
