Zone, your last two posts have valid points which I agree with. Obviously, massive sweeping reform across the board is necessary to correct a bad and worsening problem.
However, the politicians are not slaves that were bought on the block. There is no "bill of sale" a special interest, PAC, wealthy elitist, etc... has for them that can be remitted to the law enforcement organs of our nation to then force them to cast their vote and do what their master wants them to do. LOL.
They are influenced by those with money who pay for their campaigns and provide them their perks, stock tips, and revolving door opportunities but also the demographics they represent who vote them into power. Don't forget that legislatures and presidents cannot hold their positions unless they are voted into them in elections by THE PEOPLE.
".....Then came last Sunday's New York Times, which presented a terrifying report on Diebold, a leading maker of paperless touch-screen voting machines. Eight million of us will be tapping on Diebold computers in the next Presidential election.
So what's wrong with that?
Wrong Thing 1: Wally O'Dell, the company's chief executive, is a Republican fundraiser. He writes letters to wealthy Bush contributors vowing to "deliver" his state's electoral votes to the Bush campaign. He hosts campaign meetings at his house. He's also a member of Bush's "Rangers and Pioneers" club (each member of whom must contribute at least $100,000 to the 2004 re-election campaign).
No matter what your politics, you can't deny that there's a strong whiff of conflict of interest here.
Still, Mr. O'Dell wouldn't and couldn't go so far as to program his voting machines to deliver the next election to Mr. Bush, right? Even Oliver Stone would laugh at that conspiracy theory. But then:
Wrong Thing 2: The code in these machines is so insecure, somebody managed to copy a version of it from Diebold and post it online. Two studies--one by professors at Johns Hopkins and Rice University, one by engineering firm SAIC--found the current code to be sloppily written, with weak cryptography and "no evidence of rigorous software engineering discipline."
Wrong Thing 3: This one boggles the brain: The Diebold systems don't print. There's no paper trail, no "voting receipts." Data is transferred to the election precinct on a memory card in a format that only Diebold can read. If an election is ever in dispute, nobody can compare the digital results against a backup system. As an individual, you'd have no way of confirming that your vote was properly recorded.
(My favorite part of the Times article was the story told by New Jersey Representative Rush D. Holt, who's trying to make electronic voting more transparent: "Someone said to me the other day, 'We've had these electronic voting machines for several years now, and we've never had a problem.' And I said, 'How do you know?'")
Without a paper trail, there's all kinds of opportunity for mischief.....
Maybe Hanging Chads Weren’ - t So Bad After All - NYTimes.com < click for more wrong things. from the (cough) NYT.
...
AoK:
does polarizing of the american people (your hotbutton trash issues that never change) help to determine voter decisions?
if there are only two parties, what happens when you vote?
is there a known conspiracy to effect the outcomes of elections?
is there absolute proof of voter fraud?
i don't mean to rain on your GOP hope & change parade, but getting real about the fake democratic system you have (which i don't understand since you're supposed to be a Constitutional Republic) is a good first step.
uh....you're saying Law Enforcement is doing something about PACs and SuperPacs?
Sheldon Adelson Leads Super PAC Mega-Donors To Dominance In 2012
Posted: 10/27/2012 2:18 pm EDT Updated: 11/06/2012 11:23 am EST
Sheldon Adelson Leads Super PAC Mega-Donors To Dominance In 2012
...
part of a solution might be: those who run for political office do so on a
volunteer basis.
they are tightly monitored concerning lobbying (which would be illegal in my solution) and influence peddaling.
they are pink slipped the first time they turn.
one strike - out.
no campaigning as we know it today.
it's not necessary.
the candidate writes out his or her plan, and the people read it.
he then follows it.
or he's out.
if his plan is not viable, he doesn't get in at all.