TOP 10 Ideas for Federal Campaign Reform



by Johnny Punish


Now that the 2012 elections are over, about 51% of the country is super happy and the other 49% are super pissed.  Okay, we can’t stop some from being pissed off for not having their guy voted in but what we can do is completely overhaul the system so that we can have a true real 21st century democracy. 

Below, I give you my ideas for reform.  Read them and then comment so that we can begin the dialogue necessary to get reform in for the next cycle.  Here’s my top 10 ideas;

  1. DEPLOY 21ST CENTURY TECHNOLOGY: First, somebody hire Bill Gates as the VOTING czar and have him round up his people to come up with a 21st century plan so that voting can be instant, transparent and secure.  No more waiting in lines.  If we can go to Mars, we can do this.  So get with it people!
  2. VOTING RECEIPTS:   Once we vote, we should have a “receipt”; a record so that we have evidence that we voted and what we voted for so that no one can change our votes.  We need protections!
  3. DELETE SUPER PACS: Even though Citizens United rule allowing the top 1% to pool money in Super Pacs did NOT buy this election cycle, it’s a perversion of democracy by the people and for the people and it must end NOW!
  4. DELETE ELECTORAL COLLEGE: This college is the most antiquated system the U.S. owns.  It was created over 200 years ago when the colonies could not get information on the candidates so they created this thing to so that voters would NOT be making uniformed choices.  Clearly, with the net, we ALL have the info.  So what’s the reason for this ridiculous system again?  Maybe we should go back to writing in cave walls?  come on people!  Hit the delete button on this ridiculous system.
  5. INCREASE PRESIDENT TERM AND LIMIT TO 1 TERM: 4 years?  Geez us, this antiquated idea forces the President to be in perpetual campaign mode.  It makes it super hard to govern with principle based leadership.  It’s not working.  The President needs 6 years of work to implement what the people voted for.  Of course, the President only gets 1 term so there is NEVER a re-election campaign so that he/she does not have pander.  Other countries do it and it’s a very successful idea.
  6. TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS: Serving your country is a privilege, not a job for life.  Senators get 8 year terms, Reps get 4.  That’s it.  There are NO re-election campaigns.
  7. END 2 PARTY SYSTEM: Well, many argue we really have just 1 part with 2 factions and they would be spot on.  This system stinks.  We need all parties to be involved in the political discourse and they must NEVER be locked out like we’ve been doing.  We need the Tea Party to be autonomous from the GOP. We need the Libertarians and Green Parties to get in the debates and shake it all up.  Nothing to fear and everything to gain.
  8. END FOREIGN OWNED U.S. MEDIA: For real news media, they must be run by objective U.S. based and owned companies.  They must be independent and NOT part of big conglomerates.  We must protect the people from propagandists masking as news organizations.  Real honest information is mission critical to the electorate so that they can make informed votes.
  9. DEPLOY 2 TIERED ELECTION PROCESS: With all parties allowed to enter the ring, we must provide a two tiered election to make it efficient;  think of it as a playoff game round.  All the parties get in and they go for it.  The top 4 candidates make to the finals and then a winner is picked.
  10. PUBLIC FINANCING FOR ALL QUALIFIED CAMPAIGNS: Once a candidate qualifies for the final four, the public will fund the campaigns equally for all candidates.  No private financing whatsoever!

Okay, I bet I got you thinking now.  Share your ideas below in the comments box.  Talk to your friends, neighbors, and family.  And let’s all work to make the U.S.A. a true transparent real democracy.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Johnny Punish is a musician, artist, entertainer, businessman, investor, life coach, and syndicated columnist. Educated at University of Nevada Las Vegas, his articles appear in Veterans Today, MunKNEE and his Johnny Punish Blog. His art music is promoted by Peapolz Media Records and played on net radio at and more.

Resources: StoreMusicVideosAmazonYouTubeTwitterFacebook

2012 copyright – Johnny Punish

Band website template

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on November 8, 2012, With Reads Filed under Government. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

10 Responses to "TOP 10 Ideas for Federal Campaign Reform"

  1. michaelmann  November 10, 2012 at 4:16 pm

    As one person observed following the election, “The nation is divided and polarized as never before…all by clever and long-term social engineering and mass mind control.” The author of this article demonstrated this in a recent writing of his claiming that the GOP is full of racists. The writer shows that he is unaware that it serves the interests of a government out of control to keep its citizens divided and he is unaware that our media is complicit in the promoting of the strategy of divide and conquer. Whether its democrat vs. republican, black vs. white vs. brown, or male vs. female, divisions have served our government in its efforts to take “united” out of United States of America.

    Beyond that, the writer appears to be unaware of just who controls our media and our economy. Just who does he think funds and sits on the boards of these “foreign owned” companies and conglomerates that he mentions? Is he unaware that those in this privately owned banking system also coin and regulate the value of our currency, a function delegated by our constitution to our Congress but was given to the Federal Reserve 100 years ago? Is he aware that our multi-trillion dollar wars are funded by this private baking system and are their biggest money maker? Maybe he should check out who the major contributors of both major parties are. This would help him to understand who really is in control of this country and help him to see just how practical his suggestions are.

  2. jdfsau  November 10, 2012 at 8:39 am

    People who push for the elimination of the electoral college don’t seem to have any understanding about why the electoral college was set up in the first place. It has already been mentioned that the US was set up as a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The Founding Fathers were terrified of pure democracies since, unlike today, they knew their ancient history. They specifically knew about what had happened in ancient Greece and and specifically in the latter phases Roman Empire when the mobs gained sway. Pure democracy would result in the rule of the mob just as certainly here wherein politicians would ensure their re-election and civic peace by promising voters ever increasing amounts of “bread and circuses.” This is already starting to happen in our larger states.

    If the electoral college was eliminated, it would be the end of any campaigning by presidential candidates in those states with smaller populations. It would be far cheaper to simply ignore these states completely and only campaign in heavily populated states where the cost per vote would be far cheaper. These heavily populated states are much more leftist as well so the political system. Without the countervailing moderation imposed by the lesser populated states, the political system would swing far more left wing. Face it, if New York and Massachusetts were able to exercise their full influence, gay marriage would just be acceptable, it would probably end up being mandatory.

    Who would you trust more, the commonsense views of someone from the Dakotas or the politically correct views of someone from suburban, upscale Connecticut?

  3. KingWm  November 9, 2012 at 10:20 pm

    And the Senate is the most important of the two chambers, according to the original design. The House was to be elected by the people and the Senate was to be elected by the State legislatures. The House is the source of the people’s power and the Senate is the source of the States’ power, i.e. States’ Rights. In 1913, the globalist banksters got the 17th amendment ratified which required a popular vote for Senators. Before that, if a State didn’t like how a senator was performing, they could RECALL the senator. This is one reason we don’t have states’ rights anymore, because the states are not represented in Congress, only the people (the uninformed masses). We all know (or should know) how elections are rigged today using electronic vote counting, so popular election of Senators allows the controllers to rob states’ rights by rigging elections or convincing an uninformed populace to vote for a criminal.

    If the duties of our federal government were properly limited to the scope and intent defined by the constitution, they wouldn’t have nearly that much to do, and one person could easily handle the duties of the president. The problem with the current scenario is that the president is nearly a dictator, and so has many decisions to make. He doesn’t need help, he needs less to do. Return the power to the states.

    Congress is a deliberative assembly. The operative word there is deliberative.

    1) Done with or marked by full consciousness of the nature and effects; intentional:
    2) Arising from or marked by careful consideration:
    3) Unhurried in action, movement, or manner, as if trying to avoid error:

    In other words, they are supposed to read the bills, carefully consider them, in an unhurried manner, in order to avoid error. They don’t do any of that. They complain about not being able to get things done. Well, I have news for them. The process is SUPPOSED TO MOVE SLOWLY so that careful consideration can be given to all matters. Again, if the duties of Congress were limited to the scope and intent of the constitution, then they would only have to DELIBERATE on a few matters, and therefore, would have plenty of time to do their jobs properly and then go home. They wouldn’t have to meet but a couple weeks a month, or a couple months a year, or some such, and on special occasions.

    If we are going to elect senators by popular vote, then we probably don’t need them since we already have the House. However, before we abolish the Senate, I think maybe we should return the power to the states and have the state legislatures elect the senators once again, and see if that works first 😉

  4. KingWm  November 9, 2012 at 10:02 pm

    According to Robert’s Rules, you cannot select the top two for a run off. The idea is that you cannot eliminate candidates with lower totals, because under slightly difference circumstances, they could be the winner. It depends on how many candidates their are and what the vote breakdown is.

  5. KingWm  November 9, 2012 at 9:58 pm

    It got me thinking…

    1) Bill Gates is a globalist of the worst order. He is the last person we want in charge of voting, or voting software. Computer systems can be hacked, rigged or otherwise compromised. People cannot verify electronic counting of the votes. It is not who votes and how, it is who counts the vote, and how…rough quote attributed to Stalin. The poeple must be able to verify the votes at the precinct level, publicly, verified, and then tabulated up the chain publicy, and verified, by the people involved. It doesn’t matter if it takes days or weeks. We don’t need to know on election night. This is an election for the President of the United States for heavens sake! We can wait on an honest and verifiable vote count.

    2) Receipts are a good idea, but not enough by themselves. There has to be a way to county the receipts in order to verify the electronic vote count is correct. We need to scrap electonic vote counting machines. See no. 1 above.

    3) I agree

    4) Sure, the electoral college was created a long time ago, but the principles are based on sound historical principles. The founding fathers were very smart. The main stream media is not a reputable source for information on candidates, and unfortunately, that is where most get their news. The internet is available, but most people are not informed enough to filter the good information from the BS. The internet alone is not good enough. You really think today’s population is well informed? I am not asking if the information is available. I am asking if you believe that the people who vote actually take the time to carefully search for credible information and study the candidates.

    Contrary to popular belief, we do not live in a democracy, though an argument can be made that we have been converted. The founding fathers setup a republican form of government, to PROTECT us from the majority. The electoral college was setup so that the most well informed of the voting block, selected by their peers, locally, in fair elections, with vote counting that is not fraudulent and verifiable, using a process that spans many precincts, counties, senatorial districts, states and then nationally. This eliminates (in theory) the dumb masses who vote based on the commercials they see on tv and the rumors they hear from their friends and families. The internet is replete with examples of idiots voting for candidates when they clearly have no clue what they are talking about. This system is definitely far better than allowing the masses elect politicians democratically. Again, this country is NOT a democracy. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. In a democaracy, a simple majority can vote to take our guns, while in a republic, the gun owners are protected from the will of the uninformed majority. Most state election codes clearly state that primaries are “preference polls”, and in some, they choose to bind the delegates and electors to vote according to the primary preference poll results. It frustrates me to hear this complaint from so many. It is a very important feature in any republic.

    5) The debate on term limits rages on. The founders did not call for term limits. I am not convinced one way or another yet. I have heard many good points for going both ways, no limits vs. limits, too many to list here.

    6) Same as no. 5, except that I would add that if they don’t have to worry about being reelected, then they can get away with whatever they want. I too am sick and tired of constant campaign mode, but elections are how we hold their feet to the fire. If they do not have to worry about getting reelected, then we have no recourse other than to impeach or recall, which is nearly impossible to accomplish.

    7) I agree, and would add that we need to eliminate the idea of a running mate. In the old days, the vice-president was whoever came in second in the voting. That is how it should be. Whose crazy idea was it to let a presidential candidate decide who would be our vice president (and possibly the next president) would be.

    8) I agree, but good luck with that one. This is why we cannot rely on the dumb masses to inform themselves. This is why we need the delegate selection process and the electoral college, to protect us from the uninformed masses. Even if you could rely on the media and the internet, you can’t make stupid people take time to research candidates. They are too busy with football and facebook and othe such distactions.

    9) The psychology of elections is very important. Roberts Rules of Order are used for a reason. This decision is not that easy to make.

    10) I am not sure about the public versus private financing for campaigns. On the one hand, in a free market, or a free society, voters should be able to donate as much as they wish to whomever they wish. This is one way to measure a candidate’s support, even if it is no perfect. I do believe that only real live humans, not corporations, should be able to donate, and of course, only citizens. On the other hand, I have also thought about equal funding for all. I don’t know if that is possible to audit, but I understand the point. As a libertarian, I don’t like the idea that I cannot donate at will to candidates based on my belief. How about a large limits, like $5,000 or some such so that 99% of the population could donate as much as they want, assuming most won’t donate that much, but would limit the ability of fat cats to flood candidates with millions. I am not sure about this one either, but campaign finance definitely needs reform, and super pacs must go. No corporate money!

  6. Dan  November 9, 2012 at 7:31 am


    Why allow any group, let alone PACS, contribute to or in any way influence elections, including donated services? Disallow rich candidates funding their own campaigns beyond some reasonable limit. Why not further restrict campaign contributions per capita? with an upper limit based on the average income in the state or district to prevent the rich buying elections. Citizen voters would be forced to participate in the process rather than sitting on their butts being spoon fed propaganda by people who don’t live in their district or state.

    The president has become a de facto dictator who can ignore Congress and, theoretically at least, the will of the people. But the people are generally incapable of voting on national or geopolitical issues, so why not remove the executive officer, who should be only carrying out the will of Congress in the first place, from popular vote? Have the president selected by the Senate from among its ranks, and, furthermore, go back to having the Senate selected by the state legislatures to avoid turning its selection process into a popularity contest.

    To argue against these proposals on the grounds is disenfranchises voters is a red herring considering the influence of concentrated power in the hands of the media and elites. Empowering citizen voters means redirecting the process to the local level and re-establishment of states’ rights, including annulment of any law a state determines is a breach of its contractual rights under the Constitution. I’m sure I can already hear the screeching from the collectivists, whose idea of empowering individual citizens is no different than subjecting them to even more propaganda for the purpose of enslaving them.

  7. Sami Jamil Jadallah  November 9, 2012 at 7:24 am

    Johnny… great idea… what we have now is a ONE Party with two factions and super votes where not all citizens or votes are equel…. Time for America to reform and join the 21st Century. More on this later…

  8. Martin Maloney  November 9, 2012 at 7:15 am

    “… And the only excuse for not voting should medical inability or insanity….”

    Mandatory voting?

    Please enlighten us as to your other ideas for your perfect totalitarian state.

  9. theoldhippy  November 8, 2012 at 11:20 pm

    The election should be either one or two full weeks to give everyone a chance to vote. And the only excuse for not voting should medical inability or insanity. And all GI’s should have access voting wherever they are stationed.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

From Veterans Today Network