On March 1, the Arizona House passed HCR 2033, which guarantees that qualified political parties may place nominees on the general election ballot. Here is the text. If it passes the legislature, the voters would vote on it in November 2024. If it becomes part of the Arizona Constitution, it would block any proposed laws that eliminate the ability of parties to have nominees, such as a top-two, top-four or top-five system.
The vote was party-line, with all Republicans voting “yes” and all Democrats voting “no” (except one Democrat didn’t vote). It passed 31-28.
ABOLISH ALL PARTY HACK STUFF = MONARCH/OLIGARCH JUNK.
INDIVIDUALS NOMINATED/ELECTED NOT *PARTIES*
—
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
Parties should be elected, not individuals. The winning party can then pick officeholders, and substitute them through the next election.
Thomas Jones once again contradicting earlier statements he made.
The gang tyrant bosses monarchs/oligarchs would love MaxZim junk –
see current Russia / RED China robot hack national legislative bodies —
same as olde nazi Hitler and olde commie Lenin-Stalin bodies – with added purges of non-robots in the bodies.
—-
TOTAL mobilization of ALL security folks in the USA [and in all nations] re pending Trump arrest ???
4 AM arrests/purges ???
We have a multiparty representative system in Russia, unlike bipartisan USA with democrats now being more open CCP/XI puppets. I’m calling for elections every year and political power devolution to the precinct level, which doesn’t sound like what you characterize my views as.
Great, great idea.
Trump indictments or arrests will fail miserably, much like the Russia hoax, two failed impeachments, etc. Trump will back in the oval office in less than two years. I look forward to his summits with President Putin and draining the swamp much more effectively given everything he learned the first time around. He was just starting to really hit his stride when the Democrats sold out the USA to red China and colluded to steal the election. The intervening years will only serve to make his second term better.
Thomas Jones likes to disagree for the sake of being disagreeable!
Max, I have to disagree. Abolish all party labels on the ballots which would then require an informed electorate. All of the random guess votes would wash each other out. By forcing voters to actually know something about their candidates, I think we would see a significant improvement in government. *The proper role of the parties is to promote their candidates OUTSIDE OF the polling places*
The way the establishment insiders are trying to keep Donald Trump out of office suggests to me that he must have been doing a few things right, or at least that he’s not as bad as Joe Biden.
I say this as somebody who voted for Jo Jorgensen in 2020.
Andy voted for Marxist Jorgensen? What a loser.
Jeff,it’s ok to disagree, but it would be better if you knew what you disagree with. The system I propose would have no ballots or candidates. Voting would be in person in the style of a caucus or town meeting. Each party which has a precinct captain who flies the party’s banner and represents that party to that precinct in between elections, and who shows up on election night, gets a corner or section of the room. The precinct captain and designated speakers persuade people into their corner. At the end of, say, two hours, the voters are counted. The winning party then are people personally known to all assembled from among their neighbors.
The winning party then picks (and replaces as it sees fit) the only office – peace officers, who also serve as judge, jury and executioner in the field. Laws would be very simple and common sense, no more than a single printed page of normal dimensions and don’t, and would rarely if ever change. Thus there would be no need of a legislative branch. Peace officers would be a combined executive and judicial branch, but they would also be responding officers in the field, and would judge how the law applies to situations they encounter in the field.
Aside from precinct level peace officers, who would be paid with the proceeds of a poll tax plus voluntary contributions, the only government needed would be a national defense military. That would function much as now, but it would make more sense for generals and admirals to pick a commander in chief than it would for random voters. The military could be financed with a head tax, different from the poll tax because it would apply to everyone, not just voters.
Now that you hopefully understand what I’m proposing more fully, do you still disagree, and if so why?
I hope this good bill passes the legislature and the referendum.
Anyone have counterarguments to my proposal?
Wow, it looks like they actually passed something good for a change.
The bill proposing the constitutional amendment leaves defining qualifications for a political party to the discretion of the legislature and governor which they may change between elections to serve their partisan ends. So long as the qualifications are not guaranteed the amendment guarantees nothing of substance and I would hope it fails.
I have outlined my proposal in many discussions here. A few people expressed disagreement, but no substantive counterarguments that I recall ever seeing.
Would anyone here care to change that woeful track record?
How much would this poll tax be in your proposal?
It would be quite substantial, and one of a number of different ways of jointly ensuring that only elite, highly qualified men would be allowed to vote. A previous discussion of the proposed qualifications yielded agreement that only a very tiny percentage of the presently qualified voters would remain qualified to vote. There would be no sales, income, property etc taxes. Only the poll tax to support peace officers and a head tax to support the military, both supplemented by volunteers and voluntary contributions. Given that I propose getting rid of or privatization of most current aspects of government, the overall tax burden will be substantially reduced. There would also no longer be any government debt at any level.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/03/supreme-court-moore-harper-parties-disagree-over-courts-power-to-reach-decision-in-election-law-case/
MACHINATIONS IN THE NC GERRYMANDER CASE
—–
DORR’S WAR IN LITTLE RI IN EARLY 1840S – DEFINITION OF ELECTOR AND EXTREME LEGISLATURE GERRYMANDERS
>>> 1844 RI CONST – MANY MORE ELECTORS / REQUIRED NEW MORE EQUAL GERRYMANDERS.
STRING AND BAND-AIDS IN USA REGIME BEFORE CIVIL WAR I IN 1861-1866.
Naturally az has only a nonsequitur reply, as has come to be expected.
Isn’t a poll tax banned by the Constitution? I don’t see how that would work.
Your constitution would of course be gone. The entire law, all of it, would be shorter than your constitution, as I mentioned. The only function of national government would be national defense.