It's that time again... or is it?

[MD-1118]

This seasonal thread isn't about any of the usual stuff. I considered it, but I've pretty much covered everything I wanted to in my past seasonal posts. So! This time, given the general flavour of E&C page 1, I'm going with:

Who are you voting for (if you plan to vote at all), and why?

Personally, I'm torn. I had planned on voting for Bernie Sanders, but now that he's pretty much out for good, I'm leaning toward Jill Stein. While I don't agree with her on everything, to me she seems to be far more palatable than either Trump or Clinton, and there is one thing in particular about her that I really like - she thinks NASA's funding should be increased.

I've also seriously jokingly discussed writing in Bill Nye as a candidate amongst my friends. If there were a strictly-science-based political party, it would get my support. It's a shame we can't have nice things.

[Spidey]

I've decided not to vote.

I seriously don't care which one gets elected so....★■◆● it.

[callmeslick]

Stein has made some recent statements that border on the seriously delusional. Long ago disqualified as a fake candidate with no real interest in the actual office at hand. Bernie had it right the other day: we need a third party, or maybe more, but those have to be raised from the ground up, not with exercises in futility every four years. Thus, bottom line is there are two people extant with any chance of winning the Electoral College vote next January.
I chose the one who isn't both crazy and dangerous.

[Spidey]

Which one is that?

[MD-1118]

Stein has made some recent statements that border on the seriously delusional. Long ago disqualified as a fake candidate with no real interest in the actual office at hand. Bernie had it right the other day: we need a third party, or maybe more, but those have to be raised from the ground up, not with exercises in futility every four years.

As I said, I don't agree with her on all points. My main issues would be her desire to phase out nuclear power, and her questionable stances on vaccines and GMOs. That being said, I still see her as being preferable to either of the primary candidates. I also see Bernie as being preferable over both of them as well as her, but I don't think he's actually going to be an option at this point or I'd just go with my initial inclination and vote for him.

[callmeslick]

if you are still pondering the viability of Bernie Sanders, who is both CAMPAIGNING for Clinton and not on the ballot in any state in the nation, one has to question whether you are really paying any serious attention to the Presidential race at all. Why even bother to vote if you are that uninformed or uninvolved? Stein's odd comments have gone WAY past the old vaccine/gmo positions, and she has campaigned for the most powerful position on the planet by spray painting a tractor and otherwise very little. She's a dilettente, aiming at mental lightweights who are more interested in being angry that in actually getting things done. The American system works, but only if you follow a certain path to get things done. She has shown no awareness of that fact.

So, to return to my point above: given that you are about 7 weeks from the most significant election in your lifetime, a genuine choice between a path of nationalism and xenophobia or one of compromise and inclusiveness. It should be considered the duty of the nation to reject the former, or forever regret not doing so now, when the fascists can be nipped in the bud. I can accept drawing different conclusions, but cannot understand not paying attention.

[MD-1118]

if you are still pondering the viability of Bernie Sanders, who is both CAMPAIGNING for Clinton and not on the ballot in any state in the nation, one has to question whether you are really paying any serious attention to the Presidential race at all. Why even bother to vote if you are that uninformed or uninvolved? Stein's odd comments have gone WAY past the old vaccine/gmo positions, and she has campaigned for the most powerful position on the planet by spray painting a tractor and otherwise very little. She's a dilettente, aiming at mental lightweights who are more interested in being angry that in actually getting things done. The American system works, but only if you follow a certain path to get things done. She has shown no awareness of that fact.

So, to return to my point above: given that you are about 7 weeks from the most significant election in your lifetime, a genuine choice between a path of nationalism and xenophobia or one of compromise and inclusiveness. It should be considered the duty of the nation to reject the former, or forever regret not doing so now, when the fascists can be nipped in the bud. I can accept drawing different conclusions, but cannot understand not paying attention.

I dunno man, we're all going to hell in a handbasket anyway and you seem to forget that the "compromising and inclusive" candidate is also a compulsive liar and a traitor to the state. I'll admit to not paying much attention, though. I've had a lot on my plate and NASA hasn't had any real support from the oval office since Nixon.

I'd take Nixon at this point, honestly.

The American system works, but only if you follow a certain path to get things done.

And that path includes pandering, saying what people want to hear, and making empty promises, which unsurprisingly is what all 'viable' candidates do these days. Can't say I'm surprised at Stein and Sanders for joining them since they can't beat them.

[callmeslick]

I dunno man, we're all going to hell in a handbasket anyway

how so, and in what ways? Please, show some evidence, if possible.

and you seem to forget that the "compromising and inclusive" candidate is also a compulsive liar and a traitor to the state.

were you paying attention, you might realize that she is in no way, shape or form a traitor, nor a compulsive liar. As I said, this stuff is important enough to your future to do a bit of digging through the BS that has been slung, and find the actual facts.

I'll admit to not paying much attention, though. I've had a lot on my plate and NASA hasn't had any real support from the oval office since Nixon.

how does support for NASA factor in for you? Oh, and they seem to be maintaining a pretty robust ongoing effort down on Wallops Island, from what I can see.

The American system works, but only if you follow a certain path to get things done.

And that path includes pandering, saying what people want to hear, and making empty promises, which unsurprisingly is what all 'viable' candidates do these days. Can't say I'm surprised at Stein and Sanders for joining them since they can't beat them.

you seem to be confusing campaigning for office with governing. A lot of folks seem to have that in common. Now, go back and read what I was talking about, and it wasn't about running a campaign, it was about actually GOVERNING in a Federal representative republic.

[vision]

Why even bother to vote if you are that uninformed or uninvolved?

As someone who echoes MD-1118's view of Stein, I think this comment is a little ignorant. MD-1118 is clearly informed. You just don't agree with him. I personally think Stein would be a much better choice than Clinton.

[MD-1118]

how so, and in what ways? Please, show some evidence, if possible.

Hyperbole, although things aren't going as well as they could.

were you paying attention, you might realize that she is in no way, shape or form a traitor, nor a compulsive liar. As I said, this stuff is important enough to your future to do a bit of digging through the BS that has been slung, and find the actual facts.

How's that for some facts? And don't tell me you buy anything she says about that server business, either.

how does support for NASA factor in for you? Oh, and they seem to be maintaining a pretty robust ongoing effort down on Wallops Island, from what I can see.

I'm a huge space buff, with a relative that is an administrator at KSC. Also, NASA started as a government-funded institution and has turned to private contracts and funding to bolster the measly half a percent or so of the federal budget that they're allotted these days.

you seem to be confusing campaigning for office with governing. A lot of folks seem to have that in common. Now, go back and read what I was talking about, and it wasn't about running a campaign, it was about actually GOVERNING in a Federal representative republic.

Except that you were talking about campaigning and didn't even mention governing, in a federal representative republic or otherwise.

[Spidey]

No soup for you!

[callmeslick]

Why even bother to vote if you are that uninformed or uninvolved?

As someone who echoes MD-1118's view of Stein, I think this comment is a little ignorant. MD-1118 is clearly informed. You just don't agree with him. I personally think Stein would be a much better choice than Clinton.

the quoted comment by me was in response to the incredible statement that he seemed to holding out some sort of idea that Bernie Sanders was still running for the office. My comments about Stein were separate, and I stand by them. She is an intellectual lightweight, fond of hearing her own voice, and offering ZERO by way of an actual path forward and getting a single thing in her agenda made a reality.

[woodchip]

we need a third party, or maybe more, but those have to be raised from the ground up, not with exercises in futility every four years.

Except the liberal media won't allow it. We saw this with the Tea Party and how the DNC news organs belittled them and tried to show them as radicals.

I chose the one who isn't both crazy and dangerous.

So do I.

[Tunnelcat]

we need a third party, or maybe more, but those have to be raised from the ground up, not with exercises in futility every four years.

Except the liberal media won't allow it. We saw this with the Tea Party and how the DNC news organs belittled them and tried to show them as radicals.

I chose the one who isn't both crazy and dangerous.

So do I.

The tea party is and was nothing but an extreme right wingnut extension of the Republican Party. Woody, you're so far right that anything center looks liberal to you.

I'm with MD-1118. Jill Stein may not be perfect, but she's a better leftie choice than Clinton (another crooked big business insider) and an even better choice than Mr. egomaniac Donald Trump. Now if Sanders was still around instead of the poor "choice" the Dems forced upon all of us liberal voters, it would've made it easier to go out and actually vote and not hold our noses doing it.

[MD-1118]

Now if Sanders was still around instead of the poor "choice" the Dems forced upon all of us liberal voters, it would've made it easier to go out and actually vote and not hold our noses doing it.

Couldn't have said it better myself, TC.

[vision]

the quoted comment by me was in response to the incredible statement that he seemed to holding out some sort of idea that Bernie Sanders was still running for the office.

There is a lot of hope among Sanders supporters that something will happen which would allow him to swoop in and save the day. You can still write him in and I'm sure plenty will.

My comments about Stein were separate, and I stand by them. She is an intellectual lightweight, fond of hearing her own voice, and offering ZERO by way of an actual path forward and getting a single thing in her agenda made a reality.

Are you kidding? I think you might be the one who is uninformed here. She's definitely not an intellectual lightweight, Jesus, I'm pretty sure you got that idea from heavily curated sound-bytes.

[woodchip]

The tea party is and was nothing but an extreme right wingnut extension of the Republican Party. Woody, you're so far right that anything center looks liberal to you.

Glad to see the media sucked you into that idea. Look at any of the rallies and see everyday people. Of course if all you saw were the optics the press wanted you to see, then be happy with the nose ring.

[callmeslick]

She's definitely not an intellectual lightweight, Jesus, I'm pretty sure you got that idea from heavily curated sound-bytes.

no, I've been following her arc for about 10 years. In that time, she has rabidly embraced anti-vaccine nonsense, about 15 insane conspiracy theories, proposed utterly impossible to pass legislation, proposed executive actions that would leave the nation utterly defenseless, focused on animal cruelty with virtually ZERO awareness of realworld diplomacy or the necessity of having a relatively robust military at this juncture of our history. I could go on, but shorthand version is that I long ago lost any respect for her supposed 'intellect'. She's an ineffectual whiner, appealing to the similarly inclined, by and large. Precisely the sort that gives Progressive politics a bad rap with the broad public.

[vision]

...proposed utterly impossible to pass legislation...

You know what other legislation was impossible at one time? The ACA.

Like MD-1118, I don't agree with all her positions. I didn't agree with all of Ron Paul's positions when I campaigned for him for hours in sub-freezing weather. But some of her ideas we desperately need to take seriously and I'm not hearing any of that talk from the status quo. I'm voting for her as the better female nominee for president in 2016.

[callmeslick]

the point is, Vision, that such coalitions are formed from the bottom up. Local officials, state reps, Congress, on up the ladder. You can't, with a straight face, propose some of what she has and expect any group, representative of the broader whole of the nation, to embrace it(I'm thinking, specifically, of several stump proposals from the past two runs around energy policy, defense policy and regulatory overreach. When you win the whole of the populace to your views, it will be reflected in representation in the bodies that make such ideas reality. Until then, a feel good exercise with little political impact of a positive nature. To illustrate my point regarding broad embrace of Stein's positions, she had an hour and a half on CNN, with decent viewership, to have an impact. Her numbers have remained unchanged. Nowhere NEAR a critical mass of the electorate is ready to embrace even a fraction of her platform.

[callmeslick]

oh, and as a separate point, which came to me as I was typing that last post.......note my reference to platform. Platforms matter, because they reflect the 'wish list' goals of a proposed administration. If you look past the grotesque political theater which has become the Presidential Election process, and check out the platforms, you get a better glimpse at whether they will work on your priorities. The candidate might be critical as the salesperson or cheerleader for that platform, and may be linked to priorities outside the party platform, but the exercise is still worthwhile. Think of the impact on the economy, the welfare of the public, any other personal filters and then add the personality of the candidate into the mix. This election is somewhat unique in some respects, but really not so much as some would suggest. You have to essentially approach every Presidential cycle like that unless you want the sort of surprises some always get with EVERY Presidency.....folks just come up with a vision of what their chosen candidate can or will do, and it runs counter to everything the candidate said, wrote, inferred. This is a serious process, with some serious realities and outcomes. I wonder if we, collectively as a nation, take it seriously enough or have for a while.

[vision]

Until then, a feel good exercise with little political impact of a positive nature.

You are advocating for keeping our status quo, no matter how terrible. Voting for your conscious is fundamental to a working democracy. Saying ★■◆● like "go ahead and throw your vote away" is actually pretty evil and is basically a form of intimidation. Years of this ★■◆● is why we don't have choice in our country except to cast a forced vote for the Republocratic Party. It's just more of that fundamentally flawed system the founders created. It is also why so many people are politically apathetic. They know it doesn't matter which presidential candidate they vote for because voting for any of them is just a feel good exercise and some don't feel good about voting for "no choice".

To illustrate my point regarding broad embrace of Stein's positions, she had an hour and a half on CNN, with decent viewership, to have an impact. Her numbers have remained unchanged. Nowhere NEAR a critical mass of the electorate is ready to embrace even a fraction of her platform.

Great. Do you realize that is the same kind of thinking white racists use to justify problems in the African American community? "Wow Jill you had a WHOLE 90 MINUTES of airtime, I think we've done enough for you." Major media is in bed with the major political parties and vice verse. They perpetuate the lack of choice together and keep voters uninformed. There are more than two political parties but we rarely hear about the others even though they have values many Americans share.

oh, and as a separate point, which came to me as I was typing that last post.......note my reference to platform. Platforms matter, because they reflect the 'wish list' goals of a proposed administration.

And this is why I occasionally vote Green as well as Libertarian, Democrat, and Republican. They all have their good points and bad points and it is rare to find someone who is a perfect match for any one party.

What is so bad about this platform?

[callmeslick]

you miss the point altogether, vision. Sometime down the road, I'll take the time necessary to explain the beauties of the system, and how to make it work right. Suffice it to say, I do not agree with 'votes of conscience' when the participants on either side aren't really serious. Suffice it to say, as well, that I don't feel that the status quo is due to voting for a specific party, but more around no one paying attention to what those they voted into office do once there. What is WRONG with that platform. A lot. But, central to my point, are you seriously thinking anywhere near a national plurality supports half of that crap? If not, the green party needs to do a lot more voter groundwork before I'd consider wasting my political support upon them.

[callmeslick]

oh, and that isn't a platform, it is a collection of lame platitudes, not even developed by Americans for an American system of government. 'Non-violence'? Well, gee, that's nice, what if the rest of the freaking planet doesn't cooperate? And, so on. That has so little actual legislative intent as to be laughable, even more so since it was culled from writings aimed at GERMANY, not the US, in case any of the Greens finds the intellectual gravitas to realize that.

[Spidey]

Man, I have to agree about the platform thing.

[callmeslick]

my bottom line is that I like the concept of plural parties, but you just don't start with a Presidential candidate and go from there. No, come back to us when you have a few seats in the Senate, a dozen or more in the House, and a presence nationwide in legislatures or even governorships. I'd love to see a Senate that was, for random example, 40 Dem, 40 GOP, 7 conservative, 4 libertarian, 9 Greens. Then, you'd have real compromise, consensus building and coalition building that actually results in legislation. The President merely executes what the legislature mandates, so saying you are supporting the concept that the party is a mere protest vote outlet actually weakens the prospect of ever seeing a multipartite reality.

[Jeff250]

Her numbers have remained unchanged. Nowhere NEAR a critical mass of the electorate is ready to embrace even a fraction of her platform.

It's ironic that you're arguing that people should not vote for the person they think has the best platform and then in the next breath use the fact that people don't plan on voting for Stein as evidence that they disagree with her platform.

[Jeff250]

The President merely executes what the legislature mandates

You're not voting for Hillary Clinton then because of the Republican controlled congress, or does this rule only apply to third parties? One of the most important roles of a president is being commander and chief of our military, and it happens to be one of the areas where both Hillary (a neocon) and Trump (a narcissist) fare the worst.

[callmeslick]

Her numbers have remained unchanged. Nowhere NEAR a critical mass of the electorate is ready to embrace even a fraction of her platform.

It's ironic that you're arguing that people should not vote for the person they think has the best platform and then in the next breath use the fact that people don't plan on voting for Stein as evidence that they disagree with her platform.

I think I pretty much broke down the fact that she has no real platform if one digs a bit.

[callmeslick]

The President merely executes what the legislature mandates

You're not voting for Hillary Clinton then because of the Republican controlled congress, or does this rule only apply to third parties? One of the most important roles of a president is being commander and chief of our military, and it happens to be one of the areas where both Hillary (a neocon) and Trump (a narcissist) fare the worst.

I was talking about broad changes to the status quo. Your point here is fair, but, seriously, you think Stein would be superior as a COC? Or, Johnson? Share what you are smoking, because doing glib offhands like 'neocon' shows you really are willing to vastly oversimplify a rather complex resume, willing to give the nod to unproven quantities. I'll pass.

[Jeff250]

Her numbers have remained unchanged. Nowhere NEAR a critical mass of the electorate is ready to embrace even a fraction of her platform.

It's ironic that you're arguing that people should not vote for the person they think has the best platform and then in the next breath use the fact that people don't plan on voting for Stein as evidence that they disagree with her platform.

I think I pretty much broke down the fact that she has no real platform if one digs a bit.

You made that argument too. But you also spent a lot of time in this thread arguing that people shouldn't vote for the person they think has the best platform. Later, you ironically cited low poll numbers as evidence of a rejection of someone's platform when you must be aware more than anyone here that most people don't just vote for the person they think has the best platform.

[Jeff250]

I was talking about broad changes to the status quo. Your point here is fair, but, seriously, you think Stein would be superior as a COC? Or, Johnson? Share what you are smoking, because doing glib offhands like 'neocon' shows you really are willing to vastly oversimplify a rather complex resume, willing to give the nod to unproven quantities. I'll pass.

Do you ever realize how hypocritical you are when you write your posts? All over this thread you used glib offhands to try to dismiss a candidate.

Hillary Clinton is without a doubt a neocon. She has always been a huge proponent of regime change in the Middle East:

1. She supported the war in Iraq
2. She advocated increasing our troop presence in Iraq
3. She advocated increasing our troop presence in Afghanistan
4. She was a proponent of the overthrow in Libya
5. She wanted us to strike against Assad in Syria

It's ironic that the same people who railed against Bush's foreign policy for so long are now happily reelecting him.

[Tunnelcat]

The tea party is and was nothing but an extreme right wingnut extension of the Republican Party. Woody, you're so far right that anything center looks liberal to you.

Glad to see the media sucked you into that idea. Look at any of the rallies and see everyday people. Of course if all you saw were the optics the press wanted you to see, then be happy with the nose ring.

Glad to see you're in open denial about just how "fringe" the Tea Party really is. Maybe you need to open your eyes a little and see just how the Republican Party and the rest of the nation really perceives the Tea Party and their politics.

http://www.vice.com/read/is-the-republi ... -party-128

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

In the United States, the term hard right has been used to describe groups such as the Tea Party movement and the Patriot movement. The term has also been used to describe ideologies such as Paleoconservatism, Dominion Theology and White nationalism.

[callmeslick]

I was talking about broad changes to the status quo. Your point here is fair, but, seriously, you think Stein would be superior as a COC? Or, Johnson? Share what you are smoking, because doing glib offhands like 'neocon' shows you really are willing to vastly oversimplify a rather complex resume, willing to give the nod to unproven quantities. I'll pass.

Do you ever realize how hypocritical you are when you write your posts? All over this thread you used glib offhands to try to dismiss a candidate.

Hillary Clinton is without a doubt a neocon. She has always been a huge proponent of regime change in the Middle East:

1. She supported the war in Iraq
2. She advocated increasing our troop presence in Iraq
3. She advocated increasing our troop presence in Afghanistan
4. She was a proponent of the overthrow in Libya
5. She wanted us to strike against Assad in Syria

It's ironic that the same people who railed against Bush's foreign policy for so long are now happily reelecting him.

it's rather odd that the true neocons who have come out in favor of her(over Trump) state rather clearly that they have no illusion that she is in agreement with their thinking. Short of being a pacifist(the Stein or Johnson approach)in terms of foreign policy, do you find ANY candidate with a realworld policy you like? Hers may not be perfect, but let's look at the alternatives and then be good citizens and keep her under close watch for trends. All I'm accepting, really, is that she isn't going to go all 'strong' on me or provoke a conflict from sheer stupidity. Yes, that is a freaking low bar, but c'est la vie.

[callmeslick]

You made that argument too. But you also spent a lot of time in this thread arguing that people shouldn't vote for the person they think has the best platform. Later, you ironically cited low poll numbers as evidence of a rejection of someone's platform when you must be aware more than anyone here that most people don't just vote for the person they think has the best platform.

it is evidence that her acceptance at WHATEVER level is dismal, and really little changed from prior attempts at the office, despite rather odd circumstances(which the Libertarians have managed to sieze upon to the tune of tripling standard support levels). If you wish to complain about how I presented the matter, enjoy yourself. The bottom line on Stein is she offers no platform, and offers little of real substance, is incapable of coming remotely close to winning a single electoral vote, so what is the real purpose there? I suggest raw ego.

[MD-1118]

I'd love to see a Senate that was, for random example, 40 Dem, 40 GOP, 7 conservative, 4 libertarian, 9 Greens. Then, you'd have real compromise, consensus building and coalition building that actually results in legislation.

Random disclaimer aside, I hardly think that would be much different. You'd still have bipartisan control of the Senate. The third-party members would be swing votes at best.

[vision]

What is WRONG with that platform. A lot. But, central to my point, are you seriously thinking anywhere near a national plurality supports half of that crap?

As of this moment a plurality of voters can't stand either of the two popular candidates for president. I'm not sure why you think resource conservation is "crap" but I can tell you that more people believe in AGW than Hillary Clinton telling the truth. Recognizing patriarchy is crap? I'll remind you of this dismissal of values later when it doesn't suit your narrative. Mine has always been the same: people are rarely encompassed by a single party platform. And while we have two popular ones with seemingly different stances on certain issues, in practice they act the same and little has changed in the past few decades.

You have just enough party loyalty that you are in a bit of a bubble. I get it, party platforms are great ways to organize to get things done. But too much party loyalty creates the system we have now: a completely dysfunctional government that acts much like a single party and does very little for anyone who doesn't have deep pockets. Speaking of party platforms...

...oh, and that isn't a platform, it is a collection of lame platitudes, not even developed by Americans for an American system of government.

Holy crap, did you stop reading at the first page? There are several pages dedicated to the Green platform. In fact, they have waaaaaay more detail on their site than the Democratic Party site. Here is a nice comparison:

From the Green Party site regarding "Political Reform":

OUR POSITION

Greens will crack down on political corruption and strengthen the voice of the people at all levels of government.

Everyone deserves the opportunity to influence the governmental decisions that affect them. But the defining characteristics of modern politics in the United States are a corrupt campaign finance system that enables corporate and wealthy elites to purchase political outcomes; and an abundance of anti-democratic electoral, ballot access and debate rules designed to minimize participation and choice.

To achieve genuine citizen participation, citizens must share in the power of governing. Greens seek to bring vibrant grassroots democracy to every part of the United States.

Greens seek to repair U.S. electoral system, from how elections are financed, to conducting them in more fair and representative ways, to ensuring accountability and transparency on all levels of government. In particular, Greens believe that the U.S. winner-take-all voting system is fundamentally flawed, resulting in low voter participation, little choice or competition in countless elections, and far too few women and minorities in elected office.

The failure to fulfill the promise of democracy leaves millions of people in our country too discouraged to vote and others who chose to vote seemingly trapped among false and limited choices. A system that promotes full and fair representation would draw millions of people in the United States into civic life and could revive democracy in this country.

GREEN SOLUTIONS

1. Electoral reform

Enact proportional representation voting systems for legislative seats on municipal, county, state and federal levels. Proportional representation systems provide that people are represented in the proportion their views are held in society and are based on dividing seats proportionally within multi-seat districts, compared to the standard U.S. single-seat, winner-take all districts. Forms of proportional representation include choice voting (candidate-based), party list (party-based) and mixed member voting (combines proportional representation with district representation).

Enact Instant Run-off Voting (IRV) for chief executive offices like mayor, governor and president and other single-seat elections. Under IRV, voters can rank candidates in their order of preference (1,2,3, etc.) IRV ensures that the eventual winner has majority support and allows voters to express their preferences knowing that supporting their favorite candidate will not inadvertently help their least favored candidate. IRV thus frees voters from being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, and saves money by eliminating unnecessary run-off elections.

Provide full public financing of federal, state and local elections, including free and equal radio and television time on the public airwaves for all ballot-qualified candidates and parties.

Prohibit corporations from spending to influence elections, preferably by constitutional amendment abolishing granting corporations constitutional rights guaranteed to natural persons, or as a condition of receipt of a corporate charter by federal chartering of corporations.

Eliminate all ballot access laws and rules that discriminate against smaller parties and independents, and otherwise place undue burden on the right of citizens to run for office.

Abolish the Electoral College and provide for the direct national election of the president by Instant Runoff Voting. As a step in that direction, support National Popular Vote legislation which would guarantee the Presidency to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia), which would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).

Create a new publicly-funded People's Commission on Presidential Debates, and open its presidential debates to all candidates who appear on at least as many ballots as would represent a majority of the Electoral College and who raise enough funds to otherwise qualify for general election public financing. Any candidate who refuses to participate in such debates would lose general election public financing for their candidacy. Amend federal law to remove the non-profit tax exemption status that allows corporations to fund the existing Commission on Presidential Debates and other such exclusive privately controlled debate entities.

Amend the Federal Election Campaign Act to change the percentage of the presidential popular vote required for a new party's candidate to receive first time General Election public funding from 5% in the previous General Election to 1%; and change the percentage of the presidential popular vote required for a new party to receive public presidential convention funding from 5% for its candidate in the previous general election to 1%.

Include the option to vote for a binding None of the Above (NOTA) on all party primary and general election ballots.

Support the right to initiative, referendum and recall at all levels of government. Enact signature gathering standards that empower volunteer collection efforts and financial disclosure requirements that identify the sources of funding behind paid signature efforts.

Enact a national "right to vote" law or constitutional amendment to guarantee universal, automatic, permanent voter registration, along with fail-safe voting procedures, so that eligible voters whose names are not on the voter rolls or whose information is out-of-date can correct the rolls and vote on the same day.

Enact statehood for the District of Columbia. Ensure that residents of the District of Columbia have the same rights and representation as all other U.S. citizens.

Restore full citizenship rights to felons upon completion of their sentence, including the right to vote and to run for elected office. Enable greater enfranchisement of overseas voters.

Support strong enforcement of the Federal Voting Rights Act and, where applicable, state voting rights acts like the California Voting Rights Act.

Make Election Day a national holiday and/or have weekend elections.

Amend the U.S. Constitution to require that all vacancies in the U.S. Senate be filled by election rather than appointment.

2. Reducing corruption

Develop publicly-owned, open source voting equipment and deploy it across the nation to ensure high national standards, performance, transparency and accountability; use verifiable paper ballots; and institute mandatory automatic random precinct recounts to ensure a high level of accuracy in election results.

Establish guarantees that every citizen's vote counts, and that all U.S. voting systems—including electronic ones—are verifiable, transparent and accurate.

Establish a National Elections Commission with the mandate to establish minimum national election standards and uniformity, partner with state and local election officials to ensure pre-election and post-election accountability for their election plans, require nonpartisan election boards, and depoliticize and professionalize election administration across the United States.

Establish independent and transparent non-partisan redistricting processes to stop partisan gerrymandering and protect minority rights and representation.

Increase the number of polling places, and increase the pay for poll workers.

Strengthen "sunshine laws" to provide citizens with all necessary information and access to their political system.

Ensure that all important federal, state and local government documents are on the Internet, especially texts of bills, searchable databases of voting records, draft committee and conference reports, and court decisions.

Reinvigorate the independent investigative agencies, such as the General Accounting Office and the inspectors general.

In addition to allowing members of Congress to send mail to their constituents for free, letters from citizens to their members of Congress shall also be free.

Enact tough new federal anti-bribery and gratuity laws to stop corporations and the wealthy from purchasing government action, and vigorously enforce of anti-corruption laws by the Justice Department.

Prohibit members of Congress, Governors, state legislators and their staffs from accepting for their own personal benefit any gifts of any amount from lobbyists or the general public.

Require outside counsel to investigate ethics complaints against members of Congress, and toughen punishments within the congressional ethics processes for corruption, abuse of power and other wrongdoing.

Replace the Federal Election Commission with a vigorous watchdog empowered to enforce federal campaign finance laws.

Expand revolving-door lobbying "cooling off" periods for members of Congress and their top staff to at least two years.

Allow any member of Congress to require a floor vote on any congressional earmark, to stop wasteful spending.

Support the ability of cities to establish civilian police review boards to increase understanding between community members and police officers, provide a public forum to air concerns on policy matters and to ensure public oversight and accountability of their local police department.

The Democratic Party doesn't have a section on Political Reform. The closest they have is "Open Government". Here is what they have to say:

The page you’re looking for isn’t here, but it’ll be ok.

OOPS!

Well, how about "Voting Rights" instead?

As Republican politicians try to make it harder to vote, Democrats are working to expand access to the polls. Whether we are hitting the streets to register voters, engaging with local election officials, passing commonsense laws, or taking our fights against discriminatory voting laws to court, we won't stop working to promote a system of elections that is accessible, open, and fair. As Congressman and Civil Rights leader John Lewis says, “the vote is the most powerful nonviolent tool or instrument in a democratic society. We must use it.”

Sounds a bit like lame platitudes to me.

[callmeslick]

I don't have either the time or inclination to pick them apart, but just look at some of those 'plans'. With zero by way of legislative representation, how do you suppose any of those have a prayer of happening?

[vision]

I don't have either the time or inclination to pick them apart, but just look at some of those 'plans'. With zero by way of legislative representation, how do you suppose any of those have a prayer of happening?

Up until 2013, Hilary Clinton was against gay marriage. We now have gay marriage in a Republican controlled legislature. In 2008 some people didn't like the way things were going and formed the Tea Party. Eight years later the Republican Party nominated a RINO and the Democrats nominated a Neocon while suppressing a candidate to the left of the nominee. Things can change fast, Slick. Talking about ideas is the first step to making them happen. Some of the Green ideas are really good and worth pursuing. Not all of course, but some, and that's my whole point. Political parties and elections don't have to be all or nothing. That's what got us in the this ridiculous divide in the first place. Party loyalty be damned.

[Vander]

I think Clinton weighs seriously the policy advice she receives. She will seek out expert opinions. This is generally a good thing but it's a double edged sword. "Expert opinion" is typically defined as those who have advanced through the status quo enough to be seen as experts. They have espoused the "correct" opinions, even if wrong. (see "economists" still advocating supply side to boost the economy seen as experts after 30 years of evidence to the contrary) So on something like foreign policy, the "experienced old hands" are typically the liberal interventionists and neoconservatives who have failed upwards through the decades by being "serious" and advocating bombing people. (bombing is serious, so simply advocating it makes one serious I guess?)

In response to the OP, if I lived in a battleground state, I would vote for Clinton. I mostly on board with her domestic policy, not so much her foreign policy. I think we generally know what we'll get with her. Trump, on the other hand, is much more of an erratic wildcard, that I don't think should be trusted with the responsibility. As it stands, I live in a state where Clinton is currently up by 25%, so I'm inclined to vote 3rd party just to help raise awareness. I'll probably choose Johnson because he's polling higher, though I probably align more politically with Stein. If I were to be honest, though, I would probably choose Clinton over these two if they had legitimate chances of winning.