Get Out Of Our House
Tuesday, April 26th, 2011|| Tex Norton ||
Suppose there were a way to relatively quickly replace all 435 members of the US House of Representatives at our next national election in 2012? Wouldn’t this be of interest to you?
For far too long, we’ve complained about politics as usual. We claim we want to get back to our basic Constitution yet we do nothing effectively to accomplish that goal. Why? Is there no one out there for whom we can vote that would pursue our desires – our Main Street USA public wishes? Do all politicians, regardless of party, ignore our wishes?
Simple answer: Yes!
The problem is our election process. Running for office, even the most mundane office, requires rather sizable expenditures. Even if the prospective candidate is personally wealthy and can contribute substantial funding to his own campaign, that still is not a guarantee that he will win. In fact, statistics indicate that in spite of how much money and effort is spent trying to get a new candidate elected, the overwhelmingly vast majority of incumbents still get reelected. Is there a pattern here?
This pattern can be identified as consisting of special interest groups. They, in turn, hire lobbyists to persuade Congressmen to vote for legislation that favors those special interest groups. Since congressmen are first, last and always planning for their next election, they simply yield to the procedure that enables them to retain office. Public interest never enters their equation. Lobbyists provide the funds that enable incumbents to remain in office. In order to keep those funds flowing, incumbents have little choice other than to accede to the wishes of the special interest lobbyists. Case closed.
You’ve received the emails that recommend term limits. There is a proposal circulating that we the people pass an amendment requiring that elected officials be required to live under the laws that they pass. Other proposals include an endless variety of ways to try to control the actions of our elected officials. Yet nothing seems to work. It’s business as usual in Washington, DC.
The Tea Party groups around the country were reasonably successful in getting a few politicians elected in 2010 to counter the anti-public-in-general attitude in Washington. It’s only been a few months since those new folks took office and yet it appears to still be business as usual. The vast majority, regardless of party, wanted spending curtailed and reduced. The Republican promise to cut $100 million from the Federal Budget has already become a joke just a few months into this new term. Are you holding your breath?
Last week, I attended a Tea Party dinner at which a Mr. Tim Cox spoke. I’d not heard of him nor was I familiar with his GOOOH proposal. Now I am. This may just be the ticket to regaining control of our public officials. Let me explain.
GOOOH, pronounced “Go,” stands for Get Out Of Our House meaning the Federal House of Representatives. The target of GOOOH is the incumbent professional politician. Since the entire House is up for reelection every two (2) years and since the House is responsible for initiating all the spending bills, that is where Mr. Cox chose to focus his attention.
The election process varies from state to state, but essentially every candidate participates in both a Primary Election contest and the General Election process. The vast majority of the time, there is no viable opponent to the incumbent regardless of party. Therefore, the National election simply decides whether the professional politician R or the professional politician D gets elected. End of story.
Enter GOOOH. GOOOH provides a selection process whereby the most capable citizen-representative is pitted against the incumbent professional politician in each district regardless of political party. Note that GOOOH is not a 3rd party. It is simply a process to provide competition against professional politicians. How does this work?
Interested citizen-voters start by meeting in groups of ten (10) from which all 10 then vote for whom they consider to be the best two (2) candidates from within their group. Those 2 candidates then compete with other pairs of candidates as selected by their respective groups. Ultimately, the process distills one citizen candidate that meets with the greatest approval of all participating voters in each respective political district. That person is then sponsored by GOOOH in a Primary run-off against the incumbent professional politician, regardless of that professional politician’s political party. The objective is to unseat the professional and substitute a citizen-candidate already selected by a large segment of the voting population in each congressional district. Do you think it might be possible that if the actual voters in each district first participated in the actual selection of the candidate on the ballot, that candidate might have a good chance of winning?
A citizen-representative thus chosen must have already agreed to numerous conditions regarding his candidacy. He will have answered a questionnaire containing over 100 currently significant questions as to how he would vote on each topic. Then he is required to vote in accordance with his commitment. Should he renege on that commitment, he will be asked to resign immediately. If he fails to resign, he will be taken to court immediately as the means of enforcing that legally-binding contract.
Another voluntary agreement each potential candidate signs is a 2-term limit. No candidate thus elected will seek a 3rd term without first reentering the entire selection process as outlined above. That means each successful candidate serves no more than a total of 4 years as a Congressman in the US House of Representatives. How’s that for an automatic term limit?
There are many additional restrictions and controls, but the above generally outlines the major limitations involved. One of the beauties of this process is that there are teeth with which to enforce the contract. The successful candidate can spend his time running for election while GOOOH provides all the necessary financing, paperwork submissions and advertising/promotion. The candidate can actually tell the electorate the truth because he is not a career politician spending 99.9% of his time jockeying for reelection. He can make the hard voting choices without regard for subsequent political consequences.
If Congress really wanted to reduce the size of government, it would be reduced. Yet Government size is not reduced. If Congress really wanted to reduce Government spending, it would be reduced. Yet Government spending is not reduced. If Congress really wanted to resolve the financial problems involved with Social Security, Medicare, Military expenditures and Welfare, they would be resolved. Yet these financial problems are not resolved. You know exactly why nothing is actually done. Now there is a mechanism by which these lack-of-results can be reversed. In accordance with the wishes of the vast majority of the public, no less.
Obviously this discussion is just an overview of a new concept. You can find full disclosure on line at www.goooh.com . Mr. Cox has also written a book by the same title which I have just finished reading. I recommend that you also obtain a copy. There is no cost to join this movement, but you will be asked to donate to the fund when the process has been initiated to begin supporting prospective candidates.
I’d like to think (hope) that this process will succeed in returning government to its simple and proper role of protecting the property and lives of its people. There are probably areas that will require tweaking and adjustments. Nothing is perfect. However, isn’t this a giant step in the right direction? Anything accomplished by this effort would be a major achievement and improvement over our current situation.
Cheers, Tex
Related posts:
Desertrat says:
April 26th, 2011
10:01 am
Interesting idea, but lots of problems. One is finding enough groups of ten who are indeed competent, rational and logical people. Next is finding enough groups of those who are willing to suffer the slings and arrows of outraged media. In general, the media loves what we now have (witness the treatment of the Tea Party), along with a majority of those who vote.
Goldwater told old folks that SS was insupportable. He told the farmers that price supports were unsustainable. He told the unions that there were practical limits to wages and benefits. He was factually correct.
He got his butt handed to him.
Kurt says:
April 26th, 2011
11:55 am
I think the problem goes deeper than just the Representatives elected. I think its seated in the voters themselves. They tend to vote for the person who will make their life easiest. More than half the population being on some sort of public assistance or payroll(contract anybody?), they will tend to vote for the one who will keep that going rather than to the one who promises to cut their benefits. Cut the budget by cutting the benefits of somebody else is their cry, and they are the majority.
Linda Brady Traynham says:
April 27th, 2011
6:47 pm
Great, Tex, as always, and I, too, fear that the wealthy sitting in the $25,000 red leather chairs have plans to counter it. We can but try…