Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Paige

I mentioned this earlier.....look into how our elections are funded and lay down strict, or stricter rules. Outside money cannot be allowed to control our elections. If they are allowed to do so...........our elections don’t mean a thing.


2 posted on 11/09/2008 10:28:27 AM PST by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: RC2
"I mentioned this earlier.....look into how our elections are funded and lay down strict, or stricter rules. Outside money cannot be allowed to control our elections. If they are allowed to do so...........our elections don’t mean a thing.

I visited a link: www.Thirty-Thousand.com earlier and I believe that would be one way (the first way) to address the campaigns and funding issues. They show how the Founders intent was no more than 60 thousand constituents per Representative. So, today with approx. 300-million Americans, 1 Representative per 100-thousand would be the best option.

They argue that there is no reason that the number of Representatives has to top out at 435. It was not that way from 1790 to 1910... when the constituents increased, then the district was split in two.

Then I was directed to www.LONLANG.com [Laws Of Nature And Nature's God] where they carefully point out the failure the passing of the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution was. The argument for repealing it is that the state legislatures should select and elect the two Senators to send to Washington. They give all the reason why that was the original intent and why it worked better than the popular vote idea. I like that idea.

41 posted on 11/09/2008 12:57:19 PM PST by KriegerGeist (Hey Hussein! REDISTRIBUTE THIS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson