The No Confidence Vote


John Wright


Periodically the Brits will force elections by holding a vote in the Parliament that shows too little confidence in the Prime Minister and his party. This gives the citizens the opportunity to change the balance of power and the Prime Minister. It occurred to me that with our upcoming mid-term elections that the term "no confidence" might have a similar but more profound meaning here in the USA. At a practical level we all realize that the results of the coming elections will produce nothing in the way of real policy changes or improvements to our economy or to any other important area where government can help or do damage. Enough people will vote according to our two party system to guarantee that the republicans and democrats will continue doing damage to us, working together as necessary to nullify the impact of any seats lost outside the party machine favorites.

This reality basically means our votes mean absolutely nothing. Yet the time of voting does present us an interesting opportunity for "change." We have to understand that we have been approaching our problems and the resolutions to them in exactly the wrong way ... by playing the foolís game and voting for either of two (or three) bad choices. Hence we have continuous disaster.

In the past year I have received numerous emails demanding that we "vote the bums out!" What foolishness! Eliminating the incumbents has only a temporary effect, for a few years later we have a broader field of incumbents and former incumbents who are all tainted and who will again run for office. And then?

Well, my first reactive idea was that the damage done by previous and current sessions of the Congress and the various presidents and the Supreme Court is so bad that we have to step outside the elective process and choose not to vote. But enough people would have to choose not to vote to establish that any resulting Congress is absolutely not representing the citizens. This then would be the basis for reforming the federal government, as it is the clearest possible legal statement of "No Confidence."

If a government is so bad that only ten to fifteen percent of the eligible voters will even bother to vote for the sorry excuse for candidates, then it is clear that the government is no longer valid. It is at that point necessary to redo the primaries and the subsequent elections, but by popular vote, not by the party machine/delegate process.

Given that it is unlikely that only ten to fifteen percent of the eligible voters will vote, then the next best alternative is to tell all the people to vote, where each office has a very special additional candidate named, "No confidence." Now, this is what will get the people out to vote Ö and the no confidence result can then lead to new primaries and elections for all offices where the "no confidence" selection won by majority vote.

Well, you should all have figured out by now that what we need is the "No Confidence" party, which canít nominate people to hold office but which can keep other candidates from winning elections and then holding office. Herein lies a solution to our pathetic choices in our perverted two party system. For example, the No Confidence party members can be registered as such, and the party can endorse individual candidates from the traditional parties when they find such candidates to be worthy. When they find the candidates to be unworthy the party dis-endorses the candidates, calling for a vote of no confidence in the elections.

The argument that a new Congress must be operative/fully populated by a given date following our typical elections is simple to put down. The members of the Congress donít change by state until the new/subsequent elections take place, within a timeframe of six months. The same logic applies to state legislatures. Ditto the presidency. For the state legislatures and the Congress, failure to elect a new representative/senator within the six month timeframe results in the suspension of representation until the next normally scheduled election.

This, finally, is a means to take back control of our country, legally, without violence and without disruption. All we have to do is form the "No Confidence" party and put it on the ballot everywhere, and go through all the other phases of the elective process regarding registering to vote, registering with the party, and having a huge influence on who the other parties will even attempt to nominate. That is how we "vote the bums out," by never letting them hold the office and do the damage they now do, or by using the watchdog capability of the No Confidence party to identify those elected who should never be allowed to hold office again. Both issues regarding term limits and campaign financing simply go away into the dustbin of history.

Initially, funding for the No Confidence party will be utterly easy, for so many citizens are angry that they will contribute many millions to fund the party. In time, the need for the "No Confidence" party should lessen, as our government becomes more responsible to the citizens, instead of to special interest groups, esp. those with lots of money. And guess what happens to lobbyists?

So Ö what do you think about my ideas? Can you think of a more appropriate time in American history for having this new party? It figures that my ideas come too late for this election, but just think how ready we could be by the year 2012. Can you think of a better way of fixing our political problems? If you like these ideas then forward this article Ö spread it far and wide Ö gain support. Yes, there are folks out there who will take up the challenge and actually make this happen if there is enough popular support. And odd as this may sound with our current economy, there is plenty of money to do the right thing once you get the attention of the people who have the most to gain or lose. Where are you in this process?