*** Your Title Here ***

Independent Interfaith’s proposal for electoral reform in America

Charles H. Sulka


“Apparently, a democracy is a place where numerous elections are held at great cost without issues and with interchangeable candidates.” – Gore Vidal
“Elections are held to delude the populace into believing that they are participating in government.” – Gerald F. Lieberman

America is in trouble. This once great nation is in a deplorable state. The economy is in a shambles. The people are suffering, struggling to get by on starvation wages … if they can find work at all. Nearly half the population lives at or below the poverty line. A third of full-time workers at America’s largest (and most profitable for the corporate owners) companies can’t feed their families without food stamps, a shocking statistic which exposes the harm done by unjust labor practices. The cities are war zones filled with armed thugs and murderers having no regard for human life (and that is just the police). The nation is on the verge of economic and social collapse resultant of the mismanagement by the federal government. Indeed, the entire world, and not just America, is threatened.

This nation is playing the central role in leading the world to the precipice. Worldwide financial collapse and the emergence of a totalitarian one world government loom on the horizon. Political gridlock, economic collapse, widespread suffering and a bleak and frightening future for mankind are the legacy of the Reagan Revolution and the rise of neoconservative politics. The neocons won … and clearly, the American nation lost.

The Federal government is gridlocked, which is probably fortunate, because the nation could not survive much more ‘leadership’ (lunacy) of the sort that brought us voodoo economics, casino capitalism, endless illegal wars and a breakdown in traditional American values. America’s government has proven to be completely incapable of dealing effectively with the nation’s problems. The reason is simple: The American government is out of control. Democracy has been undermined in America. The Constitution has been usurped. The institutions of democracy have been eviscerated. And the will of the people no longer matters.

The people are aware that America is struggling under a failed political system, and are clamoring for sweeping reform. Representative government no longer works in America. The sad truth is, America is no longer a democracy in any meaningful sense. America has become a plutocracy (rule by the wealthy). America will soon be a totalitarian oligarchy. [Note (a)]

There is widespread recognition that there looks to be no solution to America’s problems under the political system bequeathed to us by the Founding Fathers, a system which has been undermined by un-democratic forces, dark forces intent on enslaving the human race in a corporatist New World Order. Undermining sound government has been central to the plan of the plutocrats and corporatists who have long sought to oppress the honest working men and women of the world through monopoly capitalism and economic exploitation. This group — the 1% — have achieved their goal of consolidating all wealth in the hands of the few through economic manipulation, and now are using their wealth and power to undermine representative government in America. By controlling and manipulating the political process through the undue influence of money, the corporatists have very effectively undermined the Constitution. And the corporatists are not done yet. Unless they are stopped now, this cancer will spread to the entire world. [Note (b)]

The highest priority for America’s political renewal movement must be to sever the ties between money and power. It is essential that the current oligarchical political system be replaced with a democratically elected representative government — a functional government, a government with the best interests of the people and the nation at heart.
America no longer has a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. If America is to survive, the challenge will be to make representative government work.

Central to the “ii” (Independent Interfaith) political reform program is an internet-based electoral system designed to overcome many of the problems and weaknesses of the electoral processes used at local, state, and national elections. The second part of the sweeping political reform is the implementation of the initiative process whereby the American people have direct oversight of the actions of government. The first of these two initiatives, POLNET, is the subject of this article.


POLNET is designed to replace America’s antiquated and inadequate — costly and highly inefficient — electoral system with a simplified process suitable for our fast-paced modern world. POLNET will replace a system that was ‘state of the art’ at the end of the eighteenth century — before the invention of the telephone, when the fastest mode of travel was by horseback — with an internet-based electoral system that will facilitate the sweeping reforms necessary in a world that moves at the speed of the internet. POLNET will encourage participatory democracy, and allow the people to hold the nation’s elected officials accountable for their actions (or inaction.) POLNET will enable bold new leaders to restore America to greatness.

POLNET is an on-line electoral process designed to revitalize the political process in America. The program will enable and encourage all Americans to vote by simplifying the voting process. Americans will be able to evaluate the candidates at their leisure over a long period of time, casting their votes from the comfort of their own homes. The system will reduce (and hopefully eliminate) the widespread (and growing) election fraud being perpetrated by the powers-that-be. [Notes (c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)]

The aim is to free the electoral process from the constraints of party politics as well as the harmful influence of money in political campaigns. The system can be open, without secret ballots, making it practically inviolable — an important consideration in light of the growing fraud and manipulation in America’s elections. Alternatively, the system could continue the tradition of secret balloting. In the past the secret ballot was thought to be a safeguard against government intrusion and oppression. Times are changing, however. Secret balloting is secure and reliable only with paper ballots counted by hand. As electronic voting proliferates — and this trend is probably unstoppable — both security and voter privacy are concerns that must be addressed.

POLNET can also provide citizens with the means of contributing directly to both domestic and foreign policy decisions through the voter innative process. For the first time in history, the citizenry could have meaningful oversight of the federal government, a government which is, quite simply, out of control. Theoretically, POLNET could even facilitate the voters approving the federal budget, or at least set the budgetary priorities. [Note (i)] Somebody has to run the country … and Congress can’t seem to get the job done.

POLNET promises to provide the nation with better leadership through better candidates. The new system will encourage more Americans to get directly involved in the political process. POLNET will widen the field of candidates by eliminating the impediments to seeking public office. More candidates can only mean better candidates, virtually all Americans would agree, as there is widespread dissatisfaction among the citizenry with the lackluster candidates proffered by the mainstream political parties, and almost no chance of outsiders overcoming the obstacles to being elected. [Note (j)]

The obstacles potential candidates face are primarily financial, followed by the lack of exposure. Today getting the message to the people requires access to press coverage, and that is prohibitively expensive. The mainstream press insists on controlling the electoral process (and maximizing advertising revenues) by limiting the choice of candidates to a small number of well-financed (if insipid) ‘insiders.’ All other (usually better qualified) candidates are simply ignored by the press. The mainstream press in America today seems to be unable to grasp the importance of opening up the electoral system to fresh thinking and more capable candidates.

The reason reform candidates are black-listed by the press is quite simple. The press is struggling to survive in the digital age. Reform candidates rarely can afford lavish ad campaigns, and it is the candidates’ advertising expenditures that are one of the most lucrative revenue sources for the traditional press. Moreover, the press is no longer independent. The press is consolidated in the hands of a few multi-national corporations. The corporate owners’ profits and political power are best served by establishment candidates who are proven allies, ‘bought and paid for’, so to speak. Working relationships between the politicians and their controllers is crucially important to today’s corporate press. What is best for the nation is of little concern to the corporate-controlled press. What is important to the press today is the bottom line. The press is not interested in promoting candidates who are seen as a threat to business as usual. It just would not be good business.

POLNET addresses all of these issues; a new electoral system will facilitate political renewal in America.


With POLNET, voting will be done electronically. Printed ballots, written programs, and myriad forms will be unnecessary. The cost savings will be enormous.

Because it is an on-line (internet-based) system, POLNET’s operations are expected to cost only a tiny fraction of the money spent on today’s obscenely wasteful electoral process. POLNET will cost very little to set up and operate. POLNET could, for example, be funded by a national lottery.

Since ballots will no longer need to be printed in bulk for distribution, the whole process can be an on-going process, right up to the deadline.

All campaigning and voting will be done over the internet. There will be no paid advertising of any sort allowed.


What are the major advantages in the POLNET program for electoral reform?

First, the un-democratic throwback to the colonial times, the electoral college used in presidential elections, would be eliminated. All elections, including presidential elections, will now be based on the popular vote.

Second, a simple “one person, one vote” system will be maintained for all local, state and federal elections. Participation in elections is limited to natural persons only: no clones, androids, aliens, or other (real or artificial) life forms … and no corporations. Corporations are not people. After the nonsensical Citizens’ United ruling by the US Supreme Court — with the Court ruling that corporations are ‘people’ and bribery is constitutionally-protected free speech — the nation has moved in a dangerous direction, literally having surrendered the political process to the moneyed class, who, as we have seen, have turned the government they now control against the people.

Third, the influence of party politics would be reduced as much as possible. POLNET is an ongoing and open process, and all elected offices would be non-partisan, so there will be no need for party ‘primaries’, caucuses, etc. Public appearances by incumbents would be prohibited in order to establish a level playing field for all candidates, who are to be elected solely on merit, qualifications, and their position on the issues.

Voting rights will be granted to all citizens automatically at age 18. Citizens with dual citizenship will be allowed to vote, but only after renouncing loyalty to the other country. Citizens with dual citizenship are prohibited from running for elected office, serving in the military or the security services, serving in appointed positions in government agencies, working as government contractors, or holding security clearances.

Voting rights are automatically restored for those convicted of crimes once they have completed their sentences (in states which deny convicted felons the right to vote.) There really is no justification for either the states or the federal government to strip those convicted of crimes of their voting rights. Even criminals have rights and have as much to contribute to the selection of the nation’s leaders as anyone else. In the past, allowing convicts to travel to polling places to vote was impractical, although some states have allowed incarcerated individuals to vote by mail. [Note (k)] Also, in less enlightened times, it was considered fitting to strip those convicted of crimes of most or all civil rights, as well as their dignity. POLNET can restore this most fundamental of human rights to all Americans.

Any qualified individual may sign up as a candidate for one (or in some cases, more than one) elected office. A ‘qualified’ candidate is one meeting the requirements for office and not specifically barred from serving in office. Under the new electoral system, there would be no fees or qualifying petitions required to file for any public office in America. Literacy and proficiency in the English language might be required. A simple sign-up form will take the necessary information and a cursory check will be conducted, after which a web page is automatically created for each candidate for office. (Note: candidates’ web pages will be considered temporary until required documents — such as birth certificates and proof of residency — are received from the candidates.)

ALL Americans are eligible for public service and may run for office under POLNET, including those who have been previously convicted of crimes. It is hypocritical to discriminate against former convicts when we have a government that is (some would say always has been) run by liars, cheats, and thieves … career criminals, sociopaths, and psychopaths. Felons on probation or parole may serve in public office only after they have discharged their sentences, due to the necessary restriction on criminal association. We would not want the career criminals in the American government to be a bad influence on those society is trying to rehabilitate. It would not be much of a stretch to say that the integrity of government would likely be improved were we to empty the prisons into the halls of Congress. Then, at least, we would have a Congress that knows right from wrong, and whose members did not believe themselves to be above the law. The spectacle of Presidents granting pardons for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ as political favors still sullies the image of America in the eyes of the world, as does the image of Congressmen taking bribes from both Arab businessmen and Jewish bankers. (None are more adept at ‘working both sides of the street’ than America’s career politicians.)

The candidates post their resumes, position papers, audio/video materials, newspaper clippings, etc., on their web page on POLNET. A standardized format is provided. Copyright is automatically waived for newspaper and magazine articles and television or video news and commentary used for political purposes. [Note (l)] Candidates are encouraged to post as many articles as they wish to their web page. The more we know about the candidates and their positions on the issues and proposals for legislation, the better. There is one stipulation, however: there is to be no solicitation of funds from the public on any pages linked to the candidate. To provide a level playing field for elections, and to sever the ties between money and power and promote democratic principles, campaigning and public appearances will be strictly limited. Any commercial advertising will automatically disqualify a candidate from running for office.

Elected representatives will no longer be forced to waste time endlessly campaigning, selling their souls while simultaneously selling out the country. America’s elected officials will be able to concentrate on the task at hand — governing a nation. Elected representatives will be able to concentrate on doing the job they are paid to do, instead of spending their time obsessing over the next election, equivocating, glad-handing, shaking down victims, kissing babies, and kissing asses. Since there will be no paid advertising allowed, there will be no opportunity for special interest groups, corporations, or the rich to influence elections via political contributions. Corruption in government should be greatly reduced. This aspect of the process should make America’s elected officials responsive to the needs of the nation and more accountable to the people. It is possible that a few might even come to demonstrate real leadership.

At the same time, challengers will be freed of the burden and expense of a political campaign; this will allow more and better qualified candidates to run for office. It is possible that a whole new class of intelligent, highly-qualified, and committed leaders will emerge under this system. In the eyes of a great many Americans, any change would be an improvement, as it is hard to imagine how things could possibly get any worse.

Organizations concerned with the process, or supportive of certain candidates, or advocating causes or special interest legislation, can be expected to contribute to the political dialogue through their own web sites, as they do today. Analyses of the candidates’ positions on the issues, examination of their proposals for action, running tallies of the candidates’ rankings, etc., will be provided by organizations like Common Cause or the League of Women Voters. There might be hundreds of candidates for president (indeed, all public offices) in any given year, at least initially. [Note (m)] But the press, the various political parties, special interest groups, etc., will all want to contribute to the process. In this way the process will be similar to the present system where the list of candidates is gradually winnowed down. The new system might enable unknown candidates to rise to the top without facing the insurmountable hurdles of the current system.


The American people are on the verge of revolution; public opinion of Congress has never been lower; the “Occupy” movement has demonstrators in over 1,000 American cities; “throw the bums out!” is a popular refrain reflecting widespread dissatisfaction with government, and Congress in particular.

It is expected that the proposed new electoral system would result in many, if not most, of the bums being thrown out, to be replaced by challengers. Since candidates need not be rich or corrupt to afford a political campaign under POLNET, it is likely that a better class of politician will emerge — honest men and women with America’s national interest at heart. It is to be expected that there will be intense opposition to any proposed new electoral system from the incumbents and the existing political stake-holders.

Political reform must be accomplished within the guidelines established by the Constitution. Most importantly, the process must be peaceful and non-disruptive if possible; the nation is on the brink of economic and social collapse now, and the powers-that-be would love nothing more than to have justification for criminalizing political activism so they can declare martial law, abolish the Constitution, and bring about the New World Order under neoconservative (i.e. neo-Nazi) rule. Because direct confrontation with the U.S. government, big business, the security forces, and the U.S. military would result in bloodshed and further erosion of civil rights in America, a more nuanced approach is necessary if electoral reform is to become reality.

POLNET could be implemented as a demonstration project, possibly in partnership with established organizations concerned with electoral reform. Software for the purpose is readily available and some jurisdictions are experimenting with the concept of on-line voting now. Thus POLNET can be set up and fully tested and debugged well in advance of its official introduction. The public will be familiar with the process before its first official use. POLNET might be implemented in parallel with the existing electoral process until the public is assured of the system’s effectiveness and reliability.

Since entrenched politicians will be loathe to implement a new electoral process which could result in many of them being voted out of office by a disaffected public, it will probably be necessary to set up the system and demonstrate it in simulated elections without relying on action from Congress or support from the administration. Public pressure to implement the new system could then force a reluctant Congress to enact the enabling legislation.

In addition to the entrenched politicians, two other groups playing central roles in the existing system will fight tooth and nail to block reform. The first group is the insiders — the lobbyists, crooked lawyers, business leaders, consultants, think tanks, etc. who have nothing to gain and everything to lose should America embrace democratic principles. The second group is the corporate press. Billions of dollars of campaign advertising will be forfeit. Expect the mainstream press — which is in its last death throes now, desperately in need of the revenues generated by political advertising — to be opposed to constructive change in America’s electoral process.



While many details of the present electoral system are not specifically mandated by the Constitution, the Electoral College is. It might take an amendment to the Constitution before POLNET can be used in presidential elections, although there should not be any problem with elections for other offices. Then again, it might be possible to ‘just do it’ and force the electoral college to concur with public sentiment. This is a big question … but it only affects one public office, the office of the president. Maybe we simply rename the office of the president, and refer to the chief executive by a different title, perhaps ‘First Secretary’, ‘Fearless Leader’, or ‘Big Brother’, in keeping with the Republicans’ dream of an omniscient, omnipotent, unaccountable federal government serving the interests of the corporatists in the ‘New World Order.’ (Just joking … or maybe not.)

Among those I have spoken with about the concept, the biggest concern is the integrity of on-line voting. If the political parties manipulate and hijack elections now (as they do and most Americans know it) think of the danger from behind-the-scenes operators rigging the elections. The threat would be primarily, but not exclusively, from the military, national security, and intelligence services, working in conjunction with the communications carriers. The fear is that we might never have a free and honest election again. This is a valid concern. Some believe it is a reality now. [See again, Notes (c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)]

At the same time, this presents a real opportunity to improve national security while simultaneously protecting personal liberties and personal privacy. Knowing that the danger of hacking the system is ever present, it will be in the best interests of the national security establishment, and the military, and of course the government institutions to guarantee the integrity of the on-line electoral process and the communications grid in general. In the future, and especially as elements of the national government become more decentralized, the single-greatest need of the government and especially the security services will be reliable secure communications. The internet is a first step towards providing inviolable secure communications (although the term ‘inviolable’ could hardly be used to describe the internet in its present form.) Every faction will be vigilant against interference with the national communications grid and the internet — the backbone of the POLNET electoral process — because of the constant threat of behind-the-scenes manipulation by the other factions. To assure the reliability of the communications grid, a national (maybe international) ‘communications police’ could be established, non-partisan and immune from political influence to as great a degree as is possible. The agency assigned to protect the communications grid would have the highest security clearances and access of all security agencies. The continued operation of government and indeed all of society depends upon reliable, secure communications.

Thus the ever-present fear of the communications grid being compromised would serve as the impetus for defending America against threats from insiders as well as from outside. We have already seen how the ‘shadow government’ can, and will, interfere in the electoral process. A presidential candidate, Ross Perot, saw his nationwide ‘town meeting’ derailed by a technical glitch — the communications link was disrupted, presumably sabotaged by the behind-the-scenes manipulations of factions in America’s security services. And as a coup-de-grace, Perot was pressured to withdraw from the presidential race by government goons (reportedly U.S. Military Intelligence) who blackmailed him, threatening to release sexually explicit (digitally altered, or ‘photoshopped’) photos of his daughter prior to her upcoming wedding. We can only speculate as to the nature of the photographs in question, as, thankfully, the blackmailers in the military’s intelligence directorate were deprived of the perverse pleasure they would have gotten from destroying the lives of the candidate’s family members, because Perot capitulated. I am not making this up — this is ‘democracy’ in America, the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

Still … would we want as commander-in-chief a man who would wither and withdraw his candidacy for the highest office in the land because of the threat that the intelligence agencies were going to publish compromising photographs of his daughter? … or his wife? … or his mistress? Do you think a more dignified, and more serious, leader, such as Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, would resign because the KGB (now FSB) threatened to publish lewd photos of his daughter or his wife? I think not. I also would not want to be the one to threaten the Russian president with such tawdry blackmail. Perot’s actions hardly demonstrate the ‘red meat’ mentality that Americans have come to admire in their leaders. Perhaps the CIA and Military Intelligence did us a favor when they scuttled Perot’s bid for the presidency?

On the other hand, Perot isn’t a bad person. He might even have been a good president. There is probably more going on here than meets the eye. It is not improbable that Perot was manipulated by the CIA or the Israelis into resigning through their use of mind-control drugs, hypnosis, witchcraft, or similarly intrusive technologies — technologies which are being used more and more by America’s security services (and enemy operatives) to maintain their power over both the government and the public. Perot has suffered terribly from his decision, which, in all likelihood, can be attributed to dark forces working to disrupt the democratic process in America.

Perot is a Texan. For goodness’ sake … half the men in Texas have seen “photos of momma ‘fore she was momma,” as country star (and Texan) Clint Walker so memorably put it. (And many of the rest have heard the wild stories.) More than a few bold and brazen (and slightly tipsy) cowgirls have been seen riding the mechanical bull at Gilley’s wearing nothing more than a Stetson hat, a bandana, and a smile. (And boots. No self-respecting Texan would ever be caught ‘in flagrante’ — seen in public without his or her boots. That would be undignified.) Most Texans would laugh in your face if you threatened to publish embarrassing photos of their daughter or their wife in an effort to derail their political ambitions. Then they would punch your lights out. Do you seriously think it would lessen a candidate’s chances of being elected in Texas if word were to get out that his wife or girlfriend had gotten out of control, riding bareback after one too many longnecks? If you do, then you don’t know much about Texans. What Texans might lack in class, they more than make up for in style.

There is something seriously amiss here. It seems unlikely that if Military Intelligence were actually behind the blackmail threat, they would admit to such unsavory behavior. They’re not stupid. This has all the earmarks of a false-flag operation. ‘Plausible deniability’ is a hallmark of CIA covert actions, and false-flag operations are particularly effective in political campaigns. It is entirely possible that Perot had been slipped mind-altering drugs or subjected to mind-control by the CIA. It is probably safe to assume that the deviants in the CIA, working with the Israelis, were behind the whole thing. The ‘shadow government’ has been behind so many other illegal, unconstitutional, and undemocratic activities. Moreover, the CIA and especially the Israelis are known for their use of mind-control technologies, propaganda, deception, and drugs. Blackmail is one of their standard operating procedures. Perhaps Ross Perot was seen by the Israelis, neocons, and corporatists as not being suitably subservient to the Zionists and the international financiers. It is also known that Perot made his fortune providing computer services to the intelligence agencies. The Israelis have long coveted the security services’ networking, communications, and database operations — a very profitable and strategic niche which they now dominate. Controlling choke points and monitoring worldwide communications is essential to their plans for world domination. They probably realized that Perot was too smart to be taken in by their duplicity. To consolidate their power and to eliminate a potential threat to their schemes, they attacked the candidate from all sides. All’s fair in love and war … and U.S. politics, it would seem.

The list of persons ‘driven to distraction’ — or outright assassination — by the security services is a long list that includes whistle-blower Karen Silkwood, journalists Danny Casolaro and Gary Webb, and even former president John F. Kennedy. The true extent of the crimes of the ‘deep state’ (shadow government) will never be known, as the details are hidden behind the veil of state secrecy. Moreover, it would appear that many of the nation’s leaders today are being hoodwinked or blackmailed … or else are being slipped mind-numbing drugs by the security services. Some even theorize that the nation’s leaders are being subjected to mind control by alien invaders as part of their plan to destabilize the nation prior to an actual invasion. A ‘stupidity beam’ emanating from a psychotronic generator in geosynchronous orbit might explain the idiocy — the sheer lunacy — in the nation’s capitol. It is also widely reported that the security services are reverse engineering alien technology for use by the one world government in subjugating the human race (I have personally been told this by a high-ranking intelligence official, one of the men involved in recovering sunken Russian nuclear submarines from the bottom of the ocean.) No matter how you look at it, things do not look good.

Note: The Pentagon does have contingency plans for dealing with an alien invasion. You can watch the videos on YouTube. What the Pentagon has not revealed, so far as I am aware, is whether they have plans for dealing with subversion by The Enemy Within. 9-11 WTC was orchestrated by America’s own security services working with the Zionist fifth column — the neocons. The president of the United States of America approved the plan and ordered the attack on new York City and the Pentagon. 9-11 WTC was a false-flag operation … and it looks like the conspirators are going to get away with what is surely the most heinous acts of high treason in history.

It is time for a reality check here. How can a nation survive when it has been undermined from within … by its own leaders?

The threat from behind-the-scenes manipulators and anti-democratic forces in the clandestine services will only grow as the nation struggles through the coming trials, and government assumes more invasive powers. The government itself is, and will continue to be, the greatest threat to freedom and democracy, to integrity, transparency, and accountability. We will need to be ever watchful to prevent the powers-that-be from further manipulation of the political process.

No matter how you feel about former president Ronald Reagan’s pronouncements, one thing that he said might actually turn out to be true: that “government is not the solution, it is the problem.” Being committed to the neoconservative world view, Reagan was talking about government in general when he uttered those words. (Republicans absolutely hate government with its rules, regulations, ethics, standards, as well as honest business practices, fairness, accountability, etc.) All the virulent anti-government talk was just a diversion to draw attention away from the crimes being committed right under our noses by the neoconservatives. That sort of irresponsible talk is pure evil. We need responsible governance. But Reagan’s comment might be true in a different sense. As things stand today, the greatest threat to America — and, indeed, the world — might actually be the American government itself.


(a) The oligarchy that controls America today is an apparatchik of corporatists and their lackeys (insiders and the elites.) Except for the not yet widespread totalitarian measures (in their dreams) this group is a perfect fit for the classical definition of oligarchical totalitarianism, as defined by Orwell: “The essence of oligarchical rule is not father-to-son inheritance, but the persistence of a certain world-view and a certain way of life … A ruling group is a ruling group so long as it can nominate its successors…. Who wields power is not important, provided that the hierarchical structure remains always the same.” — George Orwell, 1984. While its underlying philosophy originated in the neoconservative movement, America’s ruling oligarchy includes not only all Republicans but also nearly all Democrats. There’s really no difference between them. You’d be hard pressed to find an honest one in the bunch.

(b) “[As a result of war] corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.” : U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 – (letter to Col. William F. Elkins) – Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)

(c) “The Democrats think Republicans are stealing elections. The Republicans think Democrats are stealing elections. And those of us independent of the two old parties know they are both right.” – Kevin Zeese
(d) TITL: Computerized Vote Rigging Is Still the Unseen Threat to US Democracy: It’s Time to Change the System AUTH: VICTORIA COLLIER PUBL: TRUTHOUT (.ORG) DATE: NOVEMBER 03, 2014 URL: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/27204-computerized-vote-rigging-is-still-the-unseen-threat-to-american-democracy-it-s-time-to-change-the-system

(e) TITL: Will the 2016 Primaries Be Electronically Rigged? AUTH: VICTORIA COLLIER & BEN PTASHNIK ORIG: TRUTHOUT PUBL: TRUTHOUT (.COM) DATE: JANUARY 28, 2016 URL: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34607-will-the-2016-primaries-be-electronically-rigged

(f) TITL: How to Rig an Election: The G.O.P. aims to paint the country red AUTH: VICTORIA COLLIER PUBL: HARPERS (.COM) DATE: NOVEMBER –, 2013 (Nov. issue, Harpers Magazine)) URL: https://harpers.org/archive/2012/11/how-to-rig-an-election/?single=1

(g) TITL: Electronic Voting Fraud: A Real Threat to Any Democrat Running for President AUTH: BOB FITRAKIS & HARVEY WASSERMAN PUBL: TRUTHOUT (.ORG) URL: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/31511-why-hillary-can-t-win

(h) TITL: Computerized Election Theft and the New American Century AUTH: JONATHAN D. SIMON PUBL: TRUTHOUT (.ORG) DATE: OCTOBER 13, 2014 URL: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/26754-computerized-election-theft-and-the-new-american-century

(i) 24 states have some form of initiative process allowing voters to have a direct say in political issues.

(j) ironically, and fortuitously, outsiders are proving very effective in the current (2016) political races, showing just how fed up the people are with ‘the usual suspects’ and politics as usual.

(k) 28 states (and more coming) allow all voters to vote by mail. While terribly wasteful, costly, and cumbersome, it does reflect the importance of convenience and accessibility in the voting process. It is a small step forward.

(l) This might require changes to Copyright laws. But the copyright laws are in need of drastic reform anyway.

(m) For those who feel that it would be too demanding to have to evaluate a large number of candidates for office, sifting through mountains of BS and exploring all the issues … there would be no law that said they had to participate meaningfully in the process of democracy, using their brains … they could continue just as many are doing now. It’s a free country. Hopefully, it will stay free, despite their lack of meaningful contribution.

Updated 11-04-2016 1644 -0500