Support Russ Diamond for Lt. Governor

[WhiteFeather]

A few points:

I joined because like a lot of people, I get a google alert every time my campaign is mentioned somewhere on the web. So I saw one and I joined. I don't know the person who first posted, but I appreciate support from wherever it comes.

As I said, I think Art I Sec 21 is clear. I do not know what else "shall not be questioned" can mean. Permit? Are you questioning my right? Scary-looking gun, you claim? Are you questioning my right? One gun a month? Are you questioning my right?

If you have any specific questions about the "devil" or the "details," just ask. You should know, however, that the Lieutenant Governor has no legislative power and cannot change any policy unilaterally. I can be a vocal advocate, however. If, God forbid, something should happen to the Governor, I'll be in a better position to help reclaim our rights.

Someone complained about how they think you can't limit a constitutional convention. They're just wrong, and haven't studied PA legal precedent. Perhaps they're confusing this with a federal convention, which I do not support. A limitation on a state convention against tampering with Article I, when specified in the enabling act, the authorizing referendum, and the delegate oath of office is legal, constitutional and enforceable.

In fact, any convention launched by an act of the General Assembly and funded with public resources that attempts to tamper with Article I would be a violation of Art I Sec 25, since it excepts the entire Article away from the powers of government.

Same person mentioned the "founders." Who would that be? The army of lawyers and politicians who rewrote everything except Article I back in the 60's? Any chance they're the reason we now have a bloated full-time legislature and a slew of unelected and unaccountable Authorities, Boards, and Commissions that spend tons of taxpayer dollars to employ hoards of lawyers?

No reason to attempt to correct that, I suppose. Everything's just fine here in PA, right?

Look, you can say "no" all you want, but please take some time to make sure your "no" is informed. Meanwhile, I'll continue to fight to exercise our rights as guaranteed by Art I Sec 2, which is as clear and concise as Art I Sec 21. I don't deserve the crappy government we have, and neither do you. We have the right, and the duty, to fix it.

At http://www.russdiamond.org, I have a ton of information posted regarding a limited convention, the history of constitutional change in Pennsylvania, and how one would work today. It’s not going to happen tomorrow, and if you have any specific suggestions as to how to make the plan better, I’d sure like to hear them.

As defenders of individual rights, we can either be negatarians and sit on the sidelines on this issue, or we can wait for the left to take the lead, pull the wool over everyone's eyes like the left is apt to do, and do it their way. They will, you know. I'm in this to prevent that from happening. It's why I got in it in the first place, and remains my primary reason for putting all the research and effort into it.

Same person mentioned "all of this money" in relationship to PACleanSweep. We ran that group on a literal shoestring. Check out the campaign finance reports for yourself. They’re all very public and online, courtesy of the Department of State. Again, an informed opinion is much better than an uninformed one.

Speaking of complaints about PACleanSweep, wouldn't it have been nice if we, as citizens, could have just circulated a petition to put a question on the ballot to REJECT the pay raise? Or suppose the PA Supreme Court rules sometime that some one-gun-a-month bill is perfectly kosher. Shouldn't we have the opportunity to put that on the ballot for rejection? Not to correct it, not to rewrite it, but just to tell them to go back for a do-over, because We the People OWN the Constitution and we disagree with their "living, breathing" interpretation.

That's the sort of direct citizen check and balance a convention could give us. We will not regain control of our government through the regular legislative process.

Instead, we're stuck with only two options to oppose reprehensible acts by government: 1) Elections, which in case you haven't been paying attention are completely rigged in favor of incumbents (and even that's not enough, so they steal tax dollars to further increase their advantage!), and 2) Begging.

How's that workin' out for ya?

Besides your web site, which you are using to run for Lt Governor, being total devoid of any mention of firearm rights, I can’t find any specific list of reasons WHY we really need a con/con on your web site either?



There are all kinds of vague generalities mentioned, limited historical background information but no defined problems listed as to why the current constitution is defective and how these defects are directly causing the problems in Harrisburg.



WE already know people being elected to office at all levels of government are NOT being held accountable for their actions by the voters, and no Con/Con will solve the problem of an uninformed electorate.



PLEASE explain to us (with details) what really needs fixed with our current state constitution? You’re the big advocate of a con/con, convince us WHY it’s needed and state the problems that can't be fixed by the amendments process or changing current laws.


IF the problems are from the last Con/Con in the 1960's, maybe it was the whole concept of a con/con that is at fault that once again will be full of the same type of self serving politicians, lawyers and special interest groups, that will, more than likely, actually make thing worse because they have the money and influence to do it all over again. Thus far you have shown no resolution to this dilemma.



The Constitution can be amended to correct anything, it takes extra time, it is all out in the open for the public to comment on and in the end the voters ultimately get to decide with a yes or no vote. A Con/Con bypasses that safety as the last one in 1968 has shown that it has not lived up to the rhetoric of its’ proponents then so why should we believe you now?



What particular issues can you guaranty your con/con can fix?



What happens when the Ortiz decision and other important case law can no longer be quoted and merely become historical anecdotes?? Are you and your supporters going to pay the legal fees to retry these issues?



What happens if the Con/Con exceeds its’ so-called limited authority, who is going to hold them accountable, this time?



What happens if you are wrong? YOU were WRONG on PA Clean Sweep as that effort left the real perpetrators in office. Is this another one of those “the check is in the mail moments”?



Where does the money come from to elect participants in this effort and why did your previous legislation include as participants the very same leaders who created the Pay Raise debacle??



Make a convincing, and documented, argument for a con/con if you can.



One last question for the record: Are you For or Against the call for PA To Rescind Previous Applications for a Constitutional Convention at the federal level?

[LittleRedToyota]

As defenders of individual rights,

I have a question for you, if you don't mind.

I am glad to hear you view yourself as a defender of individual rights. (I will always happily vote for a defender of individual rights when I get the chance...unfortunately, though, other than Ron Paul and various Libertarian candidates, I have never had the opportunity.)

But it seems you are also for repealing legalized slot machines. Is that because you think all anti-gambling laws should be repealed and, thus, there is no need for legalized slot machines?

Or is it because you do not support my individual right to do with my own money what I please? If not, what other individual rights do you not support?

One cannot actually support individual rights and support gambling prohibitions (or drug use prohibitions, prostitution prohibitions, suicide prohibitions, etc.) at the same time. Those are inherently contradictory positions.

Speaking of complaints about PACleanSweep, wouldn't it have been nice if we, as citizens, could have just circulated a petition to put a question on the ballot to REJECT the pay raise? Or suppose the PA Supreme Court rules sometime that some one-gun-a-month bill is perfectly kosher. Shouldn't we have the opportunity to put that on the ballot for rejection? Not to correct it, not to rewrite it, but just to tell them to go back for a do-over, because We the People OWN the Constitution and we disagree with their "living, breathing" interpretation.

if the people can vote to override the supreme court, we might as well not have a constitution.

if the court stikes down a one-gun-a-month bill, the people could vote to override them and allow the law to stand (or, i guess, just pressure PASC to revisit the case and change their mind and allow it to stand). so much for section 21 of the PA constitution then.

That's the sort of direct citizen check and balance a convention could give us.

a direct citizen check and balance as you outlined it would bring us tyranny of the masses. no thanks.

there is a reason that, on a federal level, we are a constitutional republic rather than an unrestrained democracy.

How's that workin' out for ya?

we certainly face problems, but we must ensure the cure is not worse than the disease. mob rule...which is pretty much what you seem to be advocating...will be far worse than the disease.

kinda like the "cure" of throwing every single office holder out of office without regard for how they have actually voted as an individual or what they actually stand for as an individual is worse than the disease. the old phrase "biting off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind.

[RussDiamond]

Besides your web site, which you are using to run for Lt Governor, being total devoid of any mention of firearm rights, I can’t find any specific list of reasons WHY we really need a con/con on your web site either?

There are all kinds of vague generalities mentioned, limited historical background information but no defined problems listed as to why the current constitution is defective and how these defects are directly causing the problems in Harrisburg.

WE already know people being elected to office at all levels of government are NOT being held accountable for their actions by the voters, and no Con/Con will solve the problem of an uninformed electorate.

PLEASE explain to us (with details) what really needs fixed with our current state constitution? You’re the big advocate of a con/con, convince us WHY it’s needed and state the problems that can't be fixed by the amendments process or changing current laws.

Personally, I would like to see something in our constitution that provides a specific mechanism for citizen rejection of reprehensible acts of government. The original 1776 PA Constitution had the Council of Censors, but it had no teeth. It should not be a mechanism that can be used willy-nilly to bring about mob rule. There should be hurdles to keep it reserved for rare instances of egregious behavior, like the pay raise.

Others want to discuss the size of the legislature, term limits, the way we draw legislative districts, how the courts are structured, a stepped or two-year budget process, and many other reforms. These ideas will not spring from the legislature as amendments, as the legislature is not objective about them.

Pennsylvania goverment is broken. We have the right and the duty to fix it. A limited convention is the only hope to attempt to do so.

IF the problems are from the last Con/Con in the 1960's, maybe it was the whole concept of a con/con that is at fault that once again will be full of the same type of self serving politicians, lawyers and special interest groups, that will, more than likely, actually make thing worse because they have the money and influence to do it all over again. Thus far you have shown no resolution to this dilemma.

You are half right. But you fail to recognize that no public official or registered lobbyist is eligible to serve as a delegate at the limited convention under SB340 & HB1929. I hope you noticed that the Pennsylvania Bar Association just announced a commission to study constitutional change. This is a dangerous repeat of what happened in the 60s. And all the more reason why regular conservative folks should make this a campaign issue in 2010, rather than waiting for the lawyers and the lefties pull the wool over the eyes of those in PA who don't care about the issues you care about. They did it before, and they're about to attempt it again. It is our duty to intercept their ball.

The Constitution can be amended to correct anything, it takes extra time, it is all out in the open for the public to comment on and in the end the voters ultimately get to decide with a yes or no vote. A Con/Con bypasses that safety as the last one in 1968 has shown that it has not lived up to the rhetoric of its’ proponents then so why should we believe you now?

You are half right again. Yes, you can change things by amendment, but as mentioned above that needs to start with the General Assembly, which has no motivation whatsoever to do so. Further, a convention does not rewrite the document, it only makes proposals for change. Those changes would go before the voters just like an amendment.

What particular issues can you guaranty your con/con can fix?

There are no guarantees. But if a convention is properly planned, it can offer great opportunity for reform without worry. If you want guarantees, make me King for a day and I'll fix everything.

What happens when the Ortiz decision and other important case law can no longer be quoted and merely become historical anecdotes?? Are you and your supporters going to pay the legal fees to retry these issues?

Why would Ortiz fall by the wayside? PA's courts are still citing precedent from before the 1968 convention, and for that matter, from before the 1874 convention.

What happens if the Con/Con exceeds its’ so-called limited authority, who is going to hold them accountable, this time?

How would that happen? The limitation is simple. No action on Article I. It's in the statute, in the referendum authorizing the convention, and in the delegate oath of office. All of these are enforceable using the courts. Those are the legal protections.

The practical protections include a 2/3 majority approval requirement for any proposed change, and the fact that the voters have to approve before any of the convention's proposals are adopted. And delegates are elected by Senate district. Think about that for a second or two.

What do you mean by "this time?" Although the 1968 convention was a horrible capstone on a decade of constitutional revision (you know about that, right?), it did not exceed its limitations.

What happens if you are wrong? YOU were WRONG on PA Clean Sweep as that effort left the real perpetrators in office. Is this another one of those “the check is in the mail moments”?

I'm not wrong. And I wasn't wrong on PACleanSweep. Just ask the former Senate Pro Tempore, Senate Majority Leader, House Minority Whip, and Supreme Court Justice. If you take anything away from that, it should be that we can change out people all we want, but unless we actually fix the system, we are just kidding ourselves.

Where does the money come from to elect participants in this effort and why did your previous legislation include as participants the very same leaders who created the Pay Raise debacle?

A lot of people expressed concern that even though we prohibited public officials and registered lobbyists from serving as delegates in SB340 and HB1929, those entities would do their level best to "game" the process. That's why in the new revision on my website (you've read it, right?), we offer some rules regarding from where candidates can accept contributions.

The "leaders" you mention above are included only on the convention's preparatory commitee. They are far outnumbered by regular citizen delegates. The new revision includes other public officials in similar limited roles. Very limited.

Make a convincing, and documented, argument for a con/con if you can.

I doubt you'll be convinced no matter what I say. No offense, but some of the things you've posted in this thread are indicative of someone who forms opinions before they are informed. I just can't reason with that. Again, no offense, but I've been doing this long enough to recognize the signs. Did you look at PACleanSweep's campaign finance reports yet?

One last question for the record: Are you For or Against the call for PA To Rescind Previous Applications for a Constitutional Convention at the federal level?

I wholeheartedly oppose any notion of a constitutional convention on the federal level and would take whatever action in my power to prevent one, whether as a private citizen or as Lieutenant Governor.

And that's what too many people get confused about. The Pennsylvania Constitution is not the same type of document as the US Constitution. The arguments at the federal level simply do not apply here.

[RussDiamond]

I have a question for you, if you don't mind.

I am glad to hear you view yourself as a defender of individual rights. (I will always happily vote for a defender of individual rights when I get the chance...unfortunately, though, other than Ron Paul and various Libertarian candidates, I have never had the opportunity.)

But it seems you are also for repealing legalized slot machines. Is that because you think all anti-gambling laws should be repealed and, thus, there is no need for legalized slot machines?

Or is it because you do not support my individual right to do with my own money what I please? If not, what other individual rights do you not support?

One cannot actually support individual rights and support gambling prohibitions (or drug use prohibitions, prostitution prohibitions, suicide prohibitions, etc.) at the same time. Those are inherently contradictory positions.

You are correct. They ARE contradictory. But it is not an accurate representation of my opposition to Act 71 of 2004, which brought slot machines back to Pennsylvania. (They were once in just about every corner gas station and shop, back in the day.)

My opposition was based on the unconstitutional manner in which the bill became law. The Supreme Court's ruling that it was constitutional is one of those reprehensible twistings of the plain language of our constitution.

Conveniently, that ruling was made mere weeks before the pay raise, which was passed in exactly the same manner. Note how the judges got raises, too. And notice how after all that went to court, the judges got to keep their loot while the legislature's was ruled unconstitutional. Convenient. A little too convenient.

I don't really care if folks want to gamble or not, but every Pennsylvanian should be concerned when the constitution isn't followed. Hey if you don't like what it says, there are ways to change it. But let's not take shortcuts.

if the people can vote to override the supreme court, we might as well not have a constitution.

You understand that PA's Supreme Court is pretty much the laughingstock of the nation, right? It's no coincidence that the PASC is the least cited state Supreme Court in the nation.

if the court stikes down a one-gun-a-month bill, the people could vote to override them and allow the law to stand (or, i guess, just pressure PASC to revisit the case and change their mind and allow it to stand). so much for section 21 of the PA constitution then.

If you really think that would happen in PA, then you need to re-examine whatever demographics you're reading. There is no way the voters of Pennsylvania would vote that way, even with Philadelphia weighing in.

a direct citizen check and balance as you outlined it would bring us tyranny of the masses. no thanks.

there is a reason that, on a federal level, we are a constitutional republic rather than an unrestrained democracy

we certainly face problems, but we must ensure the cure is not worse than the disease. mob rule...which is pretty much what you seem to be advocating...will be far worse than the disease.

I am not in favor of any such measure that would ruin the republican form of government. Recall of elected officals and referenda of rejection are no more mob rule than regular elections are. Now initiative, on the other hand, where regular citizens actually write laws and put them on the ballot, is mob rule. I oppose initiative.

I seek something more like the Council of Censors from the 1776 PA Constitution, but with teeth.

kinda like the "cure" of throwing every single office holder out of office without regard for how they have actually voted as an individual or what they actually stand for as an individual is worse than the disease. the old phrase "biting off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind.

Did we do that? No. Did I think we'd do that or even come close? No. And we didn't. Like many people, you might think we'd have done better to "target" certain legislators. But that wouldn't have worked, as they would have just pooled all their resources to keep those targeted individuals safe.

What we did was make it more of an "every man for himself" affair, where most incumbents were so worried about their own hides that they weren't willing to help other incumbents. We spread their defenses thin. And it worked.

And geez, are you opposed to competition? Doesn't it make everyone better? I think so. Everybody should have a challenger every year.

[LittleRedToyota]

You are correct. They ARE contradictory. But it is not an accurate representation of my opposition to Act 71 of 2004, which brought slot machines back to Pennsylvania. (They were once in just about every corner gas station and shop, back in the day.)

My opposition was based on the unconstitutional manner in which the bill became law. The Supreme Court's ruling that it was constitutional is one of those reprehensible twistings of the plain language of our constitution.

interesting. i know nothing about how it was passed. what is it about Act 71 or how it was passed that is unconstitutional?

I don't really care if folks want to gamble or not, but every Pennsylvanian should be concerned when the constitution isn't followed. Hey if you don't like what it says, there are ways to change it. But let's not take shortcuts.

i agree entirely. i honestly am unaware of the constitutional issues you describe. can you explain them or point me to a source of info on the issue?

let me ask you: would you support repealing state laws against gambling? how about other victimless "crimes" (drug use, prostitution, etc.)?

You understand that PA's Supreme Court is pretty much the laughingstock of the nation, right?

that is ultimately on the voters, though. we keep voting to retain the justices. so how will referendums to challenge PASC decisions help?

either way, the voters must be woken up...somehow.

you definitely do not have to convince me of the absurdity of the PASC, though. all one has to do is read a few of their decisions. the intellectual dishonesty contained in some of them is mind boggling.

If you really think that would happen in PA, then you need to re-examine whatever demographics you're reading. There is no way the voters of Pennsylvania would vote that way, even with Philadelphia weighing in.

how the vote might go on any one issue isn't the point, though. if the referendum results don't actually carry any weight, then what the heck, i guess...though it seems like a giant waste of money in that case. but, if they do, it really does set up mob rule...and that is absolutely not good.

Recall of elected officals and referenda of rejection are no more mob rule than regular elections are.

referenda overruling supreme court decision--or even pressuring the supreme court to overrule themselves--can circumvent the rights protections outlined in the constitution and, thus, do amount to mob rule, though.

i'm all for recall of elected officials and referenda of rejection for legislative measures, though. i agree with you there.

Did we do that? No. Did I think we'd do that or even come close? No. And we didn't.

that was your goal, though, was it not? or did i misunderstand? if it was your goal, you were effectively campaigning against some people who we very much actually do want in government. i just don't see how that is not a self-destructive approach.

And geez, are you opposed to competition? Doesn't it make everyone better? I think so. Everybody should have a challenger every year.

i'm all for challengers. i'm just not for saying "throw the guy out of office just because he is an incumbant (without taking into account whether or not he deserves to be thrown out of office)".

anyway, thanks for your repsonse. i understand your positions much better now.

[h82lose99]

When I want to make a decision on a candidate I look up all relevant information I can find. What I find on his website is just a bunch of vagueness. I don't just blindly put out my vote without hearing what the man is all about.

Glad to hear that. Unfortunately, we are in the minority. Easily proved by the current president...


Real nice way to garner support for your man, call us all a bunch of idiots.

Not at all. It's just a fact. Anyone with much experience in marketing will tell you the same thing. It has absolutely nothing to do with the intelligence.

[h82lose99]

A) Does not pass the smell test. You join this forun to push your candidates agenda. I would respect you more if you came clean and said what your connection is relative/friend/working for his campaign. Just be honest.

B)Not surprised. But if you say your candidate cares about 2nd Ammendment Rights in PA, you think he would know of PAFOA.

C) I do have opinions and am informed. I am 49 and have voted in every primary and general election since I was 18.

Oh yeah, welcome to the forum.

A) You should see your doctor 'cause your nose ain't working right! :-) Seriously though, I am not related, don't work for him, and don't send anyone $$.
Even if only because he is the lesser of the evils, I believe he deserves consideration. Nobody is ever going to meet 100% of everyone's ideas.

B) I've been an NRA member for 20 years. I only stumbled across PAFOA accidently. Been a "stealth" member for a while. It isn't really what you'd call "mainstream". Although Melanie (RIP) did bring the group some exposure.

C) Good for you. I'm older and have done the same. Even by absentee when I was overseas.


Thanks, glad to be a participant.

[edstephan]

Russ Diamond, You are a danger to our Commonwealth and I will do what ever I can to keep you from ever being elected to any office. Keep your f**kin hands off my Constitution. If you can not work within the boundaries of it go to Canada, France or England where their Constitution doesn't mean anything.

There is no such thing as a limited con/con
Once you establish a constitutional convention the complete Constitution is open for modification. This is NOT acceptable
As far as PACleanSweep, I’ll have to look back at some of my 2004 notes so as to not get my facts wrong. It appears that PACleanSweep only went after the Conservative Democrats and Republicans. I don’t recall you going after the very liberal Democrats that voted for the pay increase.

An OC Activist and 1 of the 3%
Ed Stephan

[Keystone.45]

I don’t recall you going after the very liberal Democrats that voted for the pay increase.

Your recollection isn't very good.

[ChamberedRound]

Russ,
Thanks for taking the time to register at PAFOA and answer some questions. I have a few comments/questions of my own:

As I said, I think Art I Sec 21 is clear. I do not know what else "shall not be questioned" can mean. Permit? Are you questioning my right? Scary-looking gun, you claim? Are you questioning my right? One gun a month? Are you questioning my right?

A refreshing opinion from a political candidate, to be sure. But, as others have suggested, this isn't how it works in reality. So, as Lt. Gov., how are you going to advocate that the Legislature adopt such a common-sense position, and do so in a way where you might gain any traction?

If you have any specific questions about the "devil" or the "details," just ask. You should know, however, that the Lieutenant Governor has no legislative power and cannot change any policy unilaterally. I can be a vocal advocate, however.

Again, see above. Your position on the RKBA, while similar to the views of many here, is considered by most citizens to be extremely controversial, and considered by most politicians to be dangerous to their careers. How do you plan to convince everyone that your beliefs are the right way to go? A mere statement of sensibility isn't enough.

And if you need some idea of how difficult it is to get the legislature to adopt such opinions, take a look at the battle going on over HB40. This bill would modify our existing Castle Doctrine to also include Stand Your Ground provisions outside the home, as well as civil immunity for actors who justifiably use force. Such a bill which seems common-sense to us has been languishing in committee for 5+ years.

If, God forbid, something should happen to the Governor, I'll be in a better position to help reclaim our rights.

How so? As governor, you don't have any more power to make law than as Lt. Gov. Sure, the Governor has more authority to manage the Executive, but what as governor do you believe you can do that you can't as Lt. Gov?

On a related note, if you feel this way, why are you not running for Governor?

Look, you can say "no" all you want, but please take some time to make sure your "no" is informed. Meanwhile, I'll continue to fight to exercise our rights as guaranteed by Art I Sec 2, which is as clear and concise as Art I Sec 21. I don't deserve the crappy government we have, and neither do you. We have the right, and the duty, to fix it.

On the surface I understand your position, and it's an easy one to agree with, but again the devil is in the details.

The men of today are not like the men of the 1960's, who weren't like the men of the 1870's, who weren't like the men of the the 1770's. I am of firm belief that to date, no American since the Founding Fathers themselves has TRULY had an understanding of what can happen when a government stops listening to its people.

I am not well versed in the parliamentary procedure and laws surrounding constitutional conventions, so I will not argue one way or another on the issue at the moment. However, I believe you would do well to understand that given the above, if our existing system can be taken advantage of to the detriment of the average citizen, then the process by which the Constitution is changed could also be taken advantage of. And if that happens, the effects would be far, far worse to the average citizen than what has happened to date.

I believe it is the above fears of what is now in this state a moral MINORITY that give pause to the idea of a constitutional convention.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
-- Benjamin Franklin

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
-- John Adams,

I am not in favor of any such measure that would ruin the republican form of government.

You say this as if you're taking a stand or position. This statement, sir, is an absolute given, regardless of yours or anyone else's opinion.

We can't "ruin the Republican form of government" we have, or change away from it. To do so would require us to secede from the United States, as the US Constitution, vis-a-vis Article IV and the 14th and 15th Amendment, basically requires all states to guarantee a republican form of government, just as the federal government guarantees this to its constituent states.

Recall of elected officals and referenda of rejection are no more mob rule than regular elections are.

That depends on how the recall takes place, and I'd be curious to hear your opinions on the issue.

Recalling elected officials is something that happens outside the normal election cycle, and in doing so takes away from the delegate in question the authority given to him by the people to make decisions on their behalf, as outlined by the Constitution. On the surface, that is counter to the idea of a Republican government, and is indeed mob rule, as the people are rescinding or reneging on the "contract" they agreed to with that elected official vis-a-vis their original election vote.

If however, the elected official has him/herself reneged on their part of the "contract" with the people (an ethics violation, a violation of oath of office, etc.), and such violation can be proven, then I believe a recall vote would be warranted.

And geez, are you opposed to competition? Doesn't it make everyone better? I think so. Everybody should have a challenger every year.

I'd appreciate if you can expound on this statement a bit.

If you're claiming that no candidates should run opposed when they're up for election, I agree with you, as competition is a good thing. However, I'm not sure how much can be done about this. Obviously election reform that would unlock the 2 party grip and make it easier for candidates to run would be extremely helpful, but other than that people can't be forced to run for office.

However, if you're additionally saying that every elected official be required to run/re-run for office every year, I disagree. Such as system, regardless of the competition, would have delegates working so hard to KEEP their jobs, that they won't actually be DOING their jobs. In addition, in contentious election years where turnover rates are high, by the time elected officials get acclimated to their post, they would likely be required to run again. In my opinion this would be the epitome of inefficiency.

Thanks again Russ for registering on the site and reaching out to us, and I hope you'll respond to my questions/comments and continue your dialog with us all. Many of us here believe an electorate should be responsible and educated on the issues and candidates that are running, and your sharing your thoughts an opinions with us is a valuable resource in our decision-making process.