Democracy Defense Act

[peter28moss]

DEMOCRACY DEFENSE ACT drafted by  Peter D. Moss

The General Assembly of Vermont finds that in spite of some democracy at the town/local level, there is a lack of real democracy at all levels of Vermont and federal government. To remedy this situation and to create a peoples government, the following provisions are enacted on the effective date of this act.

1. Only one style of ballot shall be used and shall indicate only the first initial and last name of each candidate under each office of signature petitions listed so as to avoid party line voting, sex discrimination, and other impermissible and irrelevant bias. The voter signature petitions shall specify that the petition qualifies the candidate for both primary and general election. Each ballot shall provide at least two write-in blanks for every office, so as to qualify candidates who do not wish to waste time for collecting signatures.

2.Candidate debates shall include all candidates for each given office. Print and broadcast media and other organizers of public debates shall invite all candidates for the position debated and will not commence debate until all candidates are present and ready. Failure to do so will disqualify the debate sponsor as well as any candidates who commence debating with an incomplete panel. The names of offending candidates shall be removed from both primary and general election ballots.

3. Thieves, fools and juveniles removing, defacing, or otherwise damaging one or more lawn signs shall pay for 100 new lawn signs, and shall  personally install all 100 under the direction of the victimized candidate. Persons witnessing lawn sign tampering and promptly notifying the county sheriff and able to identify the vandal, shall be entitled to a $500 cash reward to be paid by the vandal or if a minor, by the vandal's parents or guardian. Indicted lawn sign tamperers shall be prosecuted by the state's attorney for thievery and vandalism. If the state's attorney fails or refuses to prosecute, then this act empowers the victimized candidate to prosecute pro se or hire a member of the criminal bar to prosecute the vandal at the vandal's expense, or if a minor, by the vandal's parents or guardian.

4. Persons objecting to lawn signs on their personal property shall phone the Vermont secretary of state who shall notify the lawn sign owner to remove the offending sign at his or her earliest convenience. Persons not objecting to one or more lawn signs shall thereby waive their right to have any candidate's lawn sign removed, as provided under the equal protection laws.


43A:\DemDefAc.wpd   ---   Sept. 1, 2010   ---   431 words

[rod anode]

sounds like a new form of instant runoff voting to me

[fletchtb]

Can you explain where your thoughts on this act come from and why you think it should be enacted?

To me, I don't really agree with Point #1, but I could live with it. After that, it is complete disagreement from me.

1. I don't see anything inherently wrong with party line voting. I don't personally vote that way, but I don't see anything wrong with someone who does.

2. Requiring that all candidates be allowed to participate in a debate would, in my opinion, be a complete waste of time. There are some minor party candidates and independents that have valuable opinions. If they are a viable candidate they will have the support that will warrant the invitation to a debate. But it is not too difficult to get one's name on the ballot, so we would then be forced to watch and listen to people who only want to speak to one issue or just want to be on TV to cause a disturbance. That would be a waste of my time and the valuable time of others and the TV networks. We would have less time to hear the viable candidates actually talk about the issues.

3. This just seems a bit extreme. I wonder if it really is an issue too. I see lots of signs for candidates of all parties. I rarely see destroyed or vandalized signs.

4. So the logic here is that I can have no signs in my yard, but if I choose to support one candidate, then all other candidates are entitled to some real estate on my property? How is that democratic? The signs are there for lots of reasons. For example, if I have candidate x's sign on my lawn, then someone driving by might think about voting for them because I support them (or maybe the opposite). If they see lots of candidate x signs in their neighborhood, then maybe that will convince them. If fewer people have been convinced to install candidate y signs, then maybe that says something about the viability of that candidate.

Overall, in it's current state and not knowing any of the background as to why you authored this Democracy Defense Act, I would have to say I am against it.

Thanks,
Todd

[cedarman]

I agree 100% with Todd.

The only viable point in this proposal is Point #1

"sign owner to remove the offending sign at his or her earliest convenience" - like after the election?

This is definately a piece of legislation that does NOT deserve the title "Democracy Defense Act".

I seriously hope our legislators don't waste their time (and our time) on this proposal.

[slpott]

I would have to agree. It takes a bit more convincing than just by default. Kinda like respect. You earn it. It can not be given to you or handed down.

[GamingWeasel]

I agree with everyone else.  Almost everything in this seems pretty silly to me. 

This one was particularly funny:  "Persons objecting to lawn signs on their personal property shall phone the Vermont secretary of state who shall notify the lawn sign owner to remove the offending sign at his or her earliest convenience. Persons not objecting to one or more lawn signs shall thereby waive their right to have any candidate's lawn sign removed, as provided under the equal protection laws."

So if some campaign-monkey puts a sign on my lawn, I wouldnt be able to remove it, but would instead have to call the Secretary of State who would then ask the owner to remove, whenever it was conventient for them?  Haha!  That's just ridiculous and a waste of our state tax dollars.  I'm ripping up your sign and throwing it in the bonfire ring.  Or maybe paint over it with:  "Vote for Cthulhu.  Why choose the lesser of two evils?"

[David Shea]

You have got to be kidding me!

I think government should be simplified.  Does anyone remember that the State of Vermont has 6% "reported" unemployment and is facing a 150 million dollar +/- deficit going into the next fiscal year? (Stimulus crutch is gone.)  If anything we should be taking laws off of the books instead of adding more.

If this self serving law is added, I think a final addendum should be included:

5) All candidates who post lawn signs , either personally or by agent, are required to remove the signs within a two week period preceding the determination that the individual is longer an active candidate or the election has been completed.  If such personal property has not been removed the candidate will be fined $100.00 per violation, payable to the municipality where the violation occurred, and will be required to pickup the signs in question while wearing a pink & purple leisure suit.

This addendum would create revenue since most candidates or their agents never pick up the lawn sign trash that they put out.  But best of all, I would love to see them all out in the Pink and Purple leisure suit.

[slpott]

Any respectable candidate would ask the homeowner before placing the signs anyway. In my opinion, if you are worth voting for I will ask for a sign. Keep it simple. I certainly hope we are not paying for these grand ideas.

[rod anode]

ask my neibor about placing signs up he dont like me anymore LOLOLO

[mkr]

I agree with Fletchtb on all accounts. 

If I chose to support a candidate and put his/her sign up on my property, I do not want this to be an invite for someone to just add signs at my house.  This is my property and my freedom to support who I want. 

I really don't think regulating the signs with fines is really a big issue.  How about talking about reducing taxes, helping bring more jobs into my community, reducing the cost of manufacturers to producing in VT so that it doesn't cost .95+ to manufacture for every dollars worth of goods!

[David Shea]

My comment about the purple & pink leisure suit was a clear indicator of sarcasm.

I completely agree with you Mary Kay that there are bigger "fish to fry" than what is contained in this bill.

This is another clear example of how elected officials are completely out of touch with the real wants, needs and desires of the average Vermonter.

[Rev. Elizabeth]

This is another clear example of how elected officials are completely out of touch with the real wants, needs and desires of the average Vermonter.
  I don't believe that Mr. Moss, who posted the Democracy Defense Act, is currently an elected official.

[rod anode]

pete moss LOL i BET THAT IS GARY GILBERTS ONLINE NAME

[Rev. Elizabeth]

Not funny.

[rod anode]

oh come on ,peopple need to laugh alittle even GOD has a sence of humor