Meet Donna Reed

The Tea Party.

Look, I loved their enthusiasm, some of their right wing was a little more right wing than I go for, but they really had some momentum there. But then no one who wants to call themselves a Tea Partier, wants to run under that ticket. Because an Independant is thought to not be capable of winning. Those people run under the Republican ticket. As things progress, we can all go ahead and call the Tea Party what it has become- a screaming child in the back seat of the Republican car. As they continue driving Mama GOP and Papa GOP give the screaming Baby Tea loli-pops and we’re hearing less from them lately.

If the Tea party really wanted to affect change, they would continue this momentum, and file a law suit against the government for facilitating favoritism toward an exclusive 2 party system. I’m not suggesting a monetary law suit, but one for specific performance. To allow for a more fair voting system that doesn’t provide favoritism to only 2 specific parties.

For that matter, Ron Paul has more momentum in Iowa right now than any other candidate. This should be his platform to change our nation to a nation where our legislators hear what we, the public, are saying, and more closely follows OUR trends, not the trends of special interests.

How often do we complain that our leaders are ineffective or that they don’t listen and effect change to the public’s best interest?

Then we say, ‘You voted for him, so you can’t complain.’ If our only choices to eat everyday were ham or turkey (always cooked the same way) and you already had ham last night (and it wasn’t good), then we would seek a way to find other meals to fill our need for better evening meals. When if comes to voting, the American public complacently allows ineffectual processes and people to control the government and indirectly- our lives (and meals for that matter).

For many years there has been a process around where we could change all of these people and processes and allow for better change that follows public needs and trends more closely. however, the powers that be (the 2 parties) have silenced this change for their survival. They are machines. Money machines. They control public welfare and divide this nation. It is, in fact, to the point where half the nation is constantly hoping for the failure or collapse of the whole for the success of the other party. It’s dishonorable, disrespectable, and appalling.

I suggest we change our voting process. The system THAT ALREADY EXISTS that could change our lives is one of more fair voting processes. With this system, we vote as a nation for our top 3 candidates for President- no matter their party affiliation. There would be a tally of the nations #1 choice. If there was not a clear winner in the #1 column, it moves to the #2 choice, then #3. There would be a clear and concise winner of more than 50% in every election. more than 50 % of the nation would always be in support of our current president.

Why does this make a difference? There would no longer be party control by Republicans or Democrats of the system. There would no longer be half a nation hoping for the other half’s demise or failure. Fighting within a family is never good for the whole unless a clear solution develops. I suggest to take away the party power. Allow for more than just ham or turkey for dinner this evening.

I believe the outcome election of 1992 would have been wholly changed if we’d all voted as we wanted back then.

The problem lies within the parties. Specifically, the two parties. I whole-hearttedly disagree with the fundamental capability of a 2 party system, and I feel that government support of a 2 party system should be unconstitutional.

Let me explain.

Do you all remember the election of 1992? George Bush vs Clinton vs billionaire Texan Ross Perot. I was 12 then, so I couldn’t vote, but I was fascinated by the entire process and monitored the event.

That year, I ran around and asked everyone I knew: 1. who it was they wanted to vote for and 2. who they were going to vote for. Two questions because there were 2 very different answers. Most everyone I knew in South Carolina and the few I knew outside all had the same answers. 1. they wanted to vote for Ross Perot and 2. they were going to vote for George Bush.

With Ross Perot winning nearly 20% of the national vote, it is my firm belief that had everyone who WANTED to vote for him actually done so, that he may have actually won that year. Statically, no Independent has ever won an election. People want to feel like they actually make a difference, so they didn’t want to ‘waste’ their vote on an Independent.

How does this solve today’s problems?

I believe that the election of 1992 was a clear example of how our entire system fails us all. This about it- every year in most elections for a mayor or a congressman we have the option of voting for the guy who is already there, or someone from the other side. If for dinner everyday, our only choices were – ham or turkey (always cooked the same way), and you already had ham last night (and it wasn’t very good). Is this really the best choices we have to offer our people?

No.

I’ll explain the solution in another blog. But there has been a solution around for many many years.

How much do sporting events bring in economic growth to our state? What is Columbia doing to facilitate sporting events and accommodations to tourists here for games and events? On this weeks show, Donna will interview Scott Powers of the Columbia Regional Sports Council. Tune in this Saturday at 1pm to News Radio 560 WVOC!

It was truly a pleasure interviewing Tom Clark of the South Carolina Film Commission today. You can learn more about the Film Commission and grants offered on their website, www.scfilm.com.

Listen to our interview by clicking the links below:

SC Film Part 1

SC Film Part 2

SC Film Part 3

SC School Registration Fees - Kelly Payne, Lexington Richland District 5 school teacher discusses the high cost of public school registration.