Robert Edwards 52wp

Robert Edwards

Robert Edwards's activity stream

  • commented on The Loyal Opposition Revisited 2016-11-10 23:55:28 -0500
    Modern Whig West Region…yes please. Can you email me? Or pm me on Facebook through the Oregon Whig site?

  • commented on A Democratic Republic... 2016-11-10 11:38:35 -0500
    I agree with Michael Wald with regards to the Senate in that the Senate itself and small population states will never allow that to happen, probably the only thing North Dakota and Delaware agree on. But going further, besides not being even on the table, I feel elimination of the Senate to be dangerous. The bicameral legislature is an important part of the internal checks on the legislative branch. Unicameralism at the federal level could lead to Oligarchy. I can see that happening at the state level as well, but I don’t know the structure of enough state constitutions to know for certain.

    Also, for the same reason we have the Electoral College (to support the minority opinion) I cannot support a federal ballot initiative. Ballot initiatives allow two very bad things to happen. First, mob mentality wins the day and can easily strip freedoms and rights from minority citizens. This was seen in California’s Proposition 8 back in 2008 which was overturned years later with Supreme Court rulings. Ballot initiatives allow for emotional and radical changes in constitutional law that come too easily, and then too easily shift back with the next ballot. Secondly, this is what representatives are paid to do…represent us. By putting ballot initiatives in play we allow our representatives to shirk their responsibility by not having to go on the record.

    I support term limits but just limit the existing term lengths to 2 terms like the presidency…yes that’s a lot of turnover in the House, but that’s what is supposed to happen in the body with the most power.

  • commented on Why are Americans Searching for Third Parties 2016-09-27 19:26:31 -0400
    The real question then is how do we keep Americans interested in politics in the intervening 4 years? Presidential elections always boost public interest. But as soon as the election is over (or at the very most by January 20th) public interest drops to not caring. By the time the public interest is back to levels necessary to achieve change it is less than a year away from the election again, which doesn’t provide enough time to affect the change. How do we keep public interest in the off years?

  • followed Dues or no dues, that is the question... 2016-05-12 14:47:36 -0400

    Dues or no dues, that is the question...

    In any organization's life, there comes a time where that organization must eventually transition from an informal structure to a formal one. During this transition, finances are one issue, as well as formal membership. The Modern Whig Party has reached this juncture. I would put forward that the party needs to establish formal membership, and that party dues are a necessary part of this. At present, while we have many hard working individuals all trying to accomplish rational political goals, we do not have a clear dividing line between those who are "in" the party, and those who, as on Face Book just "like" us. It seems a common sense matter, that the direction and operation of the party needs to be determined by members. It also seems a common sense matter, that members need to be identified by a certain level of commitment. While volunteerism, and participation in discussions do indicate commitment, they are hard to quantify. Money on the other hand is fairly simple to quantify. Money is also one of the key fuels in politics, and the lack of it is one of the biggest barriers to political growth. So given that we need money, and given that we need a way to determine who is and who is not a member of the party, dues make sense. Dues indicate a commitment to the party, provide the necessary financial means for growth of the party, and minimum level of support for the party's activities. Further, given that the party, in many areas of the country, has not yet grown to a level where state or regional structures can yet exist to handle finances, it makes sense that a certain portion of dues and donations paid be reserved for the state organizations responsible for party activities in the areas that such funds originated from, and that the national party treasury hold such funds for those states and manage the funds in such a way as to insure their use for party development in the states themselves. With this in mind, I propose that there be a $25 annual dues structure adopted for party membership, and that of that $25, $5 dollars be reserved for use within the state that the member is from. Further, I propose that the same 20% rate be used for all donations to the party, and that 20% be also reserved for use within the state that the donation originates from. By doing this, we can identify our membership, determine who can and cannot vote on party policy and platform matters, and eventually who can vote in party caucuses for candidate selection. We can also raise needed funds for operating costs, and for party development at both state and national levels. I don't think $25 is too much to ask. In this day and age, that is only about the cost of burger and fries for two. I don't fear that we will drive people away, because if someone is unwilling to pay party dues, they really are unwilling to commit to joining the party in the first place. The equivalent of Face Book "likes" do not equate to membership. Before we can move forward, we really do need to know who is actually with us. ---- Doug Harvey, LTC, MS, AKARNG (RET) MWP Director of Veterans and Active Duty Affairs