The Electoral College Needs To Go and Here's Why

People are calling for an end to the Electoral College.

Has the Electoral College become an Antiquated System? According to Sen.Elizabeth Warren(D-MA) and 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate, it has. In a recent CNN, Town-Hall Warren brought up the idea of abolishing the Electoral College. Warren stated that this plan has merit and that "We the People" should pursue it. 

The electoral college's practicality in America died a long time ago. In the last four out five presidential elections, Democratic candidates have won the popular vote. However, they only won the presidency twice out of those four elections. Does this seem like a healthy thriving democracy to you? The House of Public Discourse doesn't think so. 

What This Is About Is Making Sure Every Vote In This Country Matters

Republicans and the Religious Right doesn't want every vote to matter. They've desired to suppress the vote for decades.

Paul Weyrich, "father" of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority, and various other groups tells his flock that he doesn't want people to vote.[See Source]

In the present, the electoral college does not ensure that every vote matters not by a longshot. Your vote depending on where you live matters. If you live in a high population swing state your vote matters, however, if you live in a low population state forget it. If you live in Idaho you might as well stay home and not vote. The House of Public Discourse hates to say such a thing we encourage people to vote, but that's what the electoral college has done. Disenfranchised voters. 

Why would politicians fight for your three electoral votes when he/she could be fighting for 27 electoral votes in a swing state like Florida? Or, you switch to a one person one vote system and overnight your vote in Idaho carries as much weight as a voter in Florida. 

One Person One Vote

The popular vote would level the playing field for American voters. Instead of voters of a small state having to compete with voters from a large state for electoral votes a one person one vote system would ensure that your vote would carry the same weight no matter where you live. Abolishing the electoral college would make everybody's vote matter. 

It would motivate candidates to campaign in states where they now do not. Typically, you don't see Democratic presidential candidates campaigning down in Alabama or Southern states in general. However, those states have as much as 40%, Democratic voters. Under a one vote one person system that 40 % becomes enormous in determining the outcome of an election. 

On the other side, the same thing applies to Republicans. For example, Republican presidential candidates will campaign in upstate New York, but they're not going to campaign down in the New York City. Under a popular vote system, you can bet your bottom dollar they will. 

What's ironic is the biggest complaint you here coming from the Republicans who oppose one person one vote is that candidates will not campaign in the small states. Nothing could be further from the truth. The swing states, the big states, the highly populated states will not be as important as they are in the present. It is everybody's vote that matters. Both Democrats and Republican candidates will be going places that traditionally they have not. 


The one person one vote system would force aspiring politicians to fight for your vote not just for the electoral votes in your state. Things get real when you have to reach individual voters as opposed to a majority of voters in a particular area. Switching to a popular vote would be a benefit for this country. 

It would bring more accountability, honesty, and integrity. Most important, it would ensure that every single American citizen's vote matters. In this writers view, I can't see how anyone with a fair and balanced mind could oppose the one person one vote system. 

Written By: Johnny Hill

The Repackaging Of The Fascist Playbook

Just like Joseph Goebbels, who headed the Nazi propaganda machine, present day pundits like Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and politicians like Ron Paul are making the same claims today as did Goebbels in Nazi Germany.


There seems to be a growing reality concerning the Libertarian and Tea Party movements in this country and can best be summed up in a phrase, “conspiracy nut balls.” While claiming to be all about freedom and liberty, any fair evaluation of their agenda tells a much deeper and darker story. These groups seem to stay up nights trying to erode our civil right to live a quality life. Moreover, their platform would have us barely existing, languishing in debt. They have been successful in many regions of this nation, through their highly funded media echo chambers, at taking away many of our social protections and denying the American people the social justice We The People have fought so hard for over the years.

For example, politicians like former Texas Senator Ron Paul and his son Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky), backed by special interest groups funded by the likes of the Koch Brothers, have executed a media campaign to distort and diminish public support for fair social safety net programs. Their delusional anti-government claims of socialism, among others, have deceived and scared and convinced droves of people into believing their government is out to get them and is something much less than  "of, by, and for the people.”

We The People Are The Government.

Not just the wealthy, perfectly healthy, spoiled easy-come trust fund successful entrepreneurs. The Tea Party and Libertarian movements in this country amount to nothing more than Social Darwinism. Their agenda is plutocracy. They demonize government as evil. They demonize groups of citizens with the intent to divide and conquer. All in all, this is nothing more than the repackaging of the Fascist playbook. Just like we saw in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s. With unconstitutional overreach by the Judicial branch, which upheld the claim money as free speech and corporate person-hood, we have seen this type behavior before from the Anarcho-Capitalist Corporatism of Nazi Germany. 

In these modern times, we see advocates and pundits like Ron Paul, Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Lou Dobbs put on their Joseph Goebbels mask spewing all sorts of conspiracy propaganda lies against all types of groups and minorities. All  these people are doing is propagating the desires of the wealthiest people in our country and the world like the Koch Brothers. These reckless capitalist want nothing more than to have all forms of regulation out of their midst. Just like the Nazi, they disdain the chronically ill, poor, disabled and out of work Americans. They embrace voter suppression laws for they know their leverage goes up if the voter turnouts are low. Disabled, welfare poor people are nothing more than parasites that should do nothing more than fend for themselves.

In today’s society, the Nazi propaganda takes the form from the pamphlets of old to conspiracy websites, radio talk shows, cable news and now social media Facebook pages. Just like in Nazi Germany, in the 1930’s and 40’s, we see the demoralization of vast segments of our citizenry. The Tea Party crowd, as well as the so-called Libertarians, have blamed people’s economic despair on everything but their failed austerity policies. Groups like liberals, socialist, immigrants, freemasons, minorities have all been targeted.

The Tea Party, GOP and the Libertarians know their agenda is a minority viewpoint. Just like in Germany, they understand they have no shot of gaining influence in a unified America. They understand that their only chance of getting their platform in practice is to cause a polarization of the American people. By using prejudice and institutional racism as their weapons, they have attempted and with much success to split this country into small groups just like the Nazi did in WWII Europe.

We The People must realize that this massively funded propaganda attack has a purpose.

Who stands to benefit from this propaganda? Is it the middle-class? Is it the moderate and working poor? No, it’s the corporations and the elitist who need We The People out of their business so they can run their enterprise to the detriment of our environment, our workforce, all in the name of capitalism and the free markets. This is not a classroom theory this is history repeating itself.  The right-wing, the Libertarians, the Tea Party are using Social Darwinism to demonize and separate groups for the purpose of demonizing them as threats to our country,our culture, our society as threats to our free markets and democracy. It’s scapegoating 101. Just like the Nazi Party, these radical modern-day organizations have waged a war against equality of the person. They don’t want free healthcare for all. They don’t want a good free public education to survive. They have cut programs to the poor, sick, veterans of wars, taxed the middle class while giving huge tax breaks to the upper one percent. These are not theories they are facts. Moreover, they have ostracized groups who have tried to help these segments of our population. Calling them socialists, communists, and have turned the word "liberals" into a pejorative. Name calling is their forte  which they have made into a science.

Don’t Be Swindled By The Hype

Many fell prey to this rhetoric just as many have bought into it hook, line and sinker today in America. Hitler needed suckers as do the Koch Brothers and what better way than to revisit the tactics of a madman who for a time had all of Europe at his feet. They need people to do lots of hard work for cheap and shunned the unions and have fought against the massive inequality that has come to pass in present day America. Matter of fact, it was Unions and Organized labor that were the biggest enemies to the Nazis and  to the Ron Paul’s of this present day. Organized labor demanded fair pay and safe working conditions and other worker benefits. The Tea Party and Libertarians require no minimum wage, no regulation and desire a desperate under-educated demoralized worker.

All the mindless sheep followers of the Tea Party and Libertarians are, is the Aryan Nazis of yesteryear. The Koch Brothers, and others like them, with their Americans for Prosperity, Citizens United, Cato Institute, all born from the John Birch Society genre, have systematically distorted the real facts, and replaced them with lies for decades now.

They abolish the truth by attacking it. They claim it's one big government scheme to take your rights away. Then they create a false reality. Then they tell you what you hear in traditional historical mainstream media and other educational sources is propaganda. The old ” bait and switch.” It's ” Big Brother,” coming to get you. Conspiracy, to hide the truth, planned lies to confuse and deceive us all.

There has been a game-plan with a playbook for decades, now.

This game-plan and subsequent playbook, are their way of brainwashing people, to incite paranoid suspicion, and cause people to lose faith in traditional scientifically well-established academia. Their goal is to get you to question long-held views and realities, all of which have been drawn from easily verifiable accurate authorities in news, science and history.

The Tea Party and Libertarians are anti-intellectuals.

Hitler hated mainstream established knowledge, science, publicly funded schools and institutes of higher learning. He claimed they were bastions of Liberals, Communists, Zionists, and Socialists. Hitler ruled the German people with speeches of hate and lies that these groups were spies trying to deceive the real Aryan German. 

The Tea Party and their Libertarian counterparts have a similar hatred of historical record and facts. They highly question reality and facts. Scientists question reality by using inductive reasoning. But the Tea Party and Libertarians use deductive reasoning. This type of argument is surely not intellectual nor science in any manner. These organizations run on gut feelings based on misguided indoctrination, false assumptions, and faith in preconceived notions no matter their validity or not.

In Nazi Germany, the cost of higher education became so expensive that attendance at these colleges and universities fell some 50%.

One of the bigger topics, in present day America, is the high cost and the coinciding debt that is associated with getting a good education today. What better way to brainwash people with conspiracies, than to keep people dumb and too poor  to be able to get an affordable public education. Then hammer away in their Koch Brothers media echo chambers that getting a great education from public schools and universities is not needed cause there nothing more than enclaves of Socialism.

In this writer's viewpoint, the real conspiracy is the far-right's push against getting a college education and anti-intellectualism. Just last election cycle we saw this from radical presidential candidate Rick Santorum a Tea Party type of guy.

Just like Joseph Goebbels, who headed the Nazi propaganda machine, present day pundits like Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and politicians like Ron Paul are making the same claims today as did Goebbels did in Nazi Germany. They claim that the two-party system is broken and, in fact, a scam. They even claim that traditional Republicans are not far-right enough for them and that all Democrats are nothing more than liberal socialists. Just like the Nazis, they hate any government-run or funded anything (except the military, of course).

The Tea Party and Libertarians hate government, they claim the IRS, welfare, regulations, taxes and the Federal Reserve and Keynesian economics are nothing more than socialist, communist plots. Fear-mongering is their order of the day and the base of their playbook. This is where all claims by these radical far-right groups of valuing freedom of speech, freedom of expression, equality and other liberties they defend and fight for fall apart when put under a close study. When you inductively and rationally examine their ideology, economics, and theories, you find a huge disconnect with what these do in practice.

In fact, in most cases, they inhibit and weaken and destroy these very liberties and freedoms. In this year there will be much debate on which direction America should take and this writer would suggest examining the issues to look at your motivations and why you think as you do and make an honest evaluation as to how you came to that view and most importantly participate because there are factions who do not want you to and are spending huge sums of money to discourage you from doing so. What we are seeing in practice  from the Tea Party, Libertarians, and the radical far-right Koch Brothers funded think tanks, is the repackaging of the Fascist playbook.

The United States Of Koch, And Why It's Wrong For America

Recently the infamous Koch Brothers held their annual " Who Wants To Be President," convention in Palm Springs, California. It's  a gathering of the  who's who of Millionaires and Billionaires in America. The primary focus of the conference is to decide who will be the Koch Brothers' " puppet on a string" for the  upcoming 2016 Presidential race. ABC's Jonathan Karl moderated the discussion between the prospective presidential hopefuls.

The overall narrative of the event is to schmooze the Koch Brothers for their money. 

This activity is not how our democracy should work. This activity is how our democracy has been corrupted.  It's well  known that the Koch's have a political infrastructure across the United States that buys politicians and uses this leverage to manipulate public policy. It was reported in the New York Times that the Koch's will be spending more money on the 2016 election than both parties  [See Article] What's sad is that many who follow politics will not be shocked by this information.

What Would Our Founding Fathers Think About The Koch Brothers?

Read Jefferson To Kercheval Here


Jefferson To Kercheval
Source: Library of Congress

  

"Those seeking profits where they are given total freedom will not be the ones to trust to keep the government pure and our rights secure." [Thomas Jefferson]

There is a long history in America of those seeking to amass vast fortunes as being the source of corruption in our governance.  One must take into account the year this correspondence was written.  In 1816 England, there was no such thing as a middle class. You had a minuscule percentage who were rich and a large group of working people that constituted the working poor. Yes, there were a few people who were doctors, lawyers, and shop owners that made up a minor middle class, but for the most part in England you had no middle-class influence whatsoever. Sounds like America today?

One of Jefferson's main points in this letter was that by keeping the people undereducated and poor, it abated them from calling their oppressive oligarchy government into account for these inequalities. We see this taking shape in America today. In the Republican Party and its Tea-Party and Libertarian factions, there is a "go fend for yourselves" attitude. Jefferson made reference to the abusive state of man against man, and we see this being played out daily in our news feed.  To the point, Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers would be turning over in their graves. The modern-day Republicans, the ones with any intellect, are still misguided and follow the flawed philosophy of Thomas Hobbes.[See Source] In Jefferson's letter to Kercheval, he [Jefferson] was explicit in his disagreement with Hobbes. 
 

Thomas Jefferson To James Madison 1785 Letter Concerning Equality In America [See Letter]

Thomas Jefferson

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point and to tax the higher portions of the property in geometrical progression as they rise. " 

 One of Jefferson's main points even back in 1826 in a letter to William B Giles was that America was already moving towards an Aristocracy.

Jefferson, an old man at the time, pointed out that some in the John Adams wing [Federalist] looked to a single and splendid government of an Aristocracy, founded upon banking, corporations, under the guise and cloak of their favorite branches of manufacturing, commerce, and navigation. The modern-day examples would be the oil barons, defense industry, and Wall Street, riding and ruling over the plundered plowman and the everyday people of this nation. If the overgrown wealth of an individual, for example Father Koch,  who helped start the John Birch Society, is to be deemed dangerous to the state, is the best corrective measure  the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree? An inheritance tax.

The United States of Koch, And Why Is It Wrong For America?

 Everyone has heard of the Koch Brothers, even a casual observer of politics, right? Wrong! A George Washington University poll conducted in 2014 found that 52% of likely voters have never heard of the Koch Brothers. [See Source] This fact does not surprise this writer. 70% of the American people don't take part in the political process so keeping up with politics is not the order of the day for most Americans.  What is upsetting is that these people haven't a clue how these two brothers have a daily impact on their lives. The Koch Brothers have more wealth [100 Billion combined] than the bottom 40% of Americans put together. What is now Koch Industries Inc, began as Wood River Oil and Refining Co in 1940. Based in Wichita, Kansas, Koch Industries is one of the largest corporations in America. They have many subsidiaries involved in manufacturing, trading, and investments. The Brothers own 84% percent of Koch Industries, a massive company and conglomerate with investments in oil, fertilizer, electronics components, and even toilet paper. The firm employs over 50k people in the U.S. and 100k worldwide.[See Source]

See: How you support the Koch Brothers (even if you don’t know it)

So the next time you go to the bathroom to do your business you very well could be wiping your butt with the Koch Brothers. Many questions come to this writer's mind concerning the Koch Brothers. Why don't they just go on making their billions? Why do they feel the need to inject themselves into our government at such an overwhelming level? Is it the power? Do they feel with this wealth they have accumulated they have the right to lord it over us mere minions of society? Most people involved in politics know the importance of Television ads during an election cycle. Even though there is some debate on the topic, many Americans base their choice on a candidate by these ads. An example of this would be Jesse Ventura, ex-wrestler who won the Minnesota Governor's race based mainly on his award-winning Televisions ads. Undoubtedly, Television ads play a significant role in a political election. 

Low and Behold, Here Comes Citizen United!

The Supreme Court decision in 2010 to allow unfettered amounts of dark money into our political process has enabled the Koch Brothers to be like a " kid in a candy store." It has allowed the Koch's and other Billionaires like them to set up they're own political mechanism separate from the political parties. They [Koch Brothers] started providing massive sums of money directly to a candidate of their choice and creating their media campaigns  to sway public opinion toward their views. In the 2014 election cycle, " Americans For Prosperity," a Koch Brothers political front group, aired more than 17,000 broadcast TV ads, compared with only 2,100 aired by Republican Party groups. What this reveals to us is the overall influence these brothers had in the 2014 Mid-Term Election. Under Citizens United, the Koch Brothers, Super-Pacs, and Corporations can lie because they are not held to any standard. They can bold-faced lie on a Television Ad without any recompense.

Scott Walker Gov.(R-WI)

Even though most Americans disapprove of the Citizens United decision, our elected politicians refuse to overturn it with legislation. If we are going to have this unlimited amount of money allowed into the political process it's the position of the House of Public Discourse, we must have full disclosure. We[The House] suggest this should be the responsibility of the person running for public office. We The People need to know just whose hip-pocket these candidates are in. In jest, we need these candidates walking around in NASCAR suits wearing the logos of just who is sponsoring their campaigns. 

However, the way the system of things is set up now the Koch Brothers can spend millions to billions on a political election. They don't  have to be honest or accurate; they can just simply spatter the right-wing media echo chamber with untruthful propaganda. We have the " Roberts Court" to thank for this most unhealthy addition to our political process.

Has Liberty Given Way To Gerrymanding?

Has Liberty Given Way To Gerrymandering? 

Has Liberty Given Way To Gerrymandering?  In continuance to seeking an answer to the question, Where Do Democrats Go from Here, we find ourselves faced with another one, Has Liberty Given Way To Gerrymandering?  Like influence peddling, the practice of redistricting called today gerrymandering has a long history. 

Late in 1788, just after Virginia voted to ratify the Constitution and join the union, former Governor Patrick Henry persuaded the state legislature to remake the 5th Congressional District, forcing Henry’s political enemy James Madison to run against the formidable James Monroe. The ploy failed, and Madison won, eventually becoming the nation’s fourth president. Monroe’s career wasn’t over, though: He succeeded Madison as president.[Library of Congress] 

Where Did the Phrase Gerrymandering Originate? 

The origin of the word “gerrymander” was a combination of “salamander” and the last name of Elbridge Gerry, who as governor of Massachusetts in 1812 signed into law a redistricting plan designed to benefit his political party. The term was put into print for the first time by the Federalist-leaningBoston Gazette on March 26, 1812. Printed alongside this cartoon, it described a newly formed district in Essex County, said to resemble the shape of a salamander. The portmanteau stuck. [Library of Congress] 

Shortly after the Voting Rights of 1965 passed, in Congress,  some states created black and white voting districts. This creation of congressional districts  was mostly achieved by evaluating Census data.  This type of redistricting got the name " affirmative gerrymandering." Its intent was to curtail discrimination and promote minority politicians. This brief overview of the origins of gerrymandering is valuable. Why? Because the redrawing of voting districts lines based on race or ideological criteria was not the intent of our founders or does, it represent a balance for Democracy as a whole. What is concerning to many is its use in these modern political times. Our research has found a shifting precedent regarding the redrawing of voting district lines.

The whole business of political redistricting [gerrymandering] can get ugly. Moreover, often at the taxpayers expense. 

"The opportunity to control the drawing of electoral boundaries through the legislative process of apportionment is a critical and traditional part of politics in the United States, and one that plays no small role in fostering active participation in the political parties at every level." Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109, 145 (1986)(O’Connor, J., concurring in the judgment)

In short, the state of North Carolina was found in violation of the Constitution in its 12th Congressional District by drawing the lines using race as the predominant factor in 1993 However, the court shifted in the 1999 case Hunt v. Cromartie (99-1864),

Gerrymandering Created An Uphill Battle For Democrats in 2014!

This all centers around the 2010 Census. The Republicans through political design and lack of democratic voter participation were able to be successful in gaining control of state legislatures especially in the Red States. Their apparent first order of the day were to gerrymander their prospective districts. Create the now coined phrase " political safe-zones." 

Why this is, a problem for Democrats is as clear as a bell. These districts have been drawn with a partisan mindset which introduces us to another type of redistricting call partisan-gerrymandering. In states like Ohio, Michigan, and North Carolina we have witnessed Democratic voters being packed into the fewest voting districts possible.[See Article] This activity is gerrymandering in its purest form. We have a situation where Republicans voters have been systematically placed to provide a win-win no matter the issues or the qualifications of the participants.  Granted geography had a role to play in some cases, but, by and large these areas were designed with partisanship in mind. 

Let's Be Clear Here! 

The practice of gerrymandering is not sovereign to the Republican Party. Democrats have been willing partakers of gerrymandering as well. With the way, the House and Senate have shaped up and with the next census not due to be taken soon Democrats have a significant issue to solve. Gerrymandering is one of those issues that many Americans feel there isn't much difference between the parties, in terms of how they use it.  

Regarding our focus at House of Public Discourse we hold the position that next to unbridled influence peddling made legal by Citizen United. The haphazard, and wholly undemocratic practice of redistricting based on race, and other social factors hampers our nations democracy. This dangerous ingredient in our political system has helped this country slip into something less that a Republic. In fact, gerrymandering is a total undermining of Democracy. 

Many in America, this writer being one feels that gerrymandering should be banned period. There is a better way. No question there has been criminal behavior associated with the practice of gerrymandering. Many have given up hope on changing a system that the very people we would ask to do so benefit. From a Progressive Liberal point of view, we contend we can overcome this disadvantage by doing what Liberals do, thinking outside the box. We need to fight in the courts, in the state capitals, and on the front steps of City Hall, and anywhere the fight takes us to overcome these corrosive elements in our governance. I want us[ liberals] to answer the question, Has Liberty Given Way To Gerrymandering, a no, but, hell no answer.

However, Did Liberty Give Way To Gerrymandering In The 2014 Mid-Term Elections?

Fresh off, Republicans winning their largest House majority since the Hoover Administration, Where do the Democrats go from here? Democrats lost of their second straight mid-term election has many in the party pointing fingers. There are the normal scapegoats, weak candidates, bad money allocation choices, dismal narrative to inspire the Democratic base.

The GOP benefited from the most egregious gerrymandering in American history.

Backed by the likes of ALEC state lawmakers were on the take from big lobbyist, advocating state-wide redistricting or gerrymandering. Redrawing congressional lines was the paramount focus of this enterprise. Due to the poor Democratic participation in 2010 and the emergence of the Tea Party, right-wing radical state Governors and Legislators carved out huge chunks of political real-estate based on partisan gerrymandering. This tactic paid huge dividends for the Republicans in  Ohio, Pennsylvania Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Arizona, Tennessee and beyond.[The Nation]

Where Do Democrats Go from Here? (Part 1)

Now that the 2014 mid-term election dust has settled, where do Democrats go from here? With the Republicans celebrating their commanding victory and winning control of the Senate, this reality has led to finger-pointing and excuses from status-quo Democrats.Some have blamed the voting machines, while others have blamed the questionable voter ID laws and voter suppression gimmicks enacted by red-state controlled legislatures and right-wing appointed Judges. Of course, the gerrymandering of voting districts undoubtedly played a huge factor in the election. Many Democrats who did vote were angered by the fact that 75% of qualified eligible voters stayed home..See Article

Shortly, after taking this political butt-kicking Senate Democrats assembled to hash out and take an assessment with what went wrong. 

This discussion took place in the old Senate chamber room which led long-time Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein from California to remark,

Old Senate Chamber Room

“One of the things about the old Senate chamber is, you don’t need a microphone. People speak very frankly and very much from the heart, and it was really kind of a heartrending three hours of discussion of what happened and why it happened and where we should go now in the minority.” [See Source]


According to our source, no agreement was identified that pinpointed the problems that have led many Republicans to claim a mandate from the election results. Moreover, there was no plan reached on how the party should respond to this elections outcome. Some Democrats blame the outcome on the unpopularity of President Obama., while others like Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) blamed it on the lack of trust in government that is prominent in today's society.

Sen.Chris Murphy (D-CT)

“And when you have a country that has a deep distrust of government, it creates a problem for those of us who think there are some good things that government can do if efficiently run,” Murphy said.

“That is a real challenge for us going forward,” Murphy added. “How does our party communicate in an era where millions of voters don’t believe that government has a positive effect in their lives? I don’t have the answer to that question. I don’t.”

Progressive referendums win across the country even as Republicans beat Democrats in major races..

The House of Public Discourse would take issue, however, with that premise. The Republicans' victories in the 2014 mid-term elections are evidence of a right-wing ideological mandate for America. This past month's election outcome doesn't reflect public opinion or reflect the public sphere.

In fact, it was the results with strong evidence to back up the GOP's efforts to change the rules of government that gave ridiculous advantages to big business, with the advocacy of many conservative "special interests," throwing vast sums of money at politicians 'gone wild.' Sprinkle in a taste of voter suppression and you have the chemistry for a nightmare come true for Democrats. But while the left was getting a stomping in the election results, Progressive referendum issues won in all regions of the country. This storyline has been vastly unreported by the mainstream media. Some of these referendum issues represent significant victories for Progressive support in all areas of our nation. Impressive!

What should be encouraging for progressives is the place where these victories were won. 

Red and Purple states which indicate the citizens are not as conservative as Fox News might have one think. See Source

So, Where Do We Go From Here?

For starters, 'Dark Money' must go. The Constitutionality of Citizens United must be challenged whenever and wherever a court and Judge will listen. Our research found that 31% of money donated to political candidates and Causes where " under the table," secret money. What is being lost in this debate is that the business of influence peddling in our nations' capital is nothing new. There is a long history of corruption in political campaigning in America. One of the major push backs we often hear is the comment " makes no difference," " both parties are the same." No matter how simplistic, that comment may seem, it has some validity.

What Have Lobbyist Done To My Country?

The Citizens Untied case has given fresh "red-meat" to an already wolfish bunch. However, my research has found that surprising amounts of people do not know just what Lobbying is much less how it functions. On a personal level we all lobby for things.One of the first examples of how lobbying found its way into our public discourse revolves around President Grant. [See Source]

With modern day capitalism in vulture mode, it was the same mindsets back in President Grants' day that set the tone. They[Lobbyist] "bird-dog" President Grant learned his habits and the rest is history, though some dispute this version. Legend would have it that he[Grant] called them Lobbyists. . There is no doubt that President Grant was " spot-on," with this reference. Lobbyists "hang out " in the halls of the Congress and other venues as well.

Lobbyist Are Advocates.

Here are some facts. In the realm in which lobbyists roam, they see themselves as mediators. Lobbying by no means is a new endeavor. The term lobbyist was used in pre-America Europe. The term lobbyist has been very slippery to define. It was not until the Lobby and Disclosure Act of 1995 passed did any real oversight or definitions come into place. This Act was later amended and updated in 2007.
The purpose of this legal instrument was for the government to define lobbyists. This law is necessary because next to lawyers, lobbyists, and the Lobby Industry, have an atrocious image. The lobbyists will get paid from the groups or factions or maybe a Corporation or two. Their goal is to make friends with elected officials who could write favorable legislation for the groups' interest. We The People have been powerless to stop this activity. Moreover, controversial rulings by the Supreme Court have determined corporations as people. Is there even need for further example, for there are many? Over the years, we have seen scandal and a sense of poshness from lobbyists. These stories are legend and too numerous to name. Unfortunately, the operation of the Lobby industry has reached criminal proportions. In fact, one of the very few bipartisan views when polled in this country held by members of both Democrat and Republican parties, is their disdain for lobbyists.
What's dangerous is the Lobbyist is often the writer of the legislation to be presented by an elected official after enormous amounts of money have been spent. This factor is a perfect mix for the perfect political storm. And we have the aforementioned " distrust in government," to show proof thereof. The Corporate Lobby spends billions to ensure their preferred arrangements become U.S. law.

Should We Ban Lobbying? 

Here's where it gets crazy. For a practice so often associated with corruption, it may surprise many that it's a Constitutional right. Within the 1st Amendment, we are allowed to "petition the government for a redress of grievances."  Every large corporation in America has lobbyist pushing their agendas. The Pharmaceutical Lobby is an example. Private Insurance Corporations are heavily involved  in the practice. Big Oil and Gas are mainstays. Defense Contractors like Halliburton have been greasing palms in Washington for decades. Largely unabated There is profit in active lobbying. Don't fool yourself. The money these corporations recoup from actively written law in their favor is " biblical" in terms of greed.  However, the way jurisprudence is constructed around controlling lobbyist it lends itself to loopholes. 

Case In Point.

Politician turn Lobbyist 

    One of the major trends we see are politicians turning lobbyist after their days in Washington. Newt Gingrich  is not considered a lobbyist because of these loopholes. Gingrich has been getting paid to push private agendas forever. We see all too often [in writer's view], politicians who have received undisclosed amounts of money take position with said Lobby firm after their careers in Washington are over. Critics of lobbying fault the system as a reason for the corruption and abuse. The problem we here at House of Public Discourse identify is that current laws are ambiguous. We must recognize and put parameters on activity that can evolve from an honest campaign contribution into a bribe.
The Obama administration have taken steps to curtail this abuse.[See Source] One thing is for certain; the bills U.S. Senators are passing into law are not being written by the elected officials in many cases, but, by Lobbyists paid to push a particular agenda. Our research tells us that is one truth Lobbyists don't want John Q Public to know.

In closing, Citizens United has just thrown gas on an already blazing wildfire. The mere fact that elected officials recently voted down efforts to do away with Citizens United, against the interest of their own constituents provides prima facie evidence beyond any reasonable doubt for the answers to the question, Where Do Democrats Go From Here? 1. Repeal Citizen United!