What Would Happen?

If the Right to Nominate Amendment were passed tomorrow? For example, in Tennessee?

First, in accord with the Amendment, a non-partisan, independent Service Bureau would be appointed. This Bureau would exist only to serve a Tennessee nominating Body  (called the "Jury/Convention"). 

In following years, before each general election, this Service Bureau will send a one-page legal form to each registered voter, asking if that voter would like to name someone personally known to them as a prospective candidate for public office. Someone the voter knows and respects.

There would of course be no obligation to do so. But for those who did return the form, it would constitute a legal document. With many safeguards and with vetting to make sure that each name submitted was a genuine private citizen nomination (NOT the product of any organized effort or campaign; NOT activist-generated, etc.; ). 

The net result would be a pre-election list of the most respected persons in Tennessee, compiled by the PEOPLE of Tennessee.  

A "grass roots" list of those most highly thought of by their neighbors. A list of those whose neighbors wanted to send them to the legislature or into other government offices to help pass laws (legislative); or help enforce them (judicial, executive) .

However many names the list contained, it would form the 'raw material' for a Nominating body (a "Jury/Convention") to sift through. This body would function like a large Jury, formed, like all juries, by random selection from the voter rolls.

This Jury, with about 100-120 members operating by majority vote, would be charged with the duty (and privilege) of sifting through the list of names generated from the people at large to find the best candidates to fill specific offices up for election.

After narrowing the list down to a manageable number, the Jury would proceed to invite prospective "finalist" candidates to come and address them, and to discuss issues of government. These discussions would be televised; open to the public; and above all civil: honest and respectful.

Instead of arrogant media personalities intruding themselves and dominating the conversations to promote their own agenda, this interchange would consist of neighbors and peers having an honest conversation about things that matter to all; i.e., Civil Discourse.

The sick model of the current system--arrogant media personalities "grilling" evasive politicians--would be defeated over time in the public's opinion. This sick party model will eventually be replaced by genuine dialogue, IF that dialogue becomes available by passing the Right to Nominate Amendment. 

Civil Discourse is far superior, far more valuable to voters, than current displays of professional arrogance vs. evasion.

During this phase, all proceedings would be open to the public. The Nominating jury would at this point be functioning like a small Convention.

(These two historic institutions, the Jury and the Convention, combined together, can form the ideal vehicle for citizen Nomination of candidates for public office.)

After this time of public interviews, the Nominating Body (the Jury/Convention) would by majority vote select final candidates who would then appear on the ballot in the general election beside all other legally nominated candidates. 

Like all jury decisions, this would be a "judgement call". Which is exactly what all juries do. It is the 'job description' of a Jury. But this Jury's charge is to "find the best candidates for public office you can", in terms of honesty, character, fairness, ability, and good understanding; shown first by how the prospective candidates have lived their lives, won their reputations, and treated others; not by phony rhetoric.

The Jury's charge would be to serve the community, to the best of their ability, and to make available the best candidates they can find, like a large, dedicated Search Team.

When we consider the work done by juries made up of ordinary citizens, we find a level of earnest effort that few other government bodies can match. Juries are not perfect. But when free men and women take an oath to "do justice", for example, they have produced some of the highest levels of public service in history.

Juries in our country have been entrusted with the most difficult of decisions: life or death; guilt or innocence; damages awarded (or not). Juries are perhaps one of the greatest examples of how free men and women govern themselves, in a framework of law. 

Jury duty in cases of sordid crimes or lawsuits can be burdensome. But this jury service would be a delight for most of our citizens!

Nominating juries ("Jury/Conventions") working from a list provided by the people of the most honored citizens in a state, working under oath or affirmation for this specific service, will undoubtedly work hard to represent the people well. 

They can easily find excellent final candidates for public nomination, providing the rest of us with a choice, an alternative to party politicians. We can then either take that choice or choose someone else (a party politician), in the general election.

At last, a source of uncorrupted citizen candidates to give us voters a real choice! (As opposed to the deeply corrupt, closed party system, with its already-in-somebody's-pocket candidates.)

This is how the Framers designed it to be; that is, with the people's representatives governing; not the parties'!

The parties will still be free to do as they choose. They can choose to roll in garbage at their own conventions, and try to blow the smell from that onto voters. They can nominate whomever they wish.

The voters will, as always, make the final decisions; only now the voters will not be restricted to party politicians only. With the Right to Nominate, we can judge between party versus non-party candidates in every election, restoring American freedom. We can take back the sovereignty stolen from us long ago.

Freedom works. It is the gift oƒ God, and the intended state of man.

And freedom will work again, if we pass the Right to Nominate Ammendment!

Power to the 'Independents' !

Isn't it strange that the largest bloc of American voters, called "Independents", have almost no power?

This group is enormous, and getting larger all the time, as the parties sink lower and lower into dirty, slanderous campaigns; and hate-fueled divisions.

This group, the Independents, contains our most discerning and intelligent voters, who do NOT swallow every "party line", but prefer to think things through and reach their own conclusions. 

And yet this bloc of voters is compelled to wander in the wilderness, pushed and pulled by both sides, until finally being forced to choose the "lesser of two evils", as if that were real freedom!

No. That is not freedom. It is instead a party-organized, party-benefitting restriction of freedom!

"Hold your nose and pull the lever!" is the message of the party system to our independent voters, who are our best hope for rational, unprejudiced political decisions. "It's them or us! You got no other choices! So, just shut up and pull the lever!"

And the galling thing is, they're right. There are no other choices. (Unless you're into throwing your vote away on a 'write-in'). "No other choices" is how the parties, though not in the Constitution, nevertheless maintain perpetual control over American government and all its expenditures.

Even if your (reluctant) party choice is slightly better or "less evil" than another party choice, you have the sick knowledge that your vote is also enabling a corrupt network of clients, crooks and sycophants (in either party) to line up at the trough of public funds and power. 

So what is the answer for our most intelligent voters, the Independents? What should they do?

Form an "Independents' Party"!?! That would not only be contrary to their nature; but would wreck what makes them valuable.

No. Another party would only make things worse. Multi-party systems are like giant snake balls : MORE insider deals, MORE cronyism, more game-playing, and more hypocrisy--all the evils of the party system, multiplied.

The right answer is for America to entrust our Independent voters with more influence, with MUCH more power, through the Right to Nominate Amendment. This will give the people (especially Independents!) a Constitutional route to nominate well-vetted NON-party candidates for elective offices in every general election.

These respected non-party candidates can then be evaluated one by one, each on their own merits. NOT as a slate of "go along to get along", "dance with them that bring ya" party hacks and loyalists.

Perfect for Independents! And because the country will actually begin relying on independents to nominate better citizen candidates, then their influence will grow to match their huge numbers.

More power to the Independents!

The new 'Mad as hell!'

"Only when the people are set free to vote both parties out, instead of being forced to bounce back and forth between them like a pathetic, kitten-like, powerless captive audience, will the parties listen.

Only when the people can apply a newly restored power in their votes to say to the parties, "WE DON'T NEED YOU ANY MORE!!" Get your negative garbage ads off our screens!! Get your slander OUT OF OUR FACES!!" will the parties be forced to give up these vile practices.

The parties do it under the present system because it works. Only when it doesn't work any more will they stop." --RIGHT TO NOMINATE, PG. 193

The Right to Nominate Amendment, by bringing real competition to the parties in the form of community-nominated independent NON-party candidates in every election, will give us back our original, Constitutional form of government without infringing on anyone's rights, not even those of abusive, election-rigging party strategists.

Only then can we discipline all parties and all party politicians out of their vile campaign practices, and establish Civil Discourse as the context of our elections.

Question: Would you, the Reader, be willing to take a fresh look at a long-abandoned idea? An idea abandoned not for lack of merit, but abandoned in despair that it could ever be done? 

That idea is mentioned above: Civil Discourse.

In America.  As the basic foundation for our political culture and the context of our politics?

If You are normal, you probably despaired of this possibility long ago (but with regret). Well, get ready! The Right to Nominate amendment is aimed squarely at these results: 1.) Civil Discourse as the context of our elections; and 2.) breaking the chokehold of the "party system" as a form of government, a form which restricts our freedom (i.e., allows only PARTY members to be elected).

If you're inclined to carefully analyze our nation's problems, here is a bullet-point outline of the reasoning:

1     * Only power can check power.  

[ moral lectures, moaning, complaining and wringing hands may win sympathy, but nothing will change as a result. So, forget that. Politics is about applying power.]

2   * No American's rights or liberties may be taken away. Period.

[ any systemic change to our government that would do so would be a "cure worse than the disease".]

How do we then, as citizens, apply power in a way that will create and sustain Civil Discourse in our politics? Put another way, How do we force parties and party politicians to STOP their slanderous, lying, garbage-filled campaign tactics without violating any of their rights or liberties?

3     * Freedom is our chosen context for life as a nation.

4     * So the answer to our desire for Civil Discourse must come through increased freedom: the freedom to establish for ourselves another power base (other than political parties) which we can then tap into any time. Free competition is our answer. Real competition. 


[Americans must become aware of how the party system restricts our freedom. Being trapped between two bad choices is no longer an anomaly. It has become the norm. The party system represses competition into a "parties-only" format. (How convenient, for the parties!)

The Framers' Constitutional design was intended to let the people produce the candidates for office. When Thomas Jefferson at one point asked James Madison if he would be returning to Congress, Madison replied that it depended on the "spontaneous suffrage" of his countrymen in Virginia.

The people were intended to produce candidates; and were not supposed to have that high privilege of freedom taken away by self-serving committees of collusion within parties.

Do you think we are really free to vote for whomever we like? Sorry, but that is delusional. Over 98% of our "choices" are between party pols. One party politician, or another. So, if you like our politics as they are, just hold your nose, pull the lever, and tell yourself you're really free to vote for anyone you like.

But if you really care about living in freedom, consider this: If freedom is to be won back in America, we must restore our Constitutional form of government and rid ourselves, not of parties, but of the "parties-only" system, which is a self-perpetuating, closed system in control of our government.]

5     * In our republic, the "other power base" referred to above can only mean a source of candidates who are not from the parties.

6     * Which, in turn, can only be accomplished on a permanent basis by a Constitutional amendment, a mechanism fixed in law, providing us with the means to nominate independents-- NON-party candidates.

THEN, power can check power. The power of the people (and 'independents' in particular) can check the power of the parties.

Right now, nothing really checks them.


"THROW THE BUMS OUT !!" IS AN HONORABLE EXERCISE ESSENTIAL TO REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY                                                                

The problem is this: We, the people, have "thrown the bums out" over and over, countless times. And they just keep sneaking back in. (Either the same 'bums', or others just like them.) They come from a seemingly endless supply called "the party system". Under the rule of parties, things just keep getting worse. 

Some people have become so discouraged by this endless party merry-go-round, so disgusted, that they now think representative government itself "just doesn't work"--a catastrophically wrong, dangerous idea.

It's not representative government that doesn't work, it's the "parties-only" system! (Parties-only, in control of government.) We must change this form of government, which is not in the Constitution,  or we will lose our Republic.

How do we accomplish such monumental change? A fast-thinking lawyer friend, hearing the Right to Nominate concept for the first time, instantly got its implications: "We could get rid of all the politicians!!" he blurted.

Exactly. He got it


     We in the Right to Nominate movement say this: until we, the people, have the ability to get rid of politicians whenever we choose, and replace them with persons better to our liking, then we are not really in control of our government. We are not "sovereign", as the Framers designed us to be.

Only when we can vote in respected independent NON-party candidates (thus voting both parties out) in as many elections, and for as many offices as we choose, will we be able to enforce our moral will by absolutely requiring civility and fiscal accountability from candidates, among other things.

THEN, voter power will finally check party power. 

And we say this, with every ounce of energy we have:  We have suffered long enough! With a corrupt party system that doesn't allow getting rid of them! When one party politician gets voted out, who replaces them? Another party politician! So the parties, which are not in the Constitution, nevertheless have taken (and kept) perpetual control of our government.

They do so, first, by restricting access to the ballot to their own members (plus a few 'oddballs' who are no threat). By restricting access, they restrict American freedom. (And have been doing so for many years.) We Americans have the Right to nominate our own candidates.

For real competition to come to our political marketplace, we must be able to say to the dual monopoly of the parties:

"WE DON'T NEED YOU ANY MORE!! Get your garbage off our screens! and your slander OUT OF OUR FACES!!"

Longing for a Turnover

Recent polls show that an astounding 67% of American voters favor a 100% turnover of the members of Congress--a total replacement. Americans are angry and disillusioned about the dysfunction of this party-system government.

We totally agree. But like other Americans, we believe our vote is a profound  responsibility; so we also have to ask two questions:  1)  Do we want to throw out the good with the bad?

And  2)  What would it accomplish to throw out of office all party politicians, if they are simply replaced by more party politicians?

So we advocate getting rid of most party officeholders, but not all. About two-thirds of them should be turned out and sent home, permanently : the "go-along-to-get-along", "dance with them that brung ya" crowd who demean their office and do the legwork to make the corrupt party system what it is. 

Two out of three present office holders must be replaced by the people's representatives, nominated independently by the people, in order to restore control of government to the people.

There is a small minority of party officeholders who are decent and able, who belong in government; and we should keep them. IF they publicly and convincingly swear off putting party clients and special interests ahead of the people. But we must choose those few carefully, and weed out the rest.

And we say this:

Until American voters can get rid of wasteful, lying, slandering party office holders whenever we so choose, and replace them with our own representatives  [i.e., nominated by us, the people] and thus rid ourselves of party representatives pretending to be "the people's" representatives,  then we will not yet be the "sovereign and free people" we think we are..

From Your Old Boss

Boss Tweed, of Tammany Hall notoriety, said it:

"I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating."
(Quoted by Jason Riley, Wall Street Journal, 11/2/16)

Think of all the poor saps, and dupes (like us), who have wasted their effort and their sincerity, working to elect party-system candidates. What a mighty outpouring of time and effort, just to help things get worse and worse!


"In a republic, whoever controls nominations for elective offices controls the resulting government."

[such as in Iran, Cuba, China, the old Soviet bloc; Tammany Hall, and Chicago]   --from The Right To Nominate, pg 9

This axiom remains true in our two-party system. Less obvious perhaps, but still true. (Just ask Boss Tweed.) It reveals how political parties took away the American people's sovereignty.

                                                 The People As Objects

If the people's Right to Nominate is lost, usurped or stolen, then the people lose their sovereignty and become Objects of manipulation.                                                 

                                                   The People Subjected                                                    

If the people do not have the power or means to nominate their own candidates, then they will   remain Subject to the manipulations of those who do nominate candidates. 

--Right to Nominate, pp. 151-152 

                                                      The Solution

"The people of a republic must possess the power and the means, independent of the government and independent of all parties and interest groups, to seek out and nominate their own candidates for public office."  

"The people must have the power in their own hands to nominate candidates, regardless of whether political parties exist or do not exist. And †hey must have this power independent from parties, if parties do exist."       --ibid.

     Primary Elections Do Not Solve This Problem

"...everyone in a primary is either a party member or self-nominated...so virtually all nominees emerging from primaries will be what? Party candidates. So control of government stays in the hands of the parties and party leaders..."       --Ibid.

Your Old Boss's way of thinking is alive and well in your current Party Boss's mind.

* Additional recommended reading: Rude Republic, by Altschuler & Blumin. 2 Cornell scholars do real investigative history on 19th century party politics, giving us a far more accurate picture..

The Lost Sovereignty

The "sovereignty of the people" is the governmental concept the Framers of our Constitution based their design on.

Sovereignty is no airy concept: it is a blunt and unavoidable one, and simply means, Who is the Boss? Who has the right to govern, the right to be obeyed? 

Wars have been fought over the answer.

Under monarchy, the king or queen is sovereign.

Civil wars in Great Britain eventually resulted in a form called "constitutional monarchy", with power supposedly shared between the monarch and a parliament. But this is only an appearance. Real power to govern rests with parliament; sovereignty has been removed from the monarch. The monarchy is now merely symbolic, an emotional and cultural relic. 

Likewise in America, the 'sovereignty' of the people has been removed from them, and taken elsewhere. The people are no longer the Boss, as they once were.

Who is now the Boss?

The Framers' design has the people ruling (their word) through elected representatives. But suppose someone else were to get control of those representatives? Who would then really be in charge? The answer: whoever really controlled the representatives (i.e., not the people). 

The political parties and their leaders now control our representatives. Parties and party bosses now hold the sovereignty that was intended for us, the people.

Evidence for this is clear: things the people hate are easily imposed on them. Such as the shutdown of their government. And a monstrous, crushing national debt (an  abuse of the people's trust) piled up through ruinous borrowing that includes decades of "pork" and "earmarks".

The people are helpless to stop these things. That helplessness of the people in the face of what party politicians do reveals how serious is the dysfunction of the party system. It is not "government of the people", when the people hate what's done in government..

But the people are no longer the Boss.

The people's sovereignty has been taken from them, and they instinctively know it. Many may not know the concept, or know how to describe it, but they feel the consequence of their loss deeply. 

The effects of this loss have steadily increased; and now produce deep dissatisfaction and anger among many people. Their unease, their sense that "our country is headed the wrong way"; is an underlying reality that erupted in the 2016 election.

But one candidacy or election cycle will not fix the underlying problem.

This problem is terrible in its effect, changing us from a government "of the people" to a government "of the parties, their leaders and clients." And yet at its root, the problem is simple. It can be corrected.

The problem is historic: beginning in the late 1790's, political parties shoved aside the Constitutional design, (based on the sovereignty of the people), and took control of American government. That control, it turned out, meant sovereignty.

Since then, Americans have been taught that the party takeover of our government was inevitable.

It was not. The Framers completely opposed this possibility. Since then, party politicians have increasingly gone feral (like hogs in Texas) more and more sure that the people can't stop them.

In one sense, this history of party takeover could be viewed as a coup, a monumental crime. But the reality of it was far more tragic than criminal; it wasn't done with criminal intent. The tactics used in this birthing time of party DNA were abusive and wrong (featuring vicious slander & lies); and split America apart; but both camps claimed the highest grounds for using the lowest (and most immoral) means. Just like today.

    [see "Slander Wars" in The Right to Nominate, pg.96-101; and "The Desperate Nature of            the Struggle", pg. 93-95 ibid]

It happened because of human nature; the tendency to disagree; then to quarrel and fight. (And then put "the fight" above the common good.) Also, the human tendency to strive for more and more selfish advantage (and to use any means to get it). Plus the tendency to fight for self- vindication against opponents (those so foolish or wicked as to disagree); and to pursue ever-more total defeat of those opponents. And to finally count them as enemies. 

Party DNA, (conceived in our country in the 1790's) fiercely imagines that completely defeating and subjugating opponents, or destroying them, is the ultimate way to solve problems. Partisan DNA easily assumes that opponents are the CAUSE of problems; not simply fellow citizens with a different viewpoint. 

The outcome of such thinking is to hate or despise the other side; (with one historical result being civil war). 

The party system has fed on and encouraged the worst traits in human nature; and has ended up now on the verge of consuming itself; as well as taking us on a path that the Framers well knew could destroy our republic. 

The Constitution was brilliantly designed to check these traits. These traits are exactly why the Framers loathed political parties ("factions"), and tried their best to prevent them from taking over. Their reading of history told them that nearly all past republics spiraled down into writhing death agonies due to the effects of faction (i.e., parties).

The Framers gave every effort to limit the effects of parties and to stop them from faking over. They wrote into the Constitution anti-party clauses, and publicly described them as such. The Right to Nominate restores this lost history, and shows where these clauses are in the Constitution's text.

The Framers did so lest "..party divisions, the pestilential breath of faction [i.e., foul, diseased breath]..poison the fountains of justice".  [Federalist #81:6]                                                                                     

But no one on earth then had experience with elections in a large, free republic. So their brilliant design contained a loophole. And the parties used that to take over, anyway.

The people lost their sovereignty. The parties quietly took it from them, with no announcement or debate. 

The people will not be happy until they get it back; (i.e., until the original design of the Constitution is restored). The party system as it now operates, fundamentally contradicts the Constitution's design. 

The party system (parties-only in control of government) is not in the Constitution. It has to go.

But all is not lost. This terrible mistake, this wrong turn in history, can be corrected.

The Right to Nominate Amendment is perfectly designed to fit into the original Constitution, and to restore the Framers' design. It will do so without violating any citizen's rights, including party members. 

This Amendment will actually expand every citizen's rights; and give the people back the right to vote for whom they choose (and not be restricted to voting only for party members--an outrageous restriction of American liberty). It will give the people the tools they need to get their sovereignty back; to become the Boss again, as the Framers designed us to be.

Let's find out what our original, Constitutional form of government can do.  It hasn't had a chance to prove itself since the party system shoved it aside!


The Horrible Effects of Hubris

The hubris of entrenched power long ago set into the parties. Taken together, the parties have reason to think they are "locked in", producing a corporate attitude like General Motors had in the 1960's. Their long history of control over our government has at last overbalanced the sense of caution they once maintained because of ever-upcoming elections.

Control of the legislative branch may shift back and forth in elections. They do worry about that. But that has happened many times. They've learned it will not affect their tandem, seemingly permanent, control of the government. This is the real source of their hubris, especially in the leaderships.

The arrogance of this party hubris has shown itself recently in potentially catastrophic, irresponsible budgetary actions and in gridlock. In these crises the parties have shown little or no concern for competently serving the people or being accountable to them.

The people must come to understand that the one, essential condition for this hubris to become 'locked in' to the parties is this:

                              THEY HAVE NO REAL COMPETITION.

General Motors only turned around when Japanese automakers started squeezing the fat out of their heads, the fat of complacency that comes with hubris. By the time they finally 'got lean' and competitive they had lost an enormous chunk of their market share.

"Competition" from other American automakers didn't accomplish this result; they were far too similar to GM in their thinking. It took REAL COMPETITION.

This is what must happen to the parties. They will not, indeed CAN not change otherwise. 

Hubris produces ghastly, insane effects in every field of human endeavor; from movie-making to manufacturing to military strategy; but especially in governance. 

If "We the people" do not stand up and re-establish the Framers' design for our Constitution and bring REAL COMPETITION to all parties, for all time, by redeeming our Right to Nominate, we may lose our country; and lose it soon.

From the Book:

                                          Chapter 25:   SUMMING UP

Our examination of history has led to an unavoidable conclusion: The magnificent design of the Constitution, as brilliant as it was, could not work as the Framers intended because of one flaw: all the careful checks and balances it featured were embodied within the government.

But the parties based their pursuit of power outside the structure of government by organizing to win elections.

We've determined that Constitutional checks and balances are as necessary in elections as in the structure of government; or else organized parties will overwhelm those elections. They will take control of government away from the people, and thus take away the people's sovereignty.

Finally: we've found, through long, difficult experience, that the party system is ruinous; it does not work.

The goal of this book is to walk in the steps of the Framers, to "take men as we find them," and to carefully implement an added Constitutional structure which can handle men as we've found them over the course of more than two hundred years. 

This book promotes a system embodied in an Amendment that can handle party tendencies toward greed, aggression, and secretiveness--which will keep cropping up again and again, no matter what reforms may temporarily be in effect.

Our goal is to restore the original design of the American Constitution by bringing its brilliant checks and balances design into our election system, thereby restoring the people's sovereignty.

Our goal necessarily includes breaking the stranglehold of the "parties-only" [in control of government] system and restoring the original vision of the Framers for a "mixed" government in which the people have the upper hand over all parties through their own elected representatives. [I.e., ones nominated by the people and therefore not co-opted or replaced by party representatives pretending to be "the people's" representatives.] 

This was the Framers' intention and design.

We intend to restore the upper hand imbedded in the Framers' design by restoring to the people their lost Right to Nominate; (specifically, to nominate non-party candidates).

All to be done in the context of Liberty; so that the parties are free to do as they choose and nominate whom they will; but now the people are made free also to nominate candidates of their own choosing as well.

Then, in the general elections, let the whole people--the electorate--always make final choices between party and non-party candidates.

What Kind of Government is America?

Here's an article from Mic.com (April 2014) describing research by Gilens and Page to the effect  that America does not function as a democracy, and hasn't for quite some time. They base their claim on statistical evidence of the people's will versus which legislation actually gets enacted. From the article:

"... they've found that in fact, America is basically an oligarchy.
An oligarchy is a system where power is effectively wielded by a small number of individuals defined by their status called oligarchs. Members of the oligarchy are the rich, the well connected and the politically powerful, as well as particularly well placed individuals in institutions like banking and finance"  [or elite academia-ed.].
For their study, Gilens and Page compiled data from roughly 1,800 different policy initiatives in the years between 1981 and 2002. They then compared those policy changes with the expressed opinion of the United State public. Comparing the preferences of the average American at the 50th percentile of income to what those Americans at the 90th percentile preferred, as well as the opinions of major lobbying or business groups, the researchers found out that the government followed the directives set forth by the latter two much more often.
If true, it's beyond alarming. As Gilens and Page write, "the preferences of the average American appears to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." In other words, their statistics say your opinion literally does not matter."
[…] "Perhaps economic elites and interest group leaders enjoy greater policy expertise than the average citizen does," Gilens and Page write. "Perhaps they know better which policies will benefit everyone, and perhaps they seek the common good, rather than selfish ends, when deciding which policies to support.
"But we tend to doubt it."

Read the full article to see more of their research data, but their findings fully support ours. Tragically, we couldn't agree more. That's why The Right to Nominate was written — to restore power to the people rather than  leaving it with the parties, which serve mainly the connected, the wealthy, and (at the other extreme) vile-minded, abusive ideologues.. 

The Right to Nominate shows how the parties overturned the Framers' Constitutional design, and quietly took the sovereignty of the people away from them. This loss of sovereignty is the underlying reason the people are so unhappy, so disgusted with this corrupt form of government called the "party system"--which is not in the Constitution.

The Right to Nominate (pg. 166) provides an acid test that tells where sovereignty [i.e.,who is the real Boss] lies today. Sadly, it's not with the people. Sovereignty today lies with the parties and party leaders, who took it away from the people.

The acid test? Over 19 TRILLION dollars of debt, piled up over decades of "pork", "earmarks", and irresponsible borrowing. This huge and growing debt is something the people hate but have been helpless to stop. It now threatens to bankrupt our country. 

Does that sound like "government of the people,"? Or "..by the people?"

The Right to Nominate says, "Behind this enormous, abusive debt is a bigger, uglier monster which must be faced: the Helplessness of the people to stop this fiscal abuse coming from ruling parties and their leaders."

Abuse of the Treasury was a party phenomenon the Framers knew well had destroyed a number of past republics.


After you read the book, help get the proposed 28th Amendment passed. Help restore the original design of our Constitution, which put the People in a ruling position, not parties.

Welcome to Right to Nominate!


Welcome to the Right to Nominate website! This will be the home for all information concerning the book and (hopefully) the 28th Amendment to our Constitution. After a decade of research, we're excited to announce that The Right to Nominate book is ready for release! You can see a quick overview here, pick your copy up here, and then help pass the proposed 28th Amendment.

We'll update this site regularly with events, speaking engagements, posts, and some good explorations in history, constitutionalism, and the Founding Fathers.

It's time to restore the power of the people over the power of the parties. We think many people are  tired of 'so much complaining and protesting'--but then nothing happens.  (Over and over.)

The Right to Nominate is not a protest.

It is a clearly defined proposal, an Amendment perfectly constructed to fit into our Constitution's original design; indeed, it's intended to restore that design. This Amendment is meant to close the loophole which political parties exploited to take control of our government, thus taking the people's sovereignty away.

It is predicated on the reality that only power can check power; and that a change in our form of government can only rightly come about by amending our Constitution. 

To make this happen, there is much work ahead.


Joy Ahead for America!

Joy lies ahead for America, and profound satisfaction, when the Right to Nominate is added to the Constitution. Adding it to the Constitution will, of course, add it to the Bill of Rights.

The Right to Nominate is an inalienable human Right on which our life as a nation must increasingly come to rest. This Right has been unrecognized and unredeemed until now; but unless it is adopted and guaranteed, our great Republic will continue to spiral downward: held captive to the entrenched selfish interests infesting the party system.

Why joy?

Well, just imagine the consequences of this Amendment: 

It's 2024, and another election year rolls around.  Before the election, the state of Tennessee sends a one-page document to each voter, asking if that voter would like to suggest someone to be a candidate for Congress; someone they know, whom they've come to genuinely respect. 

There's no obligation to do so; but if the voter does want to name a potential candidate, they must sign and return this 1-page paper as a legal document, under oath that their suggestion of a candidate is theirs alone: no one, no group or "activist" of any kind, has solicited it. (Some questions on the back of the form must be answered to make sure of this.)

The voter briefly describes their experience with the person they're naming; and what it was about them that drew the voter's respect.

For many reasons, a majority of folks won't return the form. But they will think about it. It's a legal document, after all; and it asks for their direct input into representative government. Gradually, the mentality of the voters begins to change.

From the frustration, anger and disgust generated by the party system--which they know is rigged against them and controlled by party leaders and their clients--to a freshly dawning reality: "Hey!  under the new Amendment, this actually is becoming MY government!" 

"Government of the people" has returned! Instead of that being an empty slogan under the rule of parties, belied by complete party & clients control over government, "government of at the people" is now BACK in operation!"

Now skip ahead, to when the Nominating Body (the "Jury/Convention") is meeting. All proceedings are televised. The list of names sent in by voters has been well vetted, sifted down to a few dozen.

These "finalists", the most respected and well-liked citizens in Tennessee, are invited to sit down with the nominating Jury and engage in thoughtful discussion of the most important matters facing government.  

Joy comes as you listen to honest and heartfelt discussions among fellow citizens you respect (Civil Discourse). NOT to endless accusations, slanders, lies, and spin from party "perps". What freedom! This is how it always should have been!! 

More joy will come when you realize that if the party slander machine gets turned against your fellow-citizen nominee, your vote will boot party "perps" right back to where they came from, and will elect your fellow citizen. And will bring the parties face-to-face with a whole new reality: either change your slimy ways, or disappear from Tennessee and American government.

Freedom! from the corruption at the very core of the party system!

That freedom will bring great joy.