This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Oldest First
  • heisenberg Dec 11, 4:53 p.m.

    Institute term limits for all offices and do away with the ridiculous perks

  • weasel2 Dec 11, 1:03 p.m.

    So the Democrats want to redesign democracy. Guess they want to call oh something like arsitocracy, communism, fuedalism

  • NYtoNC81 Dec 11, 11:57 a.m.

    ConservativeVoter: Our ancestors had it right when they only allowed property owners to vote.

    This was to keep those who didn't pay taxes from voting to get entitlements and freebies from the government.

    Much what happened with Obama's coalition of welfare and entitlement receivers who've elected him twice.

    Me: This... is crazy talk. You seriously can't believe this can you? So, I, with two advanced degrees, a job closer to six figures than not, who has never taken a dime from the federal or state government should not be able to vote because I rent and don't own land?

    I don't even know what to say. Ignorance has won the day.

  • tayled Dec 11, 8:18 a.m.

    But where does freedom of speech under the first amendment end and where do the lies and outright fabrications that some of these PAC ads purport every election end? I think we need to take these ads and filter them through our, hopefully, more reasonable selves and ask ourselves what is really the truth behind them. No, we cannot stop them, but we need to be more savvy about what is in them.

  • Mom120 Dec 11, 8:15 a.m.

    OK redesigning it is a good way to start..
    1) get rid of the retirement benefits (spiffs) the lackey's get in DC.. make them pay into a 401K and be vested after 5 years like the rest of us.
    2) put them on Medicare like the rest of us

  • junkmail5 Dec 10, 6:33 p.m.

    Everyone keeps parroting "campaign reform!" and "overturn citizens united!" without explaining what they plan to do about that pesky first amendment...

    If I'm rich and want to speak about a candidate, including print ads, TV and radio airtime, internet ads and websites, and whatever else, you CAN NOT make that illegal.

    It defies one of the fundamental rights of Americans to speak freely on politics and government.

    The only thing citizens united really changes is that I can now pool my money with a bunch of other people who share the same ideas.

    That ALSO shouldn't be illegal under the first amendment (and is why Citizens United was decided the way it was).

    Until someone has an answer for that you're not getting anywhere.

    The real reason they passed citizens united was because Ron Paul was raising more cash LEGALLY than either party.
    radium

    No...he really wasn't.

    He had one amazingly good quarter in 2008 where he outraised all the republican candidates. Hillary raised more

  • rpd911 Dec 10, 6:14 p.m.

    We are a Representative Republic, not a democracy. The problem is our elected officials are too concerned with getting re-elected. It is time we get someone in office who represents the people who put them there, not an interest in a political career, but an interest in serving the public. Congress was never meant to be a career, it was a service. www.facebook.com/embler4senate

  • radium Dec 10, 4:40 p.m.

    This is just political smoke and mirrors, trying to put forth a false effort to make it seem they want to fix things when in fact they're the ones that broke it so it would benefit them and their pimps, the lobbyists. It is clear what has to be done, and they'll never do it, repeal Citizens United, take corporate money out of the elections, pass a law that for a TV station to get an FCC license they have to provide free air time to all candidates during elections, and institute term limits of eight years for ALL members of government. While the politicians have to act like prostitutes begging for money to get reelected or stay in office they can't represent we the people, it's a conflict of interest. Money and Democracy don't mix. They will fight Campaign Reform till the bitter end and the people revolt. Both sides are equally guilty, just look what they did to Ron Paul. The real reason they passed citizens united was because Ron Paul was raising more cash LEGALLY than either party.

  • suzanf Dec 10, 3:59 p.m.

    Very simply, we no longer have much of a democracy left. Whoever can raise the most money with "secret" super pacs wins. Campaign Reform now -- everyone gets to spend the same money for every race - or have the govt host small websites for the candidates AND THAT"S IT.

  • karbattle1 Dec 10, 3:45 p.m.

    Last I checked we are in a representative republic..

  • WageSlave Dec 10, 2:57 p.m.

    Just like communism, democracy doesn't work. It fails when people find out they can elect people who fund them with public money. It has happened over and over throughout history.
    veyor

    Spot on.

  • tgentry1005 Dec 10, 2:11 p.m.

    The absolute best thing that could be done to imporve democracy in the USA is to place term limits on all political jobs and limits to lobbing after a politician leaves office. Go home and get a real job like the real taxpayers.

  • Unbroken Dec 10, 1:38 p.m.

    "One thing would be good for America...that is to call a Liberal Progressive by their REAL name...Socialist and/or Communist depending on exactly HOW Radical they really are. Most of them hide behind the nice sounding Lib/Prog tag, which is their way of disguising what they really are about.
    seenbetterdaze"

    Sure, "we" could do that. By that same logic then, we could call those on the far right/ultra-conservatives by their REAL name then... Nazis. Yeah, it ain't pretty once you open up that box, is it?

  • veyor Dec 10, 1:15 p.m.

    Just like communism, democracy doesn't work. It fails when people find out they can elect people who fund them with public money. It has happened over and over throughout history.

  • rhess2 Dec 10, 1:14 p.m.

    After reading about the subject matter, speakers and content of the "Redesigning Democracy Summit" I couldn't help but wonder about the choices of some participants. Grover Norquist standing out as one of them. He represents a special interest group that expounds a philosophy of "our way or the highway". What is democratic about getting members of Congress 20 yrs. ago to sign a pledge in spite of what their constituents may or may not want? Norquist and his organization Americans for Tax Reform is as much responsible for the polarization in Washington as other participant groups are. The same for example could be said about MoveOn.org. They too are a special interest group. Those type groups generally don't want to compromise on issues. I contend democracy and participating in the process is all about that.

  • pbjbeach Dec 10, 1:11 p.m.

    FORMER GOVERNOR HUNT :
    I HATE TO BE THE ONE TO TELL YOU BUT WHEN IT ISN'T BROKE DONT MONKEY AROUND WITH IT AT ALL . THE WAY THATI SEE THINGS IN THIS STATE AN THIS COUNTRY IS IF THE REPBULCIAN PARTY AN POLITICANS IN GENERAL WOULD JUST RESTORE THE INDIVSUAL RIGHT AN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AN WORK PLACE RIGHT FORMERLT HELD WITHIN THE LAST PAST 10 -20 YEARS OR SO TO THE STATES INDIVSUAL CITIZEN TO THE POINT THAT REAL TRUE AN FAIR JUTICE CAN ONCE AGAIN BE ADMINSTRATED OUT OF THE STATES & FEDERAL JUDICAL SYSTEM BUT ONCE AGAIN THAT IN AN OF IT'S SELF WOULD FIX THE CURRENT EXISTING PROBLEMS . WITH OUT THE NEED OF ANY FORM OF MEETING TO BE HELD BY OUR SO CALLED POLITICANS IN THIS STATE BE THEY R'S OR D'S . JUST REINSTITUTE PEOPLES AN CITIZEN INDIVSUAL RIGHT IN THIS STATES AN A FAIR JUDICAL SYSTEM THAT WILL ALOOWED CITIZEN TRUE AN FAI AN HONEST JUSTICE IN THIS STATE WITHOUT THE INTERDICATION OF POLITICS IN TO THE JUDICAL PORCESS AT ALL JUST LET THE STATES AN FEDERAL JUDICAL COURT SYSTEM RETURN

  • Dnut Dec 10, 12:52 p.m.

    Actually it has been going down hill since 1850. But not for the reasons that a post stated here. Actually a little before that with Andrew Jackson and the Indian removal act, what a horror!

  • censorbait Dec 10, 12:40 p.m.

    The majority of the electorate is now so dumbed down and government dependent that they cannot understand or grasp the concepts of democracy and free market capitalism and they outnumber and now out vote those who do understand. America will not be a pretty place in 20 years. I hate it for our children and grandchildren.

  • junkmail5 Dec 10, 12:36 p.m.

    1) Reverse the stupid decision that 'corporations are people'

    2) Publicly fund all campaigns. Citizens United was a dumb decision, going the wrong way for democracy.
    babbleon

    Err... you kind of ignored the main point there.

    The reason citizens united was, legally, correct was that a corporation is just a group of individuals pooling money for a purpose.

    If you allow ONE person, especially who isn't running for anything, to spend his OWN money on a campaign ad (and you kind of have to with the first amendment) then it makes no sense you'd forbid 3 people from pooling their money to do so.

    in which case how can you forbid 100 from pooling funds to do it?

    And thus you get the Cit. united decision.

    But go back to my original question. I'm a billionare, will you ban me from personally spending my own money on campaign ads for my own campaign? How? (given freedom of speech).

    How bout same case, but I'm not running for anything, I just want to run ads with my own $ for one guy.

  • pappybigtuna1 Dec 10, 12:26 p.m.

    voter tampering - I think so. All my life, if you get 20 people together you can not get 20 people to agree completely on any one issue.

    In Philly, PA you have a town/city with 30,000 registered voters that all, repeat ALL voted for obama. Out of 30,000 people there had to be ONE who check, colored, scratch, punched the wrong box

    If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, there must be a smell of fish somewhere

    What about the city commissoner from detroit who said she and the city sold their votes for some bacon (by the way that is an admission of guilt, a 1st degree felony for selling your vote for some kind of gain) Federal Law

  • junkmail5 Dec 10, 12:20 p.m.

    Publicly financed campaigns (if you can get on the ballot, you get $X / Y minutes media) OR require full disclosure for all campaign and PAC funding; all donations to be fully disclosed at least a week before the campaign.- babbleon

    So you'd make it illegal for a candidate to spend their own money on their campaign?

    Further- you'd make it illegal for someone NOT running at all to buy TV time and run ads and whatnot that might support (or hurt) a candidate for office?

    The supreme court and the 1st amendment would like you to have a seat over there...

    and thus you see (one of the many) problems with "getting the money out of politics"

    Mind you, I agree with your general sentiment... but there's a lot more working against your specific plan than what the parties want.... there's pretty basic free speech issues.

  • wildpig777 Dec 10, 12:11 p.m.

    Hunt was one of the members of the board of directors of the now defunct nortel networks.......if that tells you anything..:(- sam

    well you do have to admit Hunt is one of the few democtrats at senior level that has not been indicted or convincted of felony crime.

  • wildpig777 Dec 10, 12:09 p.m.

    we have already begun to fix it - jim, the over whelming republican victory last month says after 120 yrs the citizens of nc are starting to wake up.......................

  • nighttrain2010 Dec 10, 12:03 p.m.

    >>Why is it that these people seem to permanently wear government-colored glasses, and see every aspect of life as something to be regulated and controlled? - htomc42

    Because if they don't control something, the general public would realize these people are really of no use.

    In the end it's nothing more than a charade, the same as the 17th Amendment. Allow the electorate to 'feel' they're in control while at the same time centralizing power and taking it out of the hands of those at the local and state level.

    >>"People are turning away from public life," said Hunt.

    I don't see this as a bad thing Jimmy. Matter of fact it may be the most ingenious way to get rid of the massive federal government. Ignore it. Ignore its edicts, ignore its claim over your life. Washington and Colorado have perhaps shown the way. Just nullify the legislation or flat out ignore it. THEN send the 535 most power hungry people to DC to pass legislation to their heart's content that no one will follow

  • venitapeyton Dec 10, 11:55 a.m.

    "My first step would be to drastically lower the monetary requirements simply to run for office...but we can surely get more representative government if the common man could actually run. There are plenty of average, decent folk out there, who could do a better job than the people we are presented with every four years."

    Thanks tayed. I'm sure we could run our own summit w/o national speakers, and be more inclusive of North Carolina folks.

  • jdag Dec 10, 11:51 a.m.

    At least on a local and state basis, it has become nearly impossible for everyday people to run for and hold elected office. They are full time jobs with part time pay. More emphasis needs to be placed on this.

  • dabink Dec 10, 11:45 a.m.

    NeilandBob, it had nothing to do with how long this made up dept has been in place. Enlighten yourself by learning to read more closely.

    "Hunt - Chairman of the Institute for Emerging Issues for NC State. Getting big bucks for a made up dept and has to occasionally show he's doing something. And where did the dollars come from to pay for this?"

    IEI has been around for a while. Enlighten yourself before you speak.

  • babbleon Dec 10, 11:43 a.m.

    And how do you restrict money in politics without first amendment issues? junkmail5

    1) Reverse the stupid decision that 'corporations are people'

    2) Publicly fund all campaigns. Citizens United was a dumb decision, going the wrong way for democracy.

  • Dnut Dec 10, 11:43 a.m.

    Question: Antonin Scalia, quote: “The Constitution that I interpret is not living, but dead.” Close quote. Explain that one.

    Scalia: Much of the harm that has been done in recent years by activitist Constitutional intepretation… is made possible by a theory which says that, unlike an ordinary law, which doesn’t change — it means what it meant when it was enacted, and will always mean that — unlike that, the Constitution changes from decade to decade, to comport with… quote “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society”.

  • babbleon Dec 10, 11:40 a.m.

    @ Start by eliminating the two party system and getting the money completely out of politics. jgilchr

    How exactly would that work? Fun

    Publicly financed campaigns (if you can get on the ballot, you get $X / Y minutes media) OR require full disclosure for all campaign and PAC funding; all donations to be fully disclosed at least a week before the campaign.

    Also - should make getting on the ballot easier.

    2) Preferential voting (Libertarian 1st, GOP 2nd) - will break the 2 party monopoly pretty fast

    3) Proportional representation: right now, if 49% vote GOP, 47% vote Dem, 4% vote Libertarian, then it all goes GOP. Proportional voting means you get some GOP, some Dem and even some Libertarian.

    None of these are likely without voters pushing it, because the existing parties do NOT want the competition. Each would probably require a constitutional amendment.

  • josephlawrence43 Dec 10, 11:40 a.m.

    the first thing we need is to get away from the "dependency" mind set of the current administration and a significant portion of our society. Self reliance and personal responsibiity need to replace this idea that government is responsible for taking care of me--so I don't have to do anything for myself, and that it is the responsibility of those who do work and produce to take care of those who won't.

  • baldchip Dec 10, 11:35 a.m.

    I understood Democracy went to he.. when Comrade Obama won 4 years ago.

    Jim, this is not the DemocRAT Party you knew. They have changed! The name should be changed to the AMERICAN SOCIALIST PARTY!!

  • Lucas Turner Dec 10, 11:32 a.m.

    This is about redesigning the North Carolina Democratic Party in North Carolina since they have been decimated at the polls the last two years. I suppose this is also at the taxpayers expense.

  • seenbetterdaze Dec 10, 11:25 a.m.

    The so called Liberal "progressives" do not like our Constitution which was written for the benefit of the We the People. People like Obama, Justice Ruth Ginsberg, and others have written and spoken about why they don't respect our Constitution. Yet there they sit! After taking their Oath of Office to uphold the very founding document that allowed us the great Nation we had for over 200 yrs. is now circling the drain of History because of their Ideology.

  • SmokeWagon Dec 10, 11:23 a.m.

    LOL...yea really....first of all ANYONE can run for office...provided of course that you have a gazillion dollars, backing of unions, bankers, lawyers, wall street investment firms and big business cash....and can sell a few entitlements to the dumb sheep, their dead relatives, ACORN, illegal aliens and a few Disney characters along the way......!!!! NO house can ever be built on only 2 pillars....3 is the minium....!!!

  • ccsmith1902 Dec 10, 11:15 a.m.

    "How exactly would that work? We darn near currently have a President that is a dictactor, very Mussolini like."
    Comments such as this is why citizens engagement will not work.

    Fun

  • htomc42 Dec 10, 11:11 a.m.

    Instead of getting people more involved with politics, how about just getting politics -out- of people's lives and everything it shouldn't be in to begin with? How about a -smaller- government? Why is it that these people seem to permanently wear government-colored glasses, and see every aspect of life as something to be regulated and controlled?

  • tayled Dec 10, 11:10 a.m.

    We need a system that encourages coalition governments which must cooperate and compromise with others to control our government after elections.- ConservativeVoter

    I think someone here may have hit the nail on the head when they said that we would have to reform American values. No one wants to compromise anymore. It's my way or the highway, and we all suffer because of it.

  • UpChuck Dec 10, 11:06 a.m.

    "Hunt - Chairman of the Institute for Emerging Issues for NC State. Getting big bucks for a made up dept and has to occasionally show he's doing something. And where did the dollars come from to pay for this?"

    IEI has been around for a while. Enlighten yourself before you speak.

  • samdutes Dec 10, 11:03 a.m.

    Hunt was one of the members of the board of directors of the now defunct nortel networks.......if that tells you anything..:(

  • Fun Dec 10, 11:00 a.m.

    @ Start by eliminating the two party system and getting the money completely out of politics. jgilchr

    How exactly would that work? We darn near currently have a President that is a dictactor, very Mussolini like.

  • junkmail5 Dec 10, 10:57 a.m.

    My first step would be to drastically lower the monetary requirements simply to run for office. We might not be able to stop the money spent on ads, but we can surely get more representative government if the common man could actually run.- tayled

    I don't think that's true though.

    If 10 guys can now "afford" to file to run, great.

    but if 9 of them have a budget of $5000 for travel, ads, staff, etc and the 10th guy has a budget of 5 million...the 10th guy is going to still win.

    Thus the problem.

    We need a system that encourages coalition governments which must cooperate and compromise with others to control our government after elections.- ConservativeVoter

    That'd require a gross overhaul of the fundamental system we've used for over 200 years.

    It might be worth looking at, but the big drawback in coalition governments is fringe groups can often become unreasonably powerful... they might have 10% of the votes, but since you need them to hold your govt together they have power

  • hjeck32544 Dec 10, 10:55 a.m.

    Get Moveon .Org out of the picture and Code Pink along with George Soros

  • jbyrd Dec 10, 10:55 a.m.

    Redesign democracy?

    The biggest problem we have today is that progessive socialists have already "REDESIGNED" our Republic into something more akin to communism than a Republic....

  • storchheim Dec 10, 10:54 a.m.

    Here's one. If an elected official does something like, IDK, dig up a bunch of trouble from way past, like say eugenics; sets up a taxpayer-funded committee; refuses to let the matter rest; and proposes the taxpayers pay for something they had no part it, she is removed from office and any monies left in her campaign fund that she plans to collect very shortly now, are confiscated to pay for said trouble. Overage goes into the general fund.

    Short version: pay for your votes yourself.

  • ConservativeVoter Dec 10, 10:53 a.m.

    Our ancestors had it right when they only allowed property owners to vote.

    This was to keep those who didn't pay taxes from voting to get entitlements and freebies from the government.

    Much what happened with Obama's coalition of welfare and entitlement receivers who've elected him twice.

  • ConservativeVoter Dec 10, 10:51 a.m.

    The problem with our Democracy is the winner take all mentality of the current process.

    This eliminates the effect that third party candidates have.

    We should change to a system similar to the UK where no one party can have complete control.

    We need a system that encourages coalition governments which must cooperate and compromise with others to control our government after elections.

  • tayled Dec 10, 10:48 a.m.

    My first step would be to drastically lower the monetary requirements simply to run for office. We might not be able to stop the money spent on ads, but we can surely get more representative government if the common man could actually run. There are plenty of average, decent folk out there, who could do a better job than the people we are presented with every four years.

  • junkmail5 Dec 10, 10:46 a.m.

    Start by eliminating the two party system and getting the money completely out of politics.
    jgilchr

    Again.. how?

    The very nature of first-past-the-post voting, as the US has used for its entire history, strongly encourages a 2-party system.

    And how do you restrict money in politics without first amendment issues?

  • jgilchr Dec 10, 10:39 a.m.

    Start by eliminating the two party system and getting the money completely out of politics.

Oldest First