Gary Swing For Congress From Colorado

Peace and Justice – those are the main themes of the congressional campaign of Gary Swing. When Swing speaks of peace, he means it. Swing supports the legal prohibition of war. He seeks the abolition of weapons of mass destruction – including the massive arsenal of nuclear weapons held by the United States. He advocates the removal of American soldiers from all foreign nations, and their reassignment to purely defensive positions within U.S. borders.

green party of arizona candidateSwing also advocates the radical political reorganization of the American political system. He suggests: “Eliminate presidential elections, which are meaningless shams, and decentralize political authority. Switch to a parliamentary system with a weak chief executive selected by Congress.”

Abolishing the Presidency is not enough for Swing. He also wants to close down the U.S. Senate, and “elect the U.S. House of Representatives by the proportional representation voting method used to elect Australia’s Senate. Voters could either cast a simple vote for their favorite party or rank individual candidates in their order of preference.”

Swing is campaigning to represent the first congressional district in Colorado. That district is currently represented by Democrat Diana DeGette.


on “Gary Swing For Congress From Colorado
4 Comments on “Gary Swing For Congress From Colorado
  1. Thanks for the plug, but you got the details mixed up from two parallel projects. To clear up the confusion:

    I will be on the February 28 Arizona Green Party Presidential Preference Election ballot. This is part of a “political reality competition” called Project White House, sponsored by the Tucson Weekly alternative newspaper. I am NOT running for Congress in Arizona. I live in Denver, Colorado.

    However, I will be seeking the Colorado Green Party’s nomination for the November, 2012 general election as a candidate for US Representative, District 1 (Denver and Arapahoe Counties). I ran for this office in 2010 as well.

    My platform for the two efforts in the same. I have a website at which applies to both projects.

  2. The convention that drafted the US Constitution didn’t intend to have popular elections for the president. The delegates at the Constitutional Convention voted three times — the first time unanimously — to establish a parliamentary system with the president being appointed by Congress. However, the delegates weren’t satisfied with that proposal, so a committee proposed the creation of the Electoral College instead. Each state legislature would appoint a number of electors equal to the state’s number of members in Congress. These electors would vote in an Electoral College to choose the President. Two days after the conference report came out, the delegates voted to establish the Electoral College, but the language they used stated that each state’s legislature would determine the method for selecting the state’s presidential electors. Within 12 years after the ratification of the US Constitution, the Electoral College changed from a system of legislative appointment to a system for the public election of a slate of presidential electors. Today, the US has the world’s most ridiculous system for choosing its chief executive, using the most expensive, most meaningless, and most cumbersome elections.

    The US Senate is surely one of the most ridiculous legislative bodies in the world. Each state has two US Senators, regardless of the state’s population. When the US Constitution was put into effect, the largest state had 11 times the population of the smallest state. By 2002, California had 68 times the population of Wyoming, but each held two US Senate seats. This was not a principled decision by the framers of the US Constitution. It was “garbage in, garbage out.” At the Constitional Convention, each state was given one vote, regardless of its population. Five and a half states voted for the creation of a Senate with equal representation for each state. Four and a half states voted against it. Three states abstained. Massachusetts split its vote evenly. The states that voted in favor of the Senate represented a minority of the US population. The smaller states would not agree to form a union without equal representation in the Senate; hence it was a coerced compromise.

    The US Senate has consistently created an artificial conservative bias in Congress, giving more power to sparsely populated, rural, conservative states that tended to support slavery. The slave states were even given extra power in the US House of Representatives because the Census included each slave as 3/5 of a human being for the purpose of allocating each state’s number of US Representative seats. So the Constitution not only preserved slavery, but added insult to injury by using the practice of slavery to give even more representation to the slaveowners. Between 1800 and 1860, the US Senate blocked Congressional votes against slavery eight times. Even after slavery was abolished, the US Senate blocked legislation to protect the human rights of African Americans for another century. In recent decades, the equal representation of small states in the US Senate has artificially inflated the conservative Republican representation in Congress and established the ability of a conservative minority to block judicial appointments.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *