What are you asking?(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
what's that ? ?Kmarion wrote:
The point is we are going the opposite way.. now even our elected reps cant vote.Turquoise wrote:
Fuck a Congressional vote. We need a national referendum on this -- just like we need one on withdrawing from Iraq.
Referendums need to be done more often in this country.
Yes, and no. They more accurately represent the views of the people, but so many just let short term feelings dictate their choices, which may or may not be the best course of action.Turquoise wrote:
Fuck a Congressional vote. We need a national referendum on this -- just like we need one on withdrawing from Iraq.
Referendums need to be done more often in this country.
B.Schuss wrote:
As usual, party politics get in the way of democracy. It is sad to see the american people taken hostage by their own representatives like that.
The day political parties were introduced was really the day the downturn of democracy began.
Agent Smith wrote:
It was inevitable.
It happens everywhere. But this has gotten to the point of obscene. She is now telling her own party members that it's ok to back drilling to save their "political hides". That basically confirms that she is aware of what most Americans want but refuses to allow them to be heard. This is bad.. very bad. Hostage is right. I can't wait for the next election. Hopefully voters are paying attention to this crap.B.Schuss wrote:
As usual, party politics get in the way of democracy. It is sad to see the american people taken hostage by their own representatives like that.
The day political parties were introduced was really the day the downturn of democracy began.
Yea, but referendums defeat the purpose of electing representatives and the electoral college.Turquoise wrote:
Fuck a Congressional vote. We need a national referendum on this -- just like we need one on withdrawing from Iraq.
Referendums need to be done more often in this country.
Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2008-08-05 13:47:32)
It's also not very practical to have a referendum on every issue. Having people dedicated full time to studying the numerous issues has it's benefits. Shorter terms would help enforce accountability.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Yea, but referendums defeat the purpose of electing representatives and the electoral college.Turquoise wrote:
Fuck a Congressional vote. We need a national referendum on this -- just like we need one on withdrawing from Iraq.
Referendums need to be done more often in this country.
*edit: and back then the US would have voted to go to war with about anyone after 9-11.
Especially among senators.Kmarion wrote:
It's also not very practical to have a referendum on every issue. Having people dedicated full time to studying the numerous issues has it's benefits. Shorter terms would help enforce accountability.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Yea, but referendums defeat the purpose of electing representatives and the electoral college.Turquoise wrote:
Fuck a Congressional vote. We need a national referendum on this -- just like we need one on withdrawing from Iraq.
Referendums need to be done more often in this country.
*edit: and back then the US would have voted to go to war with about anyone after 9-11.
Last edited by Schittloaf (2008-08-05 16:58:56)
I agree, with only the small correction that the United States is properly deemed a Republic, not a democracy as the press and many politicians would have you believe. It is one of the greatest lies started by FDR.B.Schuss wrote:
As usual, party politics get in the way of democracy. It is sad to see the american people taken hostage by their own representatives like that.
The day political parties were introduced was really the day the downturn of democracy began.
Last edited by imortal (2008-08-05 17:01:32)
I totally disagree. First, our representatives spend more time taking bribes from lobbyists than studying anything.Kmarion wrote:
It's also not very practical to have a referendum on every issue. Having people dedicated full time to studying the numerous issues has it's benefits. Shorter terms would help enforce accountability.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Yea, but referendums defeat the purpose of electing representatives and the electoral college.Turquoise wrote:
Fuck a Congressional vote. We need a national referendum on this -- just like we need one on withdrawing from Iraq.
Referendums need to be done more often in this country.
*edit: and back then the US would have voted to go to war with about anyone after 9-11.
By more accomplished you must mean they have been taking bribes longer.Turquoise wrote:
I totally disagree. First, our representatives spend more time taking bribes from lobbyists than studying anything.Kmarion wrote:
It's also not very practical to have a referendum on every issue. Having people dedicated full time to studying the numerous issues has it's benefits. Shorter terms would help enforce accountability.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Yea, but referendums defeat the purpose of electing representatives and the electoral college.
*edit: and back then the US would have voted to go to war with about anyone after 9-11.
Second, shorter terms actually are why Senators accomplish more than Representatives. Representatives spend half of their time campaigning, since they are up for election every 2 years. Longer terms with term limits would be a better approach.
Imagine how much better things would be if you could only hold 2 terms as a Senator or Representative, and if Representatives had 4 year terms instead of 2. THAT would be a better system.
Senate terms are fine as they are. Representative terms are only long enough to stay out of campaigning for a year. My idea would work because it would lengthen Representative terms by 2 years and would ensure that the most time a candidate ever spent campaigning would be the year before they enter office and the year before their second election. The rest of the time would be freed up to get shit done (but yes, some bribery would still occur). Still, bribery is inevitable. Minimizing campaigning time and maximizing the variety of candidates should be the goal here -- at least that's what I favor.Kmarion wrote:
By more accomplished you must mean they have been taking bribes longer.Turquoise wrote:
I totally disagree. First, our representatives spend more time taking bribes from lobbyists than studying anything.Kmarion wrote:
It's also not very practical to have a referendum on every issue. Having people dedicated full time to studying the numerous issues has it's benefits. Shorter terms would help enforce accountability.
Second, shorter terms actually are why Senators accomplish more than Representatives. Representatives spend half of their time campaigning, since they are up for election every 2 years. Longer terms with term limits would be a better approach.
Imagine how much better things would be if you could only hold 2 terms as a Senator or Representative, and if Representatives had 4 year terms instead of 2. THAT would be a better system.
They campaign too long as it is. That's one of the reasons there is too much inaction. Here's an idea, base your campaign around your voting record. These guys makes promises for a couple of months and then spend decades doing the exact opposite. Longer terms? I think not. Although I think all those guys who you claim are being "bribed" sure would like your idea.
Your plan is too difficult to implement. My plan is a simple switch of term regulations. With term limits in place, a candidate only runs for re-election once. Then, someone new has to run. That prevents a lot of the raping.Kmarion wrote:
Voting is the way you hold a politician accountable. By reducing the voting frequency there is less accountability. It's really that simple. Your idea is like signing up to a ten year cell phone contract that progressively rapes your wallet more every year (haha you can't do anything about it). This does not work in my opinion. I also think there should be a better way of informing the voters of congressional voting history. (Maybe annual reports mailed to constituents without the spin) Instead of wasting time engaging in stupid attack ad's give us the cold hard facts. Take out all the political bullshit and you'll see there really isn't a need for long term campaigning.
Yes, but they can now run wild in the second term knowing they don't need to look good for re-election.Turquoise wrote:
Your plan is too difficult to implement. My plan is a simple switch of term regulations. With term limits in place, a candidate only runs for re-election once. Then, someone new has to run. That prevents a lot of the raping.Kmarion wrote:
Voting is the way you hold a politician accountable. By reducing the voting frequency there is less accountability. It's really that simple. Your idea is like signing up to a ten year cell phone contract that progressively rapes your wallet more every year (haha you can't do anything about it). This does not work in my opinion. I also think there should be a better way of informing the voters of congressional voting history. (Maybe annual reports mailed to constituents without the spin) Instead of wasting time engaging in stupid attack ad's give us the cold hard facts. Take out all the political bullshit and you'll see there really isn't a need for long term campaigning.
Second, the shorter the term, the more campaigning per time interval there is. That tends to lead to more lobbying than a longer term would encourage.
Bush hasn't done that. Most presidents actually tend to be more sober in their second term.nukchebi0 wrote:
Yes, but they can now run wild in the second term knowing they don't need to look good for re-election.Turquoise wrote:
Your plan is too difficult to implement. My plan is a simple switch of term regulations. With term limits in place, a candidate only runs for re-election once. Then, someone new has to run. That prevents a lot of the raping.Kmarion wrote:
Voting is the way you hold a politician accountable. By reducing the voting frequency there is less accountability. It's really that simple. Your idea is like signing up to a ten year cell phone contract that progressively rapes your wallet more every year (haha you can't do anything about it). This does not work in my opinion. I also think there should be a better way of informing the voters of congressional voting history. (Maybe annual reports mailed to constituents without the spin) Instead of wasting time engaging in stupid attack ad's give us the cold hard facts. Take out all the political bullshit and you'll see there really isn't a need for long term campaigning.
Second, the shorter the term, the more campaigning per time interval there is. That tends to lead to more lobbying than a longer term would encourage.
Never said it would be easy. It's rather obvious to most that we need a lot of work. I think you are still looking at my plan in terms of traditional campaigning. If anything the nefarious agendas of some lobbyist would be exposed more. As it stands right now politicians can pretend to support the people. All they need to do is wait a couple years to start shifting to their true agenda. With increased accountability this shift would be far more difficult to hide. Voters tend to operate on the principle of outa sight outa mind.Turquoise wrote:
Your plan is too difficult to implement. My plan is a simple switch of term regulations. With term limits in place, a candidate only runs for re-election once. Then, someone new has to run. That prevents a lot of the raping.Kmarion wrote:
Voting is the way you hold a politician accountable. By reducing the voting frequency there is less accountability. It's really that simple. Your idea is like signing up to a ten year cell phone contract that progressively rapes your wallet more every year (haha you can't do anything about it). This does not work in my opinion. I also think there should be a better way of informing the voters of congressional voting history. (Maybe annual reports mailed to constituents without the spin) Instead of wasting time engaging in stupid attack ad's give us the cold hard facts. Take out all the political bullshit and you'll see there really isn't a need for long term campaigning.
Second, the shorter the term, the more campaigning per time interval there is. That tends to lead to more lobbying than a longer term would encourage.
True, but if you make the term short enough, you get voter fatigue. This is why midterm elections have such low voter turnout. Everything gets geared up for the big presidential election every 4 years, but most midterms have really low turnout. 2006 was a rare exception, as was 1994.Kmarion wrote:
Never said it would be easy. It's rather obvious to most that we need a lot of work. I think you are still looking at my plan in terms of traditional campaigning. If anything the nefarious agendas of some lobbyist would be exposed more. As it stands right now politicians can pretend to support the people. All they need to do is wait a couple years to start shifting to their true agenda. With increased accountability this shift would be far more difficult to hide. Voters tend to operate on the principle of outa sight outa mind.Turquoise wrote:
Your plan is too difficult to implement. My plan is a simple switch of term regulations. With term limits in place, a candidate only runs for re-election once. Then, someone new has to run. That prevents a lot of the raping.Kmarion wrote:
Voting is the way you hold a politician accountable. By reducing the voting frequency there is less accountability. It's really that simple. Your idea is like signing up to a ten year cell phone contract that progressively rapes your wallet more every year (haha you can't do anything about it). This does not work in my opinion. I also think there should be a better way of informing the voters of congressional voting history. (Maybe annual reports mailed to constituents without the spin) Instead of wasting time engaging in stupid attack ad's give us the cold hard facts. Take out all the political bullshit and you'll see there really isn't a need for long term campaigning.
Second, the shorter the term, the more campaigning per time interval there is. That tends to lead to more lobbying than a longer term would encourage.
When a country is in crisis there is no such thing as voter fatigue. When people are wronged they usually can't wait to make their voice heard. If the turnout is low it usually means people are content. Either way there is nothing to lose.Turquoise wrote:
True, but if you make the term short enough, you get voter fatigue. This is why midterm elections have such low voter turnout. Everything gets geared up for the big presidential election every 4 years, but most midterms have really low turnout. 2006 was a rare exception, as was 1994.Kmarion wrote:
Never said it would be easy. It's rather obvious to most that we need a lot of work. I think you are still looking at my plan in terms of traditional campaigning. If anything the nefarious agendas of some lobbyist would be exposed more. As it stands right now politicians can pretend to support the people. All they need to do is wait a couple years to start shifting to their true agenda. With increased accountability this shift would be far more difficult to hide. Voters tend to operate on the principle of outa sight outa mind.Turquoise wrote:
Your plan is too difficult to implement. My plan is a simple switch of term regulations. With term limits in place, a candidate only runs for re-election once. Then, someone new has to run. That prevents a lot of the raping.
Second, the shorter the term, the more campaigning per time interval there is. That tends to lead to more lobbying than a longer term would encourage.
If you're gonna have an election every year, you might as well convert to direct democracy. People would be voting almost as much either way.Kmarion wrote:
When a country is in crisis there is no such thing as voter fatigue. When people are wronged they usually can't wait to make their voice heard. If the turnout is low it usually means people are content. Either way there is nothing to lose.Turquoise wrote:
True, but if you make the term short enough, you get voter fatigue. This is why midterm elections have such low voter turnout. Everything gets geared up for the big presidential election every 4 years, but most midterms have really low turnout. 2006 was a rare exception, as was 1994.Kmarion wrote:
Never said it would be easy. It's rather obvious to most that we need a lot of work. I think you are still looking at my plan in terms of traditional campaigning. If anything the nefarious agendas of some lobbyist would be exposed more. As it stands right now politicians can pretend to support the people. All they need to do is wait a couple years to start shifting to their true agenda. With increased accountability this shift would be far more difficult to hide. Voters tend to operate on the principle of outa sight outa mind.
No there is still quite a bit of difference between saying I like what this guy is doing and everyone voting on every single thing. I can appreciate a good boss without having to do every part of his job.Turquoise wrote:
If you're gonna have an election every year, you might as well convert to direct democracy. People would be voting almost as much either way.Kmarion wrote:
When a country is in crisis there is no such thing as voter fatigue. When people are wronged they usually can't wait to make their voice heard. If the turnout is low it usually means people are content. Either way there is nothing to lose.Turquoise wrote:
True, but if you make the term short enough, you get voter fatigue. This is why midterm elections have such low voter turnout. Everything gets geared up for the big presidential election every 4 years, but most midterms have really low turnout. 2006 was a rare exception, as was 1994.
True... but I'd rather actually do the voting myself.Kmarion wrote:
No there is still quite a bit of difference between saying I like what this guy is doing and everyone voting on every single thing. I can appreciate a good boss without having to do every part of his job.Turquoise wrote:
If you're gonna have an election every year, you might as well convert to direct democracy. People would be voting almost as much either way.Kmarion wrote:
When a country is in crisis there is no such thing as voter fatigue. When people are wronged they usually can't wait to make their voice heard. If the turnout is low it usually means people are content. Either way there is nothing to lose.
It's a good idea in theory. I just believe that if every single issue was left up to a direct vote by the people nothing would ever be accomplished. At least not at the national level.Turquoise wrote:
True... but I'd rather actually do the voting myself.Kmarion wrote:
No there is still quite a bit of difference between saying I like what this guy is doing and everyone voting on every single thing. I can appreciate a good boss without having to do every part of his job.Turquoise wrote:
If you're gonna have an election every year, you might as well convert to direct democracy. People would be voting almost as much either way.