Pages: 1

 

2006-11-07 11:37:15
HM1{N}
Member
+86|6902|East Coast via Los Angeles, CA
How about some ideas to change it?

My idea (brilliant that it is) is to send a message to all our congressional representatives.  The way we send the message is simple:

when it is time for you to vote, vote the newcomer in and get the incumbent out.  If our government doesn't want to follow the will of it's people, but rather follow it's own agenda, then it's time for a change.  Imagine the control the people of this country would have if our elected representatives truly believed they "represented" us instead of "dictating" to us.

Discuss.
2006-11-07 11:50:51
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6703|The Land of Scott Walker
Hmm, I like my incumbent in my district.  Voting him out would put in someone I disagree with, so no, bad idea.
2006-11-07 11:55:06
URE_DED
BF2s US Server Admin
+76|6877|inside the recesses of your...
This will sound simplistic, but there are just TOO many perks with serving an office.  You don't pay into Social Security - you get a private savings account.  Salaries for life (for certain offices).  Ability to VOTE yourself a raise.  And the constant pressure from lobbyists/special interest groups. 

I would love to see conflicts of interest eliminated and our officials only get INPUT from constituents ONLY or based on their own research.  I.E.: LISTEN to US and WORK to make government work better. 

How to make this happen?  No idea.
2006-11-07 12:20:41
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6703|The Land of Scott Walker

URE_DED wrote:

This will sound simplistic, but there are just TOO many perks with serving an office.  You don't pay into Social Security - you get a private savings account.  Salaries for life (for certain offices).  Ability to VOTE yourself a raise.  And the constant pressure from lobbyists/special interest groups. 

I would love to see conflicts of interest eliminated and our officials only get INPUT from constituents ONLY or based on their own research.  I.E.: LISTEN to US and WORK to make government work better. 

How to make this happen?  No idea.
Make politicians part-time like the days of the Founding Fathers.  No big huge salaries and entitlements like you listed above. But now our population is so large, they need all the time they can get to work on things.  But do they really use their time efficiently?  Most likely, no.
2006-11-07 13:51:19
jonsimon
Member
+224|6753

URE_DED wrote:

This will sound simplistic, but there are just TOO many perks with serving an office.  You don't pay into Social Security - you get a private savings account.  Salaries for life (for certain offices).  Ability to VOTE yourself a raise.  And the constant pressure from lobbyists/special interest groups. 

I would love to see conflicts of interest eliminated and our officials only get INPUT from constituents ONLY or based on their own research.  I.E.: LISTEN to US and WORK to make government work better. 

How to make this happen?  No idea.
I've juggled a few novel ideas for funsies related to political incentives. Like a salary based on the standard of living, or silly things like that. In all serious, though, the easiest way to clean up the government in one swoop is to eliminate special interest politics and corporate sponsorship.
2006-11-07 14:19:06
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6749|Northern California

URE_DED wrote:

This will sound simplistic, but there are just TOO many perks with serving an office.  You don't pay into Social Security - you get a private savings account.  Salaries for life (for certain offices).  Ability to VOTE yourself a raise.  And the constant pressure from lobbyists/special interest groups. 

I would love to see conflicts of interest eliminated and our officials only get INPUT from constituents ONLY or based on their own research.  I.E.: LISTEN to US and WORK to make government work better. 

How to make this happen?  No idea.
That and listing corporate influence to be considered a conflict of interest..punishable by law.


A "No confidence" vote option like other smarter countries have.


Require representatives to be in session casting votes according to constiuent popular demand..not off fund raising or hitting on congressional pages.  If you miss x amount of votes, you're fired immediately.  This congress has the worst attendence and smallest vote count of ANY congress in the 109 congress sessions that have happened.  All this during war in two nations, abandoning ALL domestic issues except unimportant ones (gay marriage, flag burning, favorite language, southern border wall, etc).
2006-11-07 14:29:04
[RDH]Warlord
Quakecon Attendee
+17|6916|SLC, Utah, USA
It might have nothing to do with the fact that some people are trying to discourage the usually avid voter (minorities) from voting this time around
2006-11-07 14:33:59
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7029|PNW

'Vote the incumbent out' is an extremely flawed 'stick it to the man' mindset. In many cases, an incumbent is more experienced and capable than his or her challenger, who more often than not runs a campaign based on what the incumbent does and doesn't do, while neglecting to offer any details about the alternative.

And casting your ballot based solely on the letters (L), (G) or (I) isn't going to change the country.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-11-07 14:34:12)

2006-11-07 14:40:53
URE_DED
BF2s US Server Admin
+76|6877|inside the recesses of your...

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

'Vote the incumbent out' is an extremely flawed 'stick it to the man' mindset. In many cases, an incumbent is more experienced and capable than his or her challenger, who more often than not runs a campaign based on what the incumbent does and doesn't do, while neglecting to offer any details about the alternative.
I agree.  My father in law feels that way.  And his nickname in the family is "jackhammerhead" so.....

Last edited by URE_DED (2006-11-07 14:44:50)

2006-11-07 18:18:05
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6663|North Carolina
Most of the changes needed in our system are things that the people in power would never support, because they are things that benefit the populace over them.

Here's some starters....

Abolish the electoral college.
Abolish the House's districting system -- change it to a system where an entire state votes for a list of candidates to represent the whole state.  That way, gerrymandering is no longer an issue.
Implement Instant Runoff Voting.

Of course, none of these will ever happen....
2006-11-08 00:44:46
Doperwt.
Anouk, Slayers little bitch
+80|6652|Belgium

The US isn't  gourven'd by his president and the senate, but by the multinational companies. So voting is useless because the next president is already voted
2006-11-08 00:46:41
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6838|the dank(super) side of Oregon

Stingray24 wrote:

Hmm, I like my incumbent in my district.  Voting him out would put in someone I disagree with, so no, bad idea.
hope you don't live in Indiana
2006-11-08 06:12:55
HM1{N}
Member
+86|6902|East Coast via Los Angeles, CA

URE_DED wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

'Vote the incumbent out' is an extremely flawed 'stick it to the man' mindset. In many cases, an incumbent is more experienced and capable than his or her challenger, who more often than not runs a campaign based on what the incumbent does and doesn't do, while neglecting to offer any details about the alternative.
I agree.  My father in law feels that way.  And his nickname in the family is "jackhammerhead" so.....
You miss the point.  There is no accountability in our government.  Once voted in, they stay forever and continue to stick it to those not in the top 2%.

The only way to get them to work for the people is to put people in that will go to work.  Making them fear losing their cushy job is the only leverage we have as a people.

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard