If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Des Moines Register)   Debate over bill that would potentially eliminate party-line ballot is split along party lines   (desmoinesregister.com) divider line 36
    More: Ironic, divided government, Theodore B. Olson, Linda Upmeyer, House Majority Leader, senate democrats  
•       •       •

1082 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Feb 2013 at 2:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



36 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-26 01:20:57 PM  
No shiat, Sherlock

However that may be, this is still gonna boil down into a left-right flame war on Fark talking about who is right and wrong and claiming that their side can do no wrong.

There, I spoiled the thread for you. You no longer need to keep up with this thread.
 
2013-02-26 01:46:38 PM  
Not to sound all paranoid, but our system is manifestly broken at the moment. Polarized hyper-partisan politics, too much money in the electoral process, excessive gerrymandering, Congresscritters overstaying their welcome, ideological SCOTUS justices hanging on to bitter old age in hopes of a President they agree with being elected, an addiction to deficit spending, and just a lack of common sense are crippling our government. The only way to fix these problems is via a few Constitutional amendments, IMHO.

I would argue that we need to pass 5 Amendments, each slightly revising our political structure:

* Congressional term limits. I propose 9 2-year terms for the House, 3 6-year terms for the Senate, for a total of 18 years each.

* SCOTUS term limits. I propose 2 automatic terms of 9 years each, staggered so that a new justice is appointed every 2 years, and each President appoints at least 2 justices.

* a campaign finance reform amendment. I propose a maximum of $1 million for House & Senate races, $50 million for the Presidency (the same as Congress, x 50 for each state), each automatically adjusted for inflation, exact amounts to be calculated by an independent body by Jan 15 of each election year.

* a national election standard, controlling the way balloting is performed and electoral votes are counted, and establishing independent districting boards for each state, all answerable to a national board and a specific recourse via the courts. Also, common standards for how candidates get on the ballot.

* the Buffet Amendment: any time national debt exceeds 20% of GDP in peacetime (war must be formally declared by Congress), no member of Congress is eligible for re-election. When debt exceeds that, any borrowing bill must contain within it a mechanism for repayment.
 
2013-02-26 02:12:19 PM  
It is an efficient option for partisan voters.  No reason to ban it.
 
2013-02-26 02:14:30 PM  
I have yet to find a reason to bother with anything but the party ballot.
 
2013-02-26 02:16:26 PM  

whistleridge: * Congressional term limits. I propose 9 2-year terms for the House, 3 6-year terms for the Senate, for a total of 18 years each.


I say make it 20, and no retirement unless you serve those 20 years honorably. Works for the military, should be good enough for their cushy-ass profession.
 
2013-02-26 02:17:22 PM  

Citrate1007: It is an efficient option for partisan voters.  No reason to ban it


Perhaps in an attempt to discourage the recent(ish) trend of blindly partisan voting?
 
2013-02-26 02:18:32 PM  
Also, eliminate party designations next to candidate names on ballots.
 
2013-02-26 02:18:55 PM  
Some people vote for a particular political philosophy rather than the individual candidates?

These monsters need to be stopped!
 
2013-02-26 02:21:14 PM  

whistleridge: Not to sound all paranoid, but our system is manifestly broken at the moment. Polarized hyper-partisan politics, too much money in the electoral process, excessive gerrymandering, Congresscritters overstaying their welcome, ideological SCOTUS justices hanging on to bitter old age in hopes of a President they agree with being elected, an addiction to deficit spending, and just a lack of common sense are crippling our government. The only way to fix these problems is via a few Constitutional amendments, IMHO.

I would argue that we need to pass 5 Amendments, each slightly revising our political structure:

* Congressional term limits. I propose 9 2-year terms for the House, 3 6-year terms for the Senate, for a total of 18 years each.

* SCOTUS term limits. I propose 2 automatic terms of 9 years each, staggered so that a new justice is appointed every 2 years, and each President appoints at least 2 justices.

* a campaign finance reform amendment. I propose a maximum of $1 million for House & Senate races, $50 million for the Presidency (the same as Congress, x 50 for each state), each automatically adjusted for inflation, exact amounts to be calculated by an independent body by Jan 15 of each election year.

* a national election standard, controlling the way balloting is performed and electoral votes are counted, and establishing independent districting boards for each state, all answerable to a national board and a specific recourse via the courts. Also, common standards for how candidates get on the ballot.

* the Buffet Amendment: any time national debt exceeds 20% of GDP in peacetime (war must be formally declared by Congress), no member of Congress is eligible for re-election. When debt exceeds that, any borrowing bill must contain within it a mechanism for repayment.


I disagree with the SCOTUS term limits, but the others seem pretty good to me. The reason SCOTUS gets tenure like that is to make them more impervious to lobbying for interpretations, plus it allows them to interpret the laws in the way they think they need to be, which can and often goes against the public opinion at that time.

Although, I don't like the Buffet Amendment. I can't explain why, just something about it doesn't sit right with me.
 
2013-02-26 02:21:18 PM  

whistleridge: * Congressional term limits. I propose 9 2-year terms for the House, 3 6-year terms for the Senate, for a total of 18 years each.


Horrible idea. This does absolutely nothing except ensure that the few members who actually bother to learn anything get booted regularly. In the end the only people who know enough about the legislative process to get anything done are the lobbyists.

whistleridge: * SCOTUS term limits. I propose 2 automatic terms of 9 years each, staggered so that a new justice is appointed every 2 years, and each President appoints at least 2 justices.


Horrible idea. Nobody likes the idea of Clarence Thomas being a justice through the 2020s, but this would either subject each justice to a "re-election" every 9 years, which is a farking awful way to run a judiciary branch, or you would limit each justice to one "term", which ensures that justices are booted once they actually know what they're doing. Plus no one wants a Supreme Court fight in the Senate every two years.

whistleridge: * a campaign finance reform amendment. I propose a maximum of $1 million for House & Senate races, $50 million for the Presidency (the same as Congress, x 50 for each state), each automatically adjusted for inflation, exact amounts to be calculated by an independent body by Jan 15 of each election year.


Not a bad idea, but you should probably go further and have publicly-financed elections. Campaign finance reform is essential to the health of a democracy, and will never happen in this country.

whistleridge: * a national election standard, controlling the way balloting is performed and electoral votes are counted, and establishing independent districting boards for each state, all answerable to a national board and a specific recourse via the courts. Also, common standards for how candidates get on the ballot.


Good idea.

whistleridge: * the Buffet Amendment: any time national debt exceeds 20% of GDP in peacetime (war must be formally declared by Congress), no member of Congress is eligible for re-election. When debt exceeds that, any borrowing bill must contain within it a mechanism for repayment.


This is completely nonsensical. Twenty percent is a completely arbitrary threshold, war isn't the only condition in which deficit spending is necessary, and government would experience massive turnover during times of crisis.
 
2013-02-26 02:22:54 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Some people vote for a particular political philosophy rather than the individual candidates?

These monsters need to be stopped!


We are independent. Split your ballot and surrender your votes. We will add your political flippancy to our own. Your politics will adapt to service nothing. Resistance is futile
 
2013-02-26 02:26:48 PM  

whistleridge: Not to sound all paranoid, but our system is manifestly broken at the moment. Polarized hyper-partisan politics, too much money in the electoral process, excessive gerrymandering, Congresscritters overstaying their welcome, ideological SCOTUS justices hanging on to bitter old age in hopes of a President they agree with being elected, an addiction to deficit spending, and just a lack of common sense are crippling our government. The only way to fix these problems is via a few Constitutional amendments, IMHO.

I would argue that we need to pass 5 Amendments, each slightly revising our political structure:

* Congressional term limits. I propose 9 2-year terms for the House, 3 6-year terms for the Senate, for a total of 18 years each.

* SCOTUS term limits. I propose 2 automatic terms of 9 years each, staggered so that a new justice is appointed every 2 years, and each President appoints at least 2 justices.

* a campaign finance reform amendment. I propose a maximum of $1 million for House & Senate races, $50 million for the Presidency (the same as Congress, x 50 for each state), each automatically adjusted for inflation, exact amounts to be calculated by an independent body by Jan 15 of each election year.

* a national election standard, controlling the way balloting is performed and electoral votes are counted, and establishing independent districting boards for each state, all answerable to a national board and a specific recourse via the courts. Also, common standards for how candidates get on the ballot.

* the Buffet Amendment: any time national debt exceeds 20% of GDP in peacetime (war must be formally declared by Congress), no member of Congress is eligible for re-election. When debt exceeds that, any borrowing bill must contain within it a mechanism for repayment.



I'm more than ok with this
 
2013-02-26 02:30:56 PM  

JolobinSmokin: whistleridge: Not to sound all paranoid, but our system is manifestly broken at the moment. Polarized hyper-partisan politics, too much money in the electoral process, excessive gerrymandering, Congresscritters overstaying their welcome, ideological SCOTUS justices hanging on to bitter old age in hopes of a President they agree with being elected, an addiction to deficit spending, and just a lack of common sense are crippling our government. The only way to fix these problems is via a few Constitutional amendments, IMHO.

I would argue that we need to pass 5 Amendments, each slightly revising our political structure:

* Congressional term limits. I propose 9 2-year terms for the House, 3 6-year terms for the Senate, for a total of 18 years each.

* SCOTUS term limits. I propose 2 automatic terms of 9 years each, staggered so that a new justice is appointed every 2 years, and each President appoints at least 2 justices.

* a campaign finance reform amendment. I propose a maximum of $1 million for House & Senate races, $50 million for the Presidency (the same as Congress, x 50 for each state), each automatically adjusted for inflation, exact amounts to be calculated by an independent body by Jan 15 of each election year.

* a national election standard, controlling the way balloting is performed and electoral votes are counted, and establishing independent districting boards for each state, all answerable to a national board and a specific recourse via the courts. Also, common standards for how candidates get on the ballot.

* the Buffet Amendment: any time national debt exceeds 20% of GDP in peacetime (war must be formally declared by Congress), no member of Congress is eligible for re-election. When debt exceeds that, any borrowing bill must contain within it a mechanism for repayment.


I'm more than ok with this


Now if only there were some way to vote out all the current people in power...oh yeah...
 
2013-02-26 02:37:20 PM  

jigger: Also, eliminate party designations next to candidate names on ballots.


I think Republicans have proposed this in some states. And after looking at the approval rating of their party, I'm not surprised.
 
2013-02-26 02:38:06 PM  

bdub77: JolobinSmokin: whistleridge: Not to sound all paranoid, but our system is manifestly broken at the moment. Polarized hyper-partisan politics, too much money in the electoral process, excessive gerrymandering, Congresscritters overstaying their welcome, ideological SCOTUS justices hanging on to bitter old age in hopes of a President they agree with being elected, an addiction to deficit spending, and just a lack of common sense are crippling our government. The only way to fix these problems is via a few Constitutional amendments, IMHO.

I would argue that we need to pass 5 Amendments, each slightly revising our political structure:

* Congressional term limits. I propose 9 2-year terms for the House, 3 6-year terms for the Senate, for a total of 18 years each.

* SCOTUS term limits. I propose 2 automatic terms of 9 years each, staggered so that a new justice is appointed every 2 years, and each President appoints at least 2 justices.

* a campaign finance reform amendment. I propose a maximum of $1 million for House & Senate races, $50 million for the Presidency (the same as Congress, x 50 for each state), each automatically adjusted for inflation, exact amounts to be calculated by an independent body by Jan 15 of each election year.

* a national election standard, controlling the way balloting is performed and electoral votes are counted, and establishing independent districting boards for each state, all answerable to a national board and a specific recourse via the courts. Also, common standards for how candidates get on the ballot.

* the Buffet Amendment: any time national debt exceeds 20% of GDP in peacetime (war must be formally declared by Congress), no member of Congress is eligible for re-election. When debt exceeds that, any borrowing bill must contain within it a mechanism for repayment.


I'm more than ok with this

Now if only there were some way to vote out all the current people in power...oh yeah...


It's acorn isn't it?

DAMN YOU FARTBAMA AND ACORN!!!
 
2013-02-26 02:40:38 PM  

efgeise: * Congressional term limits. I propose 9 2-year terms for the House, 3 6-year terms for the Senate, for a total of 18 years each.


If people don't like their Congresscritters, they can vote them out.

efgeise: * SCOTUS term limits. I propose 2 automatic terms of 9 years each, staggered so that a new justice is appointed every 2 years, and each President appoints at least 2 justices.


I actually don't mind this idea if you change it to one term of, I don't know, 16 years. Something like that. I'm not a big fan of the strategic retirement game. It has to be one term, though. I do not want judges jockeying to be appointed a second time.
 
2013-02-26 02:41:15 PM  
Better idea - lets omit references to political parties entirely on ballots.

No more choosing between Dick (R), Jane (D), and Bob (I) - just & only their names.
 
2013-02-26 02:43:14 PM  

thurstonxhowell: I actually don't mind this idea if you change it to one term of, I don't know, 16 years. Something like that. I'm not a big fan of the strategic retirement game. It has to be one term, though. I do not want judges jockeying to be appointed a second time.


Yeah, they should not be beholden to the interests of anyone, even the president, while they're actually on the job. I don't mind a limit, but there shouldn't be a re-appointment option.
 
2013-02-26 02:45:17 PM  

Cagey B: whistleridge: * Congressional term limits. I propose 9 2-year terms for the House, 3 6-year terms for the Senate, for a total of 18 years each.

Horrible idea. This does absolutely nothing except ensure that the few members who actually bother to learn anything get booted regularly. In the end the only people who know enough about the legislative process to get anything done are the lobbyists.


And that is different from today how? At least Congressional limits prevent the Strom Thurmonds and Robert Byrds and Nancy Pelosis and Ron Pauls of the world from crapping all over us for years, not on their records, but on name recognition alone.

whistleridge: * SCOTUS term limits. I propose 2 automatic terms of 9 years each, staggered so that a new justice is appointed every 2 years, and each President appoints at least 2 justices.

Horrible idea. Nobody likes the idea of Clarence Thomas being a justice through the 2020s, but this would either subject each justice to a "re-election" every 9 years, which is a farking awful way to run a judiciary branch, or you would limit each justice to one "term", which ensures that justices are booted once they actually know what they're doing. Plus no one wants a Supreme Court fight in the Senate every two years.


There's no re-election involved. Just a chance for Congress to re-examine them and their record. Put in a stringent set of conditions for removal, and count on 99% of Justices who don't die to serve the full 18.

As for the fight...that's the farking point. This should be routine, NOT a fight. That it IS a fight is part of the problem. If you look at the history of court nominations, they usually pass without major battles, certainly in the modern era.

Between 1894 and 1987, 5 nominees failed to make it to the court. Since 1987, 3 have. The more routine a nomination process is, the less of a fight it becomes. If you're worried about that, include a time clause: Congress has 3 months to approve or reject a nominee or the President's choice is automatically appointed for 9 years; if the President has more then 3 consecutive nominees appointed, the nomination is turned over to the Speaker of the House. Or something similar. The point is...get things moving again

whistleridge: * a campaign finance reform amendment. I propose a maximum of $1 million for House & Senate races, $50 million for the Presidency (the same as Congress, x 50 for each state), each automatically adjusted for inflation, exact amounts to be calculated by an independent body by Jan 15 of each election year.

Not a bad idea, but you should probably go further and have publicly-financed elections. Campaign finance reform is essential to the health of a democracy, and will never happen in this country.


Agreed on the public financing. Never happen...maybe not, but the day you give up hope on the idea of effectively reforming your system in a democracy, you may as well give up and elect a king. So I hold out hope.

whistleridge: * a national election standard, controlling the way balloting is performed and electoral votes are counted, and establishing independent districting boards for each state, all answerable to a national board and a specific recourse via the courts. Also, common standards for how candidates get on the ballot.

Good idea.

whistleridge: * the Buffet Amendment: any time national debt exceeds 20% of GDP in peacetime (war must be formally declared by Congres ...

This is completely nonsensical. Twenty percent is a completely arbitrary threshold, war isn't the only condition in which deficit spending is necessary, and government would experience massive turnover during times of crisis.


The number IS arbitrary. Set it at 50%. 80%. 100%. Whatever you set it at, make it Constitutitonal, instead of a continually moving target that is subject to over-hyped Congressional battles every few months or years.

You say 'massive government turnover' like it's a bad thing. Our Congress has a 13% approval rating. Our finances are a hot mess. The partisan divide is as wide or wider than it has ever been. And there's no relief in sight. Congress also has 90%+ incumbency rate. I think those two things may be strongly related.
 
2013-02-26 02:45:26 PM  

efgeise: * the Buffet Amendment: any time national debt exceeds 20% of GDP in peacetime (war must be formally declared by Congress), no member of Congress is eligible for re-election. When debt exceeds that, any borrowing bill must contain within it a mechanism for repayment.

I disagree with the SCOTUS term limits, but the others seem pretty good to me. The reason SCOTUS gets tenure like that is to make them more impervious to lobbying for interpretations, plus it allows them to interpret the laws in the way they think they need to be, which can and often goes against the public opinion at that time.

Although, I don't like the Buffet Amendment. I can't explain why, just something about it doesn't sit right with me.


Maybe the fact that it would be almost completely useless?  We've been at war for the last 11 years - almost the entire time since we last balanced a budget.
 
2013-02-26 02:46:05 PM  

incendi: Citrate1007: It is an efficient option for partisan voters.  No reason to ban it

Perhaps in an attempt to discourage the recent(ish) trend of blindly partisan voting?


Maybe if the GOP would stop running clowns and lunatics like Bachmann for candidates, "blind partisanship" will go down.
 
2013-02-26 02:49:02 PM  

jigger: Also, eliminate party designations next to candidate names on ballots.


t2.gstatic.com

I like the cut of your jib.
 
2013-02-26 02:52:36 PM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Maybe if the GOP would stop running clowns and lunatics like Bachmann for candidates, "blind partisanship" will go down.


A lot of those clowns and lunatics only have a chance because the politically active somewhat extremist super-minority get them through the primary process, then voters walk into the booth, think "Hey, I'm a Republican, straight ticket is so easy!" and then BAM! You've got a school board full of creationists, the county coroner can't tell a dead body from a live one, half the city council believes taxation is literally theft (but still collect their paycheck), and your congressman truly, in his heart of hearts, believes that he's been sent to Washington by his constituents to make sure that the government doesn't do a goddamn thing.
 
2013-02-26 02:52:57 PM  

Karac: efgeise: * the Buffet Amendment: any time national debt exceeds 20% of GDP in peacetime (war must be formally declared by Congress), no member of Congress is eligible for re-election. When debt exceeds that, any borrowing bill must contain within it a mechanism for repayment.

I disagree with the SCOTUS term limits, but the others seem pretty good to me. The reason SCOTUS gets tenure like that is to make them more impervious to lobbying for interpretations, plus it allows them to interpret the laws in the way they think they need to be, which can and often goes against the public opinion at that time.

Although, I don't like the Buffet Amendment. I can't explain why, just something about it doesn't sit right with me.

Maybe the fact that it would be almost completely useless?  We've been at war for the last 11 years - almost the entire time since we last balanced a budget.


Actually, we haven't. War is a specific legal state, which our Congress has never declared. We have only fought 5 declared wars in our nation's history: the War of 1812, the Mexican war, the Spanish American War, WWI, and WWII.

In the absence of that formal declaration, this amendment would have had absolute force during the past 11 years.
 
2013-02-26 03:01:24 PM  
I think we should eliminate elective office and draft people to serve by  drawing names at random.
 
2013-02-26 03:06:17 PM  

whistleridge: And that is different from today how? At least Congressional limits prevent the Strom Thurmonds and Robert Byrds and Nancy Pelosis and Ron Pauls of the world from crapping all over us for years, not on their records, but on name recognition alone.


You're right. Recently-elected members of Congress have never done anything bad. I'm convinced.

whistleridge: There's no re-election involved. Just a chance for Congress to re-examine them and their record.


It will be a reelection in spirit as campaigns are mounted in Congress and in the media for and against particular justices. They will most definitely campaign for their jobs. Also I find it really weird that this Congress that you hate so much is being entrusted with more authority over the judicial branch.

whistleridge: The number IS arbitrary. Set it at 50%. 80%. 100%. Whatever you set it at, make it Constitutitonal, instead of a continually moving target that is subject to over-hyped Congressional battles every few months or years.


There's no reason to set a number. Especially in the Constitution. Limiting government's ability to spend in emergency situations is a horrible idea.

whistleridge: You say 'massive government turnover' like it's a bad thing


Yes. It is a bad thing. Regardless of peoples' opinions of elected officials, a certain amount of expertise is required to serve in office. There is a LOT of procedural knowhow that goes along with serving in a leadership position, and a lot of things need to happen for legislation to be crafted correctly and passed in an expeditious manner. You need experience to be able to navigate the process, and you need established relationships in order to have meaningful negotiations that produce workable agreements. As bad as things are right now, throwing literally everybody out and replacing them with whoever has enough money on hand to run for office immediately will get you something far worse. Imagine ten times more teabaggers.

whistleridge: Our Congress has a 13% approval rating.


Who f*ckin' cares? Overall Congressional approval rating has little bearing on anything except media narratives.

whistleridge: Our finances are a hot mess.


The current state of the economy is related to a lot of things. None of the things you've suggested, especially not replacing wholesale Congress with whoever, is remotely related to that issue or will do anything to fix the structural problems that contribute to that.
 
2013-02-26 03:21:47 PM  

jjorsett: I think we should eliminate elective office and draft people to serve by  drawing names at random.


Family Guy did an episode where they had that concept.

Peter forgot to do his job resulting in Y2K and mankind having to rebuild civilization. They chose out of a hat randomly for jobs. A guy who was a doctor ended up being the official Village Drunkard.
 
2013-02-26 03:44:38 PM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: incendi: Citrate1007: It is an efficient option for partisan voters.  No reason to ban it

Perhaps in an attempt to discourage the recent(ish) trend of blindly partisan voting?

Maybe if the GOP would stop running clowns and lunatics like Bachmann for candidates, "blind partisanship" will go down.


Gerrymandering and partisanship is the only reason that Bachmann wins, and since her presidential bid exposed her Tea Party Zealotry to many partisan voters her chances of losing a GOP stronghold have increased.
 
2013-02-26 04:42:03 PM  
Know what?  This proposal doesn't even go far enough.

We need to:

1. Eliminate labeling candidates by party on ballots in the first place (e.g. the ballot reads "Barack Obama" and not "Barack Obama - Democrat")

2. Randomize the order in which the candidate names appear (e.g. one item lists Democrat-Republican-independent-green, the next Republican-Green-Independent-Democrat, the next Indepenent-Democrat-Green-Republican, and so on)

3.  Disallow printed materials from the ballot area entirely (i.e. you have to make your own notes, can't print a list from the internet... or at least you have to copy your list from the internet by hand).

There you go, people making uninformed votes is now just statistical noise that averages out to nothing, and the people actually tipping the elections at least have a modicum of knowledge regarding who/what they're voting for.

//I think the founding fathers would have enjoyed this idea, considering the sheer amount of effort they put into attempting to destroy any chance of political parties forming in the first place-- somewhat futile effort, obviously, but still.
 
2013-02-26 04:46:06 PM  
Are there any liberals that like this idea?

I'm okay with having some indicators as to how a candidate might vote. Strangely, i don't consider their campaign ads a reliable source of this information. Plus, many candidates don't really campaign in any meaningful way at the local level.
 
2013-02-26 05:20:46 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Are there any liberals that like this idea?

I'm okay with having some indicators as to how a candidate might vote. Strangely, i don't consider their campaign ads a reliable source of this information. Plus, many candidates don't really campaign in any meaningful way at the local level.


The liberals in my state, a red state, are pushing very hard for this.

The problem with this is, the person with the most $, IE the most $ to get their name out there, wins.  How would you feel if you were represented by someone completely opposite of the majority just because a superpac dumped a bunch of money into your district.
 
2013-02-26 06:46:58 PM  

Wendy's Chili: jigger: Also, eliminate party designations next to candidate names on ballots.

I think Republicans have proposed this in some states. And after looking at the approval rating of their party, I'm not surprised.


The low information voter will be perplexed. Maybe next time they'll find out a little bit about who their voting for. Or better yet, not bother.
 
2013-02-26 06:47:48 PM  

jjorsett: I think we should eliminate elective office and draft people to serve by  drawing names at random.


It works in some countries.
 
2013-02-26 06:53:17 PM  

jigger: jjorsett: I think we should eliminate elective office and draft people to serve by  drawing names at random.

It works in some countries.


Serious question: Can you name one?
 
2013-02-26 07:03:57 PM  

thurstonxhowell: jigger: jjorsett: I think we should eliminate elective office and draft people to serve by  drawing names at random.

It works in some countries.

Serious question: Can you name one?


Kyrzakhstan
 
2013-02-26 07:25:06 PM  

pxsteel: Uranus Is Huge!: Are there any liberals that like this idea?

I'm okay with having some indicators as to how a candidate might vote. Strangely, i don't consider their campaign ads a reliable source of this information. Plus, many candidates don't really campaign in any meaningful way at the local level.

The liberals in my state, a red state, are pushing very hard for this.

The problem with this is, the person with the most $, IE the most $ to get their name out there, wins.  How would you feel if you were represented by someone completely opposite of the majority just because a superpac dumped a bunch of money into your district.


President Mitt Romney and CT Senator Linda McMahon don't agree with your assessment. I'll concede that the candidate with the best name recognition is usually the winner. Money plays a large roll in this.
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report