Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(NBC News)   Sixty percent of Americans would vote to kick out every single member of Congress and start over from scratch   (firstread.nbcnews.com) divider line 173
    More: Obvious, congresses, Bill McInturff, Wall Street Journal, Americans, Obama, percent disapprove, WSJ poll, Peter D. Hart  
•       •       •

1155 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jul 2013 at 12:30 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-24 09:38:14 AM  
The sad thing about it is that 75% would be re elected.
 
2013-07-24 09:40:09 AM  
But I like MY Congress Representatives...
 
2013-07-24 09:45:41 AM  
I'd be more in favor of drafting them.  Seriously.  Pick a random eligible person from the district and give them a 2 year term.
 
2013-07-24 09:51:10 AM  

nekom: I'd be more in favor of drafting them.  Seriously.  Pick a random eligible person from the district and give them a 2 year term.


Ooooh! Then they can do a "Hunger Games"-like competition to stay in office! You might just be onto something there, Nekom!
 
2013-07-24 09:51:23 AM  

nekom: eligible


define eligible.  a random pick could get you some crazy person.
 
2013-07-24 09:52:06 AM  
Is "Setting them on fire" an option?
 
2013-07-24 09:54:12 AM  

nekom: I'd be more in favor of drafting them.  Seriously.  Pick a random eligible person from the district and give them a 2 year term.


Yes, lasso them with a rope dipped in red if they resist. I support this for over here too. Career politicians who know nothing of the real outside world, only the way politics works are destroying everything to entrench themselves and their cronies.

oldernell: The sad thing about it is that 75% would be re elected.


Probably, so you'd have to also put in rules about where money for campaigns can come from. Either entirely public funded with caps on expenditure, or strictly own personal money with no donations allowed. Otherwise you're right, the same people will be bankrolled into power.
 
2013-07-24 09:55:03 AM  

oldernell: The sad thing about it is that 75% would be re elected.


Because while 'congress' is full of a bunch of evil inside the beltway politicos who spend their day stuffing pork into bills and hanging out with lobbyists, 'my congressman' is a brave defender of his constituents ensuring the economic prosperity of my district.
 
2013-07-24 09:55:54 AM  

ManateeGag: nekom: eligible

define eligible.  a random pick could get you some crazy person.


A person of sound mind over the age of 40, that should be the only stipulation, that I can think of. Perhaps lower it to 1 year terms, to be sure if anyone mental does get in they won't be in for long.
 
2013-07-24 09:58:30 AM  

ManateeGag: nekom: eligible

define eligible.  a random pick could get you some crazy person.


louiegohmert.jpg
 
2013-07-24 10:14:49 AM  

oldernell: The sad thing about it is that 75% would be re elected.


raerae1980: But I like MY Congress Representatives...


Both of these, so ...

/pointless post is pointless
//at least it has slashies
///slashies!
 
2013-07-24 10:18:06 AM  

Tigger: oldernell: The sad thing about it is that 75% would be re elected.

Because while 'congress' is full of a bunch of evil inside the beltway politicos who spend their day stuffing pork into bills and hanging out with lobbyists, 'my congressman' is a brave defender of his constituents ensuring the economic prosperity of my district.


Yeah, as low as the approval rating for Congress in general is, the approval ratings for individual Congressmen in their districts is generally much higher, and that's all that really matters.
 
2013-07-24 10:28:48 AM  

HawgWild: oldernell: The sad thing about it is that 75% would be re elected.

raerae1980: But I like MY Congress Representatives...

Both of these, so ...

/pointless post is pointless
//at least it has slashies
///slashies!


So add a clause that says previous servants who have served their constituents and done their time in office are barred. 1 term limit, 1 year terms, all new, all random, no corruption from lobbying and buying elections... Although might want to add a politics exam to make sure the random people roped in aren't completely clueless.
 
2013-07-24 10:42:17 AM  

raerae1980: But I like MY Congress Representatives...


I despise mine with the burning heat of a thousand suns

/so I guess it balances out
 
2013-07-24 10:50:13 AM  
Useless fantasy, just like talking pigs.

So here is mine: no one is elected, they have to achieve the highest levels of specific fields. Groups of these people make decisions, not a fundy used car salesman or an actor who washed up in Hollywood.
 
2013-07-24 10:51:01 AM  
I'm meh on mine. I'd be ok with getting rid of them.
 
2013-07-24 10:54:08 AM  
I'd rather have competently corrupt people in Congress than trustworthy idiots.
 
2013-07-24 10:54:08 AM  
Do it. Clean house.
 
2013-07-24 10:58:37 AM  
Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
 
2013-07-24 11:03:51 AM  
Too bad a good portion of that percentage wants to put in more conservative teabagger farks
 
2013-07-24 11:10:27 AM  
Which would solve jack and shiat.
 
2013-07-24 11:12:24 AM  
Can you believe those clowns in Congress? What a bunch of clowns.
 
2013-07-24 11:13:11 AM  
The first thing we do, is kill all the lobbyist!
 
2013-07-24 11:14:04 AM  

ManateeGag: nekom: eligible

define eligible.  a random pick could get you some crazy person.


As opposed to what we have now...
 
2013-07-24 11:15:46 AM  
I think it is probably time to start everything from scratch
 
2013-07-24 11:19:15 AM  
i like my representative Gerry Mander.
 
2013-07-24 11:27:22 AM  

nekom: I'd be more in favor of drafting them.  Seriously.  Pick a random eligible person from the district and give them a 2 year term.


I was think you were going to make the Senators serve in the army.
 
2013-07-24 11:33:00 AM  
Let's do this shiat! Of course it's going to be hard until the campaign finance is reformed, but maybe we can get a "No Incumbents SuperPAC" started.
 
2013-07-24 11:44:33 AM  
Oh I'm all for it. But of course thanks to apathy in 2010 we allowed the GOP to gerrymander many states, so any elected officials from those gerrymandered districts would still prefer Dick Asswipe over Ass Dickwipe, neither of whom would do jack to advance a reasonable agenda. And then we'd have the same sh*t we currently have in Congress.

There isn't enough public outrage (yet) to overturn the two party system, so basically we're stuck with these assclowns for the foreseeable future.
 
2013-07-24 11:46:05 AM  

ManateeGag: nekom: eligible

define eligible.  a random pick could get you some crazy person.


And this would be worse than what we currently have?
 
2013-07-24 11:47:40 AM  

ManateeGag: nekom: eligible

define eligible.  a random pick could get you some crazy person.


Anyone who is eligible to hold the office.  One or two lunatic congresscritters can't cause too much trouble.
 
2013-07-24 12:00:15 PM  
This would require an amendment, but it would handle a number of issues.

The November of each off-year between presidential and congressional elections, put up a referendum with multiple yes-or-no questions:

- does the President deserve the opportunity to run for another term?
- do the members of the House (optional: who have served four terms or more) deserve the opportunity?
- do the members of the Senate (optional: who have served two terms or more) up for re-election the next year deserve the opportunity?

Tweak it if you want, so that the referendum only applies to committee chairs, or only the X% most senior get shiatcanned if the vote is no, or whatever.

It takes care of the term-limits issue, and it renders gerrymandering pointless because everybody loses their job if either party panders to its extremes.
 
2013-07-24 12:32:00 PM  
Put your money where your mouth is and vote out your own incumbent first, America.
 
2013-07-24 12:33:04 PM  

oldernell: The sad thing about it is that 75% would be re elected.



The average has been over 90% for at least the last 40 years.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-07-24 12:35:19 PM  
Add a constitutional amendment for term limits and I'm in.
 
2013-07-24 12:37:57 PM  
And they get a chance to every two years.
 
2013-07-24 12:38:30 PM  

DGS: Add a constitutional amendment for term limits and I'm in.


I think they tried that and it was voted down but, on the plus side they gave themselves a raise.
 
2013-07-24 12:38:38 PM  
constitutional amendment for term limits

It would help. The President and the VP only get two terms. Congress should be the same thing.
 
2013-07-24 12:39:13 PM  

Tigger: oldernell: The sad thing about it is that 75% would be re elected.

Because while 'congress' is full of a bunch of evil inside the beltway politicos who spend their day stuffing pork into bills and hanging out with lobbyists, 'my congressman' is a brave defender of his constituents ensuring the economic prosperity of my district.


What a load of crock. I live in Sensenbrenner's district and work Ryan's district.  Some of us are just f'd.
 
2013-07-24 12:39:24 PM  
And yeah, they are not going to vote themselves out of a job.
 
2013-07-24 12:39:46 PM  

ManateeGag: nekom: eligible

define eligible.  a random pick could get you some crazy person.


Oh you'll get some crazies. But will a random cross section of the population be more or less crazy on average than the Congress we get by our present election system?

I'd bet less.
 
2013-07-24 12:40:31 PM  
And with that new batch after ten years people will want to fire them all and start from scratch. All they will do is replace the current guy with someone similar or worse.

Or it doesn't matter how good the new group is if the system is so screwed up to where they have to screw up in order to function in the system.
 
2013-07-24 12:40:58 PM  
and abut 5% that click buttons on a website will actually go out and vote.. i won't what percentage aren't even registered voters...when will people learn that this type of information doesn't mean anything
 
2013-07-24 12:42:26 PM  
And 30% would want them replaced with sane people, and 30% would want them replaced with teahadists.
 
2013-07-24 12:42:38 PM  

DGS: Add a constitutional amendment for term limits and I'm in.


Make it retroactive too. :-)

nekom: I'd be more in favor of drafting them.  Seriously.  Pick a random eligible person from the district and give them a 2 year term.


Id love to see us elect congressmen and senators this way.
1. Anyone eligible can register for a lottery
2. we pick 10 names at random.
3. 1 week later, we have a debate.
4. 1 week later, we have a run off election.
5. 2 week campaign with debates between top two from the run off.
6. General election.

You can serve two terms, but to run again, you have to go through the same process from step 1.
 
2013-07-24 12:42:51 PM  

nekom: I'd be more in favor of drafting them.  Seriously.  Pick a random eligible person from the district and give them a 2 year term.


I've been saying this for years.  It would absolutely be better than what we have now.

You'd also have to do something about lobbyists.  I'm thinking giant glue traps.
 
2013-07-24 12:43:37 PM  

oldernell: The sad thing about it is that 75% would be re elected.


This.

raerae1980: But I like MY Congress Representatives...


That; I'd have every reason to kick Schumer and Gillibrand from their seats but I like them.
 
2013-07-24 12:43:43 PM  
FTA: Democrats and independents blame partisanship and congressional gridlock as their chief culprit, while Republicans blame the president.

Basically this poll just highlights the seething personal hatred many Republicans/Teabaggers have of Obama.  They seriously believe Congress is bad because of the president, which aside from negotiating, has no actual power in Congress.

It's sad really...
 
2013-07-24 12:44:53 PM  

blastoh: nekom: I'd be more in favor of drafting them.  Seriously.  Pick a random eligible person from the district and give them a 2 year term.

Id love to see us elect congressmen and senators this way.
1. Anyone eligible can register for a lottery
2. we pick 10 names at random.
3. 1 week later, we have a debate.
4. 1 week later, we have a run off election.
5. 2 week campaign with debates between top two from the run off.
6. General election.

You can serve two terms, but to run again, you have to go through the same process from step 1.


You got my vote, but I'm not American so it's worthless, but consider it moral support.
 
2013-07-24 12:44:58 PM  
Term limits really don't work well - they have them in Ohio, so what you have is a merry-go-round of professional political hacks hopping from one office to the other, whether they have the proper background or experience for the position or not.  A better option would be to set a fixed limit on elected service - say 12 years in any capacity.
 
Displayed 50 of 173 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report