Will U.S. Senator Jon Tester be re-elected?

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by ElkHunter

Has anybody noticed that the OP has never returned? Must have collected all the data he needed for his paper.

Three posts, all basically the same question for different parts of the country... yeah, I'd say it was a pollster doing research. Or at least someone with visions of being one.

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by nature's cathedral

Many great points! This one is my favorite.

I also agree it is important to live next to their constituents.

I would take it one step further and make teleconferencing a requirement and that they are prohibited from ever meeting in quorum in the same location for passing legislation. It would be a nightmare for the lobbyists, and revival for us.

I think that has its own problems, mainly that while teleconferencing does nothing to stop backroom deals, you can't really get a feel for the person you're dealing with like you can face to face. And all they'd do is make the rule so a "quorum" was "nn-many people online at once". So that wouldn't change anything.

However, I think the entire lobbyist system needs to go away. As it stands, most of our federal laws are actually written by lobbyists, not by congresscritters (that's what the Write the Laws Act hopes to address). And shouldn't our congresscritters be considered OUR lobbyists, rather than being beholden to whoever walks in the door with a proposal and a campaign contribution?

Originally Posted by nature's cathedral

We need the ability to throw them all out at once with a national vote that can be brought up at anytime and all legislation passed in the current congress is null and void.

The trouble with throwing them all out at once, is that the voters in a corrupt but highly populated state can get a majority that ALSO throws out the good guys from the low-population state. And if the majority are corrupt... what exactly do you think you'll get to replace them, especially if it needs to be done all at once, and considering that most will still come from that high-population state? I'd guess a storm of really marginal candidates who talk a good line and convince a lot of the unwashed masses, but in fact are basically carpetbaggers. So things go from bad to worse. (See also "term limits" which has created essentially this problem in CA politics.)

And "throwing all the bums out at once" has invariably been a recipe for disaster, as the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution (both times) amply demonstrate. If you throw out everyone, you have absolutely NO brakes against whatever sort of rabble-rouser wants to take over. In gov't, it is always best to "make haste slowly", and that includes turnover.

The American Revolution? it wasn't a bum's rush. There were already good people in charge here in America; what we threw out were some bad overlords, not the baby, bathwater, tub, and all.

A part-time legislature like Montana's contributes to "making haste slowly" since you've got all year to think about it, away from the Capitol pressures.

[nature's cathedral]

Right now it is back room deals smothered in lobbyists and almost no influence form the home district besides letters and phone calls they ignore. It is a great deal easier and mind you less expensive for constituents to drive to the Congressman or Senators house and start protesting. We are currently like static to them, and when the show up like Baucus they do it little enclaves secreted into town. No, they need to faces us each and every day!

Let me add one more feature to my terminal measure of firing everyone: They can never serve in federally elected office again, and I would put that in addition to a complete ban on a law maker ever being a lobbyist. The fear of it ever happening would force them to do the will of the people.

The difference between this measure and the French Revolution is that in this case we are keeping the fundamentals of our system of government, structure, and social order. In the case of the French Revolution they threw out everything including God.

[steve104c]

If enough states get together, we can add the 28th amendment to the US Constitution, which states that the US Congress and the Senate, in condensed form, are subject to all the same laws that they pass, including health care and Social Security. If they(Congress and the Senate) have to use the same health care we will be forced to use, and when they retire they have to get their retirment from S.S. then they will pass totally different laws. Lets make this happen and make us all equal and all subject to the same laws.

[ElkHunter]

This is the second time I've had to say something, and you all know I'm not real good at giving a third warning.

This thread is about Montana and SenatorTester.