Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you think it would be a good idea to kick them all out and try something new? There have been over 11,443,000 foreclosures since 1/1/09. The debt limit is over $16.5 trillion.
I'm sure we can find a way to have all U.S. citizens vote on each and every issue? And if the majority wins, then that'll be great.
Quote:
Rasmussen Reports
Let’s face it: Most Americans don’t have much use for either of the major political parties and think it would be better to dump the entire Congress on Election Day.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of Likely U.S. Voters say if they had the option next week, they would vote to get rid of the entire Congress and start all over again. Only 20% would opt to keep the entire Congress instead. Fifteen percent (15%) aren’t sure.
Of course, the Political Class strongly disagrees. While 84% of Mainstream voters would opt to get rid of the entire Congress, 64% of the Political Class would vote instead to keep them all.
Not surprisingly, 82% of Republicans and 78% of unaffiliateds say dump them all. Despite their party’s control of both the House and Senate, Democratic voters are fairly evenly divided: 44% say it’s better to keep the entire Congress, but 38% would prefer to give all the national legislators the heave-ho.
I wish people would register to, and actually, vote the bums out of office. Problem is too lazy. Party faithful always vote but most don't turn out for mid year elections. And that's REGISTERED voters. Perhaps 40% aren't even registered for an average election (obviously registration goes up for a Presidential election, as does turnout).
We do need a radical change and I think the best place is in the house of representatives which should work more like a draft or a jury selection. Make it a true house of commons. That would be a real check and balance.
I would say ditch bicameralism or greatly reduce the power of the senate. The Senate is undemocratic. In most countries, the Upper House is largely ceremonial and has little power.
Still wouldn't solve everything because the House and Obama agree on nothing, but it's a start
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,705 posts, read 58,031,425 times
Reputation: 46172
Back to basics...
Get away from 'paid' political employment.
Term limits
NO advertising allowed for incumbents. (they have a voting record to illustrate their loyalties)
an INFORMED electorate (not an 'entertained' via media electorate)
The problem lies less in the senate than in the house. Senators are elected by a statewide vote and can represent the interests of the entire states. House representatives are elected by a district. Thanks to gerrymandering, the districts are made up of like-minded voters who vote along party lines.
If we want reform, we should either ditch the districts altogether and elect the representatives with a statewide vote, or we should make sure that districts are not gerrymandered so that the outcomes of the elections are not predetermined through demographics.
Members of congress should also be subject to term limits. Representative terms should be increased to 4 years - so that they are not continually running for office and can actually take a long term outlook - and each rep should be limited to 3 terms. Senator terms should remain at 6 years, but they should be limited to 2 terms.
While we are at it, there should be a mandatory retirement age for all government employees - presidents, congresspeople, and supreme court justices included. A mandatory retirement at 72 seems reasonable.
Also, we should get rid of the Citizens United decision, through amendment if necessary, to take back control of the election process from the unions, PACs and other third-party groups.
Reform of house and senate rules are needed too, but I won't go into that right now.
The problem lies less in the senate than in the house. Senators are elected by a statewide vote and can represent the interests of the entire states. House representatives are elected by a district. Thanks to gerrymandering, the districts are made up of like-minded voters who vote along party lines.
If we want reform, we should either ditch the districts altogether and elect the representatives with a statewide vote, or we should make sure that districts are not gerrymandered so that the outcomes of the elections are not predetermined through demographics.
Members of congress should also be subject to term limits. Representative terms should be increased to 4 years - so that they are not continually running for office and can actually take a long term outlook - and each rep should be limited to 3 terms. Senator terms should remain at 6 years, but they should be limited to 2 terms.
While we are at it, there should be a mandatory retirement age for all government employees - presidents, congresspeople, and supreme court justices included. A mandatory retirement at 72 seems reasonable.
Also, we should get rid of the Citizens United decision, through amendment if necessary, to take back control of the election process from the unions, PACs and other third-party groups.
Reform of house and senate rules are needed too, but I won't go into that right now.
I used to be a term limits kinda guy. We passed term limits here in California in the mid 90's. The results have been disastrous. The biggie, in my mind, has been the dependence upon lobbyists to manage the process of introducing new legislation. writing the bills, providing lists of question to committee members to ask, guiding the process every step of the way. Not that our term limited legislators and administrators have presided over billion dollar deficits for over a decade now.
But California term limits have caused other problems as well.
• Post term limit members have less state legislative experience than pre-term limits, making legislators more dependent on the expertise of lobbyists and staff and less able to negotiate toe-to-toe with the executive branch.
• Legislative leaders and committee chairs have less time to learn their responsibilities. In prior years, legislators would apprentice in the ranks, then move up to chair committees, then run for top offices, such as Senate pro Tem or Speaker of the Assembly. Today, first term legislators are often thrown into top leadership positions. California Assembly Speaker John Perez became Speaker of the Assembly after only 14 months in office—overseeing the 8th largest economy in the world.
Be careful what you ask for. You just may get it
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
