Democrats Rubbing Voters the Wrong Way

[Xenophon]

Only in the simplistic world of a Barry worshiper do we see this:

Allowing the common man 3 days to read a bill before voting=stalling

Are you people fucking serious?

If you are, don't bother posting again as you will have showed us you have the IQ of an end table.

 

[Sherry]

They're afraid of more townhall meetings.

 

[Polk]

Even if it is stalling, what's the big deal? Perhaps you haven't noticed but the American people don't trust their Government. Who knows what their going to slip in at the last moment? Why not have a final test by the public, before a vote?

I wonder if decades of "the government is the source of all your problems" rhetoric has been the cause of increasing public distrust in government.

You want a final test by the public? I'll go a step further. Instead of allowing people to just read the bill, why not have them vote on it? Every citizen a legislator.

The rhetoric is more of a result of power and philosophy struggles, I doubt that will ever change.

What about arranging it so that the Representatives, Senators, and the President , represent all the citizens.

So, amending the Constitution to elect members of Congress on a national ballot (some sort of PR system, or at least make the districts of equal size) and direct election of the President? Has merit. Would never happen, but has merit.

 

[Polk]

I wonder if decades of "the government is the source of all your problems" rhetoric has been the cause of increasing public distrust in government.

No....The distrust is because they are the source of most of the problems, in the areas where they're involved.

You live in some sort of fantasy world.

 

[DiamondDave]

I wonder if decades of "the government is the source of all your problems" rhetoric has been the cause of increasing public distrust in government.

You want a final test by the public? I'll go a step further. Instead of allowing people to just read the bill, why not have them vote on it? Every citizen a legislator.

The rhetoric is more of a result of power and philosophy struggles, I doubt that will ever change.

What about arranging it so that the Representatives, Senators, and the President , represent all the citizens.

So, amending the Constitution to elect members of Congress on a national ballot (some sort of PR system, or at least make the districts of equal size) and direct election of the President? Has merit. Would never happen, but has merit.

1... On Lumpy's part... the Federal Govt was created by the states... the Prez, Congress, etc represent the states, by nature, and not the individuals.. the individual citizens are represented by the governor, state officials, state congressmen, etc...
2. There is good reson NOT to have a popular vote for President and that is to ensure that all 3 branches of government are chosen in different ways, to create balance... Hell, we are supposed to have a balance in congress where the congressmen/women are elected directly and the senators are chosen by the state representatives... having the electoral college for the presidential election is something that I would never agree with getting rid of... and glad it will probably never happen

 

[Polk]

It doesn't create balance. It represents being entrapped by special interests.

 

[DiamondDave]

It doesn't create balance. It represents being entrapped by special interests.

WRONG

Ensuring that not all representatives are chosen by pure popular vote DOES help create balance and also helps prevent more rule by the tyranny of the masses

And if you think that 'special interests' give a crap whether you were directly elected or chosen by the electoral college or chosen by the consensus of state representatives, you are certainly wrong again

 

[DiveCon]

It doesn't create balance. It represents being entrapped by special interests.

and would direct election be any different
they made the same case against the appointments of Senators
and since they changed to direct election of senators, has it become more or less in the realm of special interests?

 

[Foxfyre]

There is a reason that legislation is not passed by popular vote of the people because each would be voting in his/her own best interest rather than in the interest of promoting the general welfare.

However, in my opinion the only reason the legislators would not want their constituents to know what was in the legislation being voted on is because the legislators are looking to their own personal interests rather than in the interest of promoting the general welfare.

I am rapidly coming to believe that we have a small minority of people in Congress these days, and we have nobody in the White House, that gives a flying fig whether what they do promotes the general welfare. The only solution I see is to throw out the whole bunch of them and start over.

 

[Thinman]

We must not elect politicians.

 

[Polk]

It doesn't create balance. It represents being entrapped by special interests.

WRONG

Ensuring that not all representatives are chosen by pure popular vote DOES help create balance and also helps prevent more rule by the tyranny of the masses

And if you think that 'special interests' give a crap whether you were directly elected or chosen by the electoral college or chosen by the consensus of state representatives, you are certainly wrong again

The idea that direct election would result in a "tyranny of the masses" is laughable. That very same argument could be used to justify a dictatorship. After all, you said yourself that the people can't be trusted with the vote.

 

[Polk]

It doesn't create balance. It represents being entrapped by special interests.

and would direct election be any different
they made the same case against the appointments of Senators
and since they changed to direct election of senators, has it become more or less in the realm of special interests?

Yes! Direct election of senators did a great deal to reduce the influence of corporate interests (not nearly enough, but individuals have a much greater voice today than they did in the late 1800s).

 

[DiveCon]

It doesn't create balance. It represents being entrapped by special interests.

and would direct election be any different
they made the same case against the appointments of Senators
and since they changed to direct election of senators, has it become more or less in the realm of special interests?

Yes! Direct election of senators did a great deal to reduce the influence of corporate interests (not nearly enough, but individuals have a much greater voice today than they did in the late 1800s).

i see that it has only made it worse

 

[Polk]

and would direct election be any different
they made the same case against the appointments of Senators
and since they changed to direct election of senators, has it become more or less in the realm of special interests?

Yes! Direct election of senators did a great deal to reduce the influence of corporate interests (not nearly enough, but individuals have a much greater voice today than they did in the late 1800s).

i see that it has only made it worse

Because you don't know just how bad it was then.

 

[DiveCon]

Yes! Direct election of senators did a great deal to reduce the influence of corporate interests (not nearly enough, but individuals have a much greater voice today than they did in the late 1800s).

i see that it has only made it worse

Because you don't know just how bad it was then.

really?
and its not worse now?
you got to be joking

 

[Polk]

i see that it has only made it worse

Because you don't know just how bad it was then.

really?
and its not worse now?
you got to be joking

Not to the extent it was then.

 

[DiveCon]

Because you don't know just how bad it was then.

really?
and its not worse now?
you got to be joking

Not to the extent it was then.

it is worse now

 

[Lumpy 1]

I wonder if decades of "the government is the source of all your problems" rhetoric has been the cause of increasing public distrust in government.

You want a final test by the public? I'll go a step further. Instead of allowing people to just read the bill, why not have them vote on it? Every citizen a legislator.

The rhetoric is more of a result of power and philosophy struggles, I doubt that will ever change.

What about arranging it so that the Representatives, Senators, and the President , represent all the citizens.

So, amending the Constitution to elect members of Congress on a national ballot (some sort of PR system, or at least make the districts of equal size) and direct election of the President? Has merit. Would never happen, but has merit.

Well, as usual I'm misunderstood, also as usual, it's my fault..

Keep the voting system as it is for the House and Senate.

Destroy the Party Power Structure that encourages say, party line voting, so that Senators and Representatives are independent to vote the conscience of their constituents.

It's the way the power structure within the House and Senate (by Democrat & Republican leaders) are wielded against the members that causes them to lose touch with their voters, wants and needs. (lobbyist is another problem)

Say for instance with the Health Care bills, not all the ideas by Republicans or Democrats are bad yet Republican ideas are shot down with party line voting and at the same time Democrats are forced to toe the line on the leaderships plan. (one party has to lose)

In politics and in the House and Senate, there are obviously extremes on both sides but the bulk of the Senators and Representatives are arrayed center left & right, they probably come to Washington ready to get down to work for the people then get caught up in the Party Power Structure and we end up forgotten and screwed.