»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Vote Out Incumbents!
| The Alley |
|
Vote Out Incumbents! |
|
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy 
|
Yup....I'm going to do it. I'm purposely going to anti-vote this year! No, I'm not going to join V.O.I.D. or similar organizations. I don't want someone else to make up a 'list' for me on who is naughty and who's nice like VOID does. I will not cast one vote for any incumbent presiding national politician. If Congressmen are our 'board of directors' for the US, then it's time we voted them out. I mean, after all, a 10% approval rate wouldn't last 2 months in a Board Directors meeting. Why should we just 'be satisfied'? Let's let some new and hungry candidates replace the fat ones (which, by the way, are eating me out of house and home. Literally) Whatever happened to term limits for congressmen? We have term limits for Presidents - why not Rep's and Senators? What's your take? Are you 'sick up and fed' with the current Senate and House? Ready to send them packing? You know I am ...... |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Jeff Feezle - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
I would agree - term limits for everyone! Can we start at the top? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Term limits? Oh, yea, that's a synonym for OJT, isn't it?  |
||
Mysteria 
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
Help me out here, OJT? Is that On the job training?  |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Lol, Ron, you Dawg! Yeah, he's saying that if we get rid of all the experience, then all that will be left is a group of newbies that will learn on the job. Meaning of course, that they will probably perform poorly as a group. As opposed to the 'current congressional group' performing.....uh.....well??? The truth is, hardly any of the incumbents will voted out, and only a handful will succumb to the VOI principles, thus VOIding the theory that inexperience will rule the day. At least, though, the weeding will have started. And our garden needs plenty of tending, or so says Chauncy the gardener (obscure ref. there....sorry) |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Peter Sellers best performance an obscure reference? Please! Never underestimate the level of trivia embedded in the Pipster mind. It's demeaning. Ah, but VTIO anyway, and vote for undocumented aliens, like Obama. LOL. Jimbeaux |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
http://www.answers.com/longest%20serving%20senator Do we really want our senators to last this long? Do they really bring in new ideas and freshness to the government after 40 plus years? Do we really have to wait for them to die in office before new blood comes in? Or after watching them for what may be for some of us most of our lives, are we so disenchanted with what's been done to our government [not to say that good things haven't been accomplished] that we see no way out, so we sit back and hold on tight? |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
From the Law Blog: 60% of seated Senators have Law Degrees. That says it all, doesn't it? But seriously, Sunshine, I think term limits is the key issue here. Why not have 1) a 12 year term limit to start for Senators 2) allow voters to re-vote in a former incumbent after a four-year cooling off period to see if the replacement worked, if they so desire. 3) and Good G*D, WHY are House of Representatives members only allowed to serve TWO YEARS before running for office? Hell, that just about guarantees that they will spend most of their in re-election mode. That's just plain stupid. I've NEVER understood why one body has a 4year span of service, the other has a 2-year span. I agree with Obama and McCain both when they say: it's time for a change. Unfortunately, for most congressmen: it's time for a change in their terms of employment! Thanks, Sunshine, for the great questions! T.Bear |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Of course not, Karilea. That's why we have elections. Why don't we put term limits on other jobs? Let's say you can only work for the same employer X years and then you get fired? Better yet, let's kick you out of your chosen profession entirely; after X years you have to do something "new and fresh." I think there are a lot of really good reasons to get rid of an elected leader. I'm not sure experience should be one of them? Added: It's pretty much academic any way. The Supreme Court has already ruled Federal term limits unconstitutional for Congress (1995). They decided it was tantamount to adding a new qualification for service, something which can only be done by constitutional amendment. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Ron, I would like to say here, in my opinion, that the prime reason that politicians stay in office is not due to people consciously deciding to re-elect them. It's due to that darned REPUBLICAN LEVER DEMOCRATIC LEVER ~~Pull Here for ALL your votes to go to this party~~~ The simple fact is most people NEVER split their party ticket. They don't investigate alternatives, they don't look for anything that contradicts their pre-conceived notions. For every 1 or 2 'educated voters' who DO check things out, there are at least 10-15 voters who cancel their vote out. People vote also based upon that psychological phenom called 'name recognition.' When faced with two choices, people vote the name they recognize / remember, and not necessarily the person best suited for the job. They recognize the incumbent's name, but may not know the challenger's name, especially in state's elections. Click....the vote is then cast for 'who they know.' They smile, think they've done the right thing, and blithely walk out of the booth. How do I know this? In 1998, the last year the Census had a mid-term election, the incumbents were re-elected at a startling 97%!!!!! Over the last twenty years (1978-1998), the figure is 94.6% on average. http://allcountries.org/uscensus/462_members_of_congress_incumbents_re_elected.html People vote like sheep, unfortunately, with total allegiance to a party, with little regard to the politician's performance. Our forefathers knew this, and this is one of the main reasons they didn't trust the populace to elect our President through the generation election. Electoral votes do. The people's vote, in this United States democracy, does not matter in the Presidential election...not in the slightest. It does, however matter quite a bit in all the other elections. Demoracy, for all its good points, has its inherent flaws. I would like to tell this anecdote of voting in the last state election. I went into the voting booth, completely armed with a long sheet of candidates, both parties, that i intended to vote for. The groans behind me reminded me that people knew I'd be in there for a time. In the meantime, 10 or so people went into the booth next to me. They obviously banged their party level and left quickly. I actually heard someone behind me, behind the curtain tell me to 'hurry up' and whispered 'what is taking that guy so long? Geezus!' Voting is NOT fast food! It requires thought, or should anyways. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
