Democracy...

[questor]

are your interests the same as a recently naturalized Mexican, or a gay couple, or a member of the ACLU, or a farmer. or a union member? we all have different goals and we can't satisfy everyone. that's why the politicians
vote for pork barrel spending. how can this be changed?

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

You're right on a number of levels C1ay, unfortunately, from my limited perspective, there seems to be a growing number of representatives that we elect who also cannot see the big picture. There doesn't seem to be too many altruistic people in government these days, at least not ones smart enough and supported enough to implement that altruism.

That's why why need control of the representative's priorities. I could care less what the representatives want to work on in Congress, they need to be held accountable for working on the issues for all, not their personal agendas.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by C1ay

That's why why need control of the representative's priorities. I could care less what the representatives want to work on in Congress, they need to be held accountable for working on the issues for all, not their personal agendas.

In theory, the system is already setup such that we do hold them accountable... at election time. However, as has been discussed a bit earlier in the thread (as well as others), most voters are not that informed and tend to vote what feels right instead of what is right.

As a people, we generally do not log and track what each individual elected official does with their time and money... with our vote. We're too busy doing other things like surviving and discussing the nature of time (and all other in-between parts of Maslow's hierarchy of needs).

Also, as unfortunate as this is, politics has become more an art of distraction and covert activity than an art of representing and making the best judgements for a society. As you said, they most often line their own pockets (and those of their friends) and wish to continue doing so. Because of this inherent desire to continue getting richer, they tell the public whatever they think they want to hear in order to ensure re-election.

...but, ultimately, we the elecorate are the ONLY ones who can even begin to hold them accountable for their actions.


~~~~~~~~~~~
InfiniteNow

[TheBigDog]

I would argue that our system is more dysfunctional than corrupt. Campaign finance reform is not the issue. It is the house procedures and rules that need shaping up. I remember in 88 and 92 President Bush campaigned that he wanted a Constitutional Amendment to allow the line item veto. At the time 43 governors enjoyed that power to some extent, but the President does not. It would literally allow him to trim fat from bills.

How about a rule that each bill must have a stated purpose and scope, and that all laws and spending detailed within that bill must support the purpose of the bill within its scope. It is the back scratching and favor granting in Washington that is the problem, not the methods by which the members are elected.

I have another radical idea. Give each session of congress specific milestones for specific deliverables (balanced budget comes to mind). And if they do not meet that goal they are penalized. And the only penalty of influence in Washington would be forfeit of the privilege to be re-elected. If the Congress misses the boat, it is replaced as a whole at the next election. Think that would get them on the move?

Representative Government is the best solution. But we must play our part in improving the system, especially when it seems impossible. When we stop trying to implement the improvements that we need, those who would dismantle everything that is good will take the opportunity to do so.

Patience... vigiliance...

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by webenton

How about a rule that each bill must have a stated purpose and scope, and that all laws and spending detailed within that bill must support the purpose of the bill within its scope.

A problem then arises, who is it who determines the scope. Although you and I may both desire to improve society, we may not agree on how to accomplish that.

Let's say a bill states that "families will be granted medical coverage if they are unable to provide it themselves." You could argue that only families with 2 or more children are included, whereas I may argue that there should be a maximum monthly benefit of some given amount.

Who'd be right? Who'd decide which of our stipulations were or were not within the "scope" of the bill?



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
InfiniteNow

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

A problem then arises, who is it who determines the scope. Although you and I may both desire to improve society, we may not agree on how to accomplish that.

Let's say a bill states that "families will be granted medical coverage if they are unable to provide it themselves." You could argue that only families with 2 or more children are included, whereas I may argue that there should be a maximum monthly benefit of some given amount.

Who'd be right? Who'd decide which of our stipulations were or were not within the "scope" of the bill?



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
InfiniteNow

A good point, and something that I have given thought to without a good answer. If you have an idea I would like to hear it. But the point of this would not be to quibble so much about what healthcare is included within a healthcare bill. It would be to determine what healthcare is included in a road repair bill. How many city buses would be paid for by an agriculture bill. Or more topically, if policy language about torture is included in the defense appropriation budget. If something is worthy of passage by the congress, then it should merit a vote on its own accord. Lets have one bill per year titled PORK, and it has no rules. Every other bill is strictly controlled as to its contents.

Bill
(If anyone votes for PORK they lose my vote)

[niviene]

Originally Posted by infamous

Mr Boerseun; this statement is without question a real mouthful . My response would be: Truer words were never spoken. ...............Infy

I couldn't agree with you both more.... good post, B - it's something I think about often. For some reason they classify me as a "republican" even though I don't really know that I fell into that category for many issues - I'm on the fence about the abortion issue, and the only thing I can think of strongly that I support is the NRA - go guns! Otherwise, I'm pro-gay marriage and a slew of other things I feel should be basic human rights... lots of things I'd assume should put me on the other side. I feel the party attacking is a waste of time and money (when we constantly hear "The Democrats always have to [insert complaint]" and vice versa). I don't necessarily want any hard aligned person to run anything - let us speak for ourselves. The people who are interested in the issues will tell you what they want if you listen to them. (Granted, there are a lot of people who just sit there staring at the wall drooling who don't care what's happening in their community/country/world, as well.) The nice thing about parties is that they keep each other in check sometimes, so no one party can up and run with their ideals - the bad thing, obviously, is that nothing gets done! But, I guess we've come to expect that of gov't, eh? I say we impose a mandatory IQ minimum on governmental employees...that should change a thing or two.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by niviene

For some reason they classify me as a "republican" even though I don't really know that I fell into that category for many issues...

Have you tried the World's Smallest Political Quiz?

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by niviene

For some reason they classify me as a "republican" even though I don't really know that I fell into that category for many issues - I'm on the fence about the abortion issue, and the only thing I can think of strongly that I support is the NRA - go guns! Otherwise, I'm pro-gay marriage and a slew of other things I feel should be basic human rights... lots of things I'd assume should put me on the other side.

I'm with you there niv: There is a strong trend for the parties right now to polarize and demonize to the point that each side would pejoritively blast you as apostate and evil. I'd be surprised if there aren't those who'd call you a "anti-religion Democrat" for these views!

I think the last couple of years has shown that even when all the power is concentrated in one party, that that party becomes its own worst enemy *precisely* because they "run with it" and try to implement the most extremist positions to cater to their 'core'. What makes McCain and Hilary such good politicians (and that's only relative, because the vast majority have gotten sucked into the hate-politics of our day), is that they recognize the power of the majority in the middle.

Hopefully, the pendulum will swing back toward cooperation soon. We need it.

Why can't we all just...get along?
Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by webenton

A good point, and something that I have given thought to without a good answer. If you have an idea I would like to hear it. But the point of this would not be to quibble so much about what healthcare is included within a healthcare bill. It would be to determine what healthcare is included in a road repair bill. How many city buses would be paid for by an agriculture bill. Or more topically, if policy language about torture is included in the defense appropriation budget. If something is worthy of passage by the congress, then it should merit a vote on its own accord. Lets have one bill per year titled PORK, and it has no rules. Every other bill is strictly controlled as to its contents.

Bill
(If anyone votes for PORK they lose my vote)

No matter what happens, it's a compromise somewhere. The only way around it I see is for a direct democracy kind of vote (as opposed to represented democracy). This too has many limitations and problems.

Maybe we could all use our cell phones to text our votes on the issues we care about. We could have a subscription to the issues about which we were interested and get a notification "Please vote today." I can see it now... "Text your vote on abortion, gay marriage, and Homeland security for your chance to win a free Hummer! Login and vote on tomorrow's Hate Crimes Legislation for your chance to win Super Bowl tickets!"

But, then, we'd also be limiting voting to those fortunate enough to afford a cell phone with text voting (seems strange, but many cannot) and also it would really suck if you were out of range and had to pay roaming charges! Or worse, no signal during key votes... Somebody with real power (like the telecom industry) could shut down key towers or satellites limiting who could/could not vote. It would be like a whole other level of rezoning/redistricting.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
InfiniteNow