Lets VOTE for a different party... ANTI-INCUMBANT!!!

[Stealth694]

I hear the sounds of an Election coming, Republicans blaming Democrats for the lousy state of our country and the Democrats blaming the Republicans for Gridlock so nothing gets done...

But all of them are saying the same thing......... " I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE!!!! ".

Didn't we elect these people to represent us in Washington?? Aren't they responsible to us their constituants?? But every election its always the same routine, they did this and they will do that if.. I !! ..am not re-elected.

I suggust a New Party,, Not the Tea Party, (same song different melody) but a revolutionary idea, don't vote Democrat or Republican,,

Vote ANTI-INCUMBANT!!!

if there is one thing that frightens Politicians its getting voted out of office,, they cannot become lobbists for two yrs, all the favors owed them and they owe to other politicians may become Null and Void,, and above all else, the sitting Politicians get a wake up call, that

" THEIR JOBS ARE NOT AS SECURE AS THEY THOUGHT..."

Give it some thought,, an Elected position was supposed to be a privalage not a Life Long Career.

[steelish]

Voting anti-incumbant isn't even a good idea. What IS a good idea is to vote for the candidate who matches your own individual principles/values/stand on issues the most. Simply voting anti-incumbant is like voting against someone rather than for someone who fits the bill best for you.

An elected position wasn't a life long career, nor was it a privilege. It was an honor...something to be cherished and something a person gave their all for...something that they could take pride in - knowing they did the best they possibly could for future generations.

[denuseri]

And yet not having term limits accross the board has turned being in office into yet another corupt money making scheme.

It doesnt seem to matter weather its a republican or a democrat in office the same shit keeps happening, so why not allways vote out the incumbant.

In fact ... I say vote the lot of them out!

Next election, if it says eaither republican or democrat on the ticket next to someone's name I WILL vote for someone not affiliated with eaither party or I will write in a canidate of my choosing.

[Stealth694]

Nicely Put Denuseri,,,

I agree with you Steelish,
an elected position is both an honor and a privilage,, but how many of our current elected officials have been in office longer than 20 years?? These people are so out of touch with reality that its scary,, McCain wanted to stay in Iraq for a decade or longer,, The house and senate have been squabling like a bunch of 5 yr olds over a piece of cake about healthcare, for almost a year with no results?
Who is in charge of the Government or will accept responsibility for the mess we are in?
These are just three reasons I say vote anti-incumbant.

[mkemse]

The other option is to put Term Limits in, if a President is limited to 8 years in Office, then why not limit Representatives or Senators to say 2 Terms in office?
Many States have Term Limits for Governors, California is one I think of right off hand
Most are lawyers, let them go back to the Practice they left or get involved in their Communities and see Real LIfe from there

Just a thought

[SadisticNature]

Canada has no term limits period. Not even for Prime-Minister. And it works very well. We've had good politicians have LONG runs. Lots of people disagree with the party in charge at any specific time, but at least they have their best and brightest leading them.

If you look at any of the recent 12-16 year spans of one party having the presidency, the 2nd guy is usually a LOT worse than the first, and you'd be a lot happier if the 1st guy was in for the whole time.

I also think a lot of the problem is the way your media covers your politics. It's become a sideshow, and people keep their jobs by scoring points against the other team rather than by passing good policy. Not sure there is any real solution to this one, its not like you can get the average voters to read the entire bills that people voted for/against along with their reasons for why.

[steelish]

The other option is to put Term Limits in, if a President is limited to 8 years in Office, then why not limit Representatives or Senators to say 2 Terms in office?
Many States have Term Limits for Governors, California is one I think of right off hand
Most are lawyers, let them go back to the Practice they left or get involved in their Communities and see Real LIfe from there

Just a thought

There used to be term limits for all of the elected positions. Over the years, states who were happy with their Representatives, Senators, Governors, extended limits or discontinued them. There was a reason limits were in place. Once the term was served, the elected officials had to then step down and live amongst the very people they represented. They had to live according to the taxes they set, the bills they passed, any changes they made to the way of life then applied to them as well. It made them think hard before passing bills/laws or making changes.

Elected officials do not live by the same "code" as the citizens. They have lifetime benefits which preclude them from any worries of health care, life insurance, dental, or even income! So why should they second guess a bill that will heavily tax citizens, or put them under a restrictive healthcare plan, or even cause more unemployment?



Canada has no term limits period. Not even for Prime-Minister. And it works very well. We've had good politicians have LONG runs. Lots of people disagree with the party in charge at any specific time, but at least they have their best and brightest leading them.

If you look at any of the recent 12-16 year spans of one party having the presidency, the 2nd guy is usually a LOT worse than the first, and you'd be a lot happier if the 1st guy was in for the whole time.

How lovely for Canada. It doesn't matter. We need to go back to our old system of one term for elected officials, along with doing away with their lifetime benefits.


I also think a lot of the problem is the way your media covers your politics. It's become a sideshow, and people keep their jobs by scoring points against the other team rather than by passing good policy. Not sure there is any real solution to this one, its not like you can get the average voters to read the entire bills that people voted for/against along with their reasons for why.

The media mostly covers what they are shown. The politicians turn it into a sideshow. Unfortunately, getting elected into politics has turned more into pointing out how bad the other guy is than showing how virtuous and honest a you are.

Also, most politicians don't read the bills they vote for! The ones that vote against a bill usually have a team of lawyers read it.

[SadisticNature]

There used to be term limits for all of the elected positions. Over the years, states who were happy with their Representatives, Senators, Governors, extended limits or discontinued them. There was a reason limits were in place. Once the term was served, the elected officials had to then step down and live amongst the very people they represented. They had to live according to the taxes they set, the bills they passed, any changes they made to the way of life then applied to them as well. It made them think hard before passing bills/laws or making changes.

Elected officials do not live by the same "code" as the citizens. They have lifetime benefits which preclude them from any worries of health care, life insurance, dental, or even income! So why should they second guess a bill that will heavily tax citizens, or put them under a restrictive healthcare plan, or even cause more unemployment?




How lovely for Canada. It doesn't matter. We need to go back to our old system of one term for elected officials, along with doing away with their lifetime benefits.



The media mostly covers what they are shown. The politicians turn it into a sideshow. Unfortunately, getting elected into politics has turned more into pointing out how bad the other guy is than showing how virtuous and honest a you are.

Also, most politicians don't read the bills they vote for! The ones that vote against a bill usually have a team of lawyers read it.

There is a very simple fix: If you don`t like them, vote them out. If they are doing that bad a job it shouldn`t be hard to find a candidate to beat them.

Regarding the comments about Canada, my point is at least one successful system does not use term limits.

I personally think having length one term limits would be an absolute disaster, because candidates would be elected based on ideology over substance. Anyone with a track record in office would not be eligible to be elected.

This means if an ideology sounds appealing but doesn`t work in practice, candidates can run on that ideology endlessly and blame the failings on previous candidates getting details wrong.

I mean if finance minister were an elected position almost no one would vote Greenspan right now.

Also isn`t one of the biggest problems with politicians lying? If they never have to run for re-election how do you ever trust them to tell the truth. People who run for election could easily say whatever it takes to get elected, then do whatever they feel like while they are there. Right now people who do that can be voted out next term, term limits (of 1 election) eliminate that.

[DuncanONeil]

Personally I think the "Tea Party" movement is the same kind of thing that started the nation on the road to today.
I agree they should all be fired. Some might deserve exception, but since we only get a third of the House at a time that may be a bad idea.

If term limits are a good thing for the President, why are we told it is the death knell of the country to have Congress do the same????


I hear the sounds of an Election coming, Republicans blaming Democrats for the lousy state of our country and the Democrats blaming the Republicans for Gridlock so nothing gets done...

But all of them are saying the same thing......... " I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE!!!! ".

Didn't we elect these people to represent us in Washington?? Aren't they responsible to us their constituants?? But every election its always the same routine, they did this and they will do that if.. I !! ..am not re-elected.

I suggust a New Party,, Not the Tea Party, (same song different melody) but a revolutionary idea, don't vote Democrat or Republican,,

Vote ANTI-INCUMBANT!!!

if there is one thing that frightens Politicians its getting voted out of office,, they cannot become lobbists for two yrs, all the favors owed them and they owe to other politicians may become Null and Void,, and above all else, the sitting Politicians get a wake up call, that

" THEIR JOBS ARE NOT AS SECURE AS THEY THOUGHT..."

Give it some thought,, an Elected position was supposed to be a privalage not a Life Long Career.

[DuncanONeil]

Hear! Hear!

But even voting for the candidate that match your own values can be counted on to be successful. Look how the current Administration worked to hide the candidate's background during the campaign.


Voting anti-incumbant isn't even a good idea. What IS a good idea is to vote for the candidate who matches your own individual principles/values/stand on issues the most. Simply voting anti-incumbant is like voting against someone rather than for someone who fits the bill best for you.

An elected position wasn't a life long career, nor was it a privilege. It was an honor...something to be cherished and something a person gave their all for...something that they could take pride in - knowing they did the best they possibly could for future generations.

[DuncanONeil]

Some are of the position that the real problem is the Progressives. Which are in both parties!

The major problem with the Progressives is that they think the Constitution is an impediment to the proper kind of Government.

Oh yes! Too many of those in Congress act as if they are the nations NOBILITY. We had a Revolution to get away from that!!

I just heard that a majority of Congress, well thos that took the test, failed a basic civics text. Part of which include the rights enumerated in the First Amendment!


And yet not having term limits accross the board has turned being in office into yet another corupt money making scheme.

It doesnt seem to matter weather its a republican or a democrat in office the same shit keeps happening, so why not allways vote out the incumbant.

In fact ... I say vote the lot of them out!

Next election, if it says eaither republican or democrat on the ticket next to someone's name I WILL vote for someone not affiliated with eaither party or I will write in a canidate of my choosing.

[DuncanONeil]

The primary job of a member of Congress has become that once they are elected they put ALL their effort into getting re-elected!

Does not Canada have a Parliment?


Canada has no term limits period. Not even for Prime-Minister. And it works very well. We've had good politicians have LONG runs. Lots of people disagree with the party in charge at any specific time, but at least they have their best and brightest leading them.

If you look at any of the recent 12-16 year spans of one party having the presidency, the 2nd guy is usually a LOT worse than the first, and you'd be a lot happier if the 1st guy was in for the whole time.

I also think a lot of the problem is the way your media covers your politics. It's become a sideshow, and people keep their jobs by scoring points against the other team rather than by passing good policy. Not sure there is any real solution to this one, its not like you can get the average voters to read the entire bills that people voted for/against along with their reasons for why.

[steelish]

Next election, if it says eaither republican or democrat on the ticket next to someone's name I WILL vote for someone not affiliated with eaither party or I will write in a canidate of my choosing.

Just one thing... Quite a few politicians are talking about distancing themselves from both parties and running as an independent. I am disillusioned with both parties too. However, I will not simply vote in an independent just to spite the two parties. That's opening a door to a whole other set of problems. I plan to study each candidate as carefully as I can, including any past track records and weigh my decision carefully before casting a vote.

[denuseri]

I will as well steelish, I never vote party line anyway, heck I waffled last time between Clinton, Obama, and McCain several times beofre the election but I swear to you, if it says democrate or republican next to their names next time, I will not be viewing that in their favor lol, in fact, it will show me that the politican in question doesnt want MY vote.

[SadisticNature]

The primary job of a member of Congress has become that once they are elected they put ALL their effort into getting re-elected!

Does not Canada have a Parliment?

Yes we have Parliament called the House of Commons modeled partially on the British system. And yes, people do work to getting re-elected, but as for putting all effort into getting re-elected I hardly think that is accurate.

For starters we have campaigning regulations that limit campaigning to a six week period before the election, rather than this silly primary thing where candidates spend 9 figures and take a year away from their elected jobs to campaign for president.

I know you're anti-regulation in general so you'll probably provide an excuse as to why this is a bad thing, but the fact is it works.

[Stealth694]

Just one thing... Quite a few politicians are talking about distancing themselves from both parties and running as an independent. I am disillusioned with both parties too. However, I will not simply vote in an independent just to spite the two parties. That's opening a door to a whole other set of problems. I plan to study each candidate as carefully as I can, including any past track records and weigh my decision carefully before casting a vote.



Thats what I do, steelish, I try and find out the voting record of the candidate that are up for re-election. unfortunetly they usually vote the party line.

[denuseri]

[B]
The major problem with the Progressives is that they think the Constitution is an impediment to the proper kind of Government.



Humm I seem to recall a certian group of people who felt that the Constitution needed some "elasticity" and should be changed or amended from time to time so that it wouldnt be inflexible, or become dated or an "impediment" to a proper kind of government.

What were they called again that group....oh yes thats right The Founding Fathers.

[steelish]

I know you're anti-regulation in general so you'll probably provide an excuse as to why this is a bad thing, but the fact is it works.

I certainly have nothing against the politicians regulating themselves...but I won't hold my breath that it will ever happen.

What I don't like is the government regulating private companies to the point where they are practically driven out of business.

[steelish]

Thats what I do, steelish, I try and find out the voting record of the candidate that are up for re-election. unfortunetly they usually vote the party line.

Good! ;)

[steelish]

Humm I seem to recall a certian group of people who felt that the Constitution needed some "elasticity" and should be changed or amended from time to time so that it wouldnt be inflexible, or become dated or an "impediment" to a proper kind of government.

What were they called again that group....oh yes thats right The Founding Fathers.



The basic premise of the constitution still applies, even in today's fast-paced industrialized and highly technological environment. Adding and tweaking it a touch is one thing, to completely obliterate it another.

[Stealth694]

Thomas Jefferson said : " Democracy is an ongoing experiment" The big problem is we got too many Priate agenda's in congress take a look at Charlie Rengle,, New York and John P. Murtha Pennsylvania, both in office for over 20 yrs, Members of powerful committee's, and both as crooked as a corkscrew. They both had been in office so long they coluld no lnger relate to the Common Man. They felt the rules didn't apply to them and acted accordingly. This is why I say Vote Anti-Incumbant,,, remind them they are not royalty, they are elected at the pleasure of the constituants .

[DuncanONeil]

Yes this is an alternative. But doing so can provide you with exactly the thing you do not want, someone marked "D" or "R".
Most that would not have such a label can not afford to run.
Someone that does not deserve such a label could go the party route to get elected, meaning Steelish is correct. They have to be examined.
I believe the number is 40% of the people are voting party regardless of who it is. So that means to be successful one needs virtually all of the "undecided".


I will as well steelish, I never vote party line anyway, heck I waffled last time between Clinton, Obama, and McCain several times beofre the election but I swear to you, if it says democrate or republican next to their names next time, I will not be viewing that in their favor lol, in fact, it will show me that the politican in question doesnt want MY vote.

[DuncanONeil]

The issue is not campaigning. It is fundrasing, which occurs year round. Some of which is paid for with votes.

By the by the last Presidential election ran for nearly two years. And the winner has yet to stop campaigning!!!


Yes we have Parliament called the House of Commons modeled partially on the British system. And yes, people do work to getting re-elected, but as for putting all effort into getting re-elected I hardly think that is accurate.

For starters we have campaigning regulations that limit campaigning to a six week period before the election, rather than this silly primary thing where candidates spend 9 figures and take a year away from their elected jobs to campaign for president.

I know you're anti-regulation in general so you'll probably provide an excuse as to why this is a bad thing, but the fact is it works.

[steelish]

And what happens if the independent in your polls does not have the ethics/stands on issues/beliefs that you are looking for? If the independent matches what I am looking for in a politician the most, then that is who I will vote for. Refusing to vote partisan simply to spite both parties is akin to throwing a vote away.

[DuncanONeil]

Thats what I do, steelish, I try and find out the voting record of the candidate that are up for re-election. unfortunetly they usually vote the party line.


And opposition likes to use that against them.

We were told that McCain voted the party line 90% of the time and that was too much. He obviously is not his own man!
Yet Libermans voting record was along the party line 95% of the time and that was way to independent for his party. They essentially kicked him out

[DuncanONeil]

There is a major difference. The Founders believed in the people. Progressives do not!

For those who hold the Constitution of the United States in high regard and who are concerned about the fate of its principles in our contemporary practice of government, the modern state ought to receive significant attention. The reason for this is that the ideas that gave rise to what is today called "the administrative state" are fundamentally at odds with those that gave rise to our Constitution. In fact, the original Progressive-Era architects of the administrative state understood this quite clearly, as they made advocacy of this new approach to government an important part of their direct, open, comprehensive attack on the American Constitution.

As a practical matter, the modern state comes out of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, which launched a large bureaucracy and empowered it with broad governing authority. Also, as a practical matter, the agencies comprising the bureaucracy reside within the executive branch of our national government, but their powers transcend the traditional boundaries of executive power to include both legislative and judicial functions, and these powers are often exercised in a manner that is largely independent of presidential control and altogether independent of political control.
(November 20, 2007 The Birth of the Administrative State: Where It Came From and What It Means for Limited Government by Ronald J Pestritto, Ph.D.)http://www.heritage.org/research/thought/fp16.cfm


Humm I seem to recall a certian group of people who felt that the Constitution needed some "elasticity" and should be changed or amended from time to time so that it wouldnt be inflexible, or become dated or an "impediment" to a proper kind of government.

What were they called again that group....oh yes thats right The Founding Fathers.

[DuncanONeil]

Hear! Hear!
Cardiologist are being forced to close their private practice due to a huge payment reduction imposed by Medicare and the other regulations they must follow.


I certainly have nothing against the politicians regulating themselves...but I won't hold my breath that it will ever happen.

What I don't like is the government regulating private companies to the point where they are practically driven out of business.

[DuncanONeil]

Well! We do not have to vote Murtha out.

As for Duke Rangel, well I am surprised that he left the committee!


Thomas Jefferson said : " Democracy is an ongoing experiment" The big problem is we got too many Priate agenda's in congress take a look at Charlie Rengle,, New York and John P. Murtha Pennsylvania, both in office for over 20 yrs, Members of powerful committee's, and both as crooked as a corkscrew. They both had been in office so long they coluld no lnger relate to the Common Man. They felt the rules didn't apply to them and acted accordingly. This is why I say Vote Anti-Incumbant,,, remind them they are not royalty, they are elected at the pleasure of the constituants .

[denuseri]

Most that would not have such a label can not afford to run.

See that right there is the issue! Merit not wealth should be the primary factor.


I believe the number is 40% of the people are voting party regardless of who it is.



So Machiavelli was right, the mob is both fickle and ignorant.


All the more reason to support a movment to abolish both parties at the box office.

[DuncanONeil]

See that right there is the issue! Merit not wealth should be the primary factor.

[B]
I have sitting for me a senator than first ran for office on his own dime. True he had a heck of a lot of dimes, still does.
But it is not so much a matter of wealth but a matter of cost!


[COLOR="pink"]So Machiavelli was right, the mob is both fickle and ignorant.
[B]
Fickle I;ll give you. Ignorant I am not so sure. Perhaps misled is a better term!



[COLOR="pink"]All the more reason to support a movment to abolish both parties at the box office.

Abolishing parties may not be possible. Humans by nature draw together in like minded groups. This does have some benefits, or should, in that you know where those of the group stand on certain things.

[SadisticNature]

The issue is not campaigning. It is fundrasing, which occurs year round. Some of which is paid for with votes.

By the by the last Presidential election ran for nearly two years. And the winner has yet to stop campaigning!!!

The U.S. laws have huge problems with how much one can spend during a campaign. This makes fundraising for years and years (Basically the whole time one is in office) the lifeblood of a campaign.

In Canada, we have a lot of candidates that are highly successful who don't spend an excessive amount of time fund raising. In my current riding our current MP (Member of Parliament) is Olivia Chow of the NDP (New Democrats Party -> Basically Canada's most left wing serious party).

She manages to get out to community rallies, events, show up in parliament when its in session, help individuals in our community deal with issues like government improperly processing their UI (Unemployment Insurance), or other such issues. Before that I lived in a different riding, a seat that was held by Ken Dryden (A Liberal -> Canada's main centrist party), who had a similar track record.

Many of my friends have lived in ridings (I think you guys call these congressional districts) where the Conservative Party of Canada (our right wing party) has a seat and attest that the candidates have similar track records.

In short, for the most part our politicians attend to their responsibilities both in parliament and in the communities which they represent. And a lot of this is that they don't have to run elitist expensive fundraisers as often as possible to ensure re-election.

[DuncanONeil]

How long is Parliament in session?


The U.S. laws have huge problems with how much one can spend during a campaign. This makes fundraising for years and years (Basically the whole time one is in office) the lifeblood of a campaign.

In Canada, we have a lot of candidates that are highly successful who don't spend an excessive amount of time fund raising. In my current riding our current MP (Member of Parliament) is Olivia Chow of the NDP (New Democrats Party -> Basically Canada's most left wing serious party).

She manages to get out to community rallies, events, show up in parliament when its in session, help individuals in our community deal with issues like government improperly processing their UI (Unemployment Insurance), or other such issues. Before that I lived in a different riding, a seat that was held by Ken Dryden (A Liberal -> Canada's main centrist party), who had a similar track record.

Many of my friends have lived in ridings (I think you guys call these congressional districts) where the Conservative Party of Canada (our right wing party) has a seat and attest that the candidates have similar track records.

In short, for the most part our politicians attend to their responsibilities both in parliament and in the communities which they represent. And a lot of this is that they don't have to run elitist expensive fundraisers as often as possible to ensure re-election.

[SadisticNature]

How long is Parliament in session?

Our parliament is in session long enough to address the changes in law the level of government needs to make. Parliament is far from the only job our elected representatives have, and they need to balance those other responsibilities.

[DuncanONeil]

It was not a trick question.
Trying to get a prospective of how the two differ or compare.
Here Congress works about 180 days. Recent news has them working extra hard at three days a week.
Somehow I do not feel I am getting value for the cost.
Tried to find some help on the Parliament sessions. Interesting that your answer, while seeming a bit flip is actually kind of accurate. Not sure our Congress could get its collective head around that idea. They actually think they work really hard and earn their pay as it is!


Our parliament is in session long enough to address the changes in law the level of government needs to make. Parliament is far from the only job our elected representatives have, and they need to balance those other responsibilities.

[denuseri]

All the more reason to vote the lot of our bastards..oops, I mean incumbant congressmen out of office.

[SadisticNature]

It was not a trick question.
Trying to get a prospective of how the two differ or compare.
Here Congress works about 180 days. Recent news has them working extra hard at three days a week.
Somehow I do not feel I am getting value for the cost.
Tried to find some help on the Parliament sessions. Interesting that your answer, while seeming a bit flip is actually kind of accurate. Not sure our Congress could get its collective head around that idea. They actually think they work really hard and earn their pay as it is!

Basically if they are going to have their own offices and staff for political reasons anyways, and they are supposed to work for their constituents, why not give them the responsibility and authority to deal with the issues their constituents may have. I think part of the reason politics is less radicalized in Canada, is that we can count on good representation on these responsibilities even from a person on the opposite side of the issue as us.

[DuncanONeil]

"Basically if they are going to have their own offices and staff for political reasons anyways, and they are supposed to work for their constituents, why not give them the responsibility and authority to deal with the issues their constituents may have."

Huh??
I don't see how that relates to what I said!


Basically if they are going to have their own offices and staff for political reasons anyways, and they are supposed to work for their constituents, why not give them the responsibility and authority to deal with the issues their constituents may have. I think part of the reason politics is less radicalized in Canada, is that we can count on good representation on these responsibilities even from a person on the opposite side of the issue as us.

[SadisticNature]

"Basically if they are going to have their own offices and staff for political reasons anyways, and they are supposed to work for their constituents, why not give them the responsibility and authority to deal with the issues their constituents may have."

Huh??
I don't see how that relates to what I said!

I was providing details of why the Canadian setup makes sense. I think it relates to the idea of getting a congressperson's head around it. If the taxpayers are going to pay for your salary, office costs, secretary, etc., then you are responsible for these services to your constituents.

[DuncanONeil]

OK!
Just to add to that line of thought, the accepted number per Congressman is somewhere north of $1,000,000 each including office and staff!


I was providing details of why the Canadian setup makes sense. I think it relates to the idea of getting a congressperson's head around it. If the taxpayers are going to pay for your salary, office costs, secretary, etc., then you are responsible for these services to your constituents.