How would you clean up Congress? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pan6467 · 12-18-2005, 09:33 PM

Let's pretend for a moment that your Congressional Rep. decides to clean up Congress and they employ you to clean it up. The proposals you make they will follow, you can do anything but be partisan.

Or if it works better for you, think this way you are running for Congress and someone asks you how would you clean up Congress to win back the people's trust?

So have at it.

I choose the latter it is easier for me, as I have had and still may in the future have political ambitions.

What I would do is limit the payroll of congressmen equal to the median household income of their district, I would eliminate all unnecessary perks and cut staff to a bare minimum. Congressmen would have to hold "townhall meetings" monthly in their districts, and answer the people's questions.

So if I ran, my promise would be like this:

My district's families live on $30,000 a year. I will only make $30,000 a year and pay for my own utilities and all else unless such expense can be proven to be official business helping my constituency. Any pay over that amount, half (if I aran again) would go into a reelection fund (with no interest), the other half to charities that help my district.

I would refuse ANY private meetings with lobbyists.

My campaign would be funded solely by said reelection fund, fundraisers such as picnics, dances etc. ALL would be open to the public and all would be free to attend or anonymous donations of less than $500. Anyone trying to pay more, will be refused.

My staff would be limited and I would attend all floor and my committee meetings.

Now let's look at what these mean:

Monthly townhall meetings: Allows me to understand how and why my district would want me to represent them on issues. I would not be going by "party line", I would be doing the job the people elected me to do, which is be their voice. I may not even agree with some of the votings but I am there to represent the people, not my own personal agendas.

I would have my own stances, and debate them with the people, I would also let them know all the facts that I would have and could discuss publicly, (ex. of info I would have to withhold: national security or a contract that would make a stock raise or lower, etc.) but would yield to the majority.

If I make and live on what the median income of my district is, then I am going to work hard to find ways to improve that income, so that I may have a raise.

By not accepting any private meetings or monies from lobbyists, I am not beholden to them, just to the people who elected me.

The public fundraisers would show I am answerable and available to ALL constituents, not just my party or those who pay exorbitant plate fees at dinners.

You want to clean up Congress, make them answerable to the people of their districts.

djtestudo · 12-18-2005, 09:52 PM

I like most of what you say here.

I think the biggest addition to it would be a "no-confidence"-type vote. It wouldn't remove your candidate from office, but it would do something like prevent them from running for re-election.

thesupermikey · 12-18-2005, 09:53 PM

getting read of lobbying or putting major limits on it would go a long way to help clean up congress.

I think further reforming of campain finance (ie limiting groups like the Swift Boy guys and Move On) making it clear that these are partison grounds would also be a good idea.

I also think we need to push for a redrawing of the lines between congressional districts.

Ustwo · 12-18-2005, 11:22 PM

Unless you manage to increase the education of the American public as a whole there will never been a 'clean up' of congress.

The people to blame are not the lobbys or the congressmen but the people who vote them into office year after year.

samcol · 12-19-2005, 05:43 AM

One of the ways I'd clean it up is by revoking the 17th amendment. This would allow the state representatives to elect United States Senators instead of having the state population vote on them. This amendment removed a great balance of power in my opinion. It turned Senate races into mob rule popularity contests instead of having the states pick them.

You want to totally eliminate campaign finances for a large portion of government? Have the state reps appoint senators again. The need to campaign for huge populations and wasting tons of money is totally eliminated. The founders really did know what they were doing, maybe we should start listening to them again.

Remember the United States is a constitutional republic and not a democracy like many will claim.

Rekna · 12-19-2005, 06:10 AM

the biggest thing is elliminate the money in washington. Stop the lobbying and bribes. Make it illegal to contribute to a politition and then give each politition who wants to run a stipend for campaign spending making elections no longer about who has or can raise the most money, theirby eliminating bribes and big buisness cooruption.

Second each district should appoint an independent concil who's sole duty it is to constantly investigate the rep out of his district (do the same for senators). The key is this concil has to be agreed upon by all major parties allowing for an independent investegator instead of a partisan hack.

dksuddeth · 12-19-2005, 06:11 AM

run for congress myself. accept no special interest money. not meet with lobbyists(i represent the constituency, not certain fields of industry). expose all special interest money and repeat as many times as needed any amendments requested by special interests.

in general, be a huge pain in the ass to the career politicians

Ustwo · 12-19-2005, 07:13 AM

Before we get to many 'get the money' out of politics posts, I have a question for you.

How do you recomend a new candidate get their name out to 'joe average voter' if they do not have any money to do so?

tecoyah · 12-19-2005, 07:31 AM

Free air time...and televised debates
Unbiased articles in a newspapaer created for the purpose of explaining platforms...distributed nationwide

flstf · 12-19-2005, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Before we get to many 'get the money' out of politics posts, I have a question for you.

How do you recomend a new candidate get their name out to 'joe average voter' if they do not have any money to do so?

That's a good question. Also how does one get this money without kow towing to one of the major partys for their endorsement and support.

I think congress and therefore our government reflects the electorate fairly well. There seems to be a growing lack of integrity in all walks of our society. Maybe I'm just getting too cynical and pay too much attention to the news soundbites.

I don't want our leaders to all be poor but it would probably be beneficial if most of them did not increase their net worth so dramatically after taking office. What will it take for us to stop voting them in year after year?

Ustwo · 12-19-2005, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

That's a good question. Also how does one get this money without kow towing to one of the major partys for their endorsement and support.

I think congress and therefore our government reflects the electorate fairly well. There seems to be a growing lack of integrity in all walks of our society. Maybe I'm just getting too cynical and pay too much attention to the news soundbites.

I don't want our leaders to all be poor but it would probably be beneficial if most of them did not increase their net worth so dramatically after taking office. What will it take for us to stop voting them in year after year?

I think the problem is you assumed they had integrity in the first place.

Hell politicians used to give out alcohol to voters in the US. I think its common to think things are worse now than in the past, but thats normal.

Ustwo · 12-19-2005, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Free air time...and televised debates
Unbiased articles in a newspapaer created for the purpose of explaining platforms...distributed nationwide

If you have a two dozen people running how well will this work out?

Unless someone really shines out, the incumbant will always win. If they do really shine out, odds are they are just good looking on camera with a good voice.

You are assuming that the voters will be interested and do their due dilligance. I think we can all attest that this is not a good assumption.

Rekna · 12-19-2005, 03:05 PM

change the voting system to be something like instant runoff voting. the winner takes all voting is very poor.

frogza · 12-19-2005, 03:22 PM

I would love to see the republican and democrat parties done away with. I am so fed up with their stupid gang mentality. I realize though that would be a tall (if not impossible) order.

I agree with flstf about our officials are no more than a reflection of our country as a whole. We can demand honesty when we are honest, non-cliqueish behavior when we accept others and caring more about right and wrong over money when we become less selfish ourselves.

I do think though that if we had leaders who espoused high ideals, it may trickle down a little bring us all up.

pan6467 · 12-20-2005, 06:46 AM

Some interesting ideas. I find it arrogant to believe the voters stupid or that they cannot think for themselves, I think the American people are very able to vote for what is truly in the nation's best interest (including it's leaders), however, it takes great leaders to run in order to get voted for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by frogza

I do think though that if we had leaders who espoused high ideals, it may trickle down a little bring us all up.

I agree with this whole heartedly, our eaders have for too long been greedy and in politics for themselves and not standing up for what they believe is best for the nation, rather they stand for what their party, the lobbyists and special interests tell them to.

Adding a true 3rd party may very well be the answer. It could stand up and be the decidning votes for certain laws. The problem is that whenever a third party has been tried it has been swallowed up by another party because they lack interest.

samcol · 12-20-2005, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Some interesting ideas. I find it arrogant to believe the voters stupid or that they cannot think for themselves, I think the American people are very able to vote for what is truly in the nation's best interest (including it's leaders), however, it takes great leaders to run in order to get voted for.

I agree with this whole heartedly, our eaders have for too long been greedy and in politics for themselves and not standing up for what they believe is best for the nation, rather they stand for what their party, the lobbyists and special interests tell them to.

Adding a true 3rd party may very well be the answer. It could stand up and be the decidning votes for certain laws. The problem is that whenever a third party has been tried it has been swallowed up by another party because they lack interest.

I really don't think it's arrogant to say that most Americans aren't capable of thinking for themselves. If they could, we wouldn't be in this situation. Clearly, they are incapble of voting out corruption and looking past ad campaign ads. Have you ever seen those news casts where most American's can't even find Iraq on a map?

What do you of the idea of removing the 17th amendment? Now instead of buying and paying for a senator to get your agenda through, you now have you buy entire state legislatures to get your guy in office. This would take our 2 house system back to how it was intended. One house that represents the population (the House), and one that represents the States (the Senate).

Lets face it senators don't get elected, they get chosen by corporations and posted on TV and billboards. The fickle mob votes for them. Give the power back to the democratically elected state legislatures who are looking out for the best intrest of their state to pick our senators. Repealing the 17th amendment would cut out huge portions of special intrest groups and the need for campaign money.

kutulu · 12-20-2005, 07:42 AM

I agree with cutting out lobbyist groups.

I don't think it would be good to drop their pay to whatever their constituency makes. Remember, these people have to keep two residencies. We need to make it so that they can support themselves without needing outside money. Otherwise, we would be stuck with things as it is already where only the rich can be leaders.

I like the town hall idea. That should be a requirement, along with about an hour per week on the radio to take calls from constituents.

pan6467 · 12-20-2005, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

I really don't think it's arrogant to say that most Americans aren't capable of thinking for themselves. If they could, we wouldn't be in this situation. Clearly, they are incapble of voting out corruption and looking past ad campaign ads. Have you ever seen those news casts where most American's can't even find Iraq on a map?

What do you of the idea of removing the 17th amendment? Now instead of buying and paying for a senator to get your agenda through, you now have you buy entire state legislatures to get your guy in office. This would take our 2 house system back to how it was intended. One house that represents the population (the House), and one that represents the States (the Senate).

Lets face it senators don't get elected, they get chosen by corporations and posted on TV and billboards. The fickle mob votes for them. Give the power back to the democratically elected state legislatures who are looking out for the best intrest of their state to pick our senators. Repealing the 17th amendment would cut out huge portions of special intrest groups and the need for campaign money.

I truly disagree, I believe in the people. Although, I do admit my accusation of arrogant is a bit harsher than need be.

I feel that unfortunately, for whatever reason we do not get true leaders to run for Senate. Most are career politicians (and some are truly good and do what is right but those are the rare ones).

I think corporations and media can get away with choosing who gets noticed because we have such weak leaders, not people voting.

I would argue that someone qualified and intelligent enough that truly went on an in state campaign trail and went from city to city and debated issues and listened to voters would get elected no matter how much money he put into media. The media would have to take notice of this man and give him air time regardless.

I believe that the one problem in deregulating the media and allowing corporations to own every media outlet in town and the state is dangerous. I think we need local ownership on local media. If not that at the very least regulations of equal time for ALL candidates not just the ones who can afford it.

When in a presidential election year, the networks profits rise dramatically because of the political ads, something is wrong. Because that sends the message that only those with the funding will ever be able to get their name out. That is the problem, not the voters intelligence.

The voters can only vote for whom the state has on the ballot (yes, you can have write-ins but again, you need the coverage to get a majority to do so).

I believe the fact that the majority vote not party lines but for whom they believe will do the best job on the list in front of them, in most cases.

In the end, I think taking away the right to vote for the Senators is not truly fixing the problem, instead you are creating cronyism, the oppurtunity for 1 party to truly take control, and the biggest problem with it is you are taking away some of the people's voice, enough of a voice that it could be truly damaging to the nation as a whole.

No, you need to fix the problem once and for all and the only way to do that is guaranteed equal time that is not dependant on ad monies.

In all honesty, if I ran for senate, what I would do is take every weekend I had off (for 2 years straight) and go from Ohio town to Ohio town and campaign my ass off. I would print up as many fliers as I could on my printer and hand them out, I would get volunteers who believed in me to work the phones, and to get my message out in every way possible. I would make sure people knew who I was, what I stood for and felt that they had a voice in my platform and in the office I was running for.

Someone who does that and has the right combination in his platform, IMHO would get elected in a landslide. Because the people are crying for it, they need and want a leader they can believe in.

Another problem is the states and the DEM/GOP control.... in Ohio the 2 leading parties AUTOMATICALLY get to put a name on the ballot (they have to have a token petition, but it's not nearly the same amount of sigs an independant would need) everyone else has to have enough names signed on a petition. In primaries, the incumbant automatically gets put on, the 2 leading parties can list whom they want on, everyone else has to have signed petitions to get on.

While I can see why this is acceptable, it is also detrimental. The good is it makes sure there is a choice, the bad is, the guy on the street campaigning his ass off may not be able to get enough signatures that are allowable, because of the narrow requirements. Good is a petition show that the person stands a chance, the bad is someone may still have a chance but because he/she didn't know all the legalities in the petition process, the petition and signatures are disallowed and therefore he/she doesn't get on the ballot.

The reason the voting is so low is the people have so little to choose from and noone gives them enough to believe in, noone stands out, noone takes the initiative and goes out and works their asses off to get elected. But if someone did....... the polls would show it works.

stevo · 12-20-2005, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

I agree with cutting out lobbyist groups.

I don't think it would be good to drop their pay to whatever their constituency makes. Remember, these people have to keep two residencies. We need to make it so that they can support themselves without needing outside money. Otherwise, we would be stuck with things as it is already where only the rich can be leaders.

I like the town hall idea. That should be a requirement, along with about an hour per week on the radio to take calls from constituents.

agree. I would love to hear what the elected would have to say if they had to field calls for an hour a week from the public. we would definitly see some headsplode. maybe a meltdown or two. and a lot less people getting re-elected. They would need to make a new cable channel. C-Span V or something. are there enough hours in the week?

kutulu · 12-20-2005, 08:10 AM

3rd parties just don't work. All they do is split the vote and in the end, we have leaders that are elected without winning a popular vote.

pan6467 · 12-20-2005, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

I don't think it would be good to drop their pay to whatever their constituency makes. Remember, these people have to keep two residencies. We need to make it so that they can support themselves without needing outside money. Otherwise, we would be stuck with things as it is already where only the rich can be leaders.

I agreed with everything but this, and it is a very excellent point you make.

I think D.C. housing is one of the perks, I maybe mistaken but I think all Congrees is given the oppurtunity to live in housing provided, which I think they should. (the problem I believe is that they choose to live in more expensive housing and still get reimbursed. I maybe wrong.)

But they also should pay some form of rent, perhaps rent equal to the median rent in their district.

The politicians that cannot afford to pay their mortgage on their primary home, should be given some form of leniency or have some of that excess pay they aren't taking go to pay their mortgages.

I"m sure there is a solution to that problem, it would just need to be thought out very well.

kutulu · 12-20-2005, 08:33 AM

You cannot change it back to state appointing Sentators. It would be a potential disaster. With creativitiy and the right people placed in power it's possible to draw districts so that one party can dominate the elections. Say you have a state with 1M people where 60% vote party A and 40% vote party B. For simplicity, let's say there are only 5 districts. Each district has 200,000 people. It's easy to see that 3 state reps should be from A and 2 should be from B. However, party B gets the districts drawn in their favor and look what happens:

Code:

District	 A 	 B 	Total
1	 180,000.00 	 20,000.00 	 200,000.00 
2	 80,000.00 	 120,000.00 	 200,000.00 
3	 80,000.00 	 120,000.00 	 200,000.00 
4	 80,000.00 	 120,000.00 	 200,000.00 
5	 180,000.00 	 20,000.00 	 200,000.00 
Total	 600,000.00 	 400,000.00 	 1,000,000.00

Now instead of having 3 from A and 2 from B it is switched. Now the minority party gets to put their sentators in office and the whole system has been fucked.

One of the first things we should do is we should re-draw all congressional districts. Absolutely no voting data should be used during this process.

kutulu · 12-20-2005, 08:41 AM

pan:

My basic point is that we want the best and brightest to lead our country and we aren't going to recruit them to run for public office unless their pay is similar to what they can get from private industry. Who wants to live like shit just so to have power?

We also need to limit their exposure to private industry. That could be done by either requireing them to cash in all of their stocks before starting their term.

pan6467 · 12-20-2005, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

You cannot change it back to state appointing Sentators. It would be a potential disaster. With creativitiy and the right people placed in power it's possible to draw districts so that one party can dominate the elections. Say you have a state with 1M people where 60% vote party A and 40% vote party B. For simplicity, let's say there are only 5 districts. Each district has 200,000 people. It's easy to see that 3 state reps should be from A and 2 should be from B. However, party B gets the districts drawn in their favor and look what happens:

Code:

District	 A 	 B 	Total
1	 180,000.00 	 20,000.00 	 200,000.00 
2	 80,000.00 	 120,000.00 	 200,000.00 
3	 80,000.00 	 120,000.00 	 200,000.00 
4	 80,000.00 	 120,000.00 	 200,000.00 
5	 180,000.00 	 20,000.00 	 200,000.00 
Total	 600,000.00 	 400,000.00 	 1,000,000.00

Now instead of having 3 from A and 2 from B it is switched. Now the minority party gets to put their sentators in office and the whole system has been fucked.

One of the first things we should do is we should re-draw all congressional districts. Absolutely no voting data should be used during this process.

I believe what you are saying was in the NorthWest Ordinance of 1789. Government set down and determined how townships were to be drawn up, it was based on amounts of people.

It was also through this that early on was a basis for choosing election districts. All districts were to be the same size and based on numbers of people living in each.

However, once partisan politics became what they are, the power in charge has always looked to gerrymander districts. That's why like in Ohio, we have some very small concise districts and some very large weird shaped districts. They get the numbers they need, they just draw the districts very.... um..... creatively

pan6467 · 12-20-2005, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

pan:

My basic point is that we want the best and brightest to lead our country and we aren't going to recruit them to run for public office unless their pay is similar to what they can get from private industry. Who wants to live like shit just so to have power?

We also need to limit their exposure to private industry. That could be done by either requireing them to cash in all of their stocks before starting their term.

True, we do want the best and the brightest, something we are lacking. And we do need to reimburse them to where it makes it worth their while.

However, my point is if I'm a congressman and I make $150,000, my interest in the pay my district makes, doesn't affect me. I find other issues and skirt that one, any way I can.

Last I heard and saw they put their investments into government run portfolios (which I'm sure they contract out) and had no idea where their money was. I have also heard these portfolios do very, very well.

But, the lobbyists and the other perks that are corporate sponsored that we don't hear about, are the ones we need to eliminate.

kutulu · 12-20-2005, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Last I heard and saw they put their investments into government run portfolios (which I'm sure they contract out) and had no idea where their money was. I have also heard these portfolios do very, very well.

Yes but if it was as blind as it is supposed to be then Frist wouldn't be in the trouble he's in right now...

pan6467 · 12-20-2005, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Yes but if it was as blind as it is supposed to be then Frist wouldn't be in the trouble he's in right now...

True, very true......

samcol · 12-20-2005, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

You cannot change it back to state appointing Sentators. It would be a potential disaster. With creativitiy and the right people placed in power it's possible to draw districts so that one party can dominate the elections. Say you have a state with 1M people where 60% vote party A and 40% vote party B. For simplicity, let's say there are only 5 districts. Each district has 200,000 people. It's easy to see that 3 state reps should be from A and 2 should be from B. However, party B gets the districts drawn in their favor and look what happens:

Code:

District	 A 	 B 	Total
1	 180,000.00 	 20,000.00 	 200,000.00 
2	 80,000.00 	 120,000.00 	 200,000.00 
3	 80,000.00 	 120,000.00 	 200,000.00 
4	 80,000.00 	 120,000.00 	 200,000.00 
5	 180,000.00 	 20,000.00 	 200,000.00 
Total	 600,000.00 	 400,000.00 	 1,000,000.00

Now instead of having 3 from A and 2 from B it is switched. Now the minority party gets to put their sentators in office and the whole system has been fucked.

One of the first things we should do is we should re-draw all congressional districts. Absolutely no voting data should be used during this process.

I don't see how there would be any disaster by letting states choose. This argument really has nothing to do with how districts are drawn up. US Senators were supposed to be representative of the States and not the population (think of how we pick the president based on States and not really by the most votes in the country). Population is already represented by the House. There needs to be a balance of power by the States.

Here's an article I found. It's long so here are the best points:

Quote:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/09/...7th.amendment/
Ultimate power in a democracy resides with the people. We are not a pure democracy, however, but rather a confederated republic (one that features, as well, county and local political subdivisions).

Thus, while there is national sovereignty, there is also state sovereignty. Power has been so divided and spread for one reason: to provide for and protect the highest sovereignty -- that of each individual citizen......

.......James Madison was not only involved in structuring the system, but was also a keeper of its contemporaneous record. He explained in Federalist No. 10 the reason for bicameralism: "Before taking effect, legislation would have to be ratified by two independent power sources: the people's representatives in the House and the state legislatures' agents in the Senate." The need for two powers to concur would, in turn, thwart the influence of special interests, and by satisfying two very different constituencies, would assure the enactment was for the greatest public good.....

....Fortunately, Professor Zywicki offers an explanation for the amendment's enactment that makes much more sense. He contends that the true backers of the 17th amendment were special interests, which had had great difficultly influencing the system when state legislatures controlled the Senate. (Recall that it had been set up by the framers precisely to thwart them.) They hoped direct elections would increase their control, since they would let them appeal directly to the electorate, as well as provide their essential political fuel -- money.
This explanation troubles many. However, as Zywicki observes, "[a]though some might find this reality 'distasteful,' that does not make it any less accurate."

In my opinion reovoking the 17th would be the easiest and best way to clean up a major source of corruption. Districting has nothing to do with this argument.

pan6467 · 12-20-2005, 09:58 AM

Samcol,

I understand what you are saying, but I think you would be opening a can of worms worse than what we have now.

Granted the Electoral College elects the president, but there are very, very few cases where the man with the most nationwide votes was not elected into office.

The President in order to "take the state's EC votes" still has to win the popular vote of that state.

Revoking/repealing the 17th amendment will not fix the problem.

The only thing that will, IMHO, is getting good people truly involved and wanting to make a change, that have only 1 agenda to make the nation and their district/state better. NO partisan agendas, no lobbyist agenda, no corporate agenda... just the desire and plan to make their constiuency better, better educated, better employed, better healthed, better housed, better than the previous generation and restore the American dream.

Until you get men like that, interested and voted into office doesn't matter what you do or try.

12-18-2005, 09:33 PM	#1 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	How would you clean up Congress? Let's pretend for a moment that your Congressional Rep. decides to clean up Congress and they employ you to clean it up. The proposals you make they will follow, you can do anything but be partisan. Or if it works better for you, think this way you are running for Congress and someone asks you how would you clean up Congress to win back the people's trust? So have at it. I choose the latter it is easier for me, as I have had and still may in the future have political ambitions. What I would do is limit the payroll of congressmen equal to the median household income of their district, I would eliminate all unnecessary perks and cut staff to a bare minimum. Congressmen would have to hold "townhall meetings" monthly in their districts, and answer the people's questions. So if I ran, my promise would be like this: My district's families live on $30,000 a year. I will only make $30,000 a year and pay for my own utilities and all else unless such expense can be proven to be official business helping my constituency. Any pay over that amount, half (if I aran again) would go into a reelection fund (with no interest), the other half to charities that help my district. I would refuse ANY private meetings with lobbyists. My campaign would be funded solely by said reelection fund, fundraisers such as picnics, dances etc. ALL would be open to the public and all would be free to attend or anonymous donations of less than $500. Anyone trying to pay more, will be refused. My staff would be limited and I would attend all floor and my committee meetings. Now let's look at what these mean: Monthly townhall meetings: Allows me to understand how and why my district would want me to represent them on issues. I would not be going by "party line", I would be doing the job the people elected me to do, which is be their voice. I may not even agree with some of the votings but I am there to represent the people, not my own personal agendas. I would have my own stances, and debate them with the people, I would also let them know all the facts that I would have and could discuss publicly, (ex. of info I would have to withhold: national security or a contract that would make a stock raise or lower, etc.) but would yield to the majority. If I make and live on what the median income of my district is, then I am going to work hard to find ways to improve that income, so that I may have a raise. By not accepting any private meetings or monies from lobbyists, I am not beholden to them, just to the people who elected me. The public fundraisers would show I am answerable and available to ALL constituents, not just my party or those who pay exorbitant plate fees at dinners. You want to clean up Congress, make them answerable to the people of their districts. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 12-18-2005 at 09:36 PM..

12-18-2005, 09:52 PM	#2 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	I like most of what you say here. I think the biggest addition to it would be a "no-confidence"-type vote. It wouldn't remove your candidate from office, but it would do something like prevent them from running for re-election. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

12-18-2005, 09:53 PM	#3 (permalink)
thesupermikey I got blisters on me fingers!!! Location: In my stressless expectation free zone.	getting read of lobbying or putting major limits on it would go a long way to help clean up congress. I think further reforming of campain finance (ie limiting groups like the Swift Boy guys and Move On) making it clear that these are partison grounds would also be a good idea. I also think we need to push for a redrawing of the lines between congressional districts. __________________ If you are not outraged than you are not paying attention! "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert

12-18-2005, 11:22 PM	#4 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Unless you manage to increase the education of the American public as a whole there will never been a 'clean up' of congress. The people to blame are not the lobbys or the congressmen but the people who vote them into office year after year. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-19-2005, 06:11 AM	#7 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	run for congress myself. accept no special interest money. not meet with lobbyists(i represent the constituency, not certain fields of industry). expose all special interest money and repeat as many times as needed any amendments requested by special interests. in general, be a huge pain in the ass to the career politicians __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

12-19-2005, 05:43 AM	#5 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	One of the ways I'd clean it up is by revoking the 17th amendment. This would allow the state representatives to elect United States Senators instead of having the state population vote on them. This amendment removed a great balance of power in my opinion. It turned Senate races into mob rule popularity contests instead of having the states pick them. You want to totally eliminate campaign finances for a large portion of government? Have the state reps appoint senators again. The need to campaign for huge populations and wasting tons of money is totally eliminated. The founders really did know what they were doing, maybe we should start listening to them again. Remember the United States is a constitutional republic and not a democracy like many will claim.

12-19-2005, 06:10 AM	#6 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	the biggest thing is elliminate the money in washington. Stop the lobbying and bribes. Make it illegal to contribute to a politition and then give each politition who wants to run a stipend for campaign spending making elections no longer about who has or can raise the most money, theirby eliminating bribes and big buisness cooruption. Second each district should appoint an independent concil who's sole duty it is to constantly investigate the rep out of his district (do the same for senators). The key is this concil has to be agreed upon by all major parties allowing for an independent investegator instead of a partisan hack.

12-19-2005, 07:13 AM	#8 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Before we get to many 'get the money' out of politics posts, I have a question for you. How do you recomend a new candidate get their name out to 'joe average voter' if they do not have any money to do so? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-19-2005, 07:31 AM	#9 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Free air time...and televised debates Unbiased articles in a newspapaer created for the purpose of explaining platforms...distributed nationwide __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

12-19-2005, 03:05 PM	#13 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	change the voting system to be something like instant runoff voting. the winner takes all voting is very poor.

12-19-2005, 03:22 PM	#14 (permalink)
frogza Registered User Location: Right Here	I would love to see the republican and democrat parties done away with. I am so fed up with their stupid gang mentality. I realize though that would be a tall (if not impossible) order. I agree with flstf about our officials are no more than a reflection of our country as a whole. We can demand honesty when we are honest, non-cliqueish behavior when we accept others and caring more about right and wrong over money when we become less selfish ourselves. I do think though that if we had leaders who espoused high ideals, it may trickle down a little bring us all up.

12-20-2005, 07:42 AM	#17 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	I agree with cutting out lobbyist groups. I don't think it would be good to drop their pay to whatever their constituency makes. Remember, these people have to keep two residencies. We need to make it so that they can support themselves without needing outside money. Otherwise, we would be stuck with things as it is already where only the rich can be leaders. I like the town hall idea. That should be a requirement, along with about an hour per week on the radio to take calls from constituents.

12-20-2005, 08:10 AM	#20 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	3rd parties just don't work. All they do is split the vote and in the end, we have leaders that are elected without winning a popular vote.

12-20-2005, 08:33 AM	#22 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	You cannot change it back to state appointing Sentators. It would be a potential disaster. With creativitiy and the right people placed in power it's possible to draw districts so that one party can dominate the elections. Say you have a state with 1M people where 60% vote party A and 40% vote party B. For simplicity, let's say there are only 5 districts. Each district has 200,000 people. It's easy to see that 3 state reps should be from A and 2 should be from B. However, party B gets the districts drawn in their favor and look what happens: Code: District A B Total 1 180,000.00 20,000.00 200,000.00 2 80,000.00 120,000.00 200,000.00 3 80,000.00 120,000.00 200,000.00 4 80,000.00 120,000.00 200,000.00 5 180,000.00 20,000.00 200,000.00 Total 600,000.00 400,000.00 1,000,000.00 Now instead of having 3 from A and 2 from B it is switched. Now the minority party gets to put their sentators in office and the whole system has been fucked. One of the first things we should do is we should re-draw all congressional districts. Absolutely no voting data should be used during this process.

12-20-2005, 08:41 AM	#23 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	pan: My basic point is that we want the best and brightest to lead our country and we aren't going to recruit them to run for public office unless their pay is similar to what they can get from private industry. Who wants to live like shit just so to have power? We also need to limit their exposure to private industry. That could be done by either requireing them to cash in all of their stocks before starting their term.

12-20-2005, 09:58 AM	#29 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Samcol, I understand what you are saying, but I think you would be opening a can of worms worse than what we have now. Granted the Electoral College elects the president, but there are very, very few cases where the man with the most nationwide votes was not elected into office. The President in order to "take the state's EC votes" still has to win the popular vote of that state. Revoking/repealing the 17th amendment will not fix the problem. The only thing that will, IMHO, is getting good people truly involved and wanting to make a change, that have only 1 agenda to make the nation and their district/state better. NO partisan agendas, no lobbyist agenda, no corporate agenda... just the desire and plan to make their constiuency better, better educated, better employed, better healthed, better housed, better than the previous generation and restore the American dream. Until you get men like that, interested and voted into office doesn't matter what you do or try. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"