Yes. It's their job to be there. As a software developer, I could work from home, but I'm more effective in working with other people when I'm in the office.

i am not talking about doing work from home, just casting a vote if the senator was not in the hall. in 1791, it wasn' t very possible. today it is. this would make "gettin out of town (or at least the hall) to avoid a tough vote" a moot point. it would force legislators to have an accountable vote regardless of their location.

I like the states that award the electoral votes according to the district.

which states do this? i was under the impression that all states are required to give all their votes to one candidate.

sidenote question:

do you think the district of columbia should have it's own senators? by not having senators, are they essentially under the "taxation without representation" banner that was a war cry to our forefathers?

which states do this? i was under the impression that all states are required to give all their votes to one candidate.

There is no requirement - states are granted the constitutional right to select their electors however they desire. From there, for a state to enact a proportional voting system means surrendering power. By splitting electoral votes a state loses influence in the Electoral College.


I believe the last state to split electoral votes was Michigan in 1892.

TheThe elected are only as good as the electorate. As long as we allow for the lowest common denominator that is what we will get.

Sean:

it seems the only reason to go "voice vote" with ayes and nays is to cover accountability. shold legislators be still required to "be in the hall" when their vote can be equally and as effectively recorded from anywhere in the world?

Yes, I do think they should have to be on the floor to vote.  Not only that, but there should be substantial fines for not being there.  I can't think of any job where you "I was somewhere else at the time" is  legitimate argument for not doing your job.

"Oh, I'm sorry Mr and Mrs. Patient's loved ones.  I know I was supposed to be at your loved ones home after I accepted the call from the dispatcher, but I was somewhere else at the time.  I trust the funeral was a beautiful one." ~ Joe Paramedic

~~~~~

As for the aportioning of electoral votes, the only way to make a uniform policy would be through constitutional amendment.  short of that, each state is free do decide.  However, Curious is right, any state that splits their electoral votes loses influence in the election.

The misunderstood fact is, we don't have a National Election in the USA, we have 50 state elections.  Until that is better understood, most Americans won't understand why the Constitution is written the way it is.

 

 

 

 

I like the system we have because our government is complex enough and the issues complex enough that I would prefer people who are spending their full time to be performing that work.

The trouble arises when said people *don't* spend full-time actually doing their job, but rather campaigning and meeting with big donors/lobbyists. And even when they're in the building, it seems few of them actually read bills anymore, even when they [read: their staffers and donors] wrote the things. They just rubberstamp things based on profitability and political expediency, and move along to the next one... Gotta wonder how things would change if we implemented a universal one-term limit on all offices...

"This is only partly true. Last presidential election, the candidates for the Libertarian and Green parties were arrested when they showed up to participate in the so-called "presidential debate". I'm not sure about the candidate for the Green Party, but the LP candidate was on almost every state's ballot."

...on almost every state's ballot, sounds fair for voting purposes, NOT!

"I ask you, if either the Republican or Democrat candidates were arrested, it would cause a firestorm of press."

No shit.

"We hear a lot of accusations about supressing voter turnout, yet when it is both the Republicans and Democrats supressing the 3rd party vote, nobody seems to care."

I care, and I pointed out in my response that the system is bi-cameral and will probably be so until major changes occur, as for suppressing the vote, most of those claims have proven to be bogus from previous elections.

"Our system does need to be fixed, but most of those fixes should be GOING BACK to how the framers intended, not trying to mess with it more. For one thing, the Senate needs to be returned to the States where it belongs. "

Whats wrong with the senate?

"In 2004, almost as many people voted in American Idol than who voted for Gorge Bush."

That's false check into it.

"Not only that, but people, in general, are stupid. This is not the ideal environment for direct democracy."

In your opinion people are stupid, I reject that, "most people are stupid", in general the American public is better educated about the issues and candidates then any group of people in the history of the world about their elected leaders. At least in perception. The media spends more money now then ever before, and there are various outlets, not the least of which is cable news, which runs 24/7 and talks about politics daily, as well as the weath of information on the internet which is available in nearly every home in the country. Political satire shows also cater to a demographic turned off by the boring and straighforward discussion and information relays on the major news networks, so everybody who wants to know and some of those who don't know about the issues and candidates.


"what i want to know, from this "tech savvy" group, is does our democracy need ANY technology to be added to our system to make it more "of, for and by the people?" i do believe that yes, there are technologies that could help our system of government"

The only problem with this is technology costs money, and doesn't add anything to the process of voting. Pen and paper is all you need, Ballots using punchcards and well you were there for the Florida voting scandal, learning about how votes can be wasted because of the particular ways in which they are done. The kiss principal in voting is bliss, it's also as secure or more secure then turning it over to technology which can be hacked, corrupted, or the data lost, without any provisions to make it better/more fair I say to hell with that stick with what works.

"I think there is too much technology in our system. It's ironic that, with all of our technological advances, a simple X on piece of paper is still the best way to vote."

Agree, if anything, there should be pieces of paper with mutiple languages until they either pass a law that states that English is the official language of The United States, or they pass a law that says all languages are allowed. Spanish language ballots are a necessary reality for lots of voters.

"The trouble arises when said people *don't* spend full-time actually doing their job, but rather campaigning and meeting with big donors/lobbyists. And even when they're in the building, it seems few of them actually read bills anymore, even when they [read: their staffers and donors] wrote the things. They just rubberstamp things based on profitability and political expediency, and move along to the next one... Gotta wonder how things would change if we implemented a universal one-term limit on all offices..."

I think it would make our government much leaner and more efficient, and better able to find the money to the problems rather then to the people in power. But since people are in power lol, that'll never happen. Our government has to go the way of other institutions if it is to survive, manufacturing, medical, to a lean environment.

"Our system does need to be fixed, but most of those fixes should be GOING BACK to how the framers intended, not trying to mess with it more. For one thing, the Senate needs to be returned to the States where it belongs. " Whats wrong with the senate?

The Senate is the voice of each state at the federal level, not the people in the states. In a show of full scale ignorance, the 17th Amendment silenced the voice of the State and gave it to the people. This threw off the balance of power between the Senate and House.

There is NO reason for Senators to be chosen by We the People when they are supposed to represent the interests of the several states.

interesting comments so far, thanks!

I still don't understand what is wrong with the senate. Seems to work just great when combined along with the house or Rep. Could you explain why exactly you would like it different?

There is NO reason for Senators to be chosen by We the People when they are supposed to represent the interests of the several states

I still don't understand what is wrong with the senate

i'm alittle confused on this too ted, please explain...

which states do this? i was under the impression that all states are required to give all their votes to one candidate.

I believe it is Maine and Nebraska who allow it currently, but it usually doesn't end up that way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College

from the comments i've seen, isn't it feasible that we consider changing the electoral college from a statewide thing to maybe a more localized countywide thing and allow the delagates to go with the county majority instead of the state?

just a suggestion,,,

i am not talking about doing work from home, just casting a vote if the senator was not in the hall. in 1791, it wasn' t very possible. today it is. this would make "gettin out of town (or at least the hall) to avoid a tough vote" a moot point. it would force legislators to have an accountable vote regardless of their location.

Even if a legislator is not on the floor to vote, he/she can record for the record what their vote would have been if they had been there. If you believe your Senator or Congressman is skipping town to get out of voting, call them on it. If they are legitimately out of town (funeral, for example) they can record their vote so their constituents can see where they stand.