ManagingPrime

When i get on a laptop I'll edit to clarify the op. They don't get to vote any way they want. Lets use the hundred votes in a term example. If they are required to vote at least 80% of the time that leaves 20 votes they can abstain from. If the rep is 100% against a no vote and there is no public support for a yes vote they can abstain. If they choose to vote amd there is not a majority of public support they must vote no, by default. If there is public support they have the choice to vote yes or no.

Why do they need to read the bills if they have to vote with public opinion most of the time anyway? A) Seems kinda pointless, B) Joe Public don't read no bills and C) who's paying for the endless public voting to find out what their constituents (read: everyone) thinks about every single bill that's voted upon? There is no requirement to vote with public opinion. They can vote against public opinion 100% of the time, but when re-election comes around they are going to have some explaining to do. There's only 3 requirements: 1. The reading of all bills voted on and demonstrated proficiency. 2. Participation in the vote X percent of the time. 3. A default vote of No, unless the majority of constituents favor the bill...end even then they have the right to "veto" the constituents wishes.

That's two problems. 1. You imply our elected officials would like to disenfranchise their constituents from participating in the political process. I don't disagree that some do and would look for ways to game the system. That's a problem for sure. 2. I presumed in the OP that a system of communication between constituents and officials would be crafted in such a way that is applied across the board and unable to be gamed. A difficult task for sure, but I don't think it's impossible. What I see potential for is a system that holds our elected officials accountable. The system would allow for more transparency. For example. Say in a two year term 100 votes come up (completely random number) and the representative only votes 50 times when the average is 80. The representative tested at a very low proficiency level (say 70% when the average is 90%) and in 50% of the votes they did participate in they went against the wishes of the majority of their constituents. That "report card", if you will, is simple enough for any voter to understand and I think it would be pretty damning. Just so I understand, what (under your proposed new Constitutional amendment) would be the penalty for being a slacker per that definition? Automatic expulsion from office? Automatic suspension from office pending some opportunity for rehabilitation? Impeachment and trial? Disqualification from running for re-election or election to other Congressional office? Or just public outing, so the public could be on notice and vote accordingly at reelection time? I'm still debating that part. Obviously, suspension from office or expulsion from office could be very harmful to our system of law making. Disqualification from running for re-election is not a bad idea in my mind, perhaps for some preset time 6 years...or maybe life. I've entertained the idea of alternates. I've also thought the retirement benefits that representatives receive is too generous, yet I do understand the reasoning behind them. I think they should only receive those benefits for the length of a standard term after leaving office. Perhaps a mix of removal from office and loss of benefits or disqualification and a loss of benefits....I honestly can't say what I think would be best. As far as "public outing" goes, I think the report card should be as near real-time as possible and easily available to the public.

That's two problems. 1. You imply our elected officials would like to disenfranchise their constituents from participating in the political process. I don't disagree that some do and would look for ways to game the system. That's a problem for sure. 2. I presumed in the OP that a system of communication between constituents and officials would be crafted in such a way that is applied across the board and unable to be gamed. A difficult task for sure, but I don't think it's impossible. What I see potential for is a system that holds our elected officials accountable. The system would allow for more transparency. For example. Say in a two year term 100 votes come up (completely random number) and the representative only votes 50 times when the average is 80. The representative tested at a very low proficiency level (say 70% when the average is 90%) and in 50% of the votes they did participate in they went against the wishes of the majority of their constituents. That "report card", if you will, is simple enough for any voter to understand and I think it would be pretty damning.

To a degree that's the idea. I don't think congress should not pass laws, but I think the ones that do pass should be receive a great deal of consideration by not only the representatives, but the constituents as well. If they are too lazy to do it then they need to vacate their post. That's where the requirement comes in. Secondly, I would say that if we have bills that are too long and complicated to read and understand we don't need those bills becoming laws. The underlying idea is a radical departure from how the government operates today.

That's a start. Now assuming having the french dust off the old guillotines and lending them to us is not an option, where do we go from there?

What would it essentially say? New thread created to not distract from this one.

Last night I was having the same discussion with a friend that we've been having for a decade now, the need for revolution in the united states. I don't know why, but a term from a previous thread in the SC popped into my head "the party of no..". The question was put forth, what if every senator and congresspersons default vote was no? What if they were required to read ALL bills they vote on, without exception? Beyond that, they must take and pass a proficiency test on the bill with a passing score. They must vote on X % of all bills that come to the floor and their default vote is required to be NO with the exception of when a majority of constituents favor the legislation...and even then they retain the right to vote no. The two main obstacles I see in this system is creating the proficiency test and creating a secure system where constituents can "vote" on proposed legislation. If you are so inclined, please poke holes in this system with the assumption that the proficiency testing and constituent feedback systems are rock solid.

Agreed. I lean towards current married couples being grandfathered in to the existing benefit structure. For instance, my grandfather does not have long and my grandmother has never held a job outside of the home. Survivor benefits were intended for that generation and it's special circumstances. That generation is still with us. I don't think they should have the rug pulled out from under them. That said, everything needs to be on the table. With some exceptions I think we need to tear down much of the system and start fresh with the first order of business being an amendment to the constitution to keep the failures we call our representatives in better check.

It's not an issue where people are informed well enough to be comfortable calling the other side stupid. Nevermind the fact we are dealing with potential unintended consequences that could result in the extinction of our species. Welcome to the sc.

Wau to pull the jump number card. Lmao Can I please interject imto this "debate" that I'm no longer interested in (at least In this thread) that we should all jump more and debate/argue less? Can I get an amen?!

But you can still die on account of either of them. Sure can. The issue is choice. If I choose to eat unsanitary food or drink unhealthy beverages that is my right. Someone else does not have the right to serve me unsanitary food or unhealthy beverages without my knowledge or consent. See the difference? But you don't have the choice to eat in a vermin infested restaurant - that choice has been taken from you already. Nor do you have the choice to eat in a restaurant that has inadequate fire exits - that choice has also been taken from you. Yeah. That's been the case for a while. But vermin infested restaurants really have nothing to do with 6oz or 60oz carbonated sodas...unless the bottling plants are vermin infested. It's a fine line, so I don't expect everyone to be able to see it...especially the older crowd.

But you can still die on account of either of them. Sure can. The issue is choice. If I choose to eat unsanitary food or drink unhealthy beverages that is my right. Someone else does not have the right to serve me unsanitary food or unhealthy beverages without my knowledge or consent. See the difference?

I'm not arguing the legality. I'm just saying he's a dick and imho dicks like him tend to take the law right to the edge. Still, in my mind restaurant sanitation and soda size are apples and oranges.

Lol...if I called his behavior paternalistic and then referred to him as a nanny I'd be damnd as well. In either case, it does not change the fact that his style of governance is paternalistic and at times insulting to people that value freedom of choice. If he was on the other side of the isle and governed the same way some liberals would be just as upset as some conservatives. -signed "sipping on a soda to large to be healty"

Only under the constituionally limits Limits they overstepped years ago And the list here? Has nothing to do or is even closely related to limiting a drink size Explain why it exceeds Constitutional limits for the city department that issues business licenses to put health-related conditions on the issuance of those licences? Where are they givin that power? At the state level, by the people Fed is a whole different game But, if you wish the state to have that kind of power, dont bitch when the state defines marriage between a man a woman and bans abortion. Neither are rights. Neither should be controled by the Fed Buy your own rationalizations Apples and oranges. There are no constitutional questions about health and safety conditions placed on business licenses. Good thing too, or we'd have restaurants with constitutionally protected rats and roaches in the kitchens. I see no substantive difference between requiring freedom from vermin and requiring freedom from other health/safety hazards. NOTE VERY CAREFULLY that I do not necessarily agree with NYC's ban, just that your argument against it sucks. Regulation of sanitation can be rationalized quite easily using the harm principal. Regulation of soda size is paternalistic and honestly liberals tend to be a bit more paternalistic than republicans...granted a good number of republicans are moralistic. I think that's the problem people have with bloomberg, he's bluring the line between mayor and daddy.

What's funny is the only threat of violence came from the female mayor when he went whining to her.

So on one hand we have a guy where it's debatable if he's likable or not and on the other we have a guy where it's debatable if he's evil or not? The issue is, at least it seems to me, no matter what the side when people find themselves in a position of power they abuse it. I don't think electing another democrat (Hi. Hillary) or republican is going do any good towards restoring our reputation in the world. How's the working in the world so far with the anti-bush president we have now?

You sound shocked. It's the second term bubba, you should have reached the acceptance stage by now.

Nope. Straight, gay, tg, ts...everyone agrees that the bi crowd is a hot mess and under no circumstances should take on the responsibility of child rearing.

Just because I'm bored. What about gay cloning? Those against gay IVF and adoption, what about cloning? Moving past the legality and feasibility of cloning at this time. On the subject: On of the gayest people on the planet is now a dad. http://www.latimes.com/news/columnone/la-et-perez-hilton-htmlstory-20130321-dto,0,1345400.htmlstory

So as we see, there are quite a few scientific studies, so the jury is not "out". You just presumed it, and posted it without looking it up. Again. The studies are there, but I don't think the body of work is complete. In the broader context of human evolution and where we are heading with reproductive Sciences, I think it's fair to say the jury is still out. Aggiedave pretty much sumed up my position on adoption though. There are a lot of kids that need good homes. If two people can provide a loving, safe and healthy home for these kids I applaud them. If humanity is to have any chance of survival we need to be more inclusive and tolerant so we can, as a whole, and address the real threats posed to us. In the next century, the number of new people that come into the world, the quality of thier care and their ability as adults to recognize, care about and confront the issus that face us all is absolutely critical to the development of the species...so yeah, the jury is still out.

IMO - that one should. e deleted, it's asinine. It's reflective of the attitude of wives as property, not a nation of individuals Although it does work in both directions, does it not? A man cannot be compelled to testify against his wife? There are exceptions, but your general understanding is correct. It's much like attorney client privilege. In many ways a spouses are agents on behalf of the other. From a practical standpoint it is very usefull.

I was actually thinking of qualifying as a divorced spouse. The marriage has to have lasted for 10 years. You may be right there. I don't come across that one very often.

On can only hope. Both parties provide endless amusement and the gun debates growing a little stale. It's only stale because there are no fresh bodies, dammit. They don't get any fresher than kin-de-gardeners. LOL