Majority of R's want 3rd party...D's, not so much

[Natebishop3]

even if it was just one of 537, do you legislate forcing him/her to leave just because you can't trust the populace to not vote for bozos? That's not the way I want laws/policies to be made.

The problem is Brian, the people vote based on incumbents and who has the most money/power. How often does the little guy get elected? Someone has to really fuck up to lose when they're the incumbent. I don't trust the populace to make the right decisions. I consider myself fiscally conservative, but I didn't vote for George W. because I thought he was a lousy president and I didn't want to see him in office for a second term, but somehow the guy managed to get enough votes to win a second term... how? People vote incumbents.

What bothers me is that the people in office make the "safe decision" or say the "safe thing" because they're afraid of not being re-elected. Is that the kind of mindset you want in Washington? I want people who are willing to make the tough decision and speak their minds, and I don't think that will happen unless we have term limits. If they're not worried about being re-elected, they will be less likely to shy away from the right choices I think.

 

[BrianFromWA]

so you think that if there weren't term limits, Bush would've been elected in 2008 and 2012 b/c people are too stupid to vote against an incumbent? How many seats changed hands in the 2010 mid-terms? How many are projected to in the 2012s?

Believe me, I'm just as frustrated about bad politicians as you are. My state continually elects a "housemom in tennis shoes" who's routinely voted by staffers and media as the "100th-smartest Senator"...but it's partially b/c Seattle doesn't feel that anyone trotted out against her would represent them (for whatever reason). I also think that there should be some sort of protection against people not doing their jobs (whether it's 100 y/o senators or campaigners or vacillators that don't show up for votes, etc), but I'd almost rather have that than some "good" politician be pushed away b/c an arbitrary threshold was hit.

 

[Denny Crane]

There is a very simple solution to that, and it is already in the constitution. Vote the bum out.

barfo

It's hard to beat the bum in an election, since he's legislated all sorts of election laws that favor incumbents. And the bum you throw out gets replaced by an equally bad career politician.

Or the party can raise funds throughout the country and focus effort on helping your bum get reelected. Case in point, Harry Reid kept his job.

 

[Denny Crane]

so you think that if there weren't term limits, Bush would've been elected in 2008 and 2012 b/c people are too stupid to vote against an incumbent? How many seats changed hands in the 2010 mid-terms? How many are projected to in the 2012s?

Out of 435 seats in the house, maybe 80 changed hands. Maybe 1 in 5. In the senate? I'd have to go look up who died or retired.

 

[MARIS61]

Until businesses, religions and other organizations are barred from donating, campaigning, lobbying or participating in any way shape or form in our political system, it will not serve the people.

I don't care what business you own, who you work for, who you worship, what charities you support, what you own, what your hobbies are...each US Citizen (and absolutely nobody/nothing else) should have 1 vote and 1 vote only.

 

[MARIS61]

BTW, looks like the Tea Party thing is already costing the Repugnants crucial votes, losing them a House seat in NY.