• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Refuse To Reelect Rejects

P

piasabird

Lifer
According to some poll results Americans (USA) do not think that some elected officials deserve to be reelected. The question is, why do Americans allow these same politicians to keep running. I think the process for elected public officials should be revued. Maybe we need a system based on poll results that states whether an elected official should or should not be able to run for office or be reelected.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI...ngress.poll/index.html

Maybe their poll results should kick members of congress out of office if they are doing a bad job. Should we have a vote of confidence for elected officials if they want to run for reelection to office?

What I am saying is maybe we keep reelecting people that are bad for the country because our system of government is flawed. It is not the voters fault if they are not presented with good or new choices. The system is failing the Voter.
 
Same thing happened here, one member of our congress got thrown in jail for corruption charges, used governmental money to build parts of his summer house. When he got out 2 years later his party was quick to remove the charges on his permanent record (to be voted into congress you have to have a clean record) and he got voted in again through his home town. Almost tore the party apart because so many were against him.
 
i have never heard of a viable solution to the encumbent problem. i don't think it is as simple as term limits
 
Democrats faired better than Republicans, according to the poll released Friday. If the elections for Congress were held today, Democratic candidates would get 53 percent of the vote and Republicans would get 42 percent, according to the results.
Click to expand...
Broken down by party, GOP lawmakers received less support for re-election from the public than Democrats.
"The public seems to be concentrating its wrath on the GOP. Only 38 percent believe that most Republican members of Congress deserve re-election. But 50 percent say that most Democrats in Congress deserve to be re-elected," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director.
Click to expand...

You mean obstructionism is not working? What's plan B? 😀
 
One proposal would be to have primaries for Congressional positions every time they come up, regardless of incumbency. The problem with that is that Congress gets so little done as is; imagine if the campaigning literally never stopped.

Incumbent parties often find it is in their best interest to leave the incumbent politician as the man/woman they run simply because history has shown that the incumbents are much more likely to win, regardless of whatever wrongs they have done. Until people start intentionally voting for the opposite party in cases where the incumbent is awful, the problem will not go away. And very few people are willing to do this, because general logic dictates that even a criminal is better than "them" (the opposing party).
 
Originally posted by: FoBoT
i have never heard of a viable solution to the encumbent problem. i don't think it is as simple as term limits
Click to expand...

Incumbants can be voted out as easily as a one termer. If their constituants would wake the fuck up.
 
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
One proposal would be to have primaries for Congressional positions every time they come up, regardless of incumbency. The problem with that is that Congress gets so little done as is; imagine if the campaigning literally never stopped.

Incumbent parties often find it is in their best interest to leave the incumbent politician as the man/woman they run simply because history has shown that the incumbents are much more likely to win, regardless of whatever wrongs they have done. Until people start intentionally voting for the opposite party in cases where the incumbent is awful, the problem will not go away. And very few people are willing to do this, because general logic dictates that even a criminal is better than "them" (the opposing party).
Click to expand...

I do this. I voted for a Republican for Congress in the last election over a long term Democrat who voted for the war and because he did. The fact is that it makes no difference. I am one person exercising this common sense answer among millions of sheep. If it were possible to correct the sheep factor in our political system we wouldn't have to change much anyway. We have a problem because we have a problem and the problem is the problem. Every answer requires we not have the problem but we do.

What, therefore, can change the American electorate to do something about our problem, the ignorance and apathy of the American voter. Maybe joblessness, hopelessness, misery and death. Maybe invasion or economic bankruptcy, nuclear war, famine pestilence or plague, whatever it is, I guess, that can cause a revolution.

When the lights go down in the City
And the sun shines on the bay
I want to be there in my City
ooh, ooh

So you think you're lonely
Well my friend I'm lonely too
I want to get back to my City by the bay
ooh, ooh

It's sad, oh there's been mornings out on the
road without you,
Without your charms,
Ooh, my, my, my
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: FoBoT
i have never heard of a viable solution to the incumbent problem. i don't think it is as simple as term limits
Click to expand...

Incumbants can be voted out as easily as a one termer. If their constituants would wake the fuck up.
Click to expand...

that is what i said, no viable solution , the dumb masses always vote for the incumbent
 
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: FoBoT
i have never heard of a viable solution to the incumbent problem. i don't think it is as simple as term limits
Click to expand...

Incumbants can be voted out as easily as a one termer. If their constituants would wake the fuck up.
Click to expand...

that is what i said, no viable solution , the dumb masses always vote for the incumbent
Click to expand...

Everybody likes his representative. What they don't like is your representative.
 
I have been tending toward a heavy bias against voting for incumbents in the last few years, from local offices on up.
 
people are much more inclined to blame other people's representatives and senators before their own.

I don't want Texas telling me who to vote out of congress and I'm sure Texas feels the same way about NJ
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
people are much more inclined to blame other people's representatives and senators before their own.

I don't want Texas telling me who to vote out of congress and I'm sure Texas feels the same way about NJ
Click to expand...

OT: I love your sig :laugh:
 
Pork is the primary reason. Just before the last election cycle the Pentagon announced a series of military base closings, which included the Groton sub base yard here in CT. This is a place where they build nuclear attack subs, hardly a high priority although an extremely high ticket item. This particular sub base, coupled with the Electric Boat yard next door, is THE major employer in southeastern CT with very high paychecks.

To make a long story short, the politicos prevailed and Groton was stricken from the list. In the next election cycle, every single incumbent politician claimed it was their personal efforts that saved the sub base, including Bush's sweetheart, Joe Lieberman. This is probably a major reason Lieberman got re-elected.

The cost to all of us-literally billions of dollars. But the clowns keep their jobs, so guess where their priorities are?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top