Leon wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

Well ... we can dream.

The problem is not the Congress, it's the voters who elected the
members. An approval rating of 23% really says "I don't like 80% of
me!" ('Does this dress make me look fat?')

We don't get the Congress we deserve - we get the Congress we elect.


The problem is "who" gets to vote, and the fact that congress does
not have to get a majority of the registered voters vote.

Elected officials should not win because they simply got a majority
of the vote, they shoud get a majority of the registered voters vote.
For example if there are 10 registered voters, only 3 show up to
vote, and all 3 vote for candidate "A", that is not good enough. Candidate
"A" must get 6 or more votes to win.

Not voting is a vote that the candidates are not wanted and should be
cast aside.

Nope. I've worked the polls. Since voting is free, many people want to get
their money's worth. They will pull every lever possible, such pull
predicated on the name, office, party, or eeny-meeny-miney-moe.

So, then, what's a potential voter to do who knows none of the candidates,
none of the issues, none of the promises? Would you FORCE him to vote for
SOMEBODY? Those in this category, who stay home thereby leaving the decision
up to those who presumably are educated on the concept, are doing the right
thing.

Personally, I think TOO MANY people vote. I would limit voting to people:
1. Who registered, each year, in January, and
2. Who owned property, and
3. Who paid a modest fee ($10 sounds about right), and
4. Who've never been convicted of a felony or a crime of moral turpitude.