Congressional Reform Act of 2010

1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.

A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home
and back to work.

2. No Tenure / No Pension:

A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay
when they are out of office.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home
and back to work.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social
Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social
Security system, Congress participates with the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, server your term(s), then go
home and back to work.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home
and back to work.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional
pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go
home and back to work.

6. Congress looses their current health care system and participates in
the same health care system as the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home
and back to work.

7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American
people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home
and back to work.

8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective
1/1/11.

The American people did not make this contract with congressmen,
congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go
home and back to work.


Well ... we can dream.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:35:17 -0600, the infamous Swingman
scrawled the following:

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.

A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home
and back to work.

2. No Tenure / No Pension:

A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay
when they are out of office.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home
and back to work.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social
Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social
Security system, Congress participates with the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, server your term(s), then go
home and back to work.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home
and back to work.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional
pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go
home and back to work.

6. Congress looses their current health care system and participates in
the same health care system as the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home
and back to work.

7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American
people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home
and back to work.

8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective
1/1/11.

The American people did not make this contract with congressmen,
congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go
home and back to work.


Well ... we can dream.

I really like that concept. I think the growing trend is toward a
vio^H^H^H overthrow, so I hope they sense it and straighten up, but
I'm not betting any money on the greedy dickheads in office now.


P.S: #6 should say "loses" /nitpick

--
It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars.
-- Garrison Keillor

Swingman wrote:

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.

A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms
... snip of other good stuff

Yep. Serving in Congress as a career has resulted in a certain group of
people who view their position in leadership as an entitlement and with the
viewpoint that they are our ruling aristocracy. That was never intended.
As someone pointed out in another forum, the founders were brilliant, but
they weren't perfect -- enacting term limits would be in keeping with their
intent.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
Swingman wrote:

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.

A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms
... snip of other good stuff

Yep. Serving in Congress as a career has resulted in a certain group of
people who view their position in leadership as an entitlement and with
the
viewpoint that they are our ruling aristocracy. That was never intended.
As someone pointed out in another forum, the founders were brilliant, but
they weren't perfect -- enacting term limits would be in keeping with
their
intent.


The current term limits at the Federal level are two, four, six years, and
eight years. Any time the voting public desires to limit someone's term all
they need do is vote for someone else. A President who makes it past his
second election is limited by the constitution to two consecutive terms.

Swingman wrote:
Congressional Reform Act of 2010

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go
home and back to work.

Which is why I'd like to see an end to congressional elections. Instead,
draw them by lot like a jury...one term and they are gone.

Yes, that would result in a number of them being thieves and/or dead heads.
No different then now.

Go back to the original concept of a congressional session too; i.e., they
are only in DC for the session, not full time. If they don't want to leave,
shut down the air conditioning


--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

(snip)




The bigger issue, I believe, is that only a small percentage of the
electorate vote during an election.

The elected know that if they cater to a certain group than they have a good
chance of being reelected because that group will go out and vote. If more
people voted, then the "base" that we always hear about would not be as
defined.

It boggles my mind that people do not vote.

Larry C

Swingman wrote:
Congressional Reform Act of 2010

1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.

A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms

[snip]



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.

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:39:06 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita
scrawled the following:

Swingman wrote:

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.

A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms
... snip of other good stuff

Yep. Serving in Congress as a career has resulted in a certain group of
people who view their position in leadership as an entitlement and with the
viewpoint that they are our ruling aristocracy. That was never intended.
As someone pointed out in another forum, the founders were brilliant, but
they weren't perfect -- enacting term limits would be in keeping with their
intent.

We tried that once and the fu^H^Hdickheads overturned our will. That
should have been the day of reckoning for them, don't you think?
sigh

--
It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars.
-- Garrison Keillor

"Larry C" wrote in message
...
(snip)




The bigger issue, I believe, is that only a small percentage of the
electorate vote during an election.

The elected know that if they cater to a certain group than they have a
good chance of being reelected because that group will go out and vote.
If more people voted, then the "base" that we always hear about would not
be as defined.

It boggles my mind that people do not vote.

Larry C

You know in communist countries and dictatorships the people are required to
vote. Thank goodness we have the right not to vote. Voting for the sake of
voting IMHO sends the wrong message, I think it tells the counters that you
actually want one of the people running for office.

Better yet, require that for one to be elected that they get a majority of
the registered voters vote, not just a majority of the votes. If a majority
of the registered voters don't show up, another election is held with other
candidates. Yes this will take time to elect an official but don't we
deserve someone we actually want?

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:11:19 -0500, the infamous "Larry C"
scrawled the following:

(snip)




The bigger issue, I believe, is that only a small percentage of the
electorate vote during an election.

The elected know that if they cater to a certain group than they have a good
chance of being reelected because that group will go out and vote. If more
people voted, then the "base" that we always hear about would not be as
defined.

It boggles my mind that people do not vote.

Can you blame them? I've only voted for one of the last 5 presidents,
and that covers 7 terms, or 28 _years_! The rest (Clintoon, Dubya,
Osama Bin Biden) got in despite my best voting each and every time.
I've become extremely discouraged, but I still vote in every election
I'm entitled. I'm saddened, but I can't blame them for thinking that
their vote doesn't mean squat. In some ways, if everyone who was
wishy-washy voted, more bad guys would win by promising more crap and,
as usual, failing to deliver any of it. (See "Obama's gonna pay my
rent/car payment/utilities" video.)

--
It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars.
-- Garrison Keillor

"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.

On 12/30/2009 7:59 AM, Leon wrote:
"Larry wrote in message

It boggles my mind that people do not vote.

Larry C

You know in communist countries and dictatorships the people are required to
vote. Thank goodness we have the right not to vote. Voting for the sake of
voting IMHO sends the wrong message, I think it tells the counters that you
actually want one of the people running for office.

Better yet, require that for one to be elected that they get a majority of
the registered voters vote, not just a majority of the votes. If a majority
of the registered voters don't show up, another election is held with other
candidates. Yes this will take time to elect an official but don't we
deserve someone we actually want?

Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that **** off
the politicians and lobbyist.

This idealistic "right of everyman to vote" will prove to be the root
factor in the eventual downfall of this country.

Sad, but true.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:11:19 -0500, the infamous "Larry C"


It boggles my mind that people do not vote.

Can you blame them? I've only voted for one of the last 5 presidents,
and that covers 7 terms, or 28 _years_! The rest (Clintoon, Dubya,
Osama Bin Biden) got in despite my best voting each and every time.
I've become extremely discouraged, but I still vote in every election
I'm entitled. I'm saddened, but I can't blame them for thinking that
their vote doesn't mean squat. In some ways, if everyone who was
wishy-washy voted, more bad guys would win by promising more crap and,
as usual, failing to deliver any of it. (See "Obama's gonna pay my
rent/car payment/utilities" video.)

IMHO people don't vote because there is no one that they want to try to
elect. Voting for someone that you don't want in office defeats the
purpose, don't you think?

Leon wrote:
"Larry C" wrote in message
...
(snip)




The bigger issue, I believe, is that only a small percentage of the
electorate vote during an election.

The elected know that if they cater to a certain group than they
have a good chance of being reelected because that group will go out
and vote. If more people voted, then the "base" that we always hear
about would not be as defined.

It boggles my mind that people do not vote.

Larry C

You know in communist countries and dictatorships the people are
required to vote. Thank goodness we have the right not to vote.
Voting for the sake of voting IMHO sends the wrong message, I think
it tells the counters that you actually want one of the people
running for office.

Better yet, require that for one to be elected that they get a
majority of the registered voters vote, not just a majority of the
votes. If a majority of the registered voters don't show up, another
election is held with other candidates. Yes this will take time to
elect an official but don't we deserve someone we actually want?

But in the meanwhile we're stuck with the people we don't want. The system
you propose would pretty much mean that an incumbent had a lifetime
appointment.

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
Better yet, require that for one to be elected that they get a majority
of
the registered voters vote, not just a majority of the votes. If a
majority
of the registered voters don't show up, another election is held with
other
candidates. Yes this will take time to elect an official but don't we
deserve someone we actually want?

Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that **** off
the politicians and lobbyist.

This idealistic "right of everyman to vote" will prove to be the root
factor in the eventual downfall of this country.


Totally agree!

Sad, but true.

On Dec 30, 8:13*am, "Leon" wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

...

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:11:19 -0500, the infamous "Larry C"

It boggles my mind that people do not vote.

Can you blame them? *I've only voted for one of the last 5 presidents,
and that covers 7 terms, or 28 _years_! *The rest (Clintoon, Dubya,
Osama Bin Biden) got in despite my best voting each and every time.
I've become extremely discouraged, but I still vote in every election
I'm entitled. *I'm saddened, but I can't blame them for thinking that
their vote doesn't mean squat. *In some ways, if everyone who was
wishy-washy voted, more bad guys would win by promising more crap and,
as usual, failing to deliver any of it. (See "Obama's gonna pay my
rent/car payment/utilities" video.)

IMHO people don't vote because there is no one that they want to try to
elect.

No, people don't vote because they're too lazy, as is their right in
any free state. Often they're too uninformed to have an educated
opinion, so *SHOULDN'T* vote.
*
Voting for someone that you don't want in office defeats the
purpose, don't you think?

No, voting for the "lesser of evils" certainly doesn't defeat any
purpose. You're never going to be 100% happy with another controlling
your life. Less is better than more.

In article , "Leon" wrote:

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.

OK, but suppose Candidate A and his opponent B are both chumps, each with
lukewarm support from only one of the ten voters -- but A is *opposed* by all
of the other eight. If the one voter that supports B, and five of the eight
that oppose A, show up and vote for B, he's in, even though he's a chump.

That's actually not as far-fetched as it seems. I think we saw something
similar in the 2008 primaries: Hillary Clinton has very high disapproval
ratings, even among Democrats, and I suspect that a substantial number of the
votes that Obama received were votes against her, not for him. Meanwhile, on
the Republican side, several of the candidates appeared to be nutjobs;
probably many of the votes McCain received were votes against them, not for
him.

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

Better yet, require the choice "None Of The Above" to appear on every ballot.
If NOTA "wins", have another election in which the losing candidates are not
allowed to participate. Repeat until someone wins. Or leave the office vacant.

"Leon" wrote in message
...

"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.


You file a ballot and you vote a blank for that person.

Enough blanks and the candidate may start to wonder. Even more important,
enough blanks and citizens may run against an incumbent thinking they can be
defeated.

IMHO you should always file a ballot, blank them all if you want, but file a
ballot.

Also, people need to educate themselves more about what is going on. I saw
a bumper sticker that read: "Pay more attention or pay more taxes"

Larry C

In article , Swingman wrote:

Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that **** off
the politicians and lobbyist.

I don't think I agree with that. Among other things, it would disenfranchise
the working poor, while allowing the idle wealthy to retain the right to vote.
That doesn't strike me as operating in the best interests of society.

I propose this as an alternative: The right to vote depends on being a
net taxpayer: paying more in taxes than you receive in government handouts.

On Dec 30, 7:45*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Swingman wrote:
Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that **** off
the politicians and lobbyist.

I don't think I agree with that. Among other things, it would disenfranchise
the working poor, while allowing the idle wealthy to retain the right to vote.
That doesn't strike me as operating in the best interests of society.

Don't think they give a **** about that.

One must be inCREDibly uninformed to have no concept of the true
implications of the term "landed gentry."

And/or ... one must simply want to pretend they're running the Bush/
Cheney campaign, and work as hard as humanly possible to disallow
votes from blocs that traditionally comprise Democrats.

Out of curiosity, does the proponent of this not-good-not-new idea
also miss the Good Old Days of ... slavery?

Wow. Astounding.

Google "confirmation bias." Somebody needs to get out more ... and
challenge some of their own fundamental, closely-held positions, from
time to time.

To be crystal clear: these comments are NOT directed at Doug Miller.

In article , wrote:

Can you blame them? I've only voted for one of the last 5 presidents,
and that covers 7 terms, or 28 _years_! The rest (Clintoon, Dubya,
Osama Bin Biden) got in despite my best voting each and every time.

I've voted in every Presidential election from 1976 on. Only four times has
the candidate I voted for won the election -- and only *one* of those
four times did I really feel good about the vote I cast. Two-thirds of the
time, I've voted for the candidate that I perceived as the lesser of two
evils. The system of primary elections seems to somehow ensure that only
mediocre candidates will receive a major-party nomination.

I've become extremely discouraged, but I still vote in every election
I'm entitled.

Yep. Same here, on both counts.

On 12/30/2009 8:45 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
In article8uWdnRGuat4XwqbWnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@giganews. com, wrote:

Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that **** off
the politicians and lobbyist.

This idealistic "right of everyman to vote" will prove to be the root
factor in the eventual downfall of this country.

Sad, but true.

I don't think I agree with that. Among other things, it would disenfranchise
the working poor, while allowing the idle wealthy to retain the right to vote.
That doesn't strike me as operating in the best interests of society.

I propose this as an alternative: The right to vote depends on being a
net taxpayer: paying more in taxes than you receive in government handouts.

Nothing to do with my basic premise, which was put back in above, where
it belongs.

I don't like it either, but as with most idealistic concepts, they
simply can't stand up to practicality.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

In article , Swingman wrote:
On 12/30/2009 8:45 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
In article8uWdnRGuat4XwqbWnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@giganews. com,
wrote:

Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that **** off
the politicians and lobbyist.

This idealistic "right of everyman to vote" will prove to be the root
factor in the eventual downfall of this country.

Sad, but true.

I don't think I agree with that. Among other things, it would disenfranchise
the working poor, while allowing the idle wealthy to retain the right to
vote.
That doesn't strike me as operating in the best interests of society.

I propose this as an alternative: The right to vote depends on being a
net taxpayer: paying more in taxes than you receive in government handouts.

Nothing to do with my basic premise, which was put back in above, where
it belongs.

I agree with your basic premise, but not with the proposed remedy. Benjamin
Franklin was once asked how long he thought the republic would endure; he is
reputed to have responded "Until the people discover they can vote themselves
money from the public treasury" -- hence my suggestion.

I don't like it either, but as with most idealistic concepts, they
simply can't stand up to practicality.

:-)

On 12/30/2009 9:47 AM, Doug Miller wrote:

I agree with your basic premise, but not with the proposed remedy. Benjamin
Franklin was once asked how long he thought the republic would endure; he is
reputed to have responded "Until the people discover they can vote themselves
money from the public treasury" -- hence my suggestion.

Sorry ... my fault. I misread your point. Mea culpa ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On 12/30/2009 8:11 AM, Swingman wrote:

Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
only property owners being able to vote ...

Hmm. And how would you go about determining which partner should be
disenfranchised in a divorce? By their political views?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

In article , Swingman wrote:
On 12/30/2009 9:47 AM, Doug Miller wrote:

I agree with your basic premise, but not with the proposed remedy. Benjamin
Franklin was once asked how long he thought the republic would endure; he is
reputed to have responded "Until the people discover they can vote themselves
money from the public treasury" -- hence my suggestion.

Sorry ... my fault. I misread your point. Mea culpa ...

No problem, Karl. Thanks.

On 12/30/2009 10:14 AM, Morris Dovey wrote:
On 12/30/2009 8:11 AM, Swingman wrote:

Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
only property owners being able to vote ...

Hmm. And how would you go about determining which partner should be
disenfranchised in a divorce? By their political views?

Women should not be ... errr, never mind.

BTW, women automatically get the house in a divorce! Problem solved. g

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

wrote in message
...


No, people don't vote because they're too lazy, as is their right in
any free state. Often they're too uninformed to have an educated
opinion, so *SHOULDN'T* vote.


Nice of you to presume the priviledge of deciding why other people do
things. Too bad you are not as wise as you believe yourself to be. You
might consider asking people who don't vote, why they don't. BTW - what is
an educated opinion? One that matches yours?

Voting for someone that you don't want in office defeats the
purpose, don't you think?

No, voting for the "lesser of evils" certainly doesn't defeat any
purpose. You're never going to be 100% happy with another controlling
your life. Less is better than more.

It most certainly can defeat the purpose. This has been demonstrated time
and time again, as Washington critters prove to be one and the same,
regardles of their party affiliation or their promises.

--

-Mike-

Larry C wrote:
"Leon" wrote in message
...

"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.


You file a ballot and you vote a blank for that person.

Enough blanks and the candidate may start to wonder. Even more
important, enough blanks and citizens may run against an incumbent
thinking they can be defeated.

IMHO you should always file a ballot, blank them all if you want, but
file a ballot.

Also, people need to educate themselves more about what is going on.
I saw a bumper sticker that read: "Pay more attention or pay more
taxes"

I'd like to see three options on every ballot for every office--"none of the
above", "shoot them all", and "abolish the office".

On Dec 30, 10:53*am, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

No, people don't vote because they're too lazy, as is their right in
any free state. *Often they're too uninformed to have an educated
opinion, so *SHOULDN'T* vote.

Nice of you to presume the priviledge of deciding why other people do
things. *Too bad you are not as wise as you believe yourself to be. *You
might consider asking people who don't vote, why they don't. *BTW - what is
an educated opinion? *One that matches yours?

What a presumptuous fool you are! I said nothing about what people
should believe or how they should vote, or even whether they should be
allowed to vote. I do believe that perhaps they shouldn't vote if
they haven't made some effort in understanding the issues. Most
don't, so we end up with a mess like we have currently.

Voting for someone that you don't want in office defeats the
purpose, don't you think?
No, voting for the "lesser of evils" certainly doesn't defeat any
purpose. *You're never going to be 100% happy with another controlling
your life. *Less is better than more.

It most certainly can defeat the purpose. *This has been demonstrated time
and time again, as Washington critters prove to be one and the same,
regardles of their party affiliation or their promises.

Nonsense. You propose that things can never be worse.

What an ass.

On Dec 30, 11:34*am, Swingman wrote:
On 12/30/2009 10:14 AM, Morris Dovey wrote:

On 12/30/2009 8:11 AM, Swingman wrote:

Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
only property owners being able to vote ...

Hmm. And how would you go about determining which partner should be
disenfranchised in a divorce? By their political views?

Women should not be ... errr, never mind.

BTW, women automatically get the house in a divorce! Problem solved. g


BTDT

It's the latest pick-up line in a bar: "Hello gorgeous, can I buy you
a house?"

"Larry C" wrote in message
...
(snip)

The bigger issue, I believe, is that only a small percentage of the
electorate vote during an election.

The elected know that if they cater to a certain group than they have a
good chance of being reelected because that group will go out and vote.
If more people voted, then the "base" that we always hear about would not
be as defined.

It boggles my mind that people do not vote.

Larry C

Making voting mandatory is an interesting idea, 32 nations have done so and
two-thirds of them enforce that requirement. Hmmmmm--don't vote and you pay
a substantial fine (pegged to income)--that should get people's attention.
Of course I'd also require that all ballots have a "None of the above"
choice.

"Leon" wrote in message
...


You know in communist countries and dictatorships the people are required
to vote.

Some democratic countries (including Australia, Belgium, Switzerland,
Mexico, Argentina and Greece) have a similar requirement, and it seems to
work quite well for them.

BTW, have you noticed how few actual Communist countries there are left?

Thank goodness we have the right not to vote. Voting for the sake of
voting IMHO sends the wrong message, I think it tells the counters that
you actually want one of the people running for office.

All you have to do is deliberately spoil your ballot and you vote for
nobody, or there could be a "None of the above" choice.

Mandatory voting would be a modest infringement on our liberty, but it would
serve such a compelling public interest that IMO it would be worth it.

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that **** off
the politicians and lobbyist.

This idealistic "right of everyman to vote" will prove to be the root
factor in the eventual downfall of this country.

Sad, but true.

Bull, giving political power only to those with wealth is repugnant, you
couldn't come up with something that would make politicians and lobbyists
happier. The ability of the people to throw morons and crooks out of office
is one of the few things that keep the *******s in line.

Are you going to tell a youth who volunteers to risk his life serving his
country in uniform that he doesn't get to vote because he doesn't have any
property? If the mill closes and people lose their jobs and their homes
should that result in them losing the vote? Do you seriously propose that
citizens who rent apartments are inherently entitled to fewer rights than
people who own houses?

No offense, but that is one lameass idea.

Please .."STEP AWAY FROM THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS"
Politician is one of the best paying jobs



"Swingman" wrote in message
...
Congressional Reform Act of 2010

1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.

A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home
and back to work.

SNIP

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:13:58 -0600, the infamous "Leon"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:11:19 -0500, the infamous "Larry C"


It boggles my mind that people do not vote.

Can you blame them? I've only voted for one of the last 5 presidents,
and that covers 7 terms, or 28 _years_! The rest (Clintoon, Dubya,
Osama Bin Biden) got in despite my best voting each and every time.
I've become extremely discouraged, but I still vote in every election
I'm entitled. I'm saddened, but I can't blame them for thinking that
their vote doesn't mean squat. In some ways, if everyone who was
wishy-washy voted, more bad guys would win by promising more crap and,
as usual, failing to deliver any of it. (See "Obama's gonna pay my
rent/car payment/utilities" video.)

IMHO people don't vote because there is no one that they want to try to
elect. Voting for someone that you don't want in office defeats the
purpose, don't you think?

It has come down to voting for the lesser of several evils lately.
sigh

--
It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars.
-- Garrison Keillor

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

In article , Swingman
wrote:

Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that **** off
the politicians and lobbyist.

I don't think I agree with that. Among other things, it would
disenfranchise
the working poor, while allowing the idle wealthy to retain the right to
vote.
That doesn't strike me as operating in the best interests of society.

I propose this as an alternative: The right to vote depends on being a
net taxpayer: paying more in taxes than you receive in government
handouts.

So if through no fault of yours you can no longer work (say due to illness)
and you receive public assistance, you would no longer be allowed to vote?
That strikes me as pointlessly unfair.

How about the right to vote being contingent on passing a modest current
affairs test? If you can't provide one-paragraph outlines of four out of
seven major municipal issues and outline the positions of the candidates for
mayor and city council then you can't vote (instead you're required to spend
the day helping at a polling place or doing some other work of value to the
community--say picking up trash in the park with a sign on your back that
you're too ignorant to vote). At least then your eligibility is determined
by something you have control over. Citizens not able to communicate in
English would get *one* pass on that and be able to take the test in Spanish
or whatever--but in four years they test in English or they don't vote.
Naturally provisions would be made for the illiterate, the blind et al.

However I'd also make voting mandatory, so those who can't be bothered to
acquaint themselves with the issues to a reasonable degree would still have
to give up a day of public service--intentional ignorance would not get them
off the hook.

On 12/30/2009 12:27 PM, DGDevin wrote:
wrote in message
...

Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that **** off
the politicians and lobbyist.

This idealistic "right of everyman to vote" will prove to be the root
factor in the eventual downfall of this country.

Sad, but true.

Bull, giving political power only to those with wealth is repugnant, you
couldn't come up with something that would make politicians and lobbyists
happier. The ability of the people to throw morons and crooks out of office
is one of the few things that keep the *******s in line.

Are you going to tell a youth who volunteers to risk his life serving his
country in uniform that he doesn't get to vote because he doesn't have any
property? If the mill closes and people lose their jobs and their homes
should that result in them losing the vote? Do you seriously propose that
citizens who rent apartments are inherently entitled to fewer rights than
people who own houses?

No offense, but that is one lameass idea.

Tell that to your founding fathers, who first instituted the practice.

I didn't say I liked it, I said what the idealism inherent in the "right
to vote for "everyman"" would result in ... in practice it will lead to
the eventual decline of this country.

Look around you ... the country is in decline, it is happening before
your very eyes, although many are too blind or ignorant to see it,
mainly due to the **** poor educational system foisted upon us by the
very concept itself ...

The reluctance to accept it as being at the root of the phenomenon is
understandable, but it will one day be as obvious as the nose on your
face. Count on it.

Again, sad, but true ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Dec 30, 12:01*pm, Swingman wrote:
On 12/30/2009 12:27 PM, DGDevin wrote:



*wrote in message
m...

Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that **** off
the politicians and lobbyist.

This idealistic "right of everyman to vote" will prove to be the root
factor in the eventual downfall of this country.

Sad, but true.

Bull, giving political power only to those with wealth is repugnant, you
couldn't come up with something that would make politicians and lobbyists
happier. *The ability of the people to throw morons and crooks out of office
is one of the few things that keep the *******s in line.

Are you going to tell a youth who volunteers to risk his life serving his
country in uniform that he doesn't get to vote because he doesn't have any
property? *If the mill closes and people lose their jobs and their homes
should that result in them losing the vote? *Do you seriously propose that
citizens who rent apartments are inherently entitled to fewer rights than
people who own houses?

No offense, but that is one lameass idea.

Tell that to your founding fathers, who first instituted the practice.

You mean ... of course ... the slave-owning founding fathers?

Do you have a calendar handy? Do you realize this is ...
effectively ... 2010??

If you yearn for those times, I can list for you a HOST of emerging
nations whose systems much more closely resemble that of our earliest
days as a nation.

[nothing of relevance snipped]

On Dec 30, 2:01*pm, Swingman wrote:
On 12/30/2009 12:27 PM, DGDevin wrote:





*wrote in message
m...

Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that **** off
the politicians and lobbyist.

This idealistic "right of everyman to vote" will prove to be the root
factor in the eventual downfall of this country.

Sad, but true.

Bull, giving political power only to those with wealth is repugnant, you
couldn't come up with something that would make politicians and lobbyists
happier. *The ability of the people to throw morons and crooks out of office
is one of the few things that keep the *******s in line.

Are you going to tell a youth who volunteers to risk his life serving his
country in uniform that he doesn't get to vote because he doesn't have any
property? *If the mill closes and people lose their jobs and their homes
should that result in them losing the vote? *Do you seriously propose that
citizens who rent apartments are inherently entitled to fewer rights than
people who own houses?

No offense, but that is one lameass idea.

Tell that to your founding fathers, who first instituted the practice.

I didn't say I liked it, I said what the idealism inherent in the "right
to vote for "everyman"" would result in ... in practice it will lead to
the eventual decline of this country.

Look around you ... the country is in decline, it is happening before
your very eyes, although many are too blind or ignorant to see it,
mainly due to the **** poor educational system foisted upon us by the
very concept itself ...

The reluctance to accept it as being at the root of the phenomenon is
understandable, but it will one day be as obvious as the nose on your
face. Count on it.

Again, sad, but true ...

--www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

I'm still a proponent of proportional representation. I mean, a
district sends a Libtard or a Repuglican to parliament who was elected
with a 1% margin and the other 49% have no representation whatsoever.
There are countries where that seems to work okay. I think Sweden is
one and look what happen to that crop of babes.... waitasec..did my
brain just make a turn?