posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 04:26 PM
I like the idea in spirit for sure; however, in practice I think it would be almost impractical for a politician to constantly vote the whims of the
people (I don’t mean whims in a demeaning way just that people’s moods change frequently) and their every changing direction.
I mean basically a platform for politicians is like a compass or a mission statement. We as a voter are the investors – we chose the politician
based on the general expression of his desired direction to take the cooperation (country in this case) in the term of his office. Once chosen by the
majority of shareholders he/she takes the reins and goes with their plan for the full term often to the chagrin of the minority who didn’t want the
person in office.
The reason is just as we can’t hold quantifiable referenda on every idea or bill introduced we can’t do it on a regular and sustained basis –
which is why we have elections in cycles. Imagine if we had a constant vote on every issue the media would be unbearably manipulative.
Further, when a politician says he represents the people - which people? The majority who elected him which might change halfway through his term or
the current majority who want something entirely different?
Finally, if this were the case it would basically result in mob rule.
I certainly don’t have all the answers on how to make this better so don’t be too harsh I just see how what we have in a representative republic
is a lot better than a pure democracy. Do you really trust the majority of Americans to know or understand what they are even voting for half the
time? As I look around a Wal-Mart I get scared…
Anyway here are some things I think would make it better:
I think some things that would make it better would be term limits for the house and senate. There should be no such thing as a professional
politician – that would be a start. Each politician would have to have a means of support other than the government there being no cushy retirement
availiable to them.
I also think that the 17th Amendment, which basically took the States’ representation at the federal table by putting Senators to the popular vote
should go away. The House represents the people or the popular vote. States need someone who represents their interests in all legislative
proceedings that used to be the Senators.
Contrary to what I said above some certain items should always be put to a public referendum.
Primarily as the 4th Branch of Government, we the people, could and should have direct control over anything that has to do with the pay, benefits,
privileges, and budgets for the office holders and the running of actual legislative offices.
This could and should be the will of the people – I imagine the people would not give them half the pay, any of the prestige in divers, first class
and military air travel that they vote for themselves. I also doubt we’d vote for the number of staffers they have or their pay scales or the
operating budgets either.
I mean for instance they can charge alcohol and food to their offices for their staff – in the military or any other federal job you can never use
government funds for entertaining your staff or even visiting dignitaries. The Soldiers and Officers pay for those things out of their own pay and
arrange it if they want to have an event.
Spending the people’s money to express condolences say with flowers is absurd – if you want to send flowers to some family on behalf of your
office take up a collection just like we did in the military. How many times as a Commander did I pay for flowers for new babies, deaths in the
family etc., on behalf of the unit? A lot, why, because I could not charge these things to the unit - sometimes people chipped in most times I just
bought them. They have to come from our own pay. Why should these government employees be any different?
Perhaps if they had to pay for their own flights home and the alcohol to entertain and encourage the business types to support their causes they’d
think more about it. It’s easy to schmooze on the people’s money. For that matter, lobbying should be illegal – period.
The only voice that the representatives should hear are those of the people. Take away the ability of corporations and entities to donate money and
we’d have a lot less corruption. However, with that take away the limits – if an individual wants to donate a million dollars they should be able
to. It's thier money after all. However, any group formed of individuals to influance a politician should be considered conspiracy and illegal. An
individual - that's America, a person can be held accountable. A faceless entity, be it a group or business can not be held accountable for their
The problem with money especially lobbying money is the people who lobby usually are not spending their own they do it with profits and business
money. If a person had to dip individually into his own pocket to give money to politicians I bet they’d spend less of it. Finally on this issue
– it would all have to be open and it would be relatively easy therefore to prove which representatives were favoring an individual with their
votes. It’s the anonymity and plausible deniability of funds that makes the whole thing look shady.
The last change would be that once a person had served in the house or senate he she would be forbidden to personally donate to any other
politicians’ campaign thus taking away any influence they might have gained while serving. They wouldn’t be able to lobby for a corporation as
that would be illegal as I stated above and take away their individual ability and they have to just go back to being a Joe without any influence
having reached their term limits on any ability to legislate either with money or in office.