It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

43% Say Random Choices From Phone Book Better Than Current Congress

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Oooh, this doesn't bode well for the sitting Republicans.


The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows that 43% believe a group of people randomly selected from the phone book would do a better job than the current Congress. Thirty-eight percent (38%) disagree with that assessment, while another 19% are not sure.


Source

With the other reports coming out about 20% of the GOP leaning towards Obama, having 43% completely wanting to eradicate a RNC majority led congress is looking like bad news for them.

Of course, this can't be blamed squarely on the GOP but it certainly won't help them.

I think a random selection would actually be pretty smart. Just like a jury selection process. It's not like being in congress is a skilled labor job... it's just a position that needs to be filled by a cross section of America that properly represents us. Civic duty is civic duty and I'd rather see my local panhandler making laws with my local doctor rather than see the current rabble we have in office.




posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I think on every ballot there should be the option "random person from the phone book".



Seriously.




posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


seriously.. I think this sentiment is sweeping across the land..

the average citizen would be able to distinguish right from wrong better than these people..

like today I heard NPR commenting on a "No Insider Trading" law that will apply to Congress..

duh.. that should not even be an issue.. of course it should be illegal..

serving in Congress should be an Honor..

not a life long career.. with life long expense's paid for buy the people..

close the revolving door between business and government...

and return to a Constitutional Congress..



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


I bet if they put that question on the next census it would be higher than 43%!! There is no way that number shouldn't be at least 75%!!!



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
This is pretty hilarious.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Yeah, this idea isn't new, actually... the Science Fiction Author Arthur C. Clarke played around with this idea in his book "The Songs of Distant Earth".... Public Service by way of National Lottery.

In the book, the justification for the system was "No-one who seeks political power should ever be allowed to achieve it."

It's an interesting idea, and would prevent the sort of careerism politicians that we have now, not to mention the "Revolving Door" between politics and the industries that they are supposed to regulate.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Yeah, this idea isn't new, actually... the Science Fiction Author Arthur C. Clarke played around with this idea in his book "The Songs of Distant Earth".... Public Service by way of National Lottery.

In the book, the justification for the system was "No-one who seeks political power should ever be allowed to achieve it."

It's an interesting idea, and would prevent the sort of careerism politicians that we have now, not to mention the "Revolving Door" between politics and the industries that they are supposed to regulate.


I'll have to pick up that book. The idea is brilliant.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
The average campaign to get elected to the senate costs...10 Million

The average house seat costs 1.4 Million dollars

The median net worth of members of Congress is about $913,000

Nearly half of Congress — 249 members — are millionaires.

abcnews.go.com...

The first Congress of the United States included Farmers, Merchants, Scientists in addition to Lawyers..

Some were wealthy, some were not, but none of them were as wealthy as the Loyalists that sided with Britian in hopes of retaining there status, wealth and authority.

We have gone astray in our government in ways that no one is talking about.

Our founding fathers were for the most part reluctant politicians. They answered a higher calling....Higher...there first calling was family and farm, science and trade...they forfeited those pursuits to serve a higher ideal...The first free democracy on the planet.

Our representives these days come to office via Money, Ambition, Greed and Arrogance...A sense of unearned entitlement that drove the founding fathers rebel.

Honestly...yes...a random pick from the phone book would work better. My first choice though would be maybe a random pick of 4 nominees for each office from the phone book and let the public vote from there. That might guard against the statistical risk of electing some serious wackos or the mentally deranged.
edit on 9-2-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-2-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
I think all elected officials should be limited to people with no more than a high school diploma.

No Lawyers.

No Intellectuals.

No Accountants.

No Doctors.

No Mad Scientists.

The highly educated people are the ones who have created the mess.

Let the super smart people work for the good of the citizens, not the government agendas.




edit on Feb-09-2012 by xuenchen because:




posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
I think all elected officials should be limited to people with no more than a high school diploma.

No Lawyers.

No Intellectuals.

No Accountants.

No Doctors.

No Mad Scientists.

The highly educated people are the ones who have created the mess.

Let the super smart people work for the good of the citizens, not the government agendas.




edit on Feb-09-2012 by xuenchen because:




While I am not accusing you of being communist, I would suggest you research the Khemer Rouge who took such an anti-intllectual sentiment to it's full conclusion with genocide.

During the waning days of the "Killing Fields" they shot men, women and children who simply appeared intellectual, wearing glasses and what-not.

Our founding fathers were brilliant men, as well as scientists (Ben Franklin), philosopher farmers (Thomas Jefferson)...Doctors (McClurg, McHenry, and Williamson ) as well as lawyers.

Anti-education, anit-intelelctual is a particularly communist sentiment.

Again...I am not accusing you of being communist, but I have little tolerance for those that champion ignorance.

Greed and a hunger for power has created this mess, not education.
edit on 10-2-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Don't move the goalposts there Indigo.

I never said anything about killing anybody did I.

I never said anything about anti-education either.

I never even came close to even suggesting it.
In fact I suggested otherwise.

You said all that.

And besides, who has been funneling all the money away from the citizens anyway ?

The Founders were intellectuals yes, but they also pointed out warnings about just was has happened.

Most of those old commie countries also had the intellectuals running things and funneling the money too.
Sure they killed some, but the guys who got away with the cash were just smarter than others, that's all.

The average American citizen is not a barbarian and most are successful.

I would be interested in hearing about how you could possibly conclude what you did by what I posted ?

I repeat:
"The highly educated people are the ones who have created the mess.

Let the super smart people work for the good of the citizens, not the government agendas. "

I think the Founders said something about people with "Titles" being in government.
(although that was probably just something to counter the European ways at the time)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
I think when just about everybody on this website happens to agree on a certain issue almost in total, laws should be changed accordingly to support the mainstream idea.

The way to fix this broken country (the US) is to stop voting for incumbents. If someone wants to stay in politics (that is a red flag right there), they can move up, down, or side ways on the political ladder but they can't hold the same position.

Just stop voting for incumbents no matter how popular they are in their local community.

This idea isn't a cure all by any means but it's a good start.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
I think on every ballot there should be the option "random person from the phone book".



Seriously.



I personally favour a box marked 'none of the above'

The box that implies

I'm not lazy, i will vote and I came out here in the cold to say loudly and proudly theres not one of you worth my vote. Please try harder.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Interestingly enough, I think it was in Greece where a random person was chosen to sit on the Senate for a year.
I honestly believe our country could benefit from a similar strategy.

Where each district can have a voted in politician (because they do have their uses) and a randomly chosen person (like being called for jury duty). You would get an appropriate recompense, and couldn't lose your job or whatever.

But if we had more "regular" peeps involved, we might get a more realistic "voice".



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by nuke_c
 


Yes. Thats called 'Demarchy'. I'm very much in favour if it.

By all means elect a government and have them draft legislation but ratifying and amending should be done by randomly selected people. Just like a jury.

Honest but clueless can't be any worse then Clueless and for sale to the highest bidder.
edit on 10-2-2012 by justwokeup because: need a new keyboard

edit on 10-2-2012 by justwokeup because: bloody spellcheck



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Its not about intellectual versus non-intellectual.

Its about

a) the corrupted seeking power
b) the honest in power being corrupted by it.

Random selection and a big sample size sorts out the first issue. Fixed terms of service fixes the second.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by justwokeup
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Its not about intellectual versus non-intellectual.

Its about

a) the corrupted seeking power
b) the honest in power being corrupted by it.

Random selection and a big sample size sorts out the first issue. Fixed terms of service fixes the second.


I agree.

I think maybe the politicians should have built-in "security deposits" so we can recover the corruption costs.

I know anyone who gets "elected" is eventually subject to the corruption effect.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen

I never said anything about anti-education either.

I never even came close to even suggesting it.

................

I would be interested in hearing about how you could possibly conclude what you did by what I posted ?





Originally posted by xuenchen
I think all elected officials should be limited to people with no more than a high school diploma.

No Lawyers.

No Intellectuals.

No Accountants.

No Doctors.

No Mad Scientists.

The highly educated people are the ones who have created the mess.




top topics



 
6

log in

join