Post election '06 - What can/should be done?

[InfiniteNow]

The results are in. Love 'em or hate 'em, you have a new set of representatives, so deal with it.

 

What can and should these newly elected representatives do now?

 

Kegger?

Pull out of Iraq?

Paint ball outting?

Build border fences and Legalize marriages between 2 male meerkats?

Naked crisco twister?

 

 

What? Please, do share. :eek_big:

[Turtle]

I have observed talk by Speaker of the House In Waiting Pelosi of raising the minimum wage. Similarly, I have observed Representative Polosi invoking the Founders. I have no well qualified opinion on the matter, but I enjoy invoking the Founders whenever possible, and particularly when the issue is germane.

To whit, on the topic of raising minimum wages, Ben Franklin said this: "A law might be made to raise their wages; but if our manufactures are too dear, they might not vend abroad." :esmoking:

[Zythryn]

They need to learn to work together. Sure, they have said they aim to, but they need to actually do it.

The corruption also needs to be cut down to a dull roar.

If they can do those two things, a lot will get done. If not, back to normal:(

[Southtown]

Yep. The moment of truth has arrived. Time to shut up and put up.

[InfiniteNow]

For you political thinkers, historians, and jockeys out there...

 

Would it be possible to make the party system illegal? Only posing this stretch of a question to get the discussion rolling. Please feel free to address the original thread intent as well.

 

 

Cheers. :)

[Freddy]

For you political thinkers, historians, and jockeys out there...

 

Would it be possible to make the party system illegal? Only posing this stretch of a question to get the discussion rolling. Please feel free to address the original thread intent as well.

 

 

Cheers. ;)

Possibly, as the Constitution does not mention political parties. They are a natural occurrence of human social tendencies to hang with like minded folks. Over the years I have voted for third party candidates on several occasions. Jackson, Perot, Ross, and Mickey Mouse were all checked off. The problem is getting more voters to look beyond the main parties.

[Michaelangelica]

The results are in. Love 'em or hate 'em, you have a new set of representatives, so deal with it.

 

What can and should these newly elected representatives do now?

free David Hicks.

Send him home

[CraigD]

Would it be possible to make the [uS] party system illegal?

Without repealing the First Amendment, almost certainly not. Political parties are essentially political speech societies, which candidates, office holders, and voters may choose to join or not. It’s hard to imagine how any restriction on them could not be construed as an infringement on protected speech.

 

Where political parties are legally vulnerable, I think, is in their handling of money. A political party mass mailing a letter stating with certainty that their candidates prevailing in an upcoming election will result in you having fewer taxes, greater safety, better services, or an increased chance of divine salvation, then asking for money, differs little in my estimation from a similar letter from a self-described psychic or a visit from an organized crime representative. These latter are considered fraud and extortion, and can land their authors in jail. Unsolicited donation from special interest groups have the appearance of straightforward bribery – and often are, when a creative prosecutor can make a case against a particular donor, politician, or party functionary.

 

The “freedom of the press” guaranteed by The First Amendment is nearly uncontestedly interpreted to extend to the money necessary to publish and distribute speech, and “speech” interpreted to extend to every medium of communication – public speech, print, and radio, television, the internet, etc. However, I believe this protection has been inappropriately extended to protect activity that, were it not for this protection, would be considered criminal. I believe if First Amendment protection were more appropriately applied, many of the sources of money the political parties currently enjoy would be deemed criminal, the parties would become less wealthy, their influence over politicians reduced, and the influence of the smaller parties increased.

 

Another means by which the influence of unelected political party members could be reduced is for the various states to change their voting laws to

1. Remove party affiliation from candidates names on ballots
   
2. Permit voters to vote for individual electors, not just a slate of electors selected by the political parties. It should be recalled that one of the express purposes of the Electoral College was to avoid the necessity of political parties, which at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, were widely regarded as “mischievous, if not downright evil” (William Kimberling’s “The Electoral College”)
   

So, while the outlawing of political parties may be unconstitutional, outlawing activities in which they engage that would be considered illegal if engaged in by a non-political organization are not, and could be used to reduce their influence in US government.

[InfiniteNow]

Interesting indeed. My thought being that it would be best for the country (world?) to elect individuals on merit, not cookie-cutter candidates who affiliate with one party or another. While I clearly understand that it takes affiliation and support to get things done once in office, I feel it would be in our interest to put the right person (and, subsequently, groups of people) in power based on who they are, not who their friends are.

 

 

Cheers. :beer:

[pgrmdave]

I've always thought it would be interesting if, instead of voting for a party, or for the president, we only voted directly for the electors, and without knowledge of who they would choose. This way, we'd be able to better choose people who had a good knowledge of the political landscape. Of course people would vote for an elector who shared their political views, but also factored in would be what choices that person makes, how well that person knows who they could vote for, and other issues. Since the person we were voting for wouldn't be in power, they would have less of a reason to make wild promises, or have massive, devisive campaigns.

[Southtown]

While I clearly understand that it takes affiliation and support to get things done once in office, I feel it would be in our interest to put the right person (and, subsequently, groups of people) in power based on who they are, not who their friends are.

I think affiliation gets in the way of of deciding issues because of the buddy system. Party politics only causes power plays that have nothing to do with either the proposed legislation or the country's need of it.

 

Besides, we don't even need Congress anymore. We have the internet. Anyone can read legislation at any time, and maybe even a quiz to ensure they understand it enough to vote on it, and (walla!) then you have true representation of the people.