I think we should also include term limits for these offices in addition to the age limit.
You can’t be president for more than 8 years, but you can be in the same political office more or less for almost 40? That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me lol.
Right, I mean those are the things we are saying are bad.
The culture of the Senate and Congress would need to change, and I think it would rather quickly. Unfortunately this is an issue both Republicans and Democrats will never support because the very people entrenched in power would need to vote themselves out of power. It will literally never happen.
Why do you think that term limits will solve it? If there’s no seniority whip, what other motivation do they have besides corporate donations? I.E., take all the bribes they can in their short tenure?
Don’t tell me more idealistic politicians will make it to the top. I don’t believe that for a second.
I guess I’d flip that question. Why do you think being career politicians gives them motivation besides bribes and money?
Because that’s the thing, they know they’re running another campaign in a couple years, they always need to be raising money for the next one. They always need to solicit donations. And they can’t do anything that rocks the boat because it affects the next election.
Presidents very commonly get more done during their second term because they aren’t worried about the political impact of their actions affecting their ability to get elected again. I don’t see why this effect wouldn’t be the same for Congress and the Senate.
The problem is that this isn’t the will of the people. Preliminaries don’t count as an election so your vote for which candidate that appears on the actual ballot is just a suggestion.
The party committees gets final say on who’s on the ballot for that party to vote for.
Which leads to the problem of the 2 party system where we vote for the least worst candidate
And that is the problem with the 2 party system. No one votes that way because not enough people do. Instead everyone voted for less bad option between the 2 major parties. Which happen to be the choices the political committee chose, not the people.
Yeah, you might as well not vote. You’re never going to sway enough people to vote independent to challenge one of the big two, especially since the choice right now is between old people or people trying to establish a fascist theocracy.
Rewarding the groups that manipulate the system to hold onto power seems like a terrible way to enact change.
Choice right now for president is between fascists and a reformed anti-lgbt bigot who remains friends with some of those fascists, seeing their anti-women, anti-trans, anti-lgbt positions as “disagreement.” I feel like we can do better.
Maybe in a true democracy. No more gerrymandered districts, ranked choice voting, and term limits would be a good start. Let’s kill citizens united while at it.
Which I’m a huge fan of. Not sure why we’d vote for people who won’t agree with us on everything when we can just vote ourselves and get true representation.
I’d prefer a republic, what the hell do I know about complex foreign policies with the relationship between Sudan and Egypt, or which tax policy will spur economic growth?
Nah, I blame the Republicans for most of the nations current woes since, you know, they tend to be behind most of them.
Plus, how can you see how the average American acts and think we’re still good for a democracy? We need a more fitting class of people to rule, as Adams and Hamilton envisioned it.
I disagree. Fundamentally we have the final authority to elect our representation. Collectively we decide (and are ultimately responsible for) who is elected to office. Districts don’t vote, and corporations don’t vote. The people do.
It is the collective responsibility of those not disenfranchised or otherwise excluded from the political system to rectify those problems. Failing to address those problems (or any political problem) isn’t a failure of the politicians–it’s a failure of us, as a collective, to choose the appropriate lawmakers. Especially when we repeatedly elect the same people over and over.
I know it sounds naive to frame the system this way. But fundamentally the political system operates under the collective authority of voters.
We need to put an age limit on political offices
I think we should also include term limits for these offices in addition to the age limit.
You can’t be president for more than 8 years, but you can be in the same political office more or less for almost 40? That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me lol.
Yes, term limits are a much better solution as age restrictions can be a slippery slope.
It would also make you useless as your term comes to an end. Political capital and IOUs are the currency in the capitol
Right, I mean those are the things we are saying are bad.
The culture of the Senate and Congress would need to change, and I think it would rather quickly. Unfortunately this is an issue both Republicans and Democrats will never support because the very people entrenched in power would need to vote themselves out of power. It will literally never happen.
Why do you think that term limits will solve it? If there’s no seniority whip, what other motivation do they have besides corporate donations? I.E., take all the bribes they can in their short tenure?
Don’t tell me more idealistic politicians will make it to the top. I don’t believe that for a second.
I guess I’d flip that question. Why do you think being career politicians gives them motivation besides bribes and money?
Because that’s the thing, they know they’re running another campaign in a couple years, they always need to be raising money for the next one. They always need to solicit donations. And they can’t do anything that rocks the boat because it affects the next election.
Presidents very commonly get more done during their second term because they aren’t worried about the political impact of their actions affecting their ability to get elected again. I don’t see why this effect wouldn’t be the same for Congress and the Senate.
Can’t we just vote for younger candidates?
Doesn’t make sense to subvert the will of the people when they clearly support this.
Also, her age isn’t what makes her shit. She’s a corporate democrat just looking out for different rich people.
The problem is that this isn’t the will of the people. Preliminaries don’t count as an election so your vote for which candidate that appears on the actual ballot is just a suggestion.
The party committees gets final say on who’s on the ballot for that party to vote for.
Which leads to the problem of the 2 party system where we vote for the least worst candidate
Then vote for independents, or people whose parties don’t pull that shit.
And that is the problem with the 2 party system. No one votes that way because not enough people do. Instead everyone voted for less bad option between the 2 major parties. Which happen to be the choices the political committee chose, not the people.
Yeah, you might as well not vote. You’re never going to sway enough people to vote independent to challenge one of the big two, especially since the choice right now is between old people or people trying to establish a fascist theocracy.
Alright, then these problems don’t get solved.
Now, you’re getting it.
You are correct. Voting isn’t going to solve this problem.
Rewarding the groups that manipulate the system to hold onto power seems like a terrible way to enact change.
Choice right now for president is between fascists and a reformed anti-lgbt bigot who remains friends with some of those fascists, seeing their anti-women, anti-trans, anti-lgbt positions as “disagreement.” I feel like we can do better.
Cornel West laughing…
Second least worst in most cases
You’re absolutely right.
Collectively we vote for the representation we deserve.
Maybe in a true democracy. No more gerrymandered districts, ranked choice voting, and term limits would be a good start. Let’s kill citizens united while at it.
In a true democracy, we’d have direct voting.
Which I’m a huge fan of. Not sure why we’d vote for people who won’t agree with us on everything when we can just vote ourselves and get true representation.
I’d prefer a republic, what the hell do I know about complex foreign policies with the relationship between Sudan and Egypt, or which tax policy will spur economic growth?
That’s fine. Just don’t complain when the people you elect go against what you think is right.
Personally, I think direct voting would result in people voting for the matters they care about, while ignoring the ones they don’t.
Nah, I blame the Republicans for most of the nations current woes since, you know, they tend to be behind most of them.
Plus, how can you see how the average American acts and think we’re still good for a democracy? We need a more fitting class of people to rule, as Adams and Hamilton envisioned it.
What do you think should be the criteria to be included in “a more fitting class of people?”
Republicans are mostly to blame. Democrats are just the lesser evil.
Lo’ and behold, evil is still evil.
It doesn’t make sense to support the lesser evil when you could support no evil at all.
I really think we need to amend the constitution to allow a true democratic vote of no confidence for all federally elected positions.
I disagree. Fundamentally we have the final authority to elect our representation. Collectively we decide (and are ultimately responsible for) who is elected to office. Districts don’t vote, and corporations don’t vote. The people do.
It is the collective responsibility of those not disenfranchised or otherwise excluded from the political system to rectify those problems. Failing to address those problems (or any political problem) isn’t a failure of the politicians–it’s a failure of us, as a collective, to choose the appropriate lawmakers. Especially when we repeatedly elect the same people over and over.
I know it sounds naive to frame the system this way. But fundamentally the political system operates under the collective authority of voters.