[Drjones]

I want to start a referendum in my state to end career politicians. I do not believe that people should be allowed to be in politics for longer than ten years. I am sick and tired of career politicians like gray davis who do nothing but raise funds for their next campaign the whole time they are in office and screw the hardworking people whenever they get a chance in between fundraisers.

I do not think it is right for politics to be a career, nor do I believe our Founding Fathers intended it to be such. I do not want to see people going from city councilmember to mayor, to state legislator, to governor, to US Legislature, etc.

We now have a class of ruling elite in this country, and I believe our Fathers would be VERY upset (to say the least) if they were alive today.

I could see such a referendum enjoying popular support on all sides of the political spectrum, both liberal and conservative.

I have learned from talking to people, and also get the feeling that one of Arnold's strongest points is that he is NOT a career politician.

What do you think?

How hard would it be to do such a thing, realistically?

Please share your thoughts and opinions.

[SoCalGeek]

well, being a total cynic, here's my $.02
the idea would be wildly popular with most people, but it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of actually passing into any sort of law. =(

[Drjones]

Why not?

[4570Rick]

Get enough interested people to to raise enough money to gather enough signatures to get the referendum on the ballot, then get enough votes to pass it into law so the 9th Circus Court of Appeals can overturn it making YOU null and void. :banghead:

[Drjones]

Maybe first I'll start a referendum removing the 9th Circus from our court system.







:D :D :D

:neener:

:evil:

[4570Rick]

I want a Citizen Legislature as much as anyone, I'm just feeling the weight of oppresion from all those liars/lawyers in office supporting the multi-national military big business complex on the backs of the underclass with tax dollars stolen from the funds intended for the needy and the children.:what:


Wow...I think I just had a sixties moment. Where the hell did that come from.:uhoh: I hate what the sixties did for us.:banghead:

[Drjones]

I don't know where that came from either, Rick, but go do this some more: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:


:p


I'm just sick and tired of becoming sick every time I hear what the govt is doing to us and to this country, plain and simple.

We have a ruling elite class in this country, and that's just not right, no further explanation needed.

I want to do away with that, plain and simple.

[4570Rick]

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

:D

[sm]

You didn't lick any old "stamps" by any chance did ya ? That could have done it. :D

[Moparmike]

Well, some dont start out to be carreer politicians. They start out wishing to help people, and say to themselves: "Hey, if I run for this position, I can represent more people and therefore help more people." The truely great politicans maintain that mindset all the way thru. That is the way I would do it, if I were so inclined to go stark raving mad veeerrrryyy slowly.:p Unfortunately, if I get anymore politically active in the next 2 years, running for office is darn near the next step up.

OTOH, some do it for power.:fire:

[tyme]

http://www.thehighroad.org/library/polsci/polsby_institutionalization.html

I think a problem is that too many people want to be career politicians, but more than anything Congress is broken because people elect politians who are either unwise or corrupt. Years ago even SCOTUS justices used to quit and go do other stuff. Now politicians and judges stay or keep moving up until they retire or die. It's the electorate's fault. I'm not sure term limits would fix things. You'd have all sorts of people skirting the restrictions - bouncing back and forth between the senate and the house, for instance, or between state and federal offices, etc.

It's really sick.
http://stromwatch.com/

[4570Rick]

I have two philosophies on politics. They are:

1. The only differences between republicans and democrats is the subterfuge they use to get into your wallet.

2. There are only two types of politicians, those who are corrupt and those who are being corrupted.

[TarpleyG]

4570Rick said it. Moparmike, you are young indeed...

GT

[Joe Demko]

What you really mean is that you want to end career politics for politicians you don't like. What you are talking about is limiting people's freedom to choose their own political representatives. I don't like Ted Kennedy, but if the people of Mass. want to keep re-electing him, then that is up to them. Not my place to tell them they must choose someone else. Same-same at state and local levels.

[FPrice]

"Why not?"

It has been my observation that most folks agree with term limits...but only for the "other guy". When it comes to their representative, senator, governor, etc., they want to exempt them because "they are good for us".

Term Limits - Yes!

But Not In My Backyard.

[Ryder]

It sounds like your trying to play a game with the rule makers. Probably be about as effective as getting them to not vote themselves another raise. I know how I feel when somebody starts messing around with my job security.

As far as removing the 9th Circus from our court system... There was talk not so long ago about breaking it up into smaller territories. They cover too many states and not many of those have the San Franciso mindset. Haven't heard any progress being made on this though.

[feedthehogs]

The way the system is set up is fine.

The problem is most people don't vote and give a crap. If people held their representatives responsible for their actions this wouldn't be a problem.

You can go the lazy man's way and work to pass a term limits referendum.

We did that down here after we couldn't get voters out to get rid of the county comizars who some have been intrenched in office over 15 years and deep in the pockets of special interest groups.

[ojibweindian]

feedthehogs has it right. Too many people who don't give a crap, or are being actively cared for by their "benevolent" federal parents, to vote these human stains out of office.

Bottom line is, we get what we pay for, or what we tolerate.

[AnklePocket]

Run for office?
More on this on November 5th.
Walk the walk, brutha.
David had it easy against Goliath, by the way.

[Moparmike]

Well, I have always known about what little naïveté I have. I would like to carry a little of it thru life, because it sucks knowing that the world is going to Hell in a handbasket and that there is nothing you can do about it.

Edited for spelling of "naïveté" with the help of the local gremlin.;) Sounds like a James Garner movie.:D

[Bill Hook]

What you really mean is that you want to end career politics for politicians you don't like. What you are talking about is limiting people's freedom to choose their own political representatives. I don't like Ted Kennedy, but if the people of Mass. want to keep re-electing him, then that is up to them. Not my place to tell them they must choose someone else. Same-same at state and local levels.

You mean NDSAP candidates are kosher, to excuse the pun?

Your argument seems flawed, with the advent of the 22nd amendment.

[longeyes]

If you want to see democracy in action try picking Congress, with
certain minimal qualifications, at random. I'd trust a thousand
Americans so picked more than I trust the current denizens.

[tyme]

(moparmike: naïveté)

[Bigjake]

i agree with longeyes on the 1000 random as opposed to the current bunch of crooks

[Glock Glockler]

Forgive me, Drones, but your approach is highly flawed for 2 reasons:

1 - Term limits are essentially anti-freedom, as they seek to limit the choice of the constituents. Aren't elections a form of term limits?

2 - What happens when you have someone like Ron Paul, or even Tom McClintock? I like those guys and would gladly keep them around for as long as I could have them.

If you want to seriously change things you will need to accomplish these things:

1 - Make being a politician less lucrative. Congress gets fantastic bennies, and they get them long after they stop "serving" in public office. Cut the bennies; make it so that one can live a decent but not sweet living. In NH we have basically an unpaid legislature and we seem to do a decent job holding socialism at bay.

2 - Have some measure of accountability where politicians will be held personally responsible for their decisions. Perhaps a mechanism via the state govt to criminally charge the politicians for a violation of their duties. I'd like to see a few executed. "Ok, so you voted for Headstart, what a gushy for-the-kids program? Hmmm, I don't see this anywhere in your prescribed duties, would you like to see a minister or priest before you're hanged?" Make politicians scarred to vote for this nonsense and you won't see the parasitic type trying to get into it; the cost/benefit ratio simply isn’t there.

3 - Get the govt out of the school business. Congress is generally representative of their constituents, as you can see by contrasting a Republican from rural Idaho v. a Republican from Southern California. The dumber you make people the more garbage you're likely to see elected. The tremendous damage done to America by the govt school system would take volumes to catalog. Even though we continually throw more and more money at education, far more per student than anywhere else in the world, our students rank pathetically against countries we generally regard as being basket cases.

While I could go on at length describing the intricacies of the problem, suffice it to say that intellectual development has been cast aside in favor of social conditioning. What kind of leaders do you expect to elect with a dumbed down/feel-good population?

4 - Eliminate doles. A dependant population is going to vote for the guy who promises them more handouts, and when you cross the situation with every sector of the population being on some type of dole you ensure that you can succeed by promising more and more doles. The result is that govt will always get bigger and more invasive. Divide and Conquer is the tool used to enslave the people through doles, which is why eliminating them is key.

5 - I know I'll take a generous amount of flak for this but so be it, Eliminate Universal Suffrage!!! When you have a situation where one can fully enjoy the benefits of something yet having absolutely no idea of how it functions, you will soon see it disintegrate. What would happen if you hand someone keys to a brand new car yet they do not have any idea how it works and what must be done to maintain that car? They will destroy it. I know a mechanic who has seen more than a few engines trashed because the twits driving them didn’t know that the oil must be changed.

If someone votes, they should be able to pass a test on basic economics, mathematics, how our govt is structured, etc. It wouldn't be terribly different from a driver's license test. If someone is so stupid and ignorant that they don't know how our society functions then they don't deserve a say in wreaking it.

On that note, only taxpayers should vote. A tax schemes have serious flaws, whether they be income (the most disgusting), a flat tax (less cumbersome but still morally reprehensible), or a sales tax (requires an intrusive govt mechanism to enforce). The least unjust would be a head tax. The budget is divided by amount of people who claim a share, only one per person, and they pay that amount to support the running of the govt. If someone does not pay tax, why should they have a say in how things are run?

Keep in mind that being able to vote, which one would be eligible for after paying the head tax, would not waive the academic requirement. This would eliminate the possibilities of some who is rich but stupid getting a vote.

If you accomplished all of those steps term limits would be a moot point.

[C.R.Sam]

Random selection would produce a Bell curve, sorta.
Few great, lots of ok and a few horrible.

Vast improvement.

Tis a shame politicians and other criminals can buy votes.

Sam

[WvaBill]

4 - Eliminate doles. A dependant population is going to vote for the guy who promises them more handouts, and when you cross the situation with every sector of the population being on some type of dole you ensure that you can succeed by promising more and more doles. The result is that govt will always get bigger and more invasive. Divide and Conquer is the tool used to enslave the people through doles, which is why eliminating them is key.

This is how pols corrupt the people and convince them to vote for them despite their unconstitutional utterances.
Repeal the 16th Amend. to start. The less money to go around, the less to "bribe" voters."

5 - I know I'll take a generous amount of flak for this but so be it, Eliminate Universal Suffrage!!!


How can people who cannot figure out how to complete a ballot properly be trusted to govern others. IMHO, Excessive Suffrage has led to many more problems than it has solved. Only a written Constitution has limited, to date US suffering from politically(not party affiliation) illiteracy.

While the individual is sovereign, before the individual undertakes to participate in other than self-governance, it is not unreasonable to ask that the individual demonstrate a level of proficiency. After all, it is required in most jurisdictions for one to demonstrate proficiency at some level to excercise RKBA. CCW course, hunter safety course, even archery safety course(who said "arms" is limited to firearms?).

[Moparmike]

Well, I dont think that eliminating Universal Sufferage is entirely a good idea. Everyone who is a citizen has the right to vote.

However, I agree with the argument that being a politician should be made much less lucrative, and the "free rides" provided by the government should be cancelled to everyone. People who want to become US citizens should be doing so because they want to become a citizen and have a chance to make a better life for themselves, and not have a better life handed to them. I dont have a better life handed to me when I am born in this country (some do, but no one should), and just because someone is a foreign national wanting a better life doesnt mean that they should get a free pass.:fire:

I too may catch flak, but a very small test should be administered (one that I wouldnt pass the first time...:scrutiny: :uhoh: ) : Every person who votes must list or speak (in english on both counts) 3 elements or views of each candidate for one race. If several races (senate, house, dog catcher, etc) are on the ballot, then the highest race is the one tested on. If someone is going to be voting, they had damned well be educated on what issues they are voting on. None of this "feel good for the children mindlessness, because they are pretty, or smart, or because Billy Bob at the caucus said so, or such like'' voting crap.:fire:

[Joe Demko]

eliminate universal sufferage = disenfranchise those with whom you disagree

[Joe Demko]

In fact, most of what I see in threads like this one consists of schemes to, one way or another, eliminate those with whom "we" disagree from the governing process.

[WvaBill]

Everyone has a right to vote. We also have an obligation to do so intelligiently. I will set out an election b4 voting in an election which is unclear. Most of these, however, are safe in conserving the present conditions until a more certain solution appears. Hate. Unintended. Consequences. Probably another saving grace is the apathy of so many voters. I have always contended low voter turnout is a good thing. Check the receord voter turnout in Germany circa 1932.

[El Rojo]

I agree with the argument that being a politician should be made much less lucrativeThe trouble with that is you get what you pay for. Every once in a while you might get a good candidate, but unless the person is ultra wealthy and can afford not to have a good job, why would he want to be in politics? Problem is now most people can't afford to run unless they are ultra-wealthy so really either way, the people with money rule.

I think I like the idea of making elections more affordable for the common man than eliminating career politicians. That might be because I am a political science graduate and I need job security.

[Glock Glockler]

Golgo,

Does a test for one's driver's license discriminate against those with whom I disagree? Is it just a tool for the powers that be to inconvenience those that they are politically opposed to?

I hardly think so, although it does discriminate against those that are grossly incompetant. How is a similar test determining who I agree with and then discriminating against them, especially when I have absolutely no knowledge of where they stand politically?

Rojo,

As I previously mentioned, in NH we have a virtually unpaid legislature and we do ok. What will happen is that you will not attract people who want to make a career out of politics due to it's cushy compensation. Why hack it in the free market when you can be another parasite?

[Joe Demko]

Because you are, in this case, essentially defining "grossly incompetent" to vote as meaning that those people will vote for candidates/policies you don't like.