How to stop special interests

Good point. I'm not sure of all the implications, but it's worth thinking about.

Tom

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Apr 18 2007, 08:12 AM) [snapback]425316[/snapback]</div>

We would then have 3000 members in the House of Representives or thereabouts. Egads talk about big Goverment! :lol: We could then have decades long filibusters. Just a couple quick ones that came to mind still worthy of more discussion don't get me wrong.

Wildkow

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 18 2007, 09:50 AM) [snapback]425378[/snapback]</div>

This is one very excellent reason we should begin to question the wisdom of large scale governance: genuine representation becomes literally too impractical to work.

I've come to the conclusion that the US system is upside down: the federal system commands most of our taxes and involvement while most of us are barely aware that we even have state and local governance - it should be the reverse: most our taxes and involvement going to local governance, and a federal system being no more than a few hundred people to help coordinate or resolve interstate issues.

Think we can get this done by next Thursday?

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

We could have 1500 pork barrel riders to every surrender bill. Sweet!!

I think we should go to an open web system. Before a bill can be read on the hill, it is on the web for the public and bloggers to pick apart. They aren't typing this stuff up on an old electric typewriter anymore. There's an electronic version, it could be on the web 10 seconds before it's officially introduced.

You get us all looking at each line in that stuff and we'll have outrage at what's in the bills, who put it in, and there would be accountability for what's going on out there. No senator wants his name on CNN with his plan to spend $24 million on a grant to test salmon sperm counts on some back river in Montana. They'll sure sliip that kind of stuff into a bill that's totally unrelated and be a hero back home.

Each time a bill changes, it's online in it's form before it's read on the floor. Some kind of searchable format. Contract with Google to handle it, they know how the web is done.

Once the bill is up for final vote, a 48 hour waiting period while the version of the bill is on the web for us all to see for us all to call our rep and voice our approval/disapproval. A button on each line item we can click to count our approval / disapproval on each item so that they know when they go to the floor to vote what we think of the legislation.

Takes a lot of the sneakyness out of the process. No last minute slipping in the project in return for your vote stuff because we all get to see it. This would create a whole new blogging environment.

Once they vote, the next thing is for the computers to show that in this guys district, x% of people said they wanted him to vote against this bill and he voted for it. When it's time for the next election, his record will be right there on Google Congress™ for the opponent to reference.

How about that for open government?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Apr 18 2007, 10:21 AM) [snapback]425404[/snapback]</div>

I am not sure about next Thursday, but there are a few that would love to make some correctioms to the system. Take a peek at this site and if you feel strong, give it a shot.

http://www.reformca.org/

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Apr 18 2007, 07:21 PM) [snapback]425404[/snapback]</div>

Hey, that sounds just like Europe. Only difference, Brussels has thousands of people doing the work that should be done by that few hundred people...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 18 2007, 12:50 PM) [snapback]425378[/snapback]</div>

JEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

how many reps do you want to have in congress? how about changing the # of senators too? what to expand special interest influence - CREATE MORE POLITICIANS - NO?

and how about how many more ding dongs we would be subjected to? I have my fill between former politicos like algore (please go away al) and current dings like pelosi, reed, kennedy, waters. jefferson. ....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Apr 18 2007, 01:21 PM) [snapback]425404[/snapback]</div>

Are you prior military? Sounds a lot like my chain of command.

And honestly, it's a great idea. That's the way a ship runs and it works great. The CO puts out what he wants, it filters down through department heads, down through division officers, and finally ends up with the crew.

I believe that local governance should be implemented in the very fabric of society. Local town/city governments have a very close tie-in with the people, and would provide a better means for the usage of tax dollars. If it becomes a point of abused tax dollars, then let the sword of accountability cut where it lands - on the hands of those responsible.

 

Every once in a while, we agree completely. What's more, I suspect that we would agree on a significant majority of the issues set before Congress in this fashion (that is to say, we would both likely agree to drop most of the presented legislation.)

I'm all for Google Congress ™


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Apr 18 2007, 12:30 PM) [snapback]425413[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Apr 18 2007, 10:12 AM) [snapback]425316[/snapback]</div>

1 rep per 100,000 is nice but not very practical. 1 for every 200,000 isn't very practical either. It's why most of us can't indulge in the town meetings some small towns in New England can.

Even if you only doubled the seats to 870 they'd never vote on anything. Nothing would get done. Good grounds for jokes, but not very practical in reality. The larger the group, the slower the decision making process and the less likely there is to be any consensus.