Our voting system is so jacked.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 29 2007, 08:22 AM) [snapback]519015[/snapback]</div>

I thought the rule was "Vote Early, Vote Often." Looks like they're in full compliance with that one.

Of course, they're certainly not doing anything new or surprising. Mark Twain more than a hundred years ago observed that there was no "... native American criminal class. Except Congress." And, apparently, State Legislatures! :lol:

MB

 

I believe we live in a Republic with delusions of Democracy.

 

Wow. The land of the free, and the home of the...Oh, say, can you SEE?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 29 2007, 04:18 PM) [snapback]519155[/snapback]</div>

Take comfort in that at least you don't live in Michigan. Talk about illusions...

 

Since Bush is a product of the Texas legislative system......I think it explains a lot.

Kinda makes a case for the old fashioned "show of hands".

 

The U.S. has never been a democracy. And since we actually have very little say over who sits in the legislature, what does it matter how legislators conduct their votes?

However, in their defense, an absent legislator will see, when he returns to the floor, how his vote was cast, and it's likely that they have agreed with each other how their votes are to be cast. IOW, those reps casting someone else's vote are probably voting as the absent legislator has requested, and the favor will be returned on a later vote.

Which would be worse: breaking the rule against casting other reps' votes, or reps having to miss votes entirely in order to go to the bathroom?

They are gangsters and they all belong in jail. But this voting business is being blown out of proportion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 30 2007, 08:51 AM) [snapback]519433[/snapback]</div>

I have read that in Congress, it is common for legislators to make arrangements across party lines, whereby a legislator refrains from voting to balance out an opposing legislator who cannot be present. Of course, the favor is reciprocated on another vote at another time. Maybe in Texas it's more of a free-for-all. But Texas is a lunatic state to begin with. The Texas legislature supposedly once passed a bill setting the value of the mathematical constant pi to exactly 3. And when they want to remain in session beyond the legal time, they stop the official clock.

The story on YouTube looked to me like one of these things that's taken out of context to make it more sensational than it really is.

Of course, the bottom line is that democracy has nothing to do with it: these guys are owned by big business, and they pass the laws that big business and its lobbyists write. So the business of voting is irrelevant.

 

It appears that the voting pads have a key lock on them. Everyone was leaving their key in their lock while they were gone...

That "Debbie" rep shows the best example of hypocrisy. And I wonder how many "proxy" votes were taken during the vote for the "illegal to deliver someone else's ballot" legislation!

Not much surprises me when it comes to legislation. But even this one blew me away!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 30 2007, 09:42 AM) [snapback]519412[/snapback]</div>

Do you really think they were missing the vote because they had to go to the bathroom?

IMO, it's a legislators job to be there to cast the vote in an informed way, according to the views he or she expressed when running for office (which should represent a majority of their district). I can't really imagine too many reasons why they couldn't arrange to be present to do their job - i know i show up to work every day, make it to every meeting - and i never have to step out of a meeting to use the restroom.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 2 2007, 06:54 AM) [snapback]520254[/snapback]</div>

Actually, now that you bring it up, bathroom breaks were not the main reason for missing votes. The main reason was committee meetings. Legislators serve on legislative committees, and the committee meetings run concurrent with the legislative sessions. The charge of missing votes is often raised by people who simply do not know how the legislature operates.

And if, as I suspect, legislators cooperate with each other to cast each others' votes as requested, then they are fulfilling their obligations with regard to voting.

However, as far as representing the interests of their constituents, I doubt that one out of a thousand does that. They represent the interests of their financial backers. And you can be sure that they do that conscientiously. If one of these guys fails to assure that his vote was cast as his backers instructed, those backers will stop his flow of campaign money, and he'll be out of office. And that is the best assurance that in fact votes are being cast as each absent legislator has instructed his neighbors to vote his machine. And that also is why I think this whole fuss is irrelevant: When the people are being screwed by gangsters, it hardly matters if the gangsters are screwing each other at the same time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 2 2007, 09:54 AM) [snapback]520254[/snapback]</div>

Should an elected representative do as you say - to cast their vote to represent a majority of their district?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 2 2007, 07:54 AM) [snapback]520254[/snapback]</div>

You have tolerant coworkers.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 2 2007, 07:56 AM) [snapback]520291[/snapback]</div>

Excellent question, and it goes right to the heart of the dilemma of representative gov't. Representative gov't was established intentionally to deflect a "tyranny of the majority" - but at the same time, a representative who persistently ignores the desires of his constituency also fails them (and won't last long in the office).

What is NOT a dilemma, however, is consistently whoring to a narrow slice of the constituency, abandoning any personal principles or scruples in order to satisfy the desires of only the biggest campaign contributors, and only tangentially ever considering the wishes of the constituency at large. Such "representation" should be a felony, landing its practitioners in jail for defrauding the public. When such a "representative" votes against the majority of his constituency, not on personal principle but because he sold his nice person to the highest bidder, "tyranny of the majority" isn't even on the radar, but we all get screwed by an even worse "tyranny of the narrowly self-interested wealthy".

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Oct 3 2007, 07:34 PM) [snapback]520984[/snapback]</div>

Welcome to Amerika! As it is and always has been. Ever since we stole it from the First Nations, that is.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 3 2007, 08:53 PM) [snapback]521009[/snapback]</div>

And yet here you are, bitching and moaning about a government while still squatting on "others" land.

Why are you not living up to your ideals and moving back to where your people came?

Give the title to your house to the nearest Native American you can find, and go! . . . otherwise, you are just being a hypocrite.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Oct 4 2007, 06:57 PM) [snapback]521505[/snapback]</div>

At least I tell it like it is instead of pretending that Amerika is some kind of a golden boy. Bitching and moaning? Nope. Just pointing out what's obvious to the rest of the world.