Throw the bums out

[Pat Hartman]

If you are unhappy with how the congress is performing, throw the bums out!!! When you go to the polls, ignore your party preference and vote AGAINST the incumbent - unless of course yours is one of the dozen or so that actually keeps the people in mind when voting rather than taking their opinions from the special interest groups. It is unfortunate that neither of my senators (Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman) is up for reelection because they are at the top of my list of legislators who should be thrown out. However, house member Rosa DeLoro, is so I'll get to vote against her at least.

If the American public ousts enough incumbants, perhaps the rest will get with the program and stop the insane spending on earmarks and bailouts. We don't have "no confidence" votes so we can't get rid of sitting senate and house members so our only opportunity to make a statement is election day. Get out to vote. Shout it from the roof tops as they did in "Network", "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more".

 

[pbaldy]

I agree, and would like to apologize to the country for being from the state that sent Harry Reid to the party. Actually, it's all the liberal transplanted Californians that voted him in, so I'm not taking the heat on that one.

 

[RuralGuy]

Unfortunately, if we don't oust *all* of congress, someone will be left to tell them how it used to work. If they were all to go then the new people would have to start from scratch. I like that idea.

 

[KenHigg]

If you are unhappy with how the congress is performing, throw the bums out!!!

The first to go should be that in-breed lifer 'boozer' kennedy

 

[redneckgeek]

I'd really like to see term limits imposed. Since anyone can be elected with less than 50% of the vote (if a 3rd candidate is running), then 45% (or less) of the voters can impose their will on the other 55%.

If we're apologizing, I'll apologize for my state sending Carl Levin.

I usually do vote against the incumbent, but my state (MI) always goes democrat - so I'm basically forced to go republican.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

National Lampoon did a little piece on "Things We'd Like To See In American Elections." Long time ago, so long I can't remember how long. Certainly before I joined this forum.

One idea they had that made me laugh then, and makes me think now, is the idea that all elected offices will have one extra mandatory box that someone could choose when voting: None of the above.

I got to thinking about it, and the implications are staggering:

#1 - If "None of the Above" wins by plurality then the office is declared vacant for one term and there is no run-off election. The office is run by existing bureaucrats who are barred from making new policy.

#2 - If "None of the Above" wins three elections in a row, the office is abolished. Its function gets subsumed into another office, or the function is no longer performed at all.

#3 - Every politician who LOSES to "None of the Above" is out of politics for as long a term as the office to which s/he aspired and lost. No running for other offices, higher OR lower, for the duration of that term.

#4 - For those rare cases where "None of the Above" is just not feasible, another election gets held but none who lost to "None of the Above" can run for the office.

#5 - If/When "None of the Above" wins enough seats in the state or federal legislature, the body lacks a quorum and cannot transact any business.

It's the perfect solution for too many politicians who think they're God's answer to disgruntled voters. (If in fact they ARE..., it proves either that God doesn't exist or that He is excessively cruel.)

 

[pbaldy]

Doc, I love it. Nevada actually has a "none of the above" selection on ballots, but it doesn't have any teeth. If it actually were to win an election, the person with the highest count wins the office anyway. It has never "won", but I have seen it win some fairly hefty percentages now and then.

 

[Rich]

Since when did politicians follow the wishes of the electorate or even care about us?

 

[Len Boorman]

Now this is serious

When Pat
1) Visits the Watercooler
2) Starts a thread
3) Has a thread title "throw the bums out"

Then you over the pond have a really serious problem

Pat
Please take this the way it is truly intended.

Len B

 

[statsman]

It's the perfect solution for too many politicians who think they're God's answer to disgruntled voters. (If in fact they ARE..., it proves either that God doesn't exist or that He is excessively cruel.)

It could also prove that God has a sense of humour or that he takes care of the mentally incompetent by finding them a job.

 

[Banana]

This is exactly my intention.

I also think the option to throw the bums out would be quite significant.

You know, in Australia they have mandatory voting, and from what I understand, US didn't adopt this on the premise that it would infringe the citizens' freedom of speech and thus choice to not make a choice. Even though I'm a libertarian, I wouldn't object to see something where we have a mandatory voting but with ballots as:

Bum A
Bum B
Either, I don't care
Neither, they both suck.

So all choices are enumerated on a ballot and everyone get to vote what they think. This solves the problem of turnout and freedom of speech. If a bum wins with a hefty percentage of Neither, it's more likely that the bum will be cautious in their term.

Consider that less and less people has voted in elections- Bush won 49% (?) of those who actually voted, which makes up 15% of rest of population. The other 60% stayed home and I'm quite sure they had valid reasons but ultimately, nobody bother to analyze why those 60% stayed home- were they unhappy with the choice or they just plain didn't care. I'd think that Bush thought 60% were just content with things, and took this as a license to do what he did.

Then we have to consider how Congress has single-digit approval rate yet 90% re-election rate. Something's seriously out of whack.


Yes, the 'throw out the bum' should be an option and have some teeth (as Doc suggested).

 

[georgedwilkinson]

The problem is, you can adopt this philosophy for yourself, but you cannot adopt it for the guy in the next district over (or the next voting booth over).

What if a guy you really support gets voted in? Are all bets off then? Then you vote everybody out except your guy?

What if the guy in the next district has a representative in place that he/she really supports? Are all bets off for him? Would he vote everybody out except his guy?

 

[Pat Hartman]

I do allow for the fact that there are some members of congress who understand their fiduciary responsibility to the citizens who elected them and I am not suggesting that they be displaced. However, the vast majority of house members (all of whom are up for reelection) and the vast majority of senators (30% of whom are up for reelection - unfortunately not Connecticut's two bums) should be fired.

The internet is becoming a powerful political force. If enough people make enough noise, perhaps enough people will be conviced to vote against the incumbents to put the fear of god into the rest of them.

You're right Len. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!!!!

The fact that the infamous Wall St bail out bill didn't pass at $700 billion because it was too costly but did pass at $850 billion should be looked at as an act of treason by all those who allowed their votes to be BOUGHT by earmarks.

 

[KenHigg]

The fact that the infamous Wall St bail out bill didn't pass at $700 billion because it was too costly but did pass at $850 billion should be looked at as an act of treason by all those who allowed their
votes to be BOUGHT by earmarks.

I wonder how many voted one minute and then checked their portfolio the next?

 

[Pat Hartman]

AFTER they passed the bail out, the market took the biggest nosedive in history!!!!

 

[Banana]

Indeed and the yesterday's rally wasn't substantial.

It's funny- whenever the economy tanks, the answer is throw more money at it, cut the interest rate, give banks globs of cash among whatnots. And that has been done many times.

What was the definition of insanity again....

 

[KenHigg]

AFTER they passed the bail out, the market took the biggest nosedive in history!!!!

So their strategy was sell, vote, buy

 

[ASherbuck]

The NY Times recently did a report on investing your money with Democrats/Republicans.

If you had 10,000 with the 40 years the Repubs had control you would have about $11,00 today, if you don't count the great depression it would be closer to $50,000. With the Dem's your $10,000 would be over $300,000 in their 40 years.

So I am all about voting out incumbents. It's just that I'm interested in voting out the republican ones.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I think we do best with a Republican congress and a Democratic president than vice-versa. Although both of the candidates are pretty scary with their promises to not raise taxes. I wonder who they think will pay for the Iraq war and the Wall St bailout, not to mention the earmarks? But even more scary are the people who believe that you can spend, spend, spend and never pay for anything.

 

[David Eagar]

This is exactly my intention.

I also think the option to throw the bums out would be quite significant.

You know, in Australia they have mandatory voting, and from what I understand, US didn't adopt this on the premise that it would infringe the citizens' freedom of speech and thus choice to not make a choice. /quote]

I can assure you, if voting wasn't mandatory in Aus, we would have zero politicians at all!!! Much like the rest of the democratic world, we have a choice of two identical, selfishly driven, out for themselves parties to pick from

Some choice!