Premise: Reps and Dems stop treating their parties like sports teams

brbr
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Hey, it could happen. No, it probably can't. I'm sick of the way both sides blindly follow and root for their parties. I would say that the hatred of the eachother resembles the yankees and the red sox but that would imply that either party was good...which they aren't. They are more like cub fans and white sox fans who hate eachother and pretend their teams are so f'ing great. They ignore the lack of quality players and turn a blind eye to any scandals, like how the cub fans reacted to sammy the corking cheater whore. White Sox fans cheer when they get a major league asshole like carl everett on their side. It's all about winning no matter what the cost.



The two party system as it stands now promotes this kind of blind fanatical following. Both sides are guilty. Solution? The two party system has to go. Fat chance that will ever happen. Not likely either team will vote themselves out of power. Bastards.



Here's a solution: 1 term term limits. Extend the presidence to 6 years, reps to 4, and keep senators at 6. At least then the bastards don't have to worry about reelection and spend half their time fundraising and the other half of the time pandering to the fans of their team so they can get reelected. Bastards.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 22
    discocowdiscocow Posts: 603member
    It would be so nice if this could happen. It would be nice if our leaders actually used their heads. It would be even nicer if mankind had some fücking common sense.



    None of this will probably ever happen. So we might as well make the best of it. We should all paint our faces, take off our shirts and scream!



    GO BASTARDS GO!!!!



    GO BASTARDS GO!!!!



    GO BASTARDS GO!!!!
  • Reply 2 of 22
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by DiscoCow

    It would be so nice if this could happen. It would be nice if our leaders actually used their heads. It would be even nicer if mankind had some fücking common sense.



    None of this will probably ever happen. So we might as well make the best of it. We should all paint our faces, take off our shirts and scream!



    GO BASTARDS GO!!!!



    GO BASTARDS GO!!!!



    GO BASTARDS GO!!!!




    What's sad is that a good chunk of people already do that. There are more than I can count on my fingers and toes that post on these boards.
  • Reply 3 of 22
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    Hey, it could happen. No, it probably can't. I'm sick of the way both sides blindly follow and root for their parties. I would say that the hatred of the eachother resembles the yankees and the red sox but that would imply that either party was good...which they aren't. They are more like cub fans and white sox fans who hate eachother and pretend their teams are so f'ing great. They ignore the lack of quality players and turn a blind eye to any scandals, like how the cub fans reacted to sammy the corking cheater whore. White Sox fans cheer when they get a major league asshole like carl everett on their side. It's all about winning no matter what the cost.



    You hit the nail on the head.
  • Reply 4 of 22
    discocowdiscocow Posts: 603member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    What's sad is that a good chunk of people already do that. There are more than I can count on my fingers and toes that post on these boards.



    There are more than I can count that live on this earth.



    It is really sad. When will people learn?
  • Reply 5 of 22
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    None of the political party fans have anything to say? Oh right...you just ignore those that hate the game and think you are silly twats for getting too involved in it, getting upset, and forgetting the whole reason why the game exists.
  • Reply 6 of 22
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    The two party system has to go yes. But I don´t think it will make the sport team feel go away.



    Instead of Serena and Venus you would get TdF
  • Reply 7 of 22
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    The two party system has negatives effects , aka the bipolarisation : you belong to the red or the blue : choose your camp, and act as a fan. Just change of camp if you feel betrayed but otherwise don't question it.



    It has some advantages too : bipolar system is not a good background for the growth of extremists. In France the bipolar system faded away, and as a result, the extremist gained importance : the result was the right winged Le pen present at the second turn of elections. Now the system seems to be more bipolarised : it sucks for the interest of the political debate, but it's good to avoid extremists.

    Extremists love to cry loud, and overreact for whatever the reasons, when the debate is heavy, and hard between the classical right and left, there is less room for the extremists.

    When the debate is less noisy, the extremists have more chance to be listen.
  • Reply 8 of 22
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    at BR's comments. Great post man. Your Cubs / Sox analogy was pretty much spot-on.



    The only answer is term limits, and shorter ones in some cases.



    President = 5



    Senators = 3



    Governors = 3



    Congressmen = 2



    If you take away the ability to be a "career politician", you take motive away from the most greedy and power-hungry of the lot. You will still undoubtedly have arseholes in the mix but that's as it is with any organization. The only place to go is up or out. Which means performance. If you don't make good on your promises, who's going to elect you to a higher post?



    The point is, the percentage of people who will run for office in order to accomplish good, rather than for selfish reasons, will increase significantly IMO. And that's what we need.
  • Reply 9 of 22
    Campaign finance reform. As long as pols have to pander to big business and interest groups for the $$ that are needed to get elected in this country 'we the people' are never going to get proper representation.



    I have to disagree with Moogs' point, however. I don't think shorter term limits would allow for anything to get done.
  • Reply 10 of 22
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kneelbeforezod

    Campaign finance reform. As long as pols have to pander to big business and interest groups for the $$ that are needed to get elected in this country 'we the people' are never going to get proper representation.



    I have to disagree with Moogs' point, however. I don't think shorter term limits would allow for anything to get done.




    I agree that serious campaign finance reform needs to be passed but it's another one of those catch-22 issues. Anyone who tries to get some REAL legislation going is going to have a hell of a hard time raising money for the next election.



    I also agree that if we limit terms to one term only that the length of the term must be extended to allow time for congressmen/presidents/dogcatchers to really get some work done; it has to be 4 years for local reps, 6 years for senators and presidents.
  • Reply 11 of 22
    screedscreed Posts: 1,077member
    The problem with term limits is that party leaders, political advisers (Karl Rove and the like), and lobbyists would still be there for years shopping for fresh meat. I hate the current politics, but there is something to be said for experience. (The extreme opposite of course are entrenched patriarchs like Byrd, Helms, Thurmond, Kennedy and so on).



    Screed
  • Reply 12 of 22
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    Here's a solution: 1 term term limits. Extend the presidence to 6 years, reps to 4, and keep senators at 6. At least then the bastards don't have to worry about reelection and spend half their time fundraising and the other half of the time pandering to the fans of their team so they can get reelected. Bastards.



    Right on with the sentiment but limiting term limits will only help the problem not solve it completely. Reps will spend their time campaigning to be Senators and some Senators will spend time and money making a pitch for President (on a smaller scale albeit). But it sure will keep the President and most Senators focused on their jobs!
  • Reply 13 of 22
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    I don't know how we get ingrained with this idea, but can you guys name another profession or industry where the leaders are not expected to "get anything done" in the span of 2, 3 or even 4 years? Politicians are the ONLY group we cut that kind of slack to and it's ridiculous. If anything we should hold these people to a higher standard of work than corporations.



    If you can't find a way to draft resolutions and mediate conflict and all the rest in the span of say 3 or 4 years... what are you doing there?



    I know some issues are complex but any intelligent group of professionals should be able to accomplish A LOT in the span of 2-4 years. Don't you think?



    \
  • Reply 14 of 22
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Moogs

    I don't know how we get ingrained with this idea, but can you guys name another profession or industry where the leaders are not expected to "get anything done" in the span of 2, 3 or even 4 years? Politicians are the ONLY group we cut that kind of slack to and it's ridiculous. If anything we should hold these people to a higher standard of work than corporations.



    If you can't find a way to draft resolutions and mediate conflict and all the rest in the span of say 3 or 4 years... what are you doing there?



    I know some issues are complex but any intelligent group of professionals should be able to accomplish A LOT in the span of 2-4 years. Don't you think?



    \




    Perhaps there should be an automatic vote of confidence halfway through each of the extended terms I proposed. If more than 60% think they need to be ousted, then new elections are held one year from that date.
  • Reply 15 of 22
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Possibly, but elections are tedious, time-wasting processes. If you think they don't get much done now, wait until they have to prepare for the possibility of "follow-up" elections every time. They'll spend half their time stumping and campaigning.



    The general concept though is correct: we need some sort of measurement where we (or they) can look at the things accomplished and say "does this person deserve to remain in office another x years?" A negative result shouldn't yield a new election though. Maybe a better way is to use their compensation as a weapon. You get 80% of your pay each month until the end of your term. Don't meet certain general criteria and you forfeit the remaining 20%.



    That's flawed too because they might just boost their salary rates by 20% every 2 years or something but you get the idea. They have to be accountable not just to us but perhaps to their own families? I don't know. I just know 2-4 years should be more than enough time to accomplish many positive things, even if not all of the things you promised (which would rarely happen).
  • Reply 16 of 22
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Great thread BR!



    I think one of the largest problems with american politics is the special interests, business, labor unions who influence politicians more than "we the people". Sure many will say that those groups are a part of the "people" as a whole. I disagree. I believe those with money are given attention be they a teachers union, religious loby, corporate industry such as drug companies or oil companies etc. The problem is when the state (country) does the bidding on behalf of corporations ie: wars, tariffs, to "protect" domestic business interests. This protectionism is a big business for political leaders who benefit from contributions from this business loby. Elections should not be bankrolled by money from business or special interests or unions. Such a system represents only those who hand over the money to the politicians who get elected by said money. I am afraid we shall never see a system of thoughtful respetful leaders from either the democrats or the republicans as the main focus of each leader / law maker is to do what ever is needed to remain in office. Notice the priority is not what the people need but rather what the individual politician needs or even what the given party needs to retain or gain power.



    I agree it is an ugly state of affairs.. All i would suggest is that the big pools of money that buy off politicians is a large facet of the overall problem.



    Fellowship
  • Reply 17 of 22
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    I am sure someone has mentioned this in prior threads but to what extent to western European countries (and Canada for that matter) have the same two problems we're talking about here: career politicians (term limits) and election process (corporate / specialist interest money)?
  • Reply 18 of 22
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Here's my never-gonna-happen ideas for reform of the US political system:



    Allow first, second, and possibly even third choice voting: Voters would be allowed to give a full vote to the candidates they really want to win, without worrying that he or she "isn't electable". They could then further give a half-vote for their second choice, and perhaps even a quarter vote for their third choice. (If you don't like fractions, make it 4/2/1 or 3/2/1 points awarded to your first, second, and third choices.)



    Personally, I wouldn't have been wild about seeing Ralph Nader or Ross Perot get the presidency, for example, but I'm sure both candidates would have gotten a whole lot more voter support if each voter could have also chosen a Democrat or a Republican for a second choice.



    As occurs in some other countries, if no candidate garners more than 50% of the vote, hold a run-off election between the top two candidates.



    Proportional allocation of positions in legislative committees: Rather than a winner-takes-all approach to who controls and sits on various committees, allocate membership proportionally according to party membership. Either time-share chairmanships by the same proportions, allocate among all chairmanships proportionally, or give the majority party the chairmanship positions, but with very limited power for blocking minority party proposals.



    Require consistent, focused legislative bills: An energy policy bill should not contain provisions related to tax credits for pig farmers. An educational policy bill should not have hidden perks for easing environmental restrictions on petrochemical manufacturers. In other words, free our representatives to vote on clear and specific issues separately, rather than forcing then to vote on questionable package deals that turn legislation into a big game for party politics and special interests.



    I believe these reforms would not only loosen the grip of the two party system, but they would also loosen the grip of any particular party on its individual members, all without inviting the chaos that sometimes overcomes multi-party systems that structurally require the formation of messy coalition governments in order to function.
  • Reply 19 of 22
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    I'm not sure term limits are the best idea. Like was pointed out, if the pols can only serve one term, then power is removed from them and placed in the hands of those without term limits - party hacks and political staffers. You don't reduce party influence by creating term limits, you vastly amplify it. Few/no politicians would have any significant background or name recognition, so campaigns would be run on party platforms, like the old-old days. The party would be ascendant.



    Since no congressman could figure out how to run the government in two years, they'd be told how to run it by their staffs. Staffs that, presumably, would become semi-permanent, with only the face of their "boss" changing every few years. Pols would vote how and on what their chiefs-of-staff tell them to. The staffs would take orders from the unelected party leaders. Power of the people? Even less than now.
  • Reply 20 of 22
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Towel

    I'm not sure term limits are the best idea. Like was pointed out, if the pols can only serve one term, then power is removed from them and placed in the hands of those without term limits - party hacks and political staffers. You don't reduce party influence by creating term limits, you vastly amplify it. Few/no politicians would have any significant background or name recognition, so campaigns would be run on party platforms, like the old-old days. The party would be ascendant.



    Since no congressman could figure out how to run the government in two years, they'd be told how to run it by their staffs. Staffs that, presumably, would become semi-permanent, with only the face of their "boss" changing every few years. Pols would vote how and on what their chiefs-of-staff tell them to. The staffs would take orders from the unelected party leaders. Power of the people? Even less than now.




    Not if money is taken out of politics.

    Not if terms are lengthened to deal with the one term limit.





    4 years a representative. 6 years a senator. That's already 10 years of service. Sounds about ready to run for president.
Sign In or Register to comment.