Do I send it out or not?

[dhyatt]

Take a look and let me know if this is something you would sign. If not, why not?

Vote Them Out Now! (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/relectnobody/)

[MattD]

Take a look and let me know if this is something you would sign. If not, why not?

Vote Them Out Now! (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/relectnobody/)

I would not sign for several reasons, including but not limited to:
I do not believe EVERY member of the U.S. Senate has let us down.
I do not believe EVERY member of the U.S. House of Reps have let us down.
I do not believe that EVERY aspect of American society is suffering
I would not forward this message to each and EVERY perosn in my contact list (I do try to keep my professional contacts seperate from non-work related emails)

[dhyatt]

I would not sign for several reasons, including but not limited to:
I do not believe EVERY member of the U.S. Senate has let us down.
I do not believe EVERY member of the U.S. House of Reps have let us down.
I do not believe that EVERY aspect of American society is suffering
I would not forward this message to each and EVERY perosn in my contact list (I do try to keep my professional contacts seperate from non-work related emails)

If you agree (as do 91% of America) that Congress is doing a lousy job, how do you get past the "everybody else sucks but my rep is good" problem? How do we solve the fact that on average 90%+ of incumbent House members and 80%+ of incumbent Senators get re-elected time after time? ...even though their collective approval rating is almost always bad and is now particularly terrible. Substituting "most" or "some" for "every" will get us nowhere because voters will simply fall back on the time worn "it's the others that are the problem" argument. Something has to give.

[johnshaw]

If you agree (as do 91% of America) that Congress is doing a lousy job, how do you get past the "everybody else sucks but my rep is good" problem? How do we solve the fact that on average 90%+ of incumbent House members and 80%+ of incumbent Senators get re-elected time after time? ...even though their collective approval rating is almost always bad and is now particularly terrible. Substituting "most" or "some" for "every" will get us nowhere because voters will simply fall back on the time worn "it's the others that are the problem" argument. Something has to give.
Why would you want to defeat every incumbent? Whatever your position on any particular issue, a large number (either somewhat less than 50% or somewhat more than 50%) of Representative and Senators support your position.

A more intelligent action would be to reelect incumbents who vote the way you would want, and to replace those who vote the other way. But that would require knowing about the issues and the voting records-perhaps too much work for the person who started this email.

Many people will agree to the statement that Congress is doing a lousy job. However, most of them cannot discuss specifics about what Congress, or any particular member of Congress, is doing wrong.

As for me, I (like all of us) will be able to vote to defeat or to reelect two members of Congress-one Representative and one Senator. I plan to vote to replace one of them and to keep one of them.

[dhyatt]

Why would you want to defeat every incumbent? Whatever your position on any particular issue, a large number (either somewhat less than 50% or somewhat more than 50%) of Representative and Senators support your position.

A more intelligent action would be to reelect incumbents who vote the way you would want, and to replace those who vote the other way. But that would require knowing about the issues and the voting records-perhaps too much work for the person who started this email.

Many people will agree to the statement that Congress is doing a lousy job. However, most of them cannot discuss specifics about what Congress, or any particular member of Congress, is doing wrong.

As for me, I (like all of us) will be able to vote to defeat or to reelect two members of Congress-one Representative and one Senator. I plan to vote to replace one of them and to keep one of them.

Unfortunately, many of us hold positions that are contradictory. We want cheap energy but we don't want the environmental risks that come with it. We want cheap health care but we also want access to the latest and greatest drugs and technology. We want peace but don't want to fight for it. We want a good education for our children even if it means other children fall behind. We want parks and amenities but don't want the higher taxes that go along with it. We want a solid retirement but don't want to save for it, expecting the rich to cover it instead. etc... etc... etc...

Our elected officials, especially those in Washington, do nothing more than count votes in their respective districts and cater to a majority to ensure re-election. It works time and time again. We need statesmen who will do the right thing and then get out. And we need this pattern repeated until the voters start to understand there is no free lunch. The only way I know to do that is to simply boot incumbents as fast and frequently as possible.

This Fall, the candidates that win will be the ones that tell the best lie on how to lower gas prices. Nothing else will matter and that's a lousy way to run a country.

[MattD]

If you agree (as do 91% of America) that Congress is doing a lousy job, how do you get past the "everybody else sucks but my rep is good" problem? How do we solve the fact that on average 90%+ of incumbent House members and 80%+ of incumbent Senators get re-elected time after time? ...even though their collective approval rating is almost always bad and is now particularly terrible. Substituting "most" or "some" for "every" will get us nowhere because voters will simply fall back on the time worn "it's the others that are the problem" argument. Something has to give.

Dhyatt - I'll take your questions one by one.

1. I didn't say my US Rep was "good" or "bad"

2. How to solve incumbents getting re-elected -- end gerrymandering

3. Substituing "most" or "some" for "EVERY" gets us nowhere --- Perhaps, but the word in the document is EVERY. My answer remains "no" as I do not believe EVERY US Rep/Senator is bad. This is why my answer remains... I would not sign the document.

So Dhyatt - Are you going to place your name on a document stating that you believe EVERY federally elected politician is bad?

[Brent]

Although I generally try to avoid absolutes (all/none, always/never) in general "opinion" kinds of discourse, I get Hyatt's point, and sometimes one has to say things more stridently to make a point, and to accept the inevitable, more moderate result (I think that Thoreau and/or Emerson made that point in something I read long ago).

Anti-incumbency waves happen from time to time, and they rarely succeed on any large scope precisely because of the "Throw 'em all out...well, all of 'em except my reps...they're OK" mentality.

If one truly wants major change that involves a significant replacement of incumbents, I think that one has to approach it in the manner Hyatt has posited. Perhaps it could be re-worded such that more people would support the literal text, but I don't think that's the point...the point is the sentiment and the call to action

[Dharma]

If we throw them all out, they'll then know it's about WE THE PEOPLE and not about "Me, the rich Senator/Rep from NC/anywhere whose open to Big Corporate money".

Then we have term limits.

After that, we have federal campaign financing so the average Joe has a chance to try to make a difference for his fellow farmers back in Podunk (and not for Monsanto who has pattens on everybody's seeds).

They've screwed us, it's time to fight back. I will sign it. I want all of them gone so we can start anew.

[francejamie]

Unfortunately, many of us hold positions that are contradictory. We want cheap energy but we don't want the environmental risks that come with it. We want cheap health care but we also want access to the latest and greatest drugs and technology. We want peace but don't want to fight for it. We want a good education for our children even if it means other children fall behind. We want parks and amenities but don't want the higher taxes that go along with it. We want a solid retirement but don't want to save for it, expecting the rich to cover it instead. etc... etc... etc...

Our elected officials, especially those in Washington, do nothing more than count votes in their respective districts and cater to a majority to ensure re-election. It works time and time again. We need statesmen who will do the right thing and then get out. And we need this pattern repeated until the voters start to understand there is no free lunch. The only way I know to do that is to simply boot incumbents as fast and frequently as possible.

This Fall, the candidates that win will be the ones that tell the best lie on how to lower gas prices. Nothing else will matter and that's a lousy way to run a country.

The problem isn't the politicians, it's the voters.

We need a simple test to determine if someone at least understands the basics of our country before their vote should be counted. I'm tired of idiot's votes (on both sides) being used to put more idiots into office.
just have a 10 question test with things people should have learned in basic 7th grade social studies. ie, what are the 3 branches of govenment? Who is your governor? What is the Supreme Law of the Land?
In fact that test is already created and agreed upon by a bipartisan group. It's called the US Naturalization test. If the information is determined important enough that everyone who wants to be a citizen should know it, then why isn't it important that everyone who votes know this? You just add those questions to the ballots, and if they passed the test, then that vote counts.

[dhyatt]

Dhyatt - I'll take your questions one by one.

1. I didn't say my US Rep was "good" or "bad"

2. How to solve incumbents getting re-elected -- end gerrymandering

3. Substituing "most" or "some" for "EVERY" gets us nowhere --- Perhaps, but the word in the document is EVERY. My answer remains "no" as I do not believe EVERY US Rep/Senator is bad. This is why my answer remains... I would not sign the document.

So Dhyatt - Are you going to place your name on a document stating that you believe EVERY federally elected politician is bad?

I'm not saying they're bad people, I'm saying they've let us down and typically accomplish nothing other than getting themselves re-elected. And I have to place my name on the petition. I wrote it.

I'm just looking for some fellow CP'ers to review it for me :-)

[MattD]

I'm not saying they're bad people, I'm saying they've let us down and typically accomplish nothing other than getting themselves re-elected. And I have to place my name on the petition. I wrote it.

I'm just looking for some fellow CP'ers to review it for me :-)

Don - I applaud your efforts to get this petition moving!!

[Dharma]

We need a simple test to determine if someone at least understands the basics of our country before their vote should be counted.

I disagree, Jamie.

We can teach a monkey to pass that test. All they have to do is give people the answers like they do in No Child Left Behind. We cannot teach intelligent people to think critically and to reason. Example: I have a friend who calls herself a Republican. When I ask her what her beliefs are, her answers are all generally that of liberal ideology. I ask her why she considers herself a Republican and she says her parents are so she always votes Republican (all the while never understanding that she's voting against her own interests). I'm sure there are as many people out there who vote for Democrats even though their basic ideology is Republican.

Some people actually vote based on how many political signs they saw on the roadway. Politicians know this, it's called name recognition.

As for me, I think I'm street smart, savvy, have a lot of common sense. I'm well educated but looking back now, I had no idea what the issues were 10-15 years ago. I was just interested in raising my kids and getting through the day. I probably would have gone along with whoever my spouse told me to vote for. Unfortunately, most of our population is this way and politicians count on our sheep mentality.

I don't know the answer but administering a test is not going to make a difference. I'm only at this juncture now because I blindly stumbled on some information a few years ago that was so interesting to me that searching gov't sites for more info opened my eyes to who our congressmen are, what they're voting records are, etc. This new hobbie lead me to a lot of geat books including The People's History of the United States and biographies of the founding fathers.

My point is that very few people ever really get to a point of intrigue that they're interested in anything beyond their noses and no test will ever change the way they vote.

[Dharma]

I'm not saying they're bad people, I'm saying they've let us down and typically accomplish nothing other than getting themselves re-elected. And I have to place my name on the petition. I wrote it.

I'm just looking for some fellow CP'ers to review it for me :-)

I've been going over it with a fine tooth comb and very happy that we have found common ground.

Now how do we educate the populis?

[JoeCiulla]

If we vote out every incumbent, why would we expect different behaviors from the new ones? At the Federal level, it seems the first job of every politician is to get re-elected. So the new ones pick up where the old ones left off.

Why not term limits instead? We have them for Presidents and Governors, why not the whole lot?

[Wuptdo]

Go ahead and send it out. Anything to shake the tree (anyone remember the Liberty Tree?).

Supreme Court said no to federal term limits -- they wanted a Constitutional Amendment as they believed this was a "bigger" issue beyond the "scope" of Congress.

Politicians should be afraid of the people, however, since 1994, people are afraid of their government, just the way the politicians like it.