I still think our current system is the best. Unless you basically want to speed up telling rural America to [uck fay] off and just get in their place.
With technology it wouldn’t have to be that logistical. Plus no need to pay them as much as we do now either. It should be a public service, not the other way around
The pay for the House is really not that much compared to the average salary of the country. In fact, I argue they make less now per year as a Congressman than they have in a very long time, salary wise. Now, of course, the riches gained as a Representative or a Senator were always more than just a salary. And a good salary is also protection against rampant corruption.
I’m still surprised folks were surprised that Trump was invited to this funeral. - This is a state funeral. He belongs there. Must be invited and must attend. Even if Bush isn’t like him - this isn’t for Bush. It is for the nation. His Houston ceremony will be different. Also laughing at the people who were expecting Obama and Trump yo clash. They sit down and shake hands including Michelle. Kudos to Trump for initiating handshake.
The population has significantly changed and has created one of the most unrepresentative entities in any democratic government in the Senate. Why give rural voters and states disproportional power to their voting numbers? What other group gets such consideration? Black voters make up 12% of the electorate, should they get more value added to their vote and representation as a result? Women? Hispanics? Factory workers? Urban poor? Etc.? Getting rid of the Senate is a pretty radical idea and I don't necessarily think it should be done wholesale. I'm far more willing and desirous of scrapping the antiquated Electoral College, which needs to go. However, I don't see it as some sort of sacred cow, either.
One of the forgotten aspects about the original founders ideals is the concept of disinterest. They felt it was important for elected official to do this as a public service and those who were merchants and otherwise had skin in the running of the government and economy should not partake. Of course, it also meant the aristocratic gentlemen was the desired figure.
No no no. Democrats are good and honest to a fault. It's only evil Republicans who partake in such things.
All of these groups are taken care of. Hint - minorities live in rural areas too! So do factory workers!
I mean we can go down the list, but Republicans have the current monopoly on attempts to make voting more difficult... Especially for blue-leaning demos. I don't hear any Dems out there suggesting age limits to voting or running Matlock marathons every elections day. It's one example, but it bleeds down into everything else.
Why has no one told me we're doing this? I'd stay home and watch. I do hear dems saying we should lower voting age to 16 though....I wonder why? Edit - and if we are going to talk about Georgia, it'd be nice to research said history and application of the law in question.
I mean, I can say the same thing too. - Voting age is fine - Registration should be automatic - Hours long lines on election day due to a lack of precincts are a problem -Additional avenues to vote including mail, extended early voting periods, and more precincts on election day should be readily available everywhere. Wonder why you see those last three arguments predominately from one side?
I'm fine with 3 and 4 being issues and we should figure out a way to solve them. There should be more precincts and polls everywhere. Most (all?) the time this ends up boiling down to incompetent leadership at the local level though.
I think the entire process of voting from registration to casting ballots should be one of the easiest things you do all year. We are a low turnout country because we make it exponentially harder for people to vote than other developed countries. My two cents.
Yes, but I'll also add like I said earlier, too many people just don't care. All social classes, races, etc. They just don't care.
