I know. “We vote for someone else in the next election.” But the voting public has a very short and selective memory and it’s way to easy to see the (I) for incombent after a name and pull that lever. The politicans know that.
The governor and the legislators of Minnesota have managed to put us into a government shut down, due to their inability to agree on how to balance the state budget. We did this 6 years ago, for 2 weeks. The thought of an election that is several years away obviously doesn’t phase these folks.
Now it’s not like the need to approve a budget is a surprise duty. It happens every 2 years like clock work. It’s one of the major responsibilities of the state’s elected officials.
If I habitually was late or totally unable to do one of the acknowledged responsibilities of my job, I would expect to be talk to a manager, to try to clear things up, and if it continues, to be let go. Could we consider adding requirements and penalties to the job description for the governor, the senators and the representatives? Something along the lines of:
Lay it out clearly. The budget must be approved by 11:59PM June 30th, odd numbered years, or the penalty will be X. Failure to attend Y% of senate sessions results in W. Failure to vote on Z% of votes and the result is V.
Personally, I’m thinking - failure to negotiate a budget on time results in being ineligable to run for office at the end of your current term.
Just one term, but every single one of them. No more (I) for incumbant after there name. Since not all senators run in each election, there would be continuity in the senate. The house would be all new people. The governor replaced. I’d let them run again in the election after that.
It sounds to me like it’s the voters who need punishing. If people are going to be morons, they deserve what they get.
Nitpick: faze.
Hmm.
Is there any way to prescribe a default budget that would go into effect if there has not been a budget passed by a set date? Perhaps that it will match the prior budget with all amounts raised or lowered by the % difference in forcast income.
I’ve heard suggestions of suspending or reducing the pay of legislators if the budget isn’t set, but I don’t know if a law like that has ever been passed. And I suspect that their salary is not their largest source of income.
I’d hesitate to forbid anyone in a late budget year from running in the next election. I’d suspect a few idiots to play budget chicken with everyone else, trying to extort concessions.
You’d be giving the minority party a new incentive for obstructionism. It sounds like your proposal would kick out everyone, including the ones who really did try their hardest to get something passed, right? So the minority is going to see it as a chance for a clean slate, which (since they’re the minority) is more likely than not to favor them.
In our community no ''responsible" person has ever run for office, therefore none have been elected. We have a ballot option “none of the above” but only a few persons mark this box. Our local government is an oligarchy of good old boys and one girl who’s sole purpose is to employ their in-laws.
Is an “I” for incumbent a common thing on ballots?
I checked a couple of sample ballots from past years for my jurisdiction. In races where I know who the incumbent was, I don’t think the information is clear from merely looking at the ballot.
This. Voters vote for self-interest be it personal up to sharing ideas with liked-minded others. Change may only come when people think/act for the greater good, the long-term ideals of society (decades to generations of time) and those elected have no personal/professional incentives/opportunities to enrich themselves financially and socially.
Won’t happen under present thinking in American society.
Where is this being done and how do they designate an Independent candidate?
If I remember correctly, here in Georgia “(Incumbent)” is next to the incumbent’s name on the ballot.