Personally, I would not consider it impossible or terribly radical if we somehow forced Congress to conduct their legislative business from their district offices instead of from DC. Announce the bill to be voted on, allow the Congresscritters time to research and get LOCAL opinions, then vote either by phone or electronically.
The point, to me, is to dilute the effects of the lobbyists and moneymen. If they have to divide their attentions between 453 separate locations instead of being able to park their tuchuses in the Capitol rotunda, the mischief they can actually do can only be reduced.
I agree. Has the worshipping of earning money really reached the point where we assume those who earn more are inherently better people better able to decide what is best for society!?! That proposition seems utterly ridiculous to me.
And, even if it were true that the rich were that much better informed and the poor were more ignorant, the political process is not like, say, the scientific process. In addition to knowledge, there are also values and interests involved. So, even if the rich person knew everything, they still would be representing only their own interests and not necessarily those of the rest of us. That’s what one person, one vote is all about.
And just whose interests do you figure are represented by those who would wrestle political power from the rich? Is power somehow not a corruptive influence when it is wielded in the name of “public service”?
That may be - but one person, one vote is not what the Constitution is about.
Not at all. But rather than expose an innocent official with the corrupting blandishments of power, we propose to share out the burden more equably.
Perhaps not. But it can be interpreted that way, and I propose that we do so. That way we can keep it. Otherwise, we’ll either have to amend it or chuck it out altogether, because no other formula is acceptable.
The power is ours, we bestow it, we remove it, and it remains ours.
How do you figure that? Article 2 Section 1, at least, totally flies in the face of that idea.
Actually, it is the idea of one person, one vote which is unacceptable. Wage slaves who live for the weekend - to say nothing of the millions of de facto wards of the state - do not deserve an equal voice with the entrepreneurs who are the life blood of American prosperity.
None of the Justices said that this was not a limitation on free speech, but the majority decision held that there was a compelling federal interest in so limiting free speech and that the Act was narrowly drawn to encompass that federal interest. The federal interest is corruption or the appearance of corruption.
You don’t even realize how ridiculous your little RichGods theory of democracy sounds to most people, do you? The fact is that we’ve progressed from the original propertyholders=electorate to universal suffrage. The idea of limiting suffrage to people whose net worth is above a certain level is disgusting. It’s a step backward.
How do you justify taxing the majority of the electorate without allowing them representation?
Guess that depends on which direction you’re headed. Democracy in its purest sense is a rotten idea, which is why this country wasn’t founded as one. It’s tyranny of the majority.
In any case, I never advocated limiting sufferage. I advocated allowing first amendment protection to everyone regardless of income, not just the paragons of mediocrity whom the left would empower.
What do you think is the purist form of democracy? Just direct democracy or are you including representative democracy run by straight majority rule? In either case, what makes it tyranny?
Has the Freeper invasion of the SDMB finally begun?
I’ve heard this term many times in reference to conservatives. What is a freeper?
If it has anything to do with “Free”, I’ll take it as a compliment.
As for McCain-Feingold, it turns out it isn’t as bad as I thought. The loopholes are so big you can drive a truck through them. The only people it hurts even moderately are the Democrats, who depend more on large soft money donations than Republicans.
Home of the troglodyte right. Imagine if Ann Coulter ran a message board, and you’ve got the idea. A “freeper” is a message board participant (like a “Doper” around the SDMB).
I’m one of the most conservative posters on this board, and these guys even make me shudder.
(Actually, they piss me off right royally because their abject stupidity gives conservatism a bad name. Kind of the way thinking lefties must feel about Buzzflash.)
