[clue-talk] A fsck'ed up view on campaign reform

[Sean LeBlanc]

On 10-03 16:59, David Rudder wrote:
> Why do we have 100 senators and however-many congressmen/women.  Why?
> Ask any high school kid and you'll hear "2 senators per state and the
> house is determined by the state's population".  But, how many senators
> and congressmen do we need?  How many people does it take to get done
> the serious business of making the laws of the United States of America?
> 
> If the number is significantly less than the current levels, then what
> are these elected officials *doing* the rest of the time?  Campaigning.
> Okay, cool.  It's messed up, but I'm okay with it.  Or, let's at least
> assume I'm okay with it, since I'm really not.
> 
> What happens if we take money out of politics?  Politicians don't have
> to spend so much time campaigning.  And then they do...what exactly?
> Make more laws?  God forbid.  Can we fire Florida's reps?  Probably not
> :(  You know that this is a void that will have to be fixed.
> 
> We could say that the congressmen could be required to have a real job,
> but then there's conflict of interest issues.
> 
> Maybe they have to volunteer?  Must teach a class at some university in
> their state?  Can we make them file reports at Walter Reed?


Depends on what laws they pass, I guess. 

In any case, I say the politicians take courses in critical thinking and in
science. That way, they won't say (and apparently think) such ridiculous
things...well, maybe not at least as often. 

I know some people have denigrated the one question in which the Republicans
were asked which ones did NOT accept evolution? That was helpful for me,
because I know which ones failed an important critical thinking test, and
therefore, are not worthy of my vote. 

I recently read an op-ed type piece in Scientific American, I think it was,
in which we really need a Dr. President the next time around. A lot to hope
for, but true. Scaling back on the wish list a bit, I'd ask for someone that
was at least curious about the issues, AND apparently had a modicum of
critical thinking skills. Maybe a few ethics classes, too.

Given our current landscape in which changing your mind when new information
comes in is viewed as "flip-flopping", while being stubborn and
ignorant is mistaken as "having a vision", I won't hold out much hope.

Anywho, they could also work on repealing stupid laws. 

And spend their time *reading* the laws they do pass.


One question about taking the money out of politics - it seems like a noble
goal, but what about third parties? Will the money all be on even footing? 
If so, I doubt this would EVER happen, as much as I'd wish it to. Who
determines what is a legitimate party? I can think of two major third
parties: Green and Libertarian. What about independents? Can *anyone*
qualify for the money? Wouldn't that decision be biased? How will Americans
deal with a Nazi party, for example? Or a "gag" party like Robert Anton
Wilson's Guns and Dope Party? 

Then you also have the problem of when is it advertising, and when is it
news? Since politicians are already sold to us just like soap, and product
placement is a regular feature on shows, why wouldn't the same technique be
used (even more than it already is for candidates) as a loophole? I'd
imagine incumbents would be doing press releases all the time in a run up to
an election.  

People gripe and moan about "their" money being used for some very small
expenses like PBS[*]; imagine how much they'll whine if "their" money is to
fund the Greens, or the Liberatarians, or the Communist Party, or Socialist
Workers Party. And I'd think this might be a bigger expense than PBS,
although I'm not positive. Maybe all the advertising could be DONE on PBS,
and no other advertising anywhere else. Hmm. 

Sticky problems, but again, sounds like a good idea. A lot of time who has
the most money defines who wins. Not good.

[*] This article in 2006 said it would be cut to a budget of $380 million.
280 million in the country? Assuming the tax is a progressive tax,
middle-class people probably pay less than a buck a year, per man, woman,
and child?  Yeah, that's /killing/ me. And like the first comment says about
the cut, yeah, that will balance the budget:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_06/008984.php`

-- 
Sean LeBlanc:seanleblanc at comcast.net  
http://sean-leblanc.blogspot.com/
I'm going to give my psychoanalyst one more year, then I'm going to Lourdes. 
-Woody Allen