Anyone else excited about tomorrow?

[BobbyBlueChip]

My wife too. Look how well it turned out for her:0008

She got two beautiful kids.....and a husband who's home 3.8% more than most

 

[gardenweasel]

A benevolent dictatorship would be fine by me. I'm more informed about what I'm voting for than most and I didn't know half of the races I was voting for. So I voted all Dems. . . unless there was a candidate named Jack. . . .I always trust a guy named Jack

"benevolent" dictatorship?:facepalm: ......

:lol:

 

[StevieD]

In my opinion, the only way we will truly start making inroads to this issue is to install term limits, and lessen private funding of elections. Neither elected body is for term limits, and conservatives in particular (IMO) are against public financing of elections, probably because Unions are allowed to fund elections, and I can also see how that's an issue. But to open up our election system to unmonitored private funding is NOT the answer. Things will get much worse because of that, IMO. Talk about self-serving politics... I do understand why Union donations makes more sense from a personal angle than corporate donations, though. But that's just me. While I don't think public financing of elections would be perfect, I think it would eliminate a lot of our current problems, and I KNOW that term limits would eliminate a lot more. Heck, let the people run again after being out of office for one term, if necessary. Just don't have the one man/woman for life representation thing going on. That's all about what can I grab for my constituents so I can keep my job, not what's best for the common good and country.

All that being said, I agree that a one party dominance of our legislative system is not beneficial to the country as a whole, and think if the House goes to the republicans (as it is supposed to) it will be a better thing for the country. It will cause much more gridlock at a critical time in our country, but that's probably a good thing. I guess we'll see how much of a groundswell shows up today. It would be something if the Senate flopped over, but I doubt that will happen.

I honestly do not see the benefit of term limits. It just seems to be that a guy going in, knowing he only has one or two terms to serve would be out to take care of himself with a cushy job after he gets out. A represenative would not have any incentive to do good by the people who put voted for him.

 

[Chadman]

I honestly do not see the benefit of term limits. It just seems to be that a guy going in, knowing he only has one or two terms to serve would be out to take care of himself with a cushy job after he gets out. A represenative would not have any incentive to do good by the people who put voted for him.

You have interesting points, Stevie, but I also think it would prevent the long time bought and paid for legislators and would allow legislators with a conscience and those that really want to do something to be able to do so more freely without being bought and paid for. The career politician angle certainly is not working, and if the position wasn't a hopeful lifetime commitment with such a strong draw to remain in power for life, perhaps there wouldn't be so much influence tossed at politicians. At least one person could not be owned for life and maintain a hold on an office by a company or group of companies. I don't know, but I think it would be better from those perspectives.