6 ms·

Their parties should kick them out and replace them with more principled people.

by mc32 4y ago

joxel 4y ago
Au contrare, Ted budd just got promoted to senator.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
This comment makes no sense in the context of America. I guess you're from a country with some sort of Parliamentary system where governments are formed when a party is elected? In America, parties aren't elected and don't form governments. Accordingly, an American political party cannot kick out a congressman, much less replace one. To remove a congressman requires a two third vote (from congress, not from a political party); this never happens in the modern era without a criminal conviction as the impetus. And nether congress or a political party can simply bring in a new congressman; you'd need another election for that.
- lostmsu 4y ago
  It still can be done for the next term. AFAIK there is no limit on terms and people stay in congress far too long for my taste.
themitigating 4y ago
If they punished them, especially in a way that would cause then not be funded in their next election, they could just switch parties.
- HelloNurse 4y ago
  Which would make the party that expels them look good, and the party that takes them and their funding on board look bad.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> parties should kick them out and replace them with more principled people Their parties could evict them. But they’d retain their seats. Their voters gave those to them.
- justin66 4y ago
  If their parties had something like a consensus, under the constitution congress could vote to expel them for ethics violations. Of course, congresspeople don't like to punish congresspeople for ethical lapses too vociferously or too frequently, for some obvious reasons...
tartoran 4y ago
That would be ideal but in reality these party members raised money for the party so.. they’re in 0 trouble as far as their party is concerned. The system is a farting contest that enables this behavior. Solution would be to do away with the 2 party system and make parties more responsible with consequences as being completely voted out if corruption isn’t handled. Now both Reps and Dems are corrupted and they known we have no other choice
- akudha 4y ago
  Countries like India have multi party system. That doesn’t seem to have slowed corruption/bribery at all. How would it help in the U.S? In a way, corruption is the U.S is worse because it is legalized (campaign contributions). If there were 25 parties instead of 2, it would be a bit more work to find out who to bribe, but I guess it is still doable
- s3r3nity 4y ago
  - oneplane 4y ago
    If you have a government with a billion people in it, but none of them are allowed to do anything with investments or even hold/have 'extra' jobs while serving society, you reduce or remove the problem all the same. A teeny tiny government with 1 person in it can still mess with investments on a global scale all the same if they are allowed to do so. It 'fixes' nothing. The size and scope of a government is not what makes bad performers perform badly. It's bad people combined with bad policies. How bad is a different topic (there is no absolute 'badness', but there are definitely differences).
    - koolba 4y ago
      > The size and scope of a government is not what makes bad performers perform badly. It's bad people combined with bad policies. How bad is a different topic (there is no absolute 'badness', but there are definitely differences). The larger the size and scope, the more opportunity there is for bad actors. More cracks to slip through. More tills to dip into. It’s not the factor that makes a person corrupt, but the bigger the government, the more room there is for more corrupt people.
tsol 4y ago
The thing about democracy is, even if the people make a bad choice it's still democracy
- sbuttgereit 4y ago
  From "Teller Reveals His Secrets" (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/teller-reveals-his-secrets-100744801/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/teller-reveals-h...)... "7. If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. [...] When I cut the cards, I let you glimpse a few different faces. You conclude the deck contains 52 different cards (No. 1—Pattern recognition). You think you’ve made a choice, just as when you choose between two candidates preselected by entrenched political parties (No. 7—Choice is not freedom)." It may still be democracy, but the task of the people isn't to pick the best or most desirable policy/candidate/etc. It's to pick from the presented selections. If all choices are bad, nothing good will come of it no matter what you call it. Add an option for "None of the above/Do-over" and I'll have more faith in democracy.
  - kodah 4y ago
    > Add an option for "None of the above/Do-over" and I'll have more faith in democracy. I would really love this and to end PACs.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    Wouldn't misinformation also be a similar situation. If you make a choice based on misinformation or incomplete information, is that democracy.
- rjzzleep 4y ago
  "The thing about democracy is, even if the people abuse their power it's still okay" - well, not much different from a non-violent dictatorship then.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    There are plenty of people that are arguing for just that, and they already have the person to put in charge picked.
rodgerd 4y ago
Like... they guy running on whether he wants to be a warewolf or vampire? The lady worried about Jewish space lasers? Just getting people who are sufficiently in touch with reality that they're merely corrupt seems like a win at this point.
- blamazon 4y ago
  To be fair, that werewolf or vampire thing was the most cogent part of the campaign so far.
  - rodgerd 4y ago
    I would like to disagree with you. I can't, but I'd like to.
Consultant32452 4y ago
No matter who you vote for, the government wins every election.
- themitigating 4y ago
  What does this even mean? The government (the elected portion) isn't an entity outside of the people that are elected.
nradov 4y ago
Political parties have no legal authority to expel a member from Congress. Parties are voluntary private organizations with no formal role in any branch of government. The most the parties can really do to punish a politician is to withdraw financial and organizational support, which might make reelection difficult.
- koolba 4y ago
  Both the House and the Senate make their own rules, and that includes the ability to unseat a member. If they really wanted to, they could (but they won’t).
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
    Huh, I’m surprised one party who controlled the House or Senate never decided to just kick out all their opponents, if they are legally allowed to.
    - coffeebeqn 4y ago
      What would be the upside? They are already fairly powerless in the opposition and this would be a huge scandal
    - koolba 4y ago
      It’s an escalating game of chicken. You can see it happening in the new Congress with public statements from the Republican incoming majority leader to remove certain Democrats from committee assignments (e.g. removing Schiff from the intelligence committee). Not that long ago that was unheard of and either party could seat whoever they’d like in a committee. But similar to how the Democrats killed the executive appointment filibuster, they killed that as well by refusing to seat Republicans on the Jan 6th and removing some from other committees . Now it’s going to come full circle. I wouldn’t be surprised if it eventually gets to unseating or refusing to seat a controversial figure.
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago

Their parties should kick them out and replace them with more principled people.

by mc32 4y ago

Their parties should kick them out and replace them with more principled people.

joxel 4y ago

Au contrare, Ted budd just got promoted to senator.

MichaelCollins 4y ago

This comment makes no sense in the context of America. I guess you're from a country with some sort of Parliamentary system where governments are formed when a party is elected? In America, parties aren't elected and don't form governments. Accordingly, an American political party cannot kick out a congressman, much less replace one. To remove a congressman requires a two third vote (from congress, not from a political party); this never happens in the modern era without a criminal conviction as the impetus. And nether congress or a political party can simply bring in a new congressman; you'd need another election for that.

lostmsu 4y ago
It still can be done for the next term. AFAIK there is no limit on terms and people stay in congress far too long for my taste.

themitigating 4y ago

If they punished them, especially in a way that would cause then not be funded in their next election, they could just switch parties.

HelloNurse 4y ago
Which would make the party that expels them look good, and the party that takes them and their funding on board look bad.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> parties should kick them out and replace them with more principled people Their parties could evict them. But they’d retain their seats. Their voters gave those to them.

justin66 4y ago
If their parties had something like a consensus, under the constitution congress could vote to expel them for ethics violations. Of course, congresspeople don't like to punish congresspeople for ethical lapses too vociferously or too frequently, for some obvious reasons...

tartoran 4y ago

That would be ideal but in reality these party members raised money for the party so.. they’re in 0 trouble as far as their party is concerned. The system is a farting contest that enables this behavior. Solution would be to do away with the 2 party system and make parties more responsible with consequences as being completely voted out if corruption isn’t handled. Now both Reps and Dems are corrupted and they known we have no other choice

akudha 4y ago
Countries like India have multi party system. That doesn’t seem to have slowed corruption/bribery at all. How would it help in the U.S? In a way, corruption is the U.S is worse because it is legalized (campaign contributions). If there were 25 parties instead of 2, it would be a bit more work to find out who to bribe, but I guess it is still doable
s3r3nity 4y ago
- oneplane 4y ago
  If you have a government with a billion people in it, but none of them are allowed to do anything with investments or even hold/have 'extra' jobs while serving society, you reduce or remove the problem all the same. A teeny tiny government with 1 person in it can still mess with investments on a global scale all the same if they are allowed to do so. It 'fixes' nothing. The size and scope of a government is not what makes bad performers perform badly. It's bad people combined with bad policies. How bad is a different topic (there is no absolute 'badness', but there are definitely differences).
  - koolba 4y ago
    > The size and scope of a government is not what makes bad performers perform badly. It's bad people combined with bad policies. How bad is a different topic (there is no absolute 'badness', but there are definitely differences). The larger the size and scope, the more opportunity there is for bad actors. More cracks to slip through. More tills to dip into. It’s not the factor that makes a person corrupt, but the bigger the government, the more room there is for more corrupt people.

tsol 4y ago

The thing about democracy is, even if the people make a bad choice it's still democracy

sbuttgereit 4y ago
From "Teller Reveals His Secrets" (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/teller-reveals-his-secrets-100744801/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/teller-reveals-h...)... "7. If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. [...] When I cut the cards, I let you glimpse a few different faces. You conclude the deck contains 52 different cards (No. 1—Pattern recognition). You think you’ve made a choice, just as when you choose between two candidates preselected by entrenched political parties (No. 7—Choice is not freedom)." It may still be democracy, but the task of the people isn't to pick the best or most desirable policy/candidate/etc. It's to pick from the presented selections. If all choices are bad, nothing good will come of it no matter what you call it. Add an option for "None of the above/Do-over" and I'll have more faith in democracy.
- kodah 4y ago
  > Add an option for "None of the above/Do-over" and I'll have more faith in democracy. I would really love this and to end PACs.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Wouldn't misinformation also be a similar situation. If you make a choice based on misinformation or incomplete information, is that democracy.
rjzzleep 4y ago
"The thing about democracy is, even if the people abuse their power it's still okay" - well, not much different from a non-violent dictatorship then.
- dylan604 4y ago
  There are plenty of people that are arguing for just that, and they already have the person to put in charge picked.

rodgerd 4y ago

Like... they guy running on whether he wants to be a warewolf or vampire? The lady worried about Jewish space lasers? Just getting people who are sufficiently in touch with reality that they're merely corrupt seems like a win at this point.

blamazon 4y ago
To be fair, that werewolf or vampire thing was the most cogent part of the campaign so far.
- rodgerd 4y ago
  I would like to disagree with you. I can't, but I'd like to.

Consultant32452 4y ago

No matter who you vote for, the government wins every election.

themitigating 4y ago
What does this even mean? The government (the elected portion) isn't an entity outside of the people that are elected.

nradov 4y ago

Political parties have no legal authority to expel a member from Congress. Parties are voluntary private organizations with no formal role in any branch of government. The most the parties can really do to punish a politician is to withdraw financial and organizational support, which might make reelection difficult.

koolba 4y ago
Both the House and the Senate make their own rules, and that includes the ability to unseat a member. If they really wanted to, they could (but they won’t).
- fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
  Huh, I’m surprised one party who controlled the House or Senate never decided to just kick out all their opponents, if they are legally allowed to.
  - coffeebeqn 4y ago
    What would be the upside? They are already fairly powerless in the opposition and this would be a huge scandal
  - koolba 4y ago
    It’s an escalating game of chicken. You can see it happening in the new Congress with public statements from the Republican incoming majority leader to remove certain Democrats from committee assignments (e.g. removing Schiff from the intelligence committee). Not that long ago that was unheard of and either party could seat whoever they’d like in a committee. But similar to how the Democrats killed the executive appointment filibuster, they killed that as well by refusing to seat Republicans on the Jan 6th and removing some from other committees . Now it’s going to come full circle. I wouldn’t be surprised if it eventually gets to unseating or refusing to seat a controversial figure.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago