3 ms·

So you want all elected officials to wear a camera 24x7? Because hey, they could be doing business while taking a shit? Better keep it on at night as well, beca

by paxys 3y ago

So you want all elected officials to wear a camera 24x7? Because hey, they could be doing business while taking a shit? Better keep it on at night as well, because we want to see the face of whoever they're screwing. Here's a better idea – elect people who can be trusted.

danaris 3y ago
No matter how trustworthy someone is when they get elected, there is always a chance for them to become corrupt once in office. After all, before they've actually held public office, there's little to no incentive or opportunity to be corrupt—and the higher the office, the higher both become. We need effective rules of ethics (with teeth) and oversight procedures. I don't think that forcing every politician to wear a camera 24/7 is really the best solution, but it's hopelessly naïve to think that some of them aren't literally going to bed with the people who are trying to get favorable legislation passed. A society like the US is just too diverse—not so much in heritage, but in cultural values (or at least subcultural values) to be able to "just elect people who can be trusted."
- maxwell 3y ago
  How about we just go back to expanding the House based on population instead of keeping it static at 435 forever? We're approaching a million constituents per representative. Corruption seems a mathematical certainty.
  - danaris 3y ago
    That would genuinely make a huge positive difference (though it would not, of course, fix the whole system, since the House is not the only place with problems). There's no need, in this day and age, to have the entire House of Representatives meet physically in one building.
    - maxwell 3y ago
      Agreed. Let's go fully remote, sell off most federal property in DC, and retrocede Washington back to Maryland (like Alexandria County back in 1846), dissolving DC and draining the swamp for good. Then we can take proposals for creating a District of Lincoln or Roosevelt for meetings and events closer to the center of population, e.g. Kansas City (near mean center) or the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio (near median center). https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/zoom-congress-perfectly-constitutional/610057 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/zoom-congr...
maxwell 3y ago
Reps in the U.S. are very much trusted, by their donors. The problem is House elections are too expensive, because representation is so bad, so only those who take considerable corporate bribes have a shot. While "virtual," American colonists had better representation in the British Parliament on paper than we do today. We're an extreme outlier among OECD countries: https://www.amacad.org/ourcommonpurpose/enlarging-the-house/section/7#:~:text=citizens%20per%20representative.-,FIGURE%206,-Constituents%20per%20Representative https://www.amacad.org/ourcommonpurpose/enlarging-the-house/... We need to repeal the Apportionment Act of 1929 and expand the House to an appropriate size.
coldtea 3y ago
>So you want all elected officials to wear a camera 24x7? Yes. >Because hey, they could be doing business while taking a shit? Sucks to be them. If they're shy about it, they could always not get elected. Though, joking aside, you don't have to bring in the "slippery slope" argument. As long as they don't talk to anyone while taking a shit, they could be allowed to close the camera. It's enough that they have to have it open whenever they make any political discussion and anything that relates to their position and role. Not when they shit or order a latte. And if they do have such a discussion while ordering a latte, and not have it recorded, then it should be grounds for them being ejected. >Here's a better idea – elect people who can be trusted. And how's that been working out?

by paxys 3y ago

danaris 3y ago

No matter how trustworthy someone is when they get elected, there is always a chance for them to become corrupt once in office. After all, before they've actually held public office, there's little to no incentive or opportunity to be corrupt—and the higher the office, the higher both become. We need effective rules of ethics (with teeth) and oversight procedures. I don't think that forcing every politician to wear a camera 24/7 is really the best solution, but it's hopelessly naïve to think that some of them aren't literally going to bed with the people who are trying to get favorable legislation passed. A society like the US is just too diverse—not so much in heritage, but in cultural values (or at least subcultural values) to be able to "just elect people who can be trusted."

maxwell 3y ago
How about we just go back to expanding the House based on population instead of keeping it static at 435 forever? We're approaching a million constituents per representative. Corruption seems a mathematical certainty.
- danaris 3y ago
  That would genuinely make a huge positive difference (though it would not, of course, fix the whole system, since the House is not the only place with problems). There's no need, in this day and age, to have the entire House of Representatives meet physically in one building.
  - maxwell 3y ago
    Agreed. Let's go fully remote, sell off most federal property in DC, and retrocede Washington back to Maryland (like Alexandria County back in 1846), dissolving DC and draining the swamp for good. Then we can take proposals for creating a District of Lincoln or Roosevelt for meetings and events closer to the center of population, e.g. Kansas City (near mean center) or the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio (near median center). https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/zoom-congress-perfectly-constitutional/610057 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/zoom-congr...

maxwell 3y ago

Reps in the U.S. are very much trusted, by their donors. The problem is House elections are too expensive, because representation is so bad, so only those who take considerable corporate bribes have a shot. While "virtual," American colonists had better representation in the British Parliament on paper than we do today. We're an extreme outlier among OECD countries: https://www.amacad.org/ourcommonpurpose/enlarging-the-house/section/7#:~:text=citizens%20per%20representative.-,FIGURE%206,-Constituents%20per%20Representative https://www.amacad.org/ourcommonpurpose/enlarging-the-house/... We need to repeal the Apportionment Act of 1929 and expand the House to an appropriate size.

coldtea 3y ago

>So you want all elected officials to wear a camera 24x7? Yes. >Because hey, they could be doing business while taking a shit? Sucks to be them. If they're shy about it, they could always not get elected. Though, joking aside, you don't have to bring in the "slippery slope" argument. As long as they don't talk to anyone while taking a shit, they could be allowed to close the camera. It's enough that they have to have it open whenever they make any political discussion and anything that relates to their position and role. Not when they shit or order a latte. And if they do have such a discussion while ordering a latte, and not have it recorded, then it should be grounds for them being ejected. >Here's a better idea – elect people who can be trusted. And how's that been working out?