Bush Nicks California National Guard Equipment

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I would eliminate from consideration any candidate that has not voted at least 90% of the time in the past 5 years, and at least semi-regularly since attainment of voting age.

AS to the currently employed running, some STRICT term limits AND a requirement that votes MUST be made in one's current position, rather than campaigning would do a world of good. (Yes, the strategic "stand outside the door and withhold a vote" to leverage things is still OK, but if your legislative body is voting, BE THERE.)

I want them dang bozos to be paid ONLY for the time they show up anyway. Miss a vote because you're out campaigning? We don't pay you for NOT doin' yer dang job, and we don't want ya in another one you won't do, either.

Hear! Hear!

I had once seriously proposed that their salaries should be strictly based on if they vote or not.

A nice way to do that would be to take the number of voting opportunities in a year, and divide that into their salary.

Then, multiply by 1.50 (a fifty percent penalty).

Subtract/fine them that number each and every time they fail to be there for a voting opportunity.

If they miss 1/2, they are paid zero.  If they miss more than 1/2, they owe more than they are paid.

"Mr Congressman, we see that you've missed 7 of th 10 past voting opportunities.  You owe the government a substantial sum of money.  Pay now, or be impeached-- you'll still owe the money, of course."

[Aphos]

Err...Bob...check your math.

1-(1/2)(1.5) =/= 0.  It equals 0.25.  They would have to miss 2.3 of the votes to get 0.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Hmm, need to go register, since they THREW AWAY my registration when I registered last time.

And leave the coffee drinkers alone.  There's things much more inane than coffee (and I can't lie, I've gotten MUCH more picky since I started at the 'Bucks. Gimme REAL honey in my grande quad whole milk 120* honey latte, thanks [this is one of my simpler drinks, too]).

I'd like to also add that Congressional oversight is required for EVERY thing but things that require the utmost secrecy. Oh, and we need to make journalistic privileged communication into law,

[Swatopluk]

Once thing would definitely become a problem with any form of "voting proficiency test". Who will be those that design the tests and what will be considered an intelligent discourse? Especially with loaded topics this would with a high probability decide the issue before the vote because those that favor one side are likely to be excluded. Does anybody believe that this would not turn into a revival of the "literacy tests" of old at least in the US?
It would probably work in countries that don't actually need it (due to informed citizenry) but not in those that do

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Hmm, need to go register, since they THREW AWAY my registration when I registered last time.

And leave the coffee drinkers alone.  There's things much more inane than coffee (and I can't lie, I've gotten MUCH more picky since I started at the 'Bucks. Gimme REAL honey in my grande quad whole milk 120* honey latte, thanks [this is one of my simpler drinks, too]).

I'd like to also add that Congressional oversight is required for EVERY thing but things that require the utmost secrecy. Oh, and we need to make journalistic privileged communication into law,

LOL! 

I wrote that [coffee] bit, and was thinking of the Frasier TV show characters, and the affectations they had about coffee-- as if that was the MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD.   

To be fair, I have, when I've time, at least 1 cuppa coffee daily.  I make mine strong, in the style of expresso, so that 1 cup of my coffee is similar to 3 or 4 cups of "American" coffee.  If you can see through, or even part-way into the liquid, it's too weak.  It ought to be very dark, and nearly opaque.... not unlike the color of used motor oil.

But, I also grind my own beans---nothing quite like the smell of fresh-ground coffee beans. 

....

I'll back your play, regarding the Fourth Estate-- a country without freedom of the press (even if they do get obnoxious) is a country already deep into Totalitarianism.

As for oversight?  If you can demonstrate a model that would NOT be in bed [in a short while] with that for which it was watching over, I'm in.

"Who will Watch The Watchers?" is always and evermore a conundrum.

....

Actually, I thought of one method-- ALL government spending needs to be totally public (even more than now).  No more "black" programs.   Then your journalistic people can be the oversight....

Aaaah, but I dream.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

There is always the problem of the old Greek democracy in which only those educated (read: the wealthy) were able to vote. We live under a practical plutocracy already, literacy tests to vote would only make it official. As Swato points out, who would make those tests? Is it better to remove the idiots from the process or worse by letting the smart take advantage of their position? Remember that those on power tend to regard the people in the same way a rancher regards his herd of cows.

Regarding public spending, well, cockroaches dislike the light, but with them in charge what hope do we have?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

There is always the problem of the old Greek democracy in which only those educated (read: the wealthy) were able to vote. We live under a practical plutocracy already, literacy tests to vote would only make it official. As Swato points out, who would make those tests? Is it better to remove the idiots from the process or worse by letting the smart take advantage of their position? Remember that those on power tend to regard the people in the same way a rancher regards his herd of cows.

Regarding public spending, well, cockroaches dislike the light, but with them in charge what hope do we have?

I agree about the literacy tests... I am NOT interested in literacy testing one bit.

I am interested in knowledge with regards to the candidates/issues that is being voted on.  A working knowledge of the person being voted on, his/her voting record should be a must, I think.  I really don't care how a potential voter demonstrates knowledge of the candidate (Chatty set me straight on that issue  ) so long as working knowledge can be demonstrated.

Who sets the test?  Good question.

I, personally, would choose a collaborative effort of several news organizations to write the test.  I would deliberately include news orgs from several different venues, even Faux News.   I would include international orgs, too, such as BBC.

Each org would submit a pool of questions that would demonstrate working knowledge of the candidates in question.  These could be pooled, and selected at random for each potential voter.  Or some other machine-based non-biased process.

A voter would always have the right to request a different test, if he/she felt the one that was given was biased.  The machine would then select a new set of questions, randomly, from the ones submitted.  A handy "re-shuffle the questions" button would be obvious on each testing panel.   Heck, with modern technology, you could have the machine even read the questions to you... assisting anyone who wants to hear the questions as well (or instead of) reading them on the screen.   The font-size could easily be scalable, too-- from itty bitty to huge, giant letters-- why not?  There's even technology that displays things in computer-generated braille pips. 

The idea is NOT to weed out the illiterate or dim-witted*.  The idea is to weed out those folk who don't have a clue, don't WANT a clue and can't be bothered to worry about a clue.   Heck, I'd much rather see some of those "people different than us", like autistics, vote than some of the "YES-IwantFRIESandIwantThemNOW" types...  You know, the willfully ignorant. I would welcome ANYONE who can demonstrate they know what the issues are, and what they are voting ON.  (provided they are a citizen, obviously. )

I'm not certain that we should limit voting rights of criminals, either.  I never liked that idea one bit-- so what if they committed acts against society?  They are most likely being punished for that.  But, they still LIVE here, and ought to be allowed to vote. 

If we can permit people to vote for people "because he has a nice smile" then we ought to allow criminals to vote-- provided they can demonstrate working knowledge of the issues at hand. 

[/END]

(*was a really cool bit on a woman who is autistic, but can type at 150+ words a minute.  Her "limitation" is verbal communication-- she simply is not equipped for that.  But, clearly, she's quite smart-- smarter than many "normals", is quite active on-line, where many of the people she communicates with have no clue she's an autistic.  She "speaks" with a voder, not unlike the one that Dr Hawking uses.)

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Re: Oversight
Traditional media watches over Congress. The blogosphere watches over the traditional media and itself, since we're all competing for readers.

[Swatopluk]

What I think would be acceptable is something like the theoretical driving test we use over here. The catalogue of test questions (multiple choice and a few numbers*) with correct answers is publicly available and it is the same nation-wide. A political version could be mandatory for schools but the test could be redone at certain intervals in case of failure (and on voting day itself of course). Passing the test would secure voting rights for, let's say, two presidential election cycles**. The federal government would have to offer (free of charge) Civics classes for all citizens, so it could not be turned into a tool of the privileged few.

Candidates on the other hand should be tested publicly (and strip-searched beforehand for radio transmitters, cribs etc.) with only 1 or 2 chances of repetition in case of failure.

For plebiscites the system we use over here could be modified. If there is a plebiscite here, all citizens*** concerned receive the proposals long in advance (by mail) combined with info material about it/them. If there are competing proposals, all sides do provide their view of the topic in that info material.
That could be combined with a questionnaire that the prospective voter has to fill in and file before being allowed to cast the vote.

*like: you drive at X mph on dry/wet ground. What is your braking distance according to the rule of thumb.
**I am of the opinion that the driving test should be redone at similar intervals too btw
***everyone is registered automatically, since we have Meldepflicht.