comment
stringlengths 1
8.79k
| context
listlengths 0
817
|
|---|---|
>
I agree with that.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office."
] |
>
The compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that."
] |
>
Yeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities.
There's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them."
] |
>
Honestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase."
] |
>
lol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there."
] |
>
This is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.
Would it be better? No
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading."
] |
>
No. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock.
Furthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No"
] |
>
The idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.
It's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public."
] |
>
A better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us."
] |
>
No. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed."
] |
>
It’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.
It also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that."
] |
>
Rather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion."
] |
>
Tie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.
Cap their wealth to the median wealth as well.
Maybe you will start to see meaningful change.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that."
] |
>
This would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents.
Also let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change."
] |
>
It would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular."
] |
>
Don't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional"
] |
>
With the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.
Basically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.
I live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?"
] |
>
The only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time."
] |
>
Wouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help."
] |
>
Biggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).
Let's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.
Biggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years ."
] |
>
it will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.
We need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment."
] |
>
That incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter."
] |
>
I really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular."
] |
>
No it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.
In the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea..."
] |
>
Tie their pay to approval of the annual budget. Just like the rest of government workers. Then you’ll see shit done without the threat of shutdowns.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...",
">\n\nNo it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.\nIn the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world."
] |
>
Nah, that just gives the wealthy representatives leverage over the few in Congress that aren't currently wealthy. They could wait it out knowing some might financially need to capitulate to their demands.
We should get rid of the whole debt ceiling nonsense. It was implemented to ease war spending changes during WW2 without the president needing to go back to Congress every time, as long as he kept the debt reasonable. Now it's been turned on it's head to require the president to beg Congress to re-fund all the stuff it already passed previously. Repeatedly. Not working as intended.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...",
">\n\nNo it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.\nIn the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.",
">\n\nTie their pay to approval of the annual budget. Just like the rest of government workers. Then you’ll see shit done without the threat of shutdowns."
] |
>
no, because many reps make far more from other sources. set their salary to zero and they can still make millions by peddling influence
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...",
">\n\nNo it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.\nIn the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.",
">\n\nTie their pay to approval of the annual budget. Just like the rest of government workers. Then you’ll see shit done without the threat of shutdowns.",
">\n\nNah, that just gives the wealthy representatives leverage over the few in Congress that aren't currently wealthy. They could wait it out knowing some might financially need to capitulate to their demands.\nWe should get rid of the whole debt ceiling nonsense. It was implemented to ease war spending changes during WW2 without the president needing to go back to Congress every time, as long as he kept the debt reasonable. Now it's been turned on it's head to require the president to beg Congress to re-fund all the stuff it already passed previously. Repeatedly. Not working as intended."
] |
>
No. That will just lead to having more representatives do things to be popular. Part of leadership is making tough decisions and decisions that are good for the long run. That often is not popular with what people think today.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...",
">\n\nNo it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.\nIn the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.",
">\n\nTie their pay to approval of the annual budget. Just like the rest of government workers. Then you’ll see shit done without the threat of shutdowns.",
">\n\nNah, that just gives the wealthy representatives leverage over the few in Congress that aren't currently wealthy. They could wait it out knowing some might financially need to capitulate to their demands.\nWe should get rid of the whole debt ceiling nonsense. It was implemented to ease war spending changes during WW2 without the president needing to go back to Congress every time, as long as he kept the debt reasonable. Now it's been turned on it's head to require the president to beg Congress to re-fund all the stuff it already passed previously. Repeatedly. Not working as intended.",
">\n\nno, because many reps make far more from other sources. set their salary to zero and they can still make millions by peddling influence"
] |
>
Term limits and a ban on individual asset trading during and 5 years post office would be better.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...",
">\n\nNo it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.\nIn the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.",
">\n\nTie their pay to approval of the annual budget. Just like the rest of government workers. Then you’ll see shit done without the threat of shutdowns.",
">\n\nNah, that just gives the wealthy representatives leverage over the few in Congress that aren't currently wealthy. They could wait it out knowing some might financially need to capitulate to their demands.\nWe should get rid of the whole debt ceiling nonsense. It was implemented to ease war spending changes during WW2 without the president needing to go back to Congress every time, as long as he kept the debt reasonable. Now it's been turned on it's head to require the president to beg Congress to re-fund all the stuff it already passed previously. Repeatedly. Not working as intended.",
">\n\nno, because many reps make far more from other sources. set their salary to zero and they can still make millions by peddling influence",
">\n\nNo. That will just lead to having more representatives do things to be popular. Part of leadership is making tough decisions and decisions that are good for the long run. That often is not popular with what people think today."
] |
>
Not unless that compensation includes all the dark money. Their salaries aren’t shit.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...",
">\n\nNo it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.\nIn the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.",
">\n\nTie their pay to approval of the annual budget. Just like the rest of government workers. Then you’ll see shit done without the threat of shutdowns.",
">\n\nNah, that just gives the wealthy representatives leverage over the few in Congress that aren't currently wealthy. They could wait it out knowing some might financially need to capitulate to their demands.\nWe should get rid of the whole debt ceiling nonsense. It was implemented to ease war spending changes during WW2 without the president needing to go back to Congress every time, as long as he kept the debt reasonable. Now it's been turned on it's head to require the president to beg Congress to re-fund all the stuff it already passed previously. Repeatedly. Not working as intended.",
">\n\nno, because many reps make far more from other sources. set their salary to zero and they can still make millions by peddling influence",
">\n\nNo. That will just lead to having more representatives do things to be popular. Part of leadership is making tough decisions and decisions that are good for the long run. That often is not popular with what people think today.",
">\n\nTerm limits and a ban on individual asset trading during and 5 years post office would be better."
] |
>
I think it would just lead to more falsification of approval ratings, more back room deals with approval rating pollsters, and much, much more pandering.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...",
">\n\nNo it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.\nIn the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.",
">\n\nTie their pay to approval of the annual budget. Just like the rest of government workers. Then you’ll see shit done without the threat of shutdowns.",
">\n\nNah, that just gives the wealthy representatives leverage over the few in Congress that aren't currently wealthy. They could wait it out knowing some might financially need to capitulate to their demands.\nWe should get rid of the whole debt ceiling nonsense. It was implemented to ease war spending changes during WW2 without the president needing to go back to Congress every time, as long as he kept the debt reasonable. Now it's been turned on it's head to require the president to beg Congress to re-fund all the stuff it already passed previously. Repeatedly. Not working as intended.",
">\n\nno, because many reps make far more from other sources. set their salary to zero and they can still make millions by peddling influence",
">\n\nNo. That will just lead to having more representatives do things to be popular. Part of leadership is making tough decisions and decisions that are good for the long run. That often is not popular with what people think today.",
">\n\nTerm limits and a ban on individual asset trading during and 5 years post office would be better.",
">\n\nNot unless that compensation includes all the dark money. Their salaries aren’t shit."
] |
>
No because the public usually is quite dumb and only thinks short-term which is kind of the biggest weakness of democracy. This is why I am against referendums, too and I think that further incentivising politicians to do the short-term bidding of the public will do nothing but harm the country.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...",
">\n\nNo it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.\nIn the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.",
">\n\nTie their pay to approval of the annual budget. Just like the rest of government workers. Then you’ll see shit done without the threat of shutdowns.",
">\n\nNah, that just gives the wealthy representatives leverage over the few in Congress that aren't currently wealthy. They could wait it out knowing some might financially need to capitulate to their demands.\nWe should get rid of the whole debt ceiling nonsense. It was implemented to ease war spending changes during WW2 without the president needing to go back to Congress every time, as long as he kept the debt reasonable. Now it's been turned on it's head to require the president to beg Congress to re-fund all the stuff it already passed previously. Repeatedly. Not working as intended.",
">\n\nno, because many reps make far more from other sources. set their salary to zero and they can still make millions by peddling influence",
">\n\nNo. That will just lead to having more representatives do things to be popular. Part of leadership is making tough decisions and decisions that are good for the long run. That often is not popular with what people think today.",
">\n\nTerm limits and a ban on individual asset trading during and 5 years post office would be better.",
">\n\nNot unless that compensation includes all the dark money. Their salaries aren’t shit.",
">\n\nI think it would just lead to more falsification of approval ratings, more back room deals with approval rating pollsters, and much, much more pandering."
] |
>
their salaries are negligible. they take bribes. one theory is if they increase salaries they wont have to take bribes but in fact they just like doing crime
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...",
">\n\nNo it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.\nIn the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.",
">\n\nTie their pay to approval of the annual budget. Just like the rest of government workers. Then you’ll see shit done without the threat of shutdowns.",
">\n\nNah, that just gives the wealthy representatives leverage over the few in Congress that aren't currently wealthy. They could wait it out knowing some might financially need to capitulate to their demands.\nWe should get rid of the whole debt ceiling nonsense. It was implemented to ease war spending changes during WW2 without the president needing to go back to Congress every time, as long as he kept the debt reasonable. Now it's been turned on it's head to require the president to beg Congress to re-fund all the stuff it already passed previously. Repeatedly. Not working as intended.",
">\n\nno, because many reps make far more from other sources. set their salary to zero and they can still make millions by peddling influence",
">\n\nNo. That will just lead to having more representatives do things to be popular. Part of leadership is making tough decisions and decisions that are good for the long run. That often is not popular with what people think today.",
">\n\nTerm limits and a ban on individual asset trading during and 5 years post office would be better.",
">\n\nNot unless that compensation includes all the dark money. Their salaries aren’t shit.",
">\n\nI think it would just lead to more falsification of approval ratings, more back room deals with approval rating pollsters, and much, much more pandering.",
">\n\nNo because the public usually is quite dumb and only thinks short-term which is kind of the biggest weakness of democracy. This is why I am against referendums, too and I think that further incentivising politicians to do the short-term bidding of the public will do nothing but harm the country."
] |
>
Also fiscal penalties for any legislation that carry no representation of the equality of liberty and justice, along with lobby compensation be distributed equally upon all members of congress.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...",
">\n\nNo it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.\nIn the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.",
">\n\nTie their pay to approval of the annual budget. Just like the rest of government workers. Then you’ll see shit done without the threat of shutdowns.",
">\n\nNah, that just gives the wealthy representatives leverage over the few in Congress that aren't currently wealthy. They could wait it out knowing some might financially need to capitulate to their demands.\nWe should get rid of the whole debt ceiling nonsense. It was implemented to ease war spending changes during WW2 without the president needing to go back to Congress every time, as long as he kept the debt reasonable. Now it's been turned on it's head to require the president to beg Congress to re-fund all the stuff it already passed previously. Repeatedly. Not working as intended.",
">\n\nno, because many reps make far more from other sources. set their salary to zero and they can still make millions by peddling influence",
">\n\nNo. That will just lead to having more representatives do things to be popular. Part of leadership is making tough decisions and decisions that are good for the long run. That often is not popular with what people think today.",
">\n\nTerm limits and a ban on individual asset trading during and 5 years post office would be better.",
">\n\nNot unless that compensation includes all the dark money. Their salaries aren’t shit.",
">\n\nI think it would just lead to more falsification of approval ratings, more back room deals with approval rating pollsters, and much, much more pandering.",
">\n\nNo because the public usually is quite dumb and only thinks short-term which is kind of the biggest weakness of democracy. This is why I am against referendums, too and I think that further incentivising politicians to do the short-term bidding of the public will do nothing but harm the country.",
">\n\ntheir salaries are negligible. they take bribes. one theory is if they increase salaries they wont have to take bribes but in fact they just like doing crime"
] |
>
This is the opposite of what we need. We need leaders to tell the cold hard truth. They need to not be afraid to make difficult decisions.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...",
">\n\nNo it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.\nIn the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.",
">\n\nTie their pay to approval of the annual budget. Just like the rest of government workers. Then you’ll see shit done without the threat of shutdowns.",
">\n\nNah, that just gives the wealthy representatives leverage over the few in Congress that aren't currently wealthy. They could wait it out knowing some might financially need to capitulate to their demands.\nWe should get rid of the whole debt ceiling nonsense. It was implemented to ease war spending changes during WW2 without the president needing to go back to Congress every time, as long as he kept the debt reasonable. Now it's been turned on it's head to require the president to beg Congress to re-fund all the stuff it already passed previously. Repeatedly. Not working as intended.",
">\n\nno, because many reps make far more from other sources. set their salary to zero and they can still make millions by peddling influence",
">\n\nNo. That will just lead to having more representatives do things to be popular. Part of leadership is making tough decisions and decisions that are good for the long run. That often is not popular with what people think today.",
">\n\nTerm limits and a ban on individual asset trading during and 5 years post office would be better.",
">\n\nNot unless that compensation includes all the dark money. Their salaries aren’t shit.",
">\n\nI think it would just lead to more falsification of approval ratings, more back room deals with approval rating pollsters, and much, much more pandering.",
">\n\nNo because the public usually is quite dumb and only thinks short-term which is kind of the biggest weakness of democracy. This is why I am against referendums, too and I think that further incentivising politicians to do the short-term bidding of the public will do nothing but harm the country.",
">\n\ntheir salaries are negligible. they take bribes. one theory is if they increase salaries they wont have to take bribes but in fact they just like doing crime",
">\n\nAlso fiscal penalties for any legislation that carry no representation of the equality of liberty and justice, along with lobby compensation be distributed equally upon all members of congress."
] |
>
This will lead to more populism, which is currently one of the biggest dividers in politics.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...",
">\n\nNo it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.\nIn the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.",
">\n\nTie their pay to approval of the annual budget. Just like the rest of government workers. Then you’ll see shit done without the threat of shutdowns.",
">\n\nNah, that just gives the wealthy representatives leverage over the few in Congress that aren't currently wealthy. They could wait it out knowing some might financially need to capitulate to their demands.\nWe should get rid of the whole debt ceiling nonsense. It was implemented to ease war spending changes during WW2 without the president needing to go back to Congress every time, as long as he kept the debt reasonable. Now it's been turned on it's head to require the president to beg Congress to re-fund all the stuff it already passed previously. Repeatedly. Not working as intended.",
">\n\nno, because many reps make far more from other sources. set their salary to zero and they can still make millions by peddling influence",
">\n\nNo. That will just lead to having more representatives do things to be popular. Part of leadership is making tough decisions and decisions that are good for the long run. That often is not popular with what people think today.",
">\n\nTerm limits and a ban on individual asset trading during and 5 years post office would be better.",
">\n\nNot unless that compensation includes all the dark money. Their salaries aren’t shit.",
">\n\nI think it would just lead to more falsification of approval ratings, more back room deals with approval rating pollsters, and much, much more pandering.",
">\n\nNo because the public usually is quite dumb and only thinks short-term which is kind of the biggest weakness of democracy. This is why I am against referendums, too and I think that further incentivising politicians to do the short-term bidding of the public will do nothing but harm the country.",
">\n\ntheir salaries are negligible. they take bribes. one theory is if they increase salaries they wont have to take bribes but in fact they just like doing crime",
">\n\nAlso fiscal penalties for any legislation that carry no representation of the equality of liberty and justice, along with lobby compensation be distributed equally upon all members of congress.",
">\n\nThis is the opposite of what we need. We need leaders to tell the cold hard truth. They need to not be afraid to make difficult decisions."
] |
>
So basically the question is whether we should cut most politicians salaries by 49%?
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...",
">\n\nNo it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.\nIn the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.",
">\n\nTie their pay to approval of the annual budget. Just like the rest of government workers. Then you’ll see shit done without the threat of shutdowns.",
">\n\nNah, that just gives the wealthy representatives leverage over the few in Congress that aren't currently wealthy. They could wait it out knowing some might financially need to capitulate to their demands.\nWe should get rid of the whole debt ceiling nonsense. It was implemented to ease war spending changes during WW2 without the president needing to go back to Congress every time, as long as he kept the debt reasonable. Now it's been turned on it's head to require the president to beg Congress to re-fund all the stuff it already passed previously. Repeatedly. Not working as intended.",
">\n\nno, because many reps make far more from other sources. set their salary to zero and they can still make millions by peddling influence",
">\n\nNo. That will just lead to having more representatives do things to be popular. Part of leadership is making tough decisions and decisions that are good for the long run. That often is not popular with what people think today.",
">\n\nTerm limits and a ban on individual asset trading during and 5 years post office would be better.",
">\n\nNot unless that compensation includes all the dark money. Their salaries aren’t shit.",
">\n\nI think it would just lead to more falsification of approval ratings, more back room deals with approval rating pollsters, and much, much more pandering.",
">\n\nNo because the public usually is quite dumb and only thinks short-term which is kind of the biggest weakness of democracy. This is why I am against referendums, too and I think that further incentivising politicians to do the short-term bidding of the public will do nothing but harm the country.",
">\n\ntheir salaries are negligible. they take bribes. one theory is if they increase salaries they wont have to take bribes but in fact they just like doing crime",
">\n\nAlso fiscal penalties for any legislation that carry no representation of the equality of liberty and justice, along with lobby compensation be distributed equally upon all members of congress.",
">\n\nThis is the opposite of what we need. We need leaders to tell the cold hard truth. They need to not be afraid to make difficult decisions.",
">\n\nThis will lead to more populism, which is currently one of the biggest dividers in politics."
] |
>
Not really.
With all the extra "benefits" they get from lobbyists, their compensation is just savings to most of them.
Plus it would make them rely even more on those lobbyists.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...",
">\n\nNo it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.\nIn the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.",
">\n\nTie their pay to approval of the annual budget. Just like the rest of government workers. Then you’ll see shit done without the threat of shutdowns.",
">\n\nNah, that just gives the wealthy representatives leverage over the few in Congress that aren't currently wealthy. They could wait it out knowing some might financially need to capitulate to their demands.\nWe should get rid of the whole debt ceiling nonsense. It was implemented to ease war spending changes during WW2 without the president needing to go back to Congress every time, as long as he kept the debt reasonable. Now it's been turned on it's head to require the president to beg Congress to re-fund all the stuff it already passed previously. Repeatedly. Not working as intended.",
">\n\nno, because many reps make far more from other sources. set their salary to zero and they can still make millions by peddling influence",
">\n\nNo. That will just lead to having more representatives do things to be popular. Part of leadership is making tough decisions and decisions that are good for the long run. That often is not popular with what people think today.",
">\n\nTerm limits and a ban on individual asset trading during and 5 years post office would be better.",
">\n\nNot unless that compensation includes all the dark money. Their salaries aren’t shit.",
">\n\nI think it would just lead to more falsification of approval ratings, more back room deals with approval rating pollsters, and much, much more pandering.",
">\n\nNo because the public usually is quite dumb and only thinks short-term which is kind of the biggest weakness of democracy. This is why I am against referendums, too and I think that further incentivising politicians to do the short-term bidding of the public will do nothing but harm the country.",
">\n\ntheir salaries are negligible. they take bribes. one theory is if they increase salaries they wont have to take bribes but in fact they just like doing crime",
">\n\nAlso fiscal penalties for any legislation that carry no representation of the equality of liberty and justice, along with lobby compensation be distributed equally upon all members of congress.",
">\n\nThis is the opposite of what we need. We need leaders to tell the cold hard truth. They need to not be afraid to make difficult decisions.",
">\n\nThis will lead to more populism, which is currently one of the biggest dividers in politics.",
">\n\nSo basically the question is whether we should cut most politicians salaries by 49%?"
] |
>
The problem isn’t that people don’t like their reps. They don’t like everyone else’s reps.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...",
">\n\nNo it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.\nIn the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.",
">\n\nTie their pay to approval of the annual budget. Just like the rest of government workers. Then you’ll see shit done without the threat of shutdowns.",
">\n\nNah, that just gives the wealthy representatives leverage over the few in Congress that aren't currently wealthy. They could wait it out knowing some might financially need to capitulate to their demands.\nWe should get rid of the whole debt ceiling nonsense. It was implemented to ease war spending changes during WW2 without the president needing to go back to Congress every time, as long as he kept the debt reasonable. Now it's been turned on it's head to require the president to beg Congress to re-fund all the stuff it already passed previously. Repeatedly. Not working as intended.",
">\n\nno, because many reps make far more from other sources. set their salary to zero and they can still make millions by peddling influence",
">\n\nNo. That will just lead to having more representatives do things to be popular. Part of leadership is making tough decisions and decisions that are good for the long run. That often is not popular with what people think today.",
">\n\nTerm limits and a ban on individual asset trading during and 5 years post office would be better.",
">\n\nNot unless that compensation includes all the dark money. Their salaries aren’t shit.",
">\n\nI think it would just lead to more falsification of approval ratings, more back room deals with approval rating pollsters, and much, much more pandering.",
">\n\nNo because the public usually is quite dumb and only thinks short-term which is kind of the biggest weakness of democracy. This is why I am against referendums, too and I think that further incentivising politicians to do the short-term bidding of the public will do nothing but harm the country.",
">\n\ntheir salaries are negligible. they take bribes. one theory is if they increase salaries they wont have to take bribes but in fact they just like doing crime",
">\n\nAlso fiscal penalties for any legislation that carry no representation of the equality of liberty and justice, along with lobby compensation be distributed equally upon all members of congress.",
">\n\nThis is the opposite of what we need. We need leaders to tell the cold hard truth. They need to not be afraid to make difficult decisions.",
">\n\nThis will lead to more populism, which is currently one of the biggest dividers in politics.",
">\n\nSo basically the question is whether we should cut most politicians salaries by 49%?",
">\n\nNot really.\nWith all the extra \"benefits\" they get from lobbyists, their compensation is just savings to most of them.\nPlus it would make them rely even more on those lobbyists."
] |
>
No. We already have an issue with political bribes, this would only increase that.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...",
">\n\nNo it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.\nIn the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.",
">\n\nTie their pay to approval of the annual budget. Just like the rest of government workers. Then you’ll see shit done without the threat of shutdowns.",
">\n\nNah, that just gives the wealthy representatives leverage over the few in Congress that aren't currently wealthy. They could wait it out knowing some might financially need to capitulate to their demands.\nWe should get rid of the whole debt ceiling nonsense. It was implemented to ease war spending changes during WW2 without the president needing to go back to Congress every time, as long as he kept the debt reasonable. Now it's been turned on it's head to require the president to beg Congress to re-fund all the stuff it already passed previously. Repeatedly. Not working as intended.",
">\n\nno, because many reps make far more from other sources. set their salary to zero and they can still make millions by peddling influence",
">\n\nNo. That will just lead to having more representatives do things to be popular. Part of leadership is making tough decisions and decisions that are good for the long run. That often is not popular with what people think today.",
">\n\nTerm limits and a ban on individual asset trading during and 5 years post office would be better.",
">\n\nNot unless that compensation includes all the dark money. Their salaries aren’t shit.",
">\n\nI think it would just lead to more falsification of approval ratings, more back room deals with approval rating pollsters, and much, much more pandering.",
">\n\nNo because the public usually is quite dumb and only thinks short-term which is kind of the biggest weakness of democracy. This is why I am against referendums, too and I think that further incentivising politicians to do the short-term bidding of the public will do nothing but harm the country.",
">\n\ntheir salaries are negligible. they take bribes. one theory is if they increase salaries they wont have to take bribes but in fact they just like doing crime",
">\n\nAlso fiscal penalties for any legislation that carry no representation of the equality of liberty and justice, along with lobby compensation be distributed equally upon all members of congress.",
">\n\nThis is the opposite of what we need. We need leaders to tell the cold hard truth. They need to not be afraid to make difficult decisions.",
">\n\nThis will lead to more populism, which is currently one of the biggest dividers in politics.",
">\n\nSo basically the question is whether we should cut most politicians salaries by 49%?",
">\n\nNot really.\nWith all the extra \"benefits\" they get from lobbyists, their compensation is just savings to most of them.\nPlus it would make them rely even more on those lobbyists.",
">\n\nThe problem isn’t that people don’t like their reps. They don’t like everyone else’s reps."
] |
>
Their pay should be no more than the mean income of the district they represent, plus travel and accomodations.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...",
">\n\nNo it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.\nIn the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.",
">\n\nTie their pay to approval of the annual budget. Just like the rest of government workers. Then you’ll see shit done without the threat of shutdowns.",
">\n\nNah, that just gives the wealthy representatives leverage over the few in Congress that aren't currently wealthy. They could wait it out knowing some might financially need to capitulate to their demands.\nWe should get rid of the whole debt ceiling nonsense. It was implemented to ease war spending changes during WW2 without the president needing to go back to Congress every time, as long as he kept the debt reasonable. Now it's been turned on it's head to require the president to beg Congress to re-fund all the stuff it already passed previously. Repeatedly. Not working as intended.",
">\n\nno, because many reps make far more from other sources. set their salary to zero and they can still make millions by peddling influence",
">\n\nNo. That will just lead to having more representatives do things to be popular. Part of leadership is making tough decisions and decisions that are good for the long run. That often is not popular with what people think today.",
">\n\nTerm limits and a ban on individual asset trading during and 5 years post office would be better.",
">\n\nNot unless that compensation includes all the dark money. Their salaries aren’t shit.",
">\n\nI think it would just lead to more falsification of approval ratings, more back room deals with approval rating pollsters, and much, much more pandering.",
">\n\nNo because the public usually is quite dumb and only thinks short-term which is kind of the biggest weakness of democracy. This is why I am against referendums, too and I think that further incentivising politicians to do the short-term bidding of the public will do nothing but harm the country.",
">\n\ntheir salaries are negligible. they take bribes. one theory is if they increase salaries they wont have to take bribes but in fact they just like doing crime",
">\n\nAlso fiscal penalties for any legislation that carry no representation of the equality of liberty and justice, along with lobby compensation be distributed equally upon all members of congress.",
">\n\nThis is the opposite of what we need. We need leaders to tell the cold hard truth. They need to not be afraid to make difficult decisions.",
">\n\nThis will lead to more populism, which is currently one of the biggest dividers in politics.",
">\n\nSo basically the question is whether we should cut most politicians salaries by 49%?",
">\n\nNot really.\nWith all the extra \"benefits\" they get from lobbyists, their compensation is just savings to most of them.\nPlus it would make them rely even more on those lobbyists.",
">\n\nThe problem isn’t that people don’t like their reps. They don’t like everyone else’s reps.",
">\n\nNo. We already have an issue with political bribes, this would only increase that."
] |
>
Doubt it. More than likely it will shift politicians into funding more PR for themselves, rather than actually trying to make the country/state/county or whatever better.
They’ll get a good paycheck so long as they can frame whatever situation they are in as positive.
There’s also some people that will approve of a politician straight off of party allegiance rather than what they are actively doing.
This could work possibly if every voter took an active interest in all political events and actions, but that isn’t feasible practically
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...",
">\n\nNo it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.\nIn the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.",
">\n\nTie their pay to approval of the annual budget. Just like the rest of government workers. Then you’ll see shit done without the threat of shutdowns.",
">\n\nNah, that just gives the wealthy representatives leverage over the few in Congress that aren't currently wealthy. They could wait it out knowing some might financially need to capitulate to their demands.\nWe should get rid of the whole debt ceiling nonsense. It was implemented to ease war spending changes during WW2 without the president needing to go back to Congress every time, as long as he kept the debt reasonable. Now it's been turned on it's head to require the president to beg Congress to re-fund all the stuff it already passed previously. Repeatedly. Not working as intended.",
">\n\nno, because many reps make far more from other sources. set their salary to zero and they can still make millions by peddling influence",
">\n\nNo. That will just lead to having more representatives do things to be popular. Part of leadership is making tough decisions and decisions that are good for the long run. That often is not popular with what people think today.",
">\n\nTerm limits and a ban on individual asset trading during and 5 years post office would be better.",
">\n\nNot unless that compensation includes all the dark money. Their salaries aren’t shit.",
">\n\nI think it would just lead to more falsification of approval ratings, more back room deals with approval rating pollsters, and much, much more pandering.",
">\n\nNo because the public usually is quite dumb and only thinks short-term which is kind of the biggest weakness of democracy. This is why I am against referendums, too and I think that further incentivising politicians to do the short-term bidding of the public will do nothing but harm the country.",
">\n\ntheir salaries are negligible. they take bribes. one theory is if they increase salaries they wont have to take bribes but in fact they just like doing crime",
">\n\nAlso fiscal penalties for any legislation that carry no representation of the equality of liberty and justice, along with lobby compensation be distributed equally upon all members of congress.",
">\n\nThis is the opposite of what we need. We need leaders to tell the cold hard truth. They need to not be afraid to make difficult decisions.",
">\n\nThis will lead to more populism, which is currently one of the biggest dividers in politics.",
">\n\nSo basically the question is whether we should cut most politicians salaries by 49%?",
">\n\nNot really.\nWith all the extra \"benefits\" they get from lobbyists, their compensation is just savings to most of them.\nPlus it would make them rely even more on those lobbyists.",
">\n\nThe problem isn’t that people don’t like their reps. They don’t like everyone else’s reps.",
">\n\nNo. We already have an issue with political bribes, this would only increase that.",
">\n\nTheir pay should be no more than the mean income of the district they represent, plus travel and accomodations."
] |
>
A much better solution would be to tie their salary to the average income of their constituents (or a multiplier of it) and then bar them from outside sources of income, so it's beneficial for them to improve the lives of the people they're supposed to be working for.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...",
">\n\nNo it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.\nIn the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.",
">\n\nTie their pay to approval of the annual budget. Just like the rest of government workers. Then you’ll see shit done without the threat of shutdowns.",
">\n\nNah, that just gives the wealthy representatives leverage over the few in Congress that aren't currently wealthy. They could wait it out knowing some might financially need to capitulate to their demands.\nWe should get rid of the whole debt ceiling nonsense. It was implemented to ease war spending changes during WW2 without the president needing to go back to Congress every time, as long as he kept the debt reasonable. Now it's been turned on it's head to require the president to beg Congress to re-fund all the stuff it already passed previously. Repeatedly. Not working as intended.",
">\n\nno, because many reps make far more from other sources. set their salary to zero and they can still make millions by peddling influence",
">\n\nNo. That will just lead to having more representatives do things to be popular. Part of leadership is making tough decisions and decisions that are good for the long run. That often is not popular with what people think today.",
">\n\nTerm limits and a ban on individual asset trading during and 5 years post office would be better.",
">\n\nNot unless that compensation includes all the dark money. Their salaries aren’t shit.",
">\n\nI think it would just lead to more falsification of approval ratings, more back room deals with approval rating pollsters, and much, much more pandering.",
">\n\nNo because the public usually is quite dumb and only thinks short-term which is kind of the biggest weakness of democracy. This is why I am against referendums, too and I think that further incentivising politicians to do the short-term bidding of the public will do nothing but harm the country.",
">\n\ntheir salaries are negligible. they take bribes. one theory is if they increase salaries they wont have to take bribes but in fact they just like doing crime",
">\n\nAlso fiscal penalties for any legislation that carry no representation of the equality of liberty and justice, along with lobby compensation be distributed equally upon all members of congress.",
">\n\nThis is the opposite of what we need. We need leaders to tell the cold hard truth. They need to not be afraid to make difficult decisions.",
">\n\nThis will lead to more populism, which is currently one of the biggest dividers in politics.",
">\n\nSo basically the question is whether we should cut most politicians salaries by 49%?",
">\n\nNot really.\nWith all the extra \"benefits\" they get from lobbyists, their compensation is just savings to most of them.\nPlus it would make them rely even more on those lobbyists.",
">\n\nThe problem isn’t that people don’t like their reps. They don’t like everyone else’s reps.",
">\n\nNo. We already have an issue with political bribes, this would only increase that.",
">\n\nTheir pay should be no more than the mean income of the district they represent, plus travel and accomodations.",
">\n\nDoubt it. More than likely it will shift politicians into funding more PR for themselves, rather than actually trying to make the country/state/county or whatever better.\nThey’ll get a good paycheck so long as they can frame whatever situation they are in as positive.\nThere’s also some people that will approve of a politician straight off of party allegiance rather than what they are actively doing. \nThis could work possibly if every voter took an active interest in all political events and actions, but that isn’t feasible practically"
] |
>
Approval of who? Many of these politicians represent gerrymandered districts, so their voters likely approve of their political stunts and radical positions.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...",
">\n\nNo it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.\nIn the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.",
">\n\nTie their pay to approval of the annual budget. Just like the rest of government workers. Then you’ll see shit done without the threat of shutdowns.",
">\n\nNah, that just gives the wealthy representatives leverage over the few in Congress that aren't currently wealthy. They could wait it out knowing some might financially need to capitulate to their demands.\nWe should get rid of the whole debt ceiling nonsense. It was implemented to ease war spending changes during WW2 without the president needing to go back to Congress every time, as long as he kept the debt reasonable. Now it's been turned on it's head to require the president to beg Congress to re-fund all the stuff it already passed previously. Repeatedly. Not working as intended.",
">\n\nno, because many reps make far more from other sources. set their salary to zero and they can still make millions by peddling influence",
">\n\nNo. That will just lead to having more representatives do things to be popular. Part of leadership is making tough decisions and decisions that are good for the long run. That often is not popular with what people think today.",
">\n\nTerm limits and a ban on individual asset trading during and 5 years post office would be better.",
">\n\nNot unless that compensation includes all the dark money. Their salaries aren’t shit.",
">\n\nI think it would just lead to more falsification of approval ratings, more back room deals with approval rating pollsters, and much, much more pandering.",
">\n\nNo because the public usually is quite dumb and only thinks short-term which is kind of the biggest weakness of democracy. This is why I am against referendums, too and I think that further incentivising politicians to do the short-term bidding of the public will do nothing but harm the country.",
">\n\ntheir salaries are negligible. they take bribes. one theory is if they increase salaries they wont have to take bribes but in fact they just like doing crime",
">\n\nAlso fiscal penalties for any legislation that carry no representation of the equality of liberty and justice, along with lobby compensation be distributed equally upon all members of congress.",
">\n\nThis is the opposite of what we need. We need leaders to tell the cold hard truth. They need to not be afraid to make difficult decisions.",
">\n\nThis will lead to more populism, which is currently one of the biggest dividers in politics.",
">\n\nSo basically the question is whether we should cut most politicians salaries by 49%?",
">\n\nNot really.\nWith all the extra \"benefits\" they get from lobbyists, their compensation is just savings to most of them.\nPlus it would make them rely even more on those lobbyists.",
">\n\nThe problem isn’t that people don’t like their reps. They don’t like everyone else’s reps.",
">\n\nNo. We already have an issue with political bribes, this would only increase that.",
">\n\nTheir pay should be no more than the mean income of the district they represent, plus travel and accomodations.",
">\n\nDoubt it. More than likely it will shift politicians into funding more PR for themselves, rather than actually trying to make the country/state/county or whatever better.\nThey’ll get a good paycheck so long as they can frame whatever situation they are in as positive.\nThere’s also some people that will approve of a politician straight off of party allegiance rather than what they are actively doing. \nThis could work possibly if every voter took an active interest in all political events and actions, but that isn’t feasible practically",
">\n\nA much better solution would be to tie their salary to the average income of their constituents (or a multiplier of it) and then bar them from outside sources of income, so it's beneficial for them to improve the lives of the people they're supposed to be working for."
] |
>
No. People are too easily fooled. The wolves would get all the money. Much like today.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...",
">\n\nNo it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.\nIn the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.",
">\n\nTie their pay to approval of the annual budget. Just like the rest of government workers. Then you’ll see shit done without the threat of shutdowns.",
">\n\nNah, that just gives the wealthy representatives leverage over the few in Congress that aren't currently wealthy. They could wait it out knowing some might financially need to capitulate to their demands.\nWe should get rid of the whole debt ceiling nonsense. It was implemented to ease war spending changes during WW2 without the president needing to go back to Congress every time, as long as he kept the debt reasonable. Now it's been turned on it's head to require the president to beg Congress to re-fund all the stuff it already passed previously. Repeatedly. Not working as intended.",
">\n\nno, because many reps make far more from other sources. set their salary to zero and they can still make millions by peddling influence",
">\n\nNo. That will just lead to having more representatives do things to be popular. Part of leadership is making tough decisions and decisions that are good for the long run. That often is not popular with what people think today.",
">\n\nTerm limits and a ban on individual asset trading during and 5 years post office would be better.",
">\n\nNot unless that compensation includes all the dark money. Their salaries aren’t shit.",
">\n\nI think it would just lead to more falsification of approval ratings, more back room deals with approval rating pollsters, and much, much more pandering.",
">\n\nNo because the public usually is quite dumb and only thinks short-term which is kind of the biggest weakness of democracy. This is why I am against referendums, too and I think that further incentivising politicians to do the short-term bidding of the public will do nothing but harm the country.",
">\n\ntheir salaries are negligible. they take bribes. one theory is if they increase salaries they wont have to take bribes but in fact they just like doing crime",
">\n\nAlso fiscal penalties for any legislation that carry no representation of the equality of liberty and justice, along with lobby compensation be distributed equally upon all members of congress.",
">\n\nThis is the opposite of what we need. We need leaders to tell the cold hard truth. They need to not be afraid to make difficult decisions.",
">\n\nThis will lead to more populism, which is currently one of the biggest dividers in politics.",
">\n\nSo basically the question is whether we should cut most politicians salaries by 49%?",
">\n\nNot really.\nWith all the extra \"benefits\" they get from lobbyists, their compensation is just savings to most of them.\nPlus it would make them rely even more on those lobbyists.",
">\n\nThe problem isn’t that people don’t like their reps. They don’t like everyone else’s reps.",
">\n\nNo. We already have an issue with political bribes, this would only increase that.",
">\n\nTheir pay should be no more than the mean income of the district they represent, plus travel and accomodations.",
">\n\nDoubt it. More than likely it will shift politicians into funding more PR for themselves, rather than actually trying to make the country/state/county or whatever better.\nThey’ll get a good paycheck so long as they can frame whatever situation they are in as positive.\nThere’s also some people that will approve of a politician straight off of party allegiance rather than what they are actively doing. \nThis could work possibly if every voter took an active interest in all political events and actions, but that isn’t feasible practically",
">\n\nA much better solution would be to tie their salary to the average income of their constituents (or a multiplier of it) and then bar them from outside sources of income, so it's beneficial for them to improve the lives of the people they're supposed to be working for.",
">\n\nApproval of who? Many of these politicians represent gerrymandered districts, so their voters likely approve of their political stunts and radical positions."
] |
>
No. That would make the business of reporting approval ratings completely manipulated.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...",
">\n\nNo it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.\nIn the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.",
">\n\nTie their pay to approval of the annual budget. Just like the rest of government workers. Then you’ll see shit done without the threat of shutdowns.",
">\n\nNah, that just gives the wealthy representatives leverage over the few in Congress that aren't currently wealthy. They could wait it out knowing some might financially need to capitulate to their demands.\nWe should get rid of the whole debt ceiling nonsense. It was implemented to ease war spending changes during WW2 without the president needing to go back to Congress every time, as long as he kept the debt reasonable. Now it's been turned on it's head to require the president to beg Congress to re-fund all the stuff it already passed previously. Repeatedly. Not working as intended.",
">\n\nno, because many reps make far more from other sources. set their salary to zero and they can still make millions by peddling influence",
">\n\nNo. That will just lead to having more representatives do things to be popular. Part of leadership is making tough decisions and decisions that are good for the long run. That often is not popular with what people think today.",
">\n\nTerm limits and a ban on individual asset trading during and 5 years post office would be better.",
">\n\nNot unless that compensation includes all the dark money. Their salaries aren’t shit.",
">\n\nI think it would just lead to more falsification of approval ratings, more back room deals with approval rating pollsters, and much, much more pandering.",
">\n\nNo because the public usually is quite dumb and only thinks short-term which is kind of the biggest weakness of democracy. This is why I am against referendums, too and I think that further incentivising politicians to do the short-term bidding of the public will do nothing but harm the country.",
">\n\ntheir salaries are negligible. they take bribes. one theory is if they increase salaries they wont have to take bribes but in fact they just like doing crime",
">\n\nAlso fiscal penalties for any legislation that carry no representation of the equality of liberty and justice, along with lobby compensation be distributed equally upon all members of congress.",
">\n\nThis is the opposite of what we need. We need leaders to tell the cold hard truth. They need to not be afraid to make difficult decisions.",
">\n\nThis will lead to more populism, which is currently one of the biggest dividers in politics.",
">\n\nSo basically the question is whether we should cut most politicians salaries by 49%?",
">\n\nNot really.\nWith all the extra \"benefits\" they get from lobbyists, their compensation is just savings to most of them.\nPlus it would make them rely even more on those lobbyists.",
">\n\nThe problem isn’t that people don’t like their reps. They don’t like everyone else’s reps.",
">\n\nNo. We already have an issue with political bribes, this would only increase that.",
">\n\nTheir pay should be no more than the mean income of the district they represent, plus travel and accomodations.",
">\n\nDoubt it. More than likely it will shift politicians into funding more PR for themselves, rather than actually trying to make the country/state/county or whatever better.\nThey’ll get a good paycheck so long as they can frame whatever situation they are in as positive.\nThere’s also some people that will approve of a politician straight off of party allegiance rather than what they are actively doing. \nThis could work possibly if every voter took an active interest in all political events and actions, but that isn’t feasible practically",
">\n\nA much better solution would be to tie their salary to the average income of their constituents (or a multiplier of it) and then bar them from outside sources of income, so it's beneficial for them to improve the lives of the people they're supposed to be working for.",
">\n\nApproval of who? Many of these politicians represent gerrymandered districts, so their voters likely approve of their political stunts and radical positions.",
">\n\nNo. People are too easily fooled. The wolves would get all the money. Much like today."
] |
>
God no! There’s just far to much room for gaming this in the ways that politicians do. Something like cutting the house and senate in half then doubling or tripling their pay to attract more competent people that can make a career out of making policy instead of always having to rotate out to lobbying to get paid would like be much better.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...",
">\n\nNo it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.\nIn the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.",
">\n\nTie their pay to approval of the annual budget. Just like the rest of government workers. Then you’ll see shit done without the threat of shutdowns.",
">\n\nNah, that just gives the wealthy representatives leverage over the few in Congress that aren't currently wealthy. They could wait it out knowing some might financially need to capitulate to their demands.\nWe should get rid of the whole debt ceiling nonsense. It was implemented to ease war spending changes during WW2 without the president needing to go back to Congress every time, as long as he kept the debt reasonable. Now it's been turned on it's head to require the president to beg Congress to re-fund all the stuff it already passed previously. Repeatedly. Not working as intended.",
">\n\nno, because many reps make far more from other sources. set their salary to zero and they can still make millions by peddling influence",
">\n\nNo. That will just lead to having more representatives do things to be popular. Part of leadership is making tough decisions and decisions that are good for the long run. That often is not popular with what people think today.",
">\n\nTerm limits and a ban on individual asset trading during and 5 years post office would be better.",
">\n\nNot unless that compensation includes all the dark money. Their salaries aren’t shit.",
">\n\nI think it would just lead to more falsification of approval ratings, more back room deals with approval rating pollsters, and much, much more pandering.",
">\n\nNo because the public usually is quite dumb and only thinks short-term which is kind of the biggest weakness of democracy. This is why I am against referendums, too and I think that further incentivising politicians to do the short-term bidding of the public will do nothing but harm the country.",
">\n\ntheir salaries are negligible. they take bribes. one theory is if they increase salaries they wont have to take bribes but in fact they just like doing crime",
">\n\nAlso fiscal penalties for any legislation that carry no representation of the equality of liberty and justice, along with lobby compensation be distributed equally upon all members of congress.",
">\n\nThis is the opposite of what we need. We need leaders to tell the cold hard truth. They need to not be afraid to make difficult decisions.",
">\n\nThis will lead to more populism, which is currently one of the biggest dividers in politics.",
">\n\nSo basically the question is whether we should cut most politicians salaries by 49%?",
">\n\nNot really.\nWith all the extra \"benefits\" they get from lobbyists, their compensation is just savings to most of them.\nPlus it would make them rely even more on those lobbyists.",
">\n\nThe problem isn’t that people don’t like their reps. They don’t like everyone else’s reps.",
">\n\nNo. We already have an issue with political bribes, this would only increase that.",
">\n\nTheir pay should be no more than the mean income of the district they represent, plus travel and accomodations.",
">\n\nDoubt it. More than likely it will shift politicians into funding more PR for themselves, rather than actually trying to make the country/state/county or whatever better.\nThey’ll get a good paycheck so long as they can frame whatever situation they are in as positive.\nThere’s also some people that will approve of a politician straight off of party allegiance rather than what they are actively doing. \nThis could work possibly if every voter took an active interest in all political events and actions, but that isn’t feasible practically",
">\n\nA much better solution would be to tie their salary to the average income of their constituents (or a multiplier of it) and then bar them from outside sources of income, so it's beneficial for them to improve the lives of the people they're supposed to be working for.",
">\n\nApproval of who? Many of these politicians represent gerrymandered districts, so their voters likely approve of their political stunts and radical positions.",
">\n\nNo. People are too easily fooled. The wolves would get all the money. Much like today.",
">\n\nNo. That would make the business of reporting approval ratings completely manipulated."
] |
>
What needs to be done is remove the ability for the representative to have any of their left over election or reelection funds. That would remove the special interest groups from giving them money for favors.
Then remove the ability for them or any of their family members to invest in the markets when they are in office and for up to 5 years out of office. That would make them more of a representative than an elected soon to be millionaire
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...",
">\n\nNo it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.\nIn the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.",
">\n\nTie their pay to approval of the annual budget. Just like the rest of government workers. Then you’ll see shit done without the threat of shutdowns.",
">\n\nNah, that just gives the wealthy representatives leverage over the few in Congress that aren't currently wealthy. They could wait it out knowing some might financially need to capitulate to their demands.\nWe should get rid of the whole debt ceiling nonsense. It was implemented to ease war spending changes during WW2 without the president needing to go back to Congress every time, as long as he kept the debt reasonable. Now it's been turned on it's head to require the president to beg Congress to re-fund all the stuff it already passed previously. Repeatedly. Not working as intended.",
">\n\nno, because many reps make far more from other sources. set their salary to zero and they can still make millions by peddling influence",
">\n\nNo. That will just lead to having more representatives do things to be popular. Part of leadership is making tough decisions and decisions that are good for the long run. That often is not popular with what people think today.",
">\n\nTerm limits and a ban on individual asset trading during and 5 years post office would be better.",
">\n\nNot unless that compensation includes all the dark money. Their salaries aren’t shit.",
">\n\nI think it would just lead to more falsification of approval ratings, more back room deals with approval rating pollsters, and much, much more pandering.",
">\n\nNo because the public usually is quite dumb and only thinks short-term which is kind of the biggest weakness of democracy. This is why I am against referendums, too and I think that further incentivising politicians to do the short-term bidding of the public will do nothing but harm the country.",
">\n\ntheir salaries are negligible. they take bribes. one theory is if they increase salaries they wont have to take bribes but in fact they just like doing crime",
">\n\nAlso fiscal penalties for any legislation that carry no representation of the equality of liberty and justice, along with lobby compensation be distributed equally upon all members of congress.",
">\n\nThis is the opposite of what we need. We need leaders to tell the cold hard truth. They need to not be afraid to make difficult decisions.",
">\n\nThis will lead to more populism, which is currently one of the biggest dividers in politics.",
">\n\nSo basically the question is whether we should cut most politicians salaries by 49%?",
">\n\nNot really.\nWith all the extra \"benefits\" they get from lobbyists, their compensation is just savings to most of them.\nPlus it would make them rely even more on those lobbyists.",
">\n\nThe problem isn’t that people don’t like their reps. They don’t like everyone else’s reps.",
">\n\nNo. We already have an issue with political bribes, this would only increase that.",
">\n\nTheir pay should be no more than the mean income of the district they represent, plus travel and accomodations.",
">\n\nDoubt it. More than likely it will shift politicians into funding more PR for themselves, rather than actually trying to make the country/state/county or whatever better.\nThey’ll get a good paycheck so long as they can frame whatever situation they are in as positive.\nThere’s also some people that will approve of a politician straight off of party allegiance rather than what they are actively doing. \nThis could work possibly if every voter took an active interest in all political events and actions, but that isn’t feasible practically",
">\n\nA much better solution would be to tie their salary to the average income of their constituents (or a multiplier of it) and then bar them from outside sources of income, so it's beneficial for them to improve the lives of the people they're supposed to be working for.",
">\n\nApproval of who? Many of these politicians represent gerrymandered districts, so their voters likely approve of their political stunts and radical positions.",
">\n\nNo. People are too easily fooled. The wolves would get all the money. Much like today.",
">\n\nNo. That would make the business of reporting approval ratings completely manipulated.",
">\n\nGod no! There’s just far to much room for gaming this in the ways that politicians do. Something like cutting the house and senate in half then doubling or tripling their pay to attract more competent people that can make a career out of making policy instead of always having to rotate out to lobbying to get paid would like be much better."
] |
>
Terrible idea. A better one would be to eliminate all retirement benefits. No healthcare, no secret service, no perks. Nothing. They have to go back and live in the world they have created
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...",
">\n\nNo it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.\nIn the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.",
">\n\nTie their pay to approval of the annual budget. Just like the rest of government workers. Then you’ll see shit done without the threat of shutdowns.",
">\n\nNah, that just gives the wealthy representatives leverage over the few in Congress that aren't currently wealthy. They could wait it out knowing some might financially need to capitulate to their demands.\nWe should get rid of the whole debt ceiling nonsense. It was implemented to ease war spending changes during WW2 without the president needing to go back to Congress every time, as long as he kept the debt reasonable. Now it's been turned on it's head to require the president to beg Congress to re-fund all the stuff it already passed previously. Repeatedly. Not working as intended.",
">\n\nno, because many reps make far more from other sources. set their salary to zero and they can still make millions by peddling influence",
">\n\nNo. That will just lead to having more representatives do things to be popular. Part of leadership is making tough decisions and decisions that are good for the long run. That often is not popular with what people think today.",
">\n\nTerm limits and a ban on individual asset trading during and 5 years post office would be better.",
">\n\nNot unless that compensation includes all the dark money. Their salaries aren’t shit.",
">\n\nI think it would just lead to more falsification of approval ratings, more back room deals with approval rating pollsters, and much, much more pandering.",
">\n\nNo because the public usually is quite dumb and only thinks short-term which is kind of the biggest weakness of democracy. This is why I am against referendums, too and I think that further incentivising politicians to do the short-term bidding of the public will do nothing but harm the country.",
">\n\ntheir salaries are negligible. they take bribes. one theory is if they increase salaries they wont have to take bribes but in fact they just like doing crime",
">\n\nAlso fiscal penalties for any legislation that carry no representation of the equality of liberty and justice, along with lobby compensation be distributed equally upon all members of congress.",
">\n\nThis is the opposite of what we need. We need leaders to tell the cold hard truth. They need to not be afraid to make difficult decisions.",
">\n\nThis will lead to more populism, which is currently one of the biggest dividers in politics.",
">\n\nSo basically the question is whether we should cut most politicians salaries by 49%?",
">\n\nNot really.\nWith all the extra \"benefits\" they get from lobbyists, their compensation is just savings to most of them.\nPlus it would make them rely even more on those lobbyists.",
">\n\nThe problem isn’t that people don’t like their reps. They don’t like everyone else’s reps.",
">\n\nNo. We already have an issue with political bribes, this would only increase that.",
">\n\nTheir pay should be no more than the mean income of the district they represent, plus travel and accomodations.",
">\n\nDoubt it. More than likely it will shift politicians into funding more PR for themselves, rather than actually trying to make the country/state/county or whatever better.\nThey’ll get a good paycheck so long as they can frame whatever situation they are in as positive.\nThere’s also some people that will approve of a politician straight off of party allegiance rather than what they are actively doing. \nThis could work possibly if every voter took an active interest in all political events and actions, but that isn’t feasible practically",
">\n\nA much better solution would be to tie their salary to the average income of their constituents (or a multiplier of it) and then bar them from outside sources of income, so it's beneficial for them to improve the lives of the people they're supposed to be working for.",
">\n\nApproval of who? Many of these politicians represent gerrymandered districts, so their voters likely approve of their political stunts and radical positions.",
">\n\nNo. People are too easily fooled. The wolves would get all the money. Much like today.",
">\n\nNo. That would make the business of reporting approval ratings completely manipulated.",
">\n\nGod no! There’s just far to much room for gaming this in the ways that politicians do. Something like cutting the house and senate in half then doubling or tripling their pay to attract more competent people that can make a career out of making policy instead of always having to rotate out to lobbying to get paid would like be much better.",
">\n\nWhat needs to be done is remove the ability for the representative to have any of their left over election or reelection funds. That would remove the special interest groups from giving them money for favors.\nThen remove the ability for them or any of their family members to invest in the markets when they are in office and for up to 5 years out of office. That would make them more of a representative than an elected soon to be millionaire"
] |
>
That would put even more emphasis on ensuring you barter some of your congressional power for a nice post-government gig.
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...",
">\n\nNo it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.\nIn the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.",
">\n\nTie their pay to approval of the annual budget. Just like the rest of government workers. Then you’ll see shit done without the threat of shutdowns.",
">\n\nNah, that just gives the wealthy representatives leverage over the few in Congress that aren't currently wealthy. They could wait it out knowing some might financially need to capitulate to their demands.\nWe should get rid of the whole debt ceiling nonsense. It was implemented to ease war spending changes during WW2 without the president needing to go back to Congress every time, as long as he kept the debt reasonable. Now it's been turned on it's head to require the president to beg Congress to re-fund all the stuff it already passed previously. Repeatedly. Not working as intended.",
">\n\nno, because many reps make far more from other sources. set their salary to zero and they can still make millions by peddling influence",
">\n\nNo. That will just lead to having more representatives do things to be popular. Part of leadership is making tough decisions and decisions that are good for the long run. That often is not popular with what people think today.",
">\n\nTerm limits and a ban on individual asset trading during and 5 years post office would be better.",
">\n\nNot unless that compensation includes all the dark money. Their salaries aren’t shit.",
">\n\nI think it would just lead to more falsification of approval ratings, more back room deals with approval rating pollsters, and much, much more pandering.",
">\n\nNo because the public usually is quite dumb and only thinks short-term which is kind of the biggest weakness of democracy. This is why I am against referendums, too and I think that further incentivising politicians to do the short-term bidding of the public will do nothing but harm the country.",
">\n\ntheir salaries are negligible. they take bribes. one theory is if they increase salaries they wont have to take bribes but in fact they just like doing crime",
">\n\nAlso fiscal penalties for any legislation that carry no representation of the equality of liberty and justice, along with lobby compensation be distributed equally upon all members of congress.",
">\n\nThis is the opposite of what we need. We need leaders to tell the cold hard truth. They need to not be afraid to make difficult decisions.",
">\n\nThis will lead to more populism, which is currently one of the biggest dividers in politics.",
">\n\nSo basically the question is whether we should cut most politicians salaries by 49%?",
">\n\nNot really.\nWith all the extra \"benefits\" they get from lobbyists, their compensation is just savings to most of them.\nPlus it would make them rely even more on those lobbyists.",
">\n\nThe problem isn’t that people don’t like their reps. They don’t like everyone else’s reps.",
">\n\nNo. We already have an issue with political bribes, this would only increase that.",
">\n\nTheir pay should be no more than the mean income of the district they represent, plus travel and accomodations.",
">\n\nDoubt it. More than likely it will shift politicians into funding more PR for themselves, rather than actually trying to make the country/state/county or whatever better.\nThey’ll get a good paycheck so long as they can frame whatever situation they are in as positive.\nThere’s also some people that will approve of a politician straight off of party allegiance rather than what they are actively doing. \nThis could work possibly if every voter took an active interest in all political events and actions, but that isn’t feasible practically",
">\n\nA much better solution would be to tie their salary to the average income of their constituents (or a multiplier of it) and then bar them from outside sources of income, so it's beneficial for them to improve the lives of the people they're supposed to be working for.",
">\n\nApproval of who? Many of these politicians represent gerrymandered districts, so their voters likely approve of their political stunts and radical positions.",
">\n\nNo. People are too easily fooled. The wolves would get all the money. Much like today.",
">\n\nNo. That would make the business of reporting approval ratings completely manipulated.",
">\n\nGod no! There’s just far to much room for gaming this in the ways that politicians do. Something like cutting the house and senate in half then doubling or tripling their pay to attract more competent people that can make a career out of making policy instead of always having to rotate out to lobbying to get paid would like be much better.",
">\n\nWhat needs to be done is remove the ability for the representative to have any of their left over election or reelection funds. That would remove the special interest groups from giving them money for favors.\nThen remove the ability for them or any of their family members to invest in the markets when they are in office and for up to 5 years out of office. That would make them more of a representative than an elected soon to be millionaire",
">\n\nTerrible idea. A better one would be to eliminate all retirement benefits. No healthcare, no secret service, no perks. Nothing. They have to go back and live in the world they have created"
] |
>
|
[
"Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.",
">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.",
">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao",
">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.",
">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.",
">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does",
">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.",
">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?",
">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?",
">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.",
">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?",
">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.",
">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"",
">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.",
">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.",
">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.",
">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.",
">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.",
">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.",
">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.",
">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps",
">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.",
">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.",
">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.",
">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.",
">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.",
">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?",
">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.",
">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.",
">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.",
">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.",
">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status.",
">\n\nIt's a problem, yes. Its solution is not making it even harder for the non-wealthy to run for office.",
">\n\nI agree with that.",
">\n\nThe compensation they receive from their overlords is far more valuable to them.",
">\n\nYeah. Stop political donations and congressional stock trading and suddenly you've got a congress with very different priorities. \nThere's no Iraq War if Raython, Boeing etc aren't making political donations and expecting a return on their purchase.",
">\n\nHonestly I think that still happens. Dubya went into Iraq because his father had unfinished business there.",
">\n\nlol wait to you realize they could care less about the salary, that’s a little lunch money to them. The meat is in the lobbying and insider trading.",
">\n\nThis is probably not a good idea because you’re still relying on a lot of misinformed or uninformed voters. So will it be more “representative”? Maybe.\nWould it be better? No",
">\n\nNo. A Congressman's constituents often rank their representatives highly and rank Congress very poorly. The voters in the district dislike the dysfunction of Congress yet they keep electing the same obstructionists or whoever else because they think that if we elect someone more extreme it will bring Congress closer to their views. All this creates is gridlock. \nFurthermore, we need politicians less tied to public opinion or afraid of their constituents. Just look at how many republicans were criticizing Trump and co. behind closed doors but were too cowardly to make their opinions public.",
">\n\nThe idea is that they be paid well enough to be above reproach.\nIt's the OTHER money they are taking that is the issue and making it even larger percentage of their income will not help us.",
">\n\nA better idea might be to tie their retirement incomes to future approval of the effects of the legislation they passed.",
">\n\nNo. Sometimes politicians may need to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of their constituents. This would discourage that.",
">\n\nIt’s would be a solid way to make candidates that weren’t already independently wealthy even more common.\nIt also doesn’t factor in that representatives are supposed to be professionally following the details of policy and things going on in the world with informed advisors and thus should pretty regularly be going against the majority opinion of their voters. Sometimes a responsible legislator should buck public opinion.",
">\n\nRather than approval rating, set up a system of specific goals and tie bonuses to that.",
">\n\nTie their salary to the median salary of their district/state.\nCap their wealth to the median wealth as well.\nMaybe you will start to see meaningful change.",
">\n\nThis would make everything worse. All this would do is drive inflation through the roof from all the free money they give away to their constituents. \nAlso let me remind you that both AOC and MTG are wildly popular within their home districts, and the deal brokers like Capito and Tester are less popular.",
">\n\nIt would never get passed but sure. But what’s stopping them from just changing it after for their own benefit or bribing the judiciary to make it unconstitutional",
">\n\nDon't they only have two-year terms in USA? Why not vote them out of office if you don't like them?",
">\n\nWith the disclaimer that I don't think OP's idea is a good one, the answer to your question is gerrymandering.\nBasically: in a lot of districts, the party primary is from a practical perspective the real election, because the district is intentionally stacked so the other party cannot realistically win.\nI live in a district that has been represented by the same party for 50+ years straight, 40 or so of it by the same person. And the general elections for that position have never been competitive in that entire time.",
">\n\nThe only way to fix it is to make it a lottery. If it were randomly selected people with no chance of longevity and the need to constant campaigning and money being funneled by special interest, it would drastically help.",
">\n\nWouldn't work, will increase corruptness tness ... look at Boebert and MTG both went from went from being skank whores to millionaires in less than 2 years .",
">\n\nBiggest winners of this unrealistic hypothetical would be, believe it or not, small-state establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate, such as John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), and John Hoeven (R-ND).\nLet's just say it'd pay to be a man named John in the GOP.\nBiggest losers, meanwhile, would be Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Kyrsten Sinema, whereby name recognition is a detriment.",
">\n\nit will lead to more stunts. Also, there are a lot of things that need to pass, that people either don't understand or are seen as unpopular by the average voter.\nWe need to close down public oil drilling to prevent extreme climate change, but that will cause prices to go up which will anger the average voter.",
">\n\nThat incentive is already there because getting votes from the populace is how they get reelected. No need to skew that any more. No one wants them to keep running ads for themselves year round to stay popular.",
">\n\nI really, really don't think it takes more than 10 seconds of thought to realize this is a terrible idea...",
">\n\nNo it will just lead to people who are already millionaires running who don't need a salary.\nIn the House and Senate they have to have a home in their district plus a home in DC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world.",
">\n\nTie their pay to approval of the annual budget. Just like the rest of government workers. Then you’ll see shit done without the threat of shutdowns.",
">\n\nNah, that just gives the wealthy representatives leverage over the few in Congress that aren't currently wealthy. They could wait it out knowing some might financially need to capitulate to their demands.\nWe should get rid of the whole debt ceiling nonsense. It was implemented to ease war spending changes during WW2 without the president needing to go back to Congress every time, as long as he kept the debt reasonable. Now it's been turned on it's head to require the president to beg Congress to re-fund all the stuff it already passed previously. Repeatedly. Not working as intended.",
">\n\nno, because many reps make far more from other sources. set their salary to zero and they can still make millions by peddling influence",
">\n\nNo. That will just lead to having more representatives do things to be popular. Part of leadership is making tough decisions and decisions that are good for the long run. That often is not popular with what people think today.",
">\n\nTerm limits and a ban on individual asset trading during and 5 years post office would be better.",
">\n\nNot unless that compensation includes all the dark money. Their salaries aren’t shit.",
">\n\nI think it would just lead to more falsification of approval ratings, more back room deals with approval rating pollsters, and much, much more pandering.",
">\n\nNo because the public usually is quite dumb and only thinks short-term which is kind of the biggest weakness of democracy. This is why I am against referendums, too and I think that further incentivising politicians to do the short-term bidding of the public will do nothing but harm the country.",
">\n\ntheir salaries are negligible. they take bribes. one theory is if they increase salaries they wont have to take bribes but in fact they just like doing crime",
">\n\nAlso fiscal penalties for any legislation that carry no representation of the equality of liberty and justice, along with lobby compensation be distributed equally upon all members of congress.",
">\n\nThis is the opposite of what we need. We need leaders to tell the cold hard truth. They need to not be afraid to make difficult decisions.",
">\n\nThis will lead to more populism, which is currently one of the biggest dividers in politics.",
">\n\nSo basically the question is whether we should cut most politicians salaries by 49%?",
">\n\nNot really.\nWith all the extra \"benefits\" they get from lobbyists, their compensation is just savings to most of them.\nPlus it would make them rely even more on those lobbyists.",
">\n\nThe problem isn’t that people don’t like their reps. They don’t like everyone else’s reps.",
">\n\nNo. We already have an issue with political bribes, this would only increase that.",
">\n\nTheir pay should be no more than the mean income of the district they represent, plus travel and accomodations.",
">\n\nDoubt it. More than likely it will shift politicians into funding more PR for themselves, rather than actually trying to make the country/state/county or whatever better.\nThey’ll get a good paycheck so long as they can frame whatever situation they are in as positive.\nThere’s also some people that will approve of a politician straight off of party allegiance rather than what they are actively doing. \nThis could work possibly if every voter took an active interest in all political events and actions, but that isn’t feasible practically",
">\n\nA much better solution would be to tie their salary to the average income of their constituents (or a multiplier of it) and then bar them from outside sources of income, so it's beneficial for them to improve the lives of the people they're supposed to be working for.",
">\n\nApproval of who? Many of these politicians represent gerrymandered districts, so their voters likely approve of their political stunts and radical positions.",
">\n\nNo. People are too easily fooled. The wolves would get all the money. Much like today.",
">\n\nNo. That would make the business of reporting approval ratings completely manipulated.",
">\n\nGod no! There’s just far to much room for gaming this in the ways that politicians do. Something like cutting the house and senate in half then doubling or tripling their pay to attract more competent people that can make a career out of making policy instead of always having to rotate out to lobbying to get paid would like be much better.",
">\n\nWhat needs to be done is remove the ability for the representative to have any of their left over election or reelection funds. That would remove the special interest groups from giving them money for favors.\nThen remove the ability for them or any of their family members to invest in the markets when they are in office and for up to 5 years out of office. That would make them more of a representative than an elected soon to be millionaire",
">\n\nTerrible idea. A better one would be to eliminate all retirement benefits. No healthcare, no secret service, no perks. Nothing. They have to go back and live in the world they have created",
">\n\nThat would put even more emphasis on ensuring you barter some of your congressional power for a nice post-government gig."
] |
Failed Republican candidate
He may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.
|
[] |
>
Next steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican."
] |
>
I think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about "entrapment."
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP."
] |
>
MAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\""
] |
>
Isn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues."
] |
>
Yes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom."
] |
>
What’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)"
] |
>
"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated." /s
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend."
] |
>
bOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s"
] |
>
“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?"
] |
>
I will be rewarded
That's what all fascists think.
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”"
] |
>
He meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think."
] |
>
Well that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican.
The shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life."
] |
>
Not surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger"
] |
>
Surely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.
Solomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse."
] |
>
19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey"
] |
>
Put him in a cell with George Santos.
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?"
] |
>
If we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos."
] |
>
They will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point."
] |
>
Make an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU."
] |
>
You can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.
Our DOJ, probably
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court."
] |
>
I am Jack's complete lack of suprise.
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably"
] |
>
"It is believed that he is the mastermind behind this," Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a press conference on Monday.
I think it is a bit of stretch to use the term "mastermind".
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably",
">\n\nI am Jack's complete lack of suprise."
] |
>
Funky Ironic Medina.
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably",
">\n\nI am Jack's complete lack of suprise.",
">\n\n\n\"It is believed that he is the mastermind behind this,\" Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a press conference on Monday.\n\nI think it is a bit of stretch to use the term \"mastermind\"."
] |
>
Of course he’s Republican, softest group of people
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably",
">\n\nI am Jack's complete lack of suprise.",
">\n\n\n\"It is believed that he is the mastermind behind this,\" Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a press conference on Monday.\n\nI think it is a bit of stretch to use the term \"mastermind\".",
">\n\nFunky Ironic Medina."
] |
>
Republicans really really want a civil war. Wait till they find out liberals also own and know how to use guns.
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably",
">\n\nI am Jack's complete lack of suprise.",
">\n\n\n\"It is believed that he is the mastermind behind this,\" Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a press conference on Monday.\n\nI think it is a bit of stretch to use the term \"mastermind\".",
">\n\nFunky Ironic Medina.",
">\n\nOf course he’s Republican, softest group of people"
] |
>
We just don't make it our identity
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably",
">\n\nI am Jack's complete lack of suprise.",
">\n\n\n\"It is believed that he is the mastermind behind this,\" Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a press conference on Monday.\n\nI think it is a bit of stretch to use the term \"mastermind\".",
">\n\nFunky Ironic Medina.",
">\n\nOf course he’s Republican, softest group of people",
">\n\nRepublicans really really want a civil war. Wait till they find out liberals also own and know how to use guns."
] |
>
Pretty much any time somebody talks to me at the range, they just assume I'm right wing. I never bother to disabuse them.
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably",
">\n\nI am Jack's complete lack of suprise.",
">\n\n\n\"It is believed that he is the mastermind behind this,\" Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a press conference on Monday.\n\nI think it is a bit of stretch to use the term \"mastermind\".",
">\n\nFunky Ironic Medina.",
">\n\nOf course he’s Republican, softest group of people",
">\n\nRepublicans really really want a civil war. Wait till they find out liberals also own and know how to use guns.",
">\n\nWe just don't make it our identity"
] |
>
My experience in the service. I was just hoping to get money for my liberal college education. Even weirder since I’m a minority.
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably",
">\n\nI am Jack's complete lack of suprise.",
">\n\n\n\"It is believed that he is the mastermind behind this,\" Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a press conference on Monday.\n\nI think it is a bit of stretch to use the term \"mastermind\".",
">\n\nFunky Ironic Medina.",
">\n\nOf course he’s Republican, softest group of people",
">\n\nRepublicans really really want a civil war. Wait till they find out liberals also own and know how to use guns.",
">\n\nWe just don't make it our identity",
">\n\nPretty much any time somebody talks to me at the range, they just assume I'm right wing. I never bother to disabuse them."
] |
>
Yeah I'm middle aged white guy living in Texas. People assume right away that I'll agree with their MAGA insanity.
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably",
">\n\nI am Jack's complete lack of suprise.",
">\n\n\n\"It is believed that he is the mastermind behind this,\" Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a press conference on Monday.\n\nI think it is a bit of stretch to use the term \"mastermind\".",
">\n\nFunky Ironic Medina.",
">\n\nOf course he’s Republican, softest group of people",
">\n\nRepublicans really really want a civil war. Wait till they find out liberals also own and know how to use guns.",
">\n\nWe just don't make it our identity",
">\n\nPretty much any time somebody talks to me at the range, they just assume I'm right wing. I never bother to disabuse them.",
">\n\nMy experience in the service. I was just hoping to get money for my liberal college education. Even weirder since I’m a minority."
] |
>
To be fair it’s insane how many people have shown themselves since 2016. Kevin McHale (played with Celtics, former Timberwolves GM and coach) was at a trump rally and I was kinda shocked. His family was known for giving out king size candy at Halloween.
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably",
">\n\nI am Jack's complete lack of suprise.",
">\n\n\n\"It is believed that he is the mastermind behind this,\" Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a press conference on Monday.\n\nI think it is a bit of stretch to use the term \"mastermind\".",
">\n\nFunky Ironic Medina.",
">\n\nOf course he’s Republican, softest group of people",
">\n\nRepublicans really really want a civil war. Wait till they find out liberals also own and know how to use guns.",
">\n\nWe just don't make it our identity",
">\n\nPretty much any time somebody talks to me at the range, they just assume I'm right wing. I never bother to disabuse them.",
">\n\nMy experience in the service. I was just hoping to get money for my liberal college education. Even weirder since I’m a minority.",
">\n\nYeah I'm middle aged white guy living in Texas. People assume right away that I'll agree with their MAGA insanity."
] |
>
Yeah I can't wait for it to be socially unacceptable to be a racist douchebag again.. if it ever happens.
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably",
">\n\nI am Jack's complete lack of suprise.",
">\n\n\n\"It is believed that he is the mastermind behind this,\" Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a press conference on Monday.\n\nI think it is a bit of stretch to use the term \"mastermind\".",
">\n\nFunky Ironic Medina.",
">\n\nOf course he’s Republican, softest group of people",
">\n\nRepublicans really really want a civil war. Wait till they find out liberals also own and know how to use guns.",
">\n\nWe just don't make it our identity",
">\n\nPretty much any time somebody talks to me at the range, they just assume I'm right wing. I never bother to disabuse them.",
">\n\nMy experience in the service. I was just hoping to get money for my liberal college education. Even weirder since I’m a minority.",
">\n\nYeah I'm middle aged white guy living in Texas. People assume right away that I'll agree with their MAGA insanity.",
">\n\nTo be fair it’s insane how many people have shown themselves since 2016. Kevin McHale (played with Celtics, former Timberwolves GM and coach) was at a trump rally and I was kinda shocked. His family was known for giving out king size candy at Halloween."
] |
>
I'm not a fan of the prison system in the US, but this guy is no ordinary criminal. He's someone who has been poisoned by the lies of the GOP. It's incumbent on whoever the judge is in this case to make an example out of Pena to make sure that this nonsense doesn't continue. There are literally millions of GOP voters who are also poisoned by the election lies, and if this piece of shit isn't sentenced to at least 30 years, they'll just continue where this asshole started.
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably",
">\n\nI am Jack's complete lack of suprise.",
">\n\n\n\"It is believed that he is the mastermind behind this,\" Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a press conference on Monday.\n\nI think it is a bit of stretch to use the term \"mastermind\".",
">\n\nFunky Ironic Medina.",
">\n\nOf course he’s Republican, softest group of people",
">\n\nRepublicans really really want a civil war. Wait till they find out liberals also own and know how to use guns.",
">\n\nWe just don't make it our identity",
">\n\nPretty much any time somebody talks to me at the range, they just assume I'm right wing. I never bother to disabuse them.",
">\n\nMy experience in the service. I was just hoping to get money for my liberal college education. Even weirder since I’m a minority.",
">\n\nYeah I'm middle aged white guy living in Texas. People assume right away that I'll agree with their MAGA insanity.",
">\n\nTo be fair it’s insane how many people have shown themselves since 2016. Kevin McHale (played with Celtics, former Timberwolves GM and coach) was at a trump rally and I was kinda shocked. His family was known for giving out king size candy at Halloween.",
">\n\nYeah I can't wait for it to be socially unacceptable to be a racist douchebag again.. if it ever happens."
] |
>
You're not wrong about our prison system, especially the private, for-profit prisons like we have in my right wing shit hole state.Their lobbyist pay off our politicians to keep the laws as draconian and harsh as possible so they can fill them up with mostly non violent "offenders." Marijuana laws are a big one here in Indiana, 45 minutes up the road i can go into any number of dispensaries and legally purchase my meds that make my life tolerable without being made to feel like a criminal, here your life is ruined if you're caught. I do not understand why lobbying is even allowed, how is this not bribery? They're purchasing legislation in their favor. And that's just one small aspect of the complete failure of our prison system..
As far as this particular republican terrorist and the rest of the supporters (cult members) are concerned, I would argue that most of these people were not suddenly converted into monsters because of GOP lies, they were always terrible, hateful people and were simply emboldened by the lies, blatant racism, and conspiracy bs. I've lived among these people my entire life and I assure you, they are worse than you think.
Edit: typos
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably",
">\n\nI am Jack's complete lack of suprise.",
">\n\n\n\"It is believed that he is the mastermind behind this,\" Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a press conference on Monday.\n\nI think it is a bit of stretch to use the term \"mastermind\".",
">\n\nFunky Ironic Medina.",
">\n\nOf course he’s Republican, softest group of people",
">\n\nRepublicans really really want a civil war. Wait till they find out liberals also own and know how to use guns.",
">\n\nWe just don't make it our identity",
">\n\nPretty much any time somebody talks to me at the range, they just assume I'm right wing. I never bother to disabuse them.",
">\n\nMy experience in the service. I was just hoping to get money for my liberal college education. Even weirder since I’m a minority.",
">\n\nYeah I'm middle aged white guy living in Texas. People assume right away that I'll agree with their MAGA insanity.",
">\n\nTo be fair it’s insane how many people have shown themselves since 2016. Kevin McHale (played with Celtics, former Timberwolves GM and coach) was at a trump rally and I was kinda shocked. His family was known for giving out king size candy at Halloween.",
">\n\nYeah I can't wait for it to be socially unacceptable to be a racist douchebag again.. if it ever happens.",
">\n\nI'm not a fan of the prison system in the US, but this guy is no ordinary criminal. He's someone who has been poisoned by the lies of the GOP. It's incumbent on whoever the judge is in this case to make an example out of Pena to make sure that this nonsense doesn't continue. There are literally millions of GOP voters who are also poisoned by the election lies, and if this piece of shit isn't sentenced to at least 30 years, they'll just continue where this asshole started."
] |
>
He spent 7 years in jail (I think) for a smash and grab scheme he was involved in. Seems like he made some connections in jail
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably",
">\n\nI am Jack's complete lack of suprise.",
">\n\n\n\"It is believed that he is the mastermind behind this,\" Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a press conference on Monday.\n\nI think it is a bit of stretch to use the term \"mastermind\".",
">\n\nFunky Ironic Medina.",
">\n\nOf course he’s Republican, softest group of people",
">\n\nRepublicans really really want a civil war. Wait till they find out liberals also own and know how to use guns.",
">\n\nWe just don't make it our identity",
">\n\nPretty much any time somebody talks to me at the range, they just assume I'm right wing. I never bother to disabuse them.",
">\n\nMy experience in the service. I was just hoping to get money for my liberal college education. Even weirder since I’m a minority.",
">\n\nYeah I'm middle aged white guy living in Texas. People assume right away that I'll agree with their MAGA insanity.",
">\n\nTo be fair it’s insane how many people have shown themselves since 2016. Kevin McHale (played with Celtics, former Timberwolves GM and coach) was at a trump rally and I was kinda shocked. His family was known for giving out king size candy at Halloween.",
">\n\nYeah I can't wait for it to be socially unacceptable to be a racist douchebag again.. if it ever happens.",
">\n\nI'm not a fan of the prison system in the US, but this guy is no ordinary criminal. He's someone who has been poisoned by the lies of the GOP. It's incumbent on whoever the judge is in this case to make an example out of Pena to make sure that this nonsense doesn't continue. There are literally millions of GOP voters who are also poisoned by the election lies, and if this piece of shit isn't sentenced to at least 30 years, they'll just continue where this asshole started.",
">\n\nYou're not wrong about our prison system, especially the private, for-profit prisons like we have in my right wing shit hole state.Their lobbyist pay off our politicians to keep the laws as draconian and harsh as possible so they can fill them up with mostly non violent \"offenders.\" Marijuana laws are a big one here in Indiana, 45 minutes up the road i can go into any number of dispensaries and legally purchase my meds that make my life tolerable without being made to feel like a criminal, here your life is ruined if you're caught. I do not understand why lobbying is even allowed, how is this not bribery? They're purchasing legislation in their favor. And that's just one small aspect of the complete failure of our prison system..\nAs far as this particular republican terrorist and the rest of the supporters (cult members) are concerned, I would argue that most of these people were not suddenly converted into monsters because of GOP lies, they were always terrible, hateful people and were simply emboldened by the lies, blatant racism, and conspiracy bs. I've lived among these people my entire life and I assure you, they are worse than you think.\nEdit: typos"
] |
>
Homegrown Fascist Terrorist Republican!
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably",
">\n\nI am Jack's complete lack of suprise.",
">\n\n\n\"It is believed that he is the mastermind behind this,\" Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a press conference on Monday.\n\nI think it is a bit of stretch to use the term \"mastermind\".",
">\n\nFunky Ironic Medina.",
">\n\nOf course he’s Republican, softest group of people",
">\n\nRepublicans really really want a civil war. Wait till they find out liberals also own and know how to use guns.",
">\n\nWe just don't make it our identity",
">\n\nPretty much any time somebody talks to me at the range, they just assume I'm right wing. I never bother to disabuse them.",
">\n\nMy experience in the service. I was just hoping to get money for my liberal college education. Even weirder since I’m a minority.",
">\n\nYeah I'm middle aged white guy living in Texas. People assume right away that I'll agree with their MAGA insanity.",
">\n\nTo be fair it’s insane how many people have shown themselves since 2016. Kevin McHale (played with Celtics, former Timberwolves GM and coach) was at a trump rally and I was kinda shocked. His family was known for giving out king size candy at Halloween.",
">\n\nYeah I can't wait for it to be socially unacceptable to be a racist douchebag again.. if it ever happens.",
">\n\nI'm not a fan of the prison system in the US, but this guy is no ordinary criminal. He's someone who has been poisoned by the lies of the GOP. It's incumbent on whoever the judge is in this case to make an example out of Pena to make sure that this nonsense doesn't continue. There are literally millions of GOP voters who are also poisoned by the election lies, and if this piece of shit isn't sentenced to at least 30 years, they'll just continue where this asshole started.",
">\n\nYou're not wrong about our prison system, especially the private, for-profit prisons like we have in my right wing shit hole state.Their lobbyist pay off our politicians to keep the laws as draconian and harsh as possible so they can fill them up with mostly non violent \"offenders.\" Marijuana laws are a big one here in Indiana, 45 minutes up the road i can go into any number of dispensaries and legally purchase my meds that make my life tolerable without being made to feel like a criminal, here your life is ruined if you're caught. I do not understand why lobbying is even allowed, how is this not bribery? They're purchasing legislation in their favor. And that's just one small aspect of the complete failure of our prison system..\nAs far as this particular republican terrorist and the rest of the supporters (cult members) are concerned, I would argue that most of these people were not suddenly converted into monsters because of GOP lies, they were always terrible, hateful people and were simply emboldened by the lies, blatant racism, and conspiracy bs. I've lived among these people my entire life and I assure you, they are worse than you think.\nEdit: typos",
">\n\nHe spent 7 years in jail (I think) for a smash and grab scheme he was involved in. Seems like he made some connections in jail"
] |
>
Tucker Carlson: "Why is he being charged when he never pulled the trigger? Liberals are on tv constantly complaining about the lack of jobs, and when this man hires four people they lose their minds! This is an obvious attack on our second amendment rights."
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably",
">\n\nI am Jack's complete lack of suprise.",
">\n\n\n\"It is believed that he is the mastermind behind this,\" Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a press conference on Monday.\n\nI think it is a bit of stretch to use the term \"mastermind\".",
">\n\nFunky Ironic Medina.",
">\n\nOf course he’s Republican, softest group of people",
">\n\nRepublicans really really want a civil war. Wait till they find out liberals also own and know how to use guns.",
">\n\nWe just don't make it our identity",
">\n\nPretty much any time somebody talks to me at the range, they just assume I'm right wing. I never bother to disabuse them.",
">\n\nMy experience in the service. I was just hoping to get money for my liberal college education. Even weirder since I’m a minority.",
">\n\nYeah I'm middle aged white guy living in Texas. People assume right away that I'll agree with their MAGA insanity.",
">\n\nTo be fair it’s insane how many people have shown themselves since 2016. Kevin McHale (played with Celtics, former Timberwolves GM and coach) was at a trump rally and I was kinda shocked. His family was known for giving out king size candy at Halloween.",
">\n\nYeah I can't wait for it to be socially unacceptable to be a racist douchebag again.. if it ever happens.",
">\n\nI'm not a fan of the prison system in the US, but this guy is no ordinary criminal. He's someone who has been poisoned by the lies of the GOP. It's incumbent on whoever the judge is in this case to make an example out of Pena to make sure that this nonsense doesn't continue. There are literally millions of GOP voters who are also poisoned by the election lies, and if this piece of shit isn't sentenced to at least 30 years, they'll just continue where this asshole started.",
">\n\nYou're not wrong about our prison system, especially the private, for-profit prisons like we have in my right wing shit hole state.Their lobbyist pay off our politicians to keep the laws as draconian and harsh as possible so they can fill them up with mostly non violent \"offenders.\" Marijuana laws are a big one here in Indiana, 45 minutes up the road i can go into any number of dispensaries and legally purchase my meds that make my life tolerable without being made to feel like a criminal, here your life is ruined if you're caught. I do not understand why lobbying is even allowed, how is this not bribery? They're purchasing legislation in their favor. And that's just one small aspect of the complete failure of our prison system..\nAs far as this particular republican terrorist and the rest of the supporters (cult members) are concerned, I would argue that most of these people were not suddenly converted into monsters because of GOP lies, they were always terrible, hateful people and were simply emboldened by the lies, blatant racism, and conspiracy bs. I've lived among these people my entire life and I assure you, they are worse than you think.\nEdit: typos",
">\n\nHe spent 7 years in jail (I think) for a smash and grab scheme he was involved in. Seems like he made some connections in jail",
">\n\nHomegrown Fascist Terrorist Republican!"
] |
>
Too mild a defence. Tucker will go straight to “We’re hearing murmurs about Santos being a Liberal plant. Now-this has NOTHING to do with his professed sexuality, and I understand, that’s his choooice.” But we need to ask the question. Why did the Democratic Party sooo conveniently* neglect to do even one iota of oppo research on this clown? I think the answer is simple. I think YOU are smart enough to know the answer yourselves.”
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably",
">\n\nI am Jack's complete lack of suprise.",
">\n\n\n\"It is believed that he is the mastermind behind this,\" Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a press conference on Monday.\n\nI think it is a bit of stretch to use the term \"mastermind\".",
">\n\nFunky Ironic Medina.",
">\n\nOf course he’s Republican, softest group of people",
">\n\nRepublicans really really want a civil war. Wait till they find out liberals also own and know how to use guns.",
">\n\nWe just don't make it our identity",
">\n\nPretty much any time somebody talks to me at the range, they just assume I'm right wing. I never bother to disabuse them.",
">\n\nMy experience in the service. I was just hoping to get money for my liberal college education. Even weirder since I’m a minority.",
">\n\nYeah I'm middle aged white guy living in Texas. People assume right away that I'll agree with their MAGA insanity.",
">\n\nTo be fair it’s insane how many people have shown themselves since 2016. Kevin McHale (played with Celtics, former Timberwolves GM and coach) was at a trump rally and I was kinda shocked. His family was known for giving out king size candy at Halloween.",
">\n\nYeah I can't wait for it to be socially unacceptable to be a racist douchebag again.. if it ever happens.",
">\n\nI'm not a fan of the prison system in the US, but this guy is no ordinary criminal. He's someone who has been poisoned by the lies of the GOP. It's incumbent on whoever the judge is in this case to make an example out of Pena to make sure that this nonsense doesn't continue. There are literally millions of GOP voters who are also poisoned by the election lies, and if this piece of shit isn't sentenced to at least 30 years, they'll just continue where this asshole started.",
">\n\nYou're not wrong about our prison system, especially the private, for-profit prisons like we have in my right wing shit hole state.Their lobbyist pay off our politicians to keep the laws as draconian and harsh as possible so they can fill them up with mostly non violent \"offenders.\" Marijuana laws are a big one here in Indiana, 45 minutes up the road i can go into any number of dispensaries and legally purchase my meds that make my life tolerable without being made to feel like a criminal, here your life is ruined if you're caught. I do not understand why lobbying is even allowed, how is this not bribery? They're purchasing legislation in their favor. And that's just one small aspect of the complete failure of our prison system..\nAs far as this particular republican terrorist and the rest of the supporters (cult members) are concerned, I would argue that most of these people were not suddenly converted into monsters because of GOP lies, they were always terrible, hateful people and were simply emboldened by the lies, blatant racism, and conspiracy bs. I've lived among these people my entire life and I assure you, they are worse than you think.\nEdit: typos",
">\n\nHe spent 7 years in jail (I think) for a smash and grab scheme he was involved in. Seems like he made some connections in jail",
">\n\nHomegrown Fascist Terrorist Republican!",
">\n\nTucker Carlson: \"Why is he being charged when he never pulled the trigger? Liberals are on tv constantly complaining about the lack of jobs, and when this man hires four people they lose their minds! This is an obvious attack on our second amendment rights.\""
] |
>
Killing your political opponents? Pretty sure that’s domestic terrorism. Is anyone surprised anymore by Right Wing terrorism?
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably",
">\n\nI am Jack's complete lack of suprise.",
">\n\n\n\"It is believed that he is the mastermind behind this,\" Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a press conference on Monday.\n\nI think it is a bit of stretch to use the term \"mastermind\".",
">\n\nFunky Ironic Medina.",
">\n\nOf course he’s Republican, softest group of people",
">\n\nRepublicans really really want a civil war. Wait till they find out liberals also own and know how to use guns.",
">\n\nWe just don't make it our identity",
">\n\nPretty much any time somebody talks to me at the range, they just assume I'm right wing. I never bother to disabuse them.",
">\n\nMy experience in the service. I was just hoping to get money for my liberal college education. Even weirder since I’m a minority.",
">\n\nYeah I'm middle aged white guy living in Texas. People assume right away that I'll agree with their MAGA insanity.",
">\n\nTo be fair it’s insane how many people have shown themselves since 2016. Kevin McHale (played with Celtics, former Timberwolves GM and coach) was at a trump rally and I was kinda shocked. His family was known for giving out king size candy at Halloween.",
">\n\nYeah I can't wait for it to be socially unacceptable to be a racist douchebag again.. if it ever happens.",
">\n\nI'm not a fan of the prison system in the US, but this guy is no ordinary criminal. He's someone who has been poisoned by the lies of the GOP. It's incumbent on whoever the judge is in this case to make an example out of Pena to make sure that this nonsense doesn't continue. There are literally millions of GOP voters who are also poisoned by the election lies, and if this piece of shit isn't sentenced to at least 30 years, they'll just continue where this asshole started.",
">\n\nYou're not wrong about our prison system, especially the private, for-profit prisons like we have in my right wing shit hole state.Their lobbyist pay off our politicians to keep the laws as draconian and harsh as possible so they can fill them up with mostly non violent \"offenders.\" Marijuana laws are a big one here in Indiana, 45 minutes up the road i can go into any number of dispensaries and legally purchase my meds that make my life tolerable without being made to feel like a criminal, here your life is ruined if you're caught. I do not understand why lobbying is even allowed, how is this not bribery? They're purchasing legislation in their favor. And that's just one small aspect of the complete failure of our prison system..\nAs far as this particular republican terrorist and the rest of the supporters (cult members) are concerned, I would argue that most of these people were not suddenly converted into monsters because of GOP lies, they were always terrible, hateful people and were simply emboldened by the lies, blatant racism, and conspiracy bs. I've lived among these people my entire life and I assure you, they are worse than you think.\nEdit: typos",
">\n\nHe spent 7 years in jail (I think) for a smash and grab scheme he was involved in. Seems like he made some connections in jail",
">\n\nHomegrown Fascist Terrorist Republican!",
">\n\nTucker Carlson: \"Why is he being charged when he never pulled the trigger? Liberals are on tv constantly complaining about the lack of jobs, and when this man hires four people they lose their minds! This is an obvious attack on our second amendment rights.\"",
">\n\nToo mild a defence. Tucker will go straight to “We’re hearing murmurs about Santos being a Liberal plant. Now-this has NOTHING to do with his professed sexuality, and I understand, that’s his choooice.” But we need to ask the question. Why did the Democratic Party sooo conveniently* neglect to do even one iota of oppo research on this clown? I think the answer is simple. I think YOU are smart enough to know the answer yourselves.”"
] |
>
They are all Domestic Terrorists now.
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably",
">\n\nI am Jack's complete lack of suprise.",
">\n\n\n\"It is believed that he is the mastermind behind this,\" Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a press conference on Monday.\n\nI think it is a bit of stretch to use the term \"mastermind\".",
">\n\nFunky Ironic Medina.",
">\n\nOf course he’s Republican, softest group of people",
">\n\nRepublicans really really want a civil war. Wait till they find out liberals also own and know how to use guns.",
">\n\nWe just don't make it our identity",
">\n\nPretty much any time somebody talks to me at the range, they just assume I'm right wing. I never bother to disabuse them.",
">\n\nMy experience in the service. I was just hoping to get money for my liberal college education. Even weirder since I’m a minority.",
">\n\nYeah I'm middle aged white guy living in Texas. People assume right away that I'll agree with their MAGA insanity.",
">\n\nTo be fair it’s insane how many people have shown themselves since 2016. Kevin McHale (played with Celtics, former Timberwolves GM and coach) was at a trump rally and I was kinda shocked. His family was known for giving out king size candy at Halloween.",
">\n\nYeah I can't wait for it to be socially unacceptable to be a racist douchebag again.. if it ever happens.",
">\n\nI'm not a fan of the prison system in the US, but this guy is no ordinary criminal. He's someone who has been poisoned by the lies of the GOP. It's incumbent on whoever the judge is in this case to make an example out of Pena to make sure that this nonsense doesn't continue. There are literally millions of GOP voters who are also poisoned by the election lies, and if this piece of shit isn't sentenced to at least 30 years, they'll just continue where this asshole started.",
">\n\nYou're not wrong about our prison system, especially the private, for-profit prisons like we have in my right wing shit hole state.Their lobbyist pay off our politicians to keep the laws as draconian and harsh as possible so they can fill them up with mostly non violent \"offenders.\" Marijuana laws are a big one here in Indiana, 45 minutes up the road i can go into any number of dispensaries and legally purchase my meds that make my life tolerable without being made to feel like a criminal, here your life is ruined if you're caught. I do not understand why lobbying is even allowed, how is this not bribery? They're purchasing legislation in their favor. And that's just one small aspect of the complete failure of our prison system..\nAs far as this particular republican terrorist and the rest of the supporters (cult members) are concerned, I would argue that most of these people were not suddenly converted into monsters because of GOP lies, they were always terrible, hateful people and were simply emboldened by the lies, blatant racism, and conspiracy bs. I've lived among these people my entire life and I assure you, they are worse than you think.\nEdit: typos",
">\n\nHe spent 7 years in jail (I think) for a smash and grab scheme he was involved in. Seems like he made some connections in jail",
">\n\nHomegrown Fascist Terrorist Republican!",
">\n\nTucker Carlson: \"Why is he being charged when he never pulled the trigger? Liberals are on tv constantly complaining about the lack of jobs, and when this man hires four people they lose their minds! This is an obvious attack on our second amendment rights.\"",
">\n\nToo mild a defence. Tucker will go straight to “We’re hearing murmurs about Santos being a Liberal plant. Now-this has NOTHING to do with his professed sexuality, and I understand, that’s his choooice.” But we need to ask the question. Why did the Democratic Party sooo conveniently* neglect to do even one iota of oppo research on this clown? I think the answer is simple. I think YOU are smart enough to know the answer yourselves.”",
">\n\nKilling your political opponents? Pretty sure that’s domestic terrorism. Is anyone surprised anymore by Right Wing terrorism?"
] |
>
It most assuredly is. And conspiracy.
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably",
">\n\nI am Jack's complete lack of suprise.",
">\n\n\n\"It is believed that he is the mastermind behind this,\" Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a press conference on Monday.\n\nI think it is a bit of stretch to use the term \"mastermind\".",
">\n\nFunky Ironic Medina.",
">\n\nOf course he’s Republican, softest group of people",
">\n\nRepublicans really really want a civil war. Wait till they find out liberals also own and know how to use guns.",
">\n\nWe just don't make it our identity",
">\n\nPretty much any time somebody talks to me at the range, they just assume I'm right wing. I never bother to disabuse them.",
">\n\nMy experience in the service. I was just hoping to get money for my liberal college education. Even weirder since I’m a minority.",
">\n\nYeah I'm middle aged white guy living in Texas. People assume right away that I'll agree with their MAGA insanity.",
">\n\nTo be fair it’s insane how many people have shown themselves since 2016. Kevin McHale (played with Celtics, former Timberwolves GM and coach) was at a trump rally and I was kinda shocked. His family was known for giving out king size candy at Halloween.",
">\n\nYeah I can't wait for it to be socially unacceptable to be a racist douchebag again.. if it ever happens.",
">\n\nI'm not a fan of the prison system in the US, but this guy is no ordinary criminal. He's someone who has been poisoned by the lies of the GOP. It's incumbent on whoever the judge is in this case to make an example out of Pena to make sure that this nonsense doesn't continue. There are literally millions of GOP voters who are also poisoned by the election lies, and if this piece of shit isn't sentenced to at least 30 years, they'll just continue where this asshole started.",
">\n\nYou're not wrong about our prison system, especially the private, for-profit prisons like we have in my right wing shit hole state.Their lobbyist pay off our politicians to keep the laws as draconian and harsh as possible so they can fill them up with mostly non violent \"offenders.\" Marijuana laws are a big one here in Indiana, 45 minutes up the road i can go into any number of dispensaries and legally purchase my meds that make my life tolerable without being made to feel like a criminal, here your life is ruined if you're caught. I do not understand why lobbying is even allowed, how is this not bribery? They're purchasing legislation in their favor. And that's just one small aspect of the complete failure of our prison system..\nAs far as this particular republican terrorist and the rest of the supporters (cult members) are concerned, I would argue that most of these people were not suddenly converted into monsters because of GOP lies, they were always terrible, hateful people and were simply emboldened by the lies, blatant racism, and conspiracy bs. I've lived among these people my entire life and I assure you, they are worse than you think.\nEdit: typos",
">\n\nHe spent 7 years in jail (I think) for a smash and grab scheme he was involved in. Seems like he made some connections in jail",
">\n\nHomegrown Fascist Terrorist Republican!",
">\n\nTucker Carlson: \"Why is he being charged when he never pulled the trigger? Liberals are on tv constantly complaining about the lack of jobs, and when this man hires four people they lose their minds! This is an obvious attack on our second amendment rights.\"",
">\n\nToo mild a defence. Tucker will go straight to “We’re hearing murmurs about Santos being a Liberal plant. Now-this has NOTHING to do with his professed sexuality, and I understand, that’s his choooice.” But we need to ask the question. Why did the Democratic Party sooo conveniently* neglect to do even one iota of oppo research on this clown? I think the answer is simple. I think YOU are smart enough to know the answer yourselves.”",
">\n\nKilling your political opponents? Pretty sure that’s domestic terrorism. Is anyone surprised anymore by Right Wing terrorism?",
">\n\nThey are all Domestic Terrorists now."
] |
>
Watch him get probation.
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably",
">\n\nI am Jack's complete lack of suprise.",
">\n\n\n\"It is believed that he is the mastermind behind this,\" Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a press conference on Monday.\n\nI think it is a bit of stretch to use the term \"mastermind\".",
">\n\nFunky Ironic Medina.",
">\n\nOf course he’s Republican, softest group of people",
">\n\nRepublicans really really want a civil war. Wait till they find out liberals also own and know how to use guns.",
">\n\nWe just don't make it our identity",
">\n\nPretty much any time somebody talks to me at the range, they just assume I'm right wing. I never bother to disabuse them.",
">\n\nMy experience in the service. I was just hoping to get money for my liberal college education. Even weirder since I’m a minority.",
">\n\nYeah I'm middle aged white guy living in Texas. People assume right away that I'll agree with their MAGA insanity.",
">\n\nTo be fair it’s insane how many people have shown themselves since 2016. Kevin McHale (played with Celtics, former Timberwolves GM and coach) was at a trump rally and I was kinda shocked. His family was known for giving out king size candy at Halloween.",
">\n\nYeah I can't wait for it to be socially unacceptable to be a racist douchebag again.. if it ever happens.",
">\n\nI'm not a fan of the prison system in the US, but this guy is no ordinary criminal. He's someone who has been poisoned by the lies of the GOP. It's incumbent on whoever the judge is in this case to make an example out of Pena to make sure that this nonsense doesn't continue. There are literally millions of GOP voters who are also poisoned by the election lies, and if this piece of shit isn't sentenced to at least 30 years, they'll just continue where this asshole started.",
">\n\nYou're not wrong about our prison system, especially the private, for-profit prisons like we have in my right wing shit hole state.Their lobbyist pay off our politicians to keep the laws as draconian and harsh as possible so they can fill them up with mostly non violent \"offenders.\" Marijuana laws are a big one here in Indiana, 45 minutes up the road i can go into any number of dispensaries and legally purchase my meds that make my life tolerable without being made to feel like a criminal, here your life is ruined if you're caught. I do not understand why lobbying is even allowed, how is this not bribery? They're purchasing legislation in their favor. And that's just one small aspect of the complete failure of our prison system..\nAs far as this particular republican terrorist and the rest of the supporters (cult members) are concerned, I would argue that most of these people were not suddenly converted into monsters because of GOP lies, they were always terrible, hateful people and were simply emboldened by the lies, blatant racism, and conspiracy bs. I've lived among these people my entire life and I assure you, they are worse than you think.\nEdit: typos",
">\n\nHe spent 7 years in jail (I think) for a smash and grab scheme he was involved in. Seems like he made some connections in jail",
">\n\nHomegrown Fascist Terrorist Republican!",
">\n\nTucker Carlson: \"Why is he being charged when he never pulled the trigger? Liberals are on tv constantly complaining about the lack of jobs, and when this man hires four people they lose their minds! This is an obvious attack on our second amendment rights.\"",
">\n\nToo mild a defence. Tucker will go straight to “We’re hearing murmurs about Santos being a Liberal plant. Now-this has NOTHING to do with his professed sexuality, and I understand, that’s his choooice.” But we need to ask the question. Why did the Democratic Party sooo conveniently* neglect to do even one iota of oppo research on this clown? I think the answer is simple. I think YOU are smart enough to know the answer yourselves.”",
">\n\nKilling your political opponents? Pretty sure that’s domestic terrorism. Is anyone surprised anymore by Right Wing terrorism?",
">\n\nThey are all Domestic Terrorists now.",
">\n\nIt most assuredly is. And conspiracy."
] |
>
When a mass shooter in Buffalo targeted a black supermarket last year, influenced by the gospel of Tucker Carlson, I thought, “maybe the media should stop normalizing the worrying radicalization of the Republican Party?”. But all was forgotten once the next news cycle arrived. It will happen this time too, and the next would-be political killer might succeed.
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably",
">\n\nI am Jack's complete lack of suprise.",
">\n\n\n\"It is believed that he is the mastermind behind this,\" Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a press conference on Monday.\n\nI think it is a bit of stretch to use the term \"mastermind\".",
">\n\nFunky Ironic Medina.",
">\n\nOf course he’s Republican, softest group of people",
">\n\nRepublicans really really want a civil war. Wait till they find out liberals also own and know how to use guns.",
">\n\nWe just don't make it our identity",
">\n\nPretty much any time somebody talks to me at the range, they just assume I'm right wing. I never bother to disabuse them.",
">\n\nMy experience in the service. I was just hoping to get money for my liberal college education. Even weirder since I’m a minority.",
">\n\nYeah I'm middle aged white guy living in Texas. People assume right away that I'll agree with their MAGA insanity.",
">\n\nTo be fair it’s insane how many people have shown themselves since 2016. Kevin McHale (played with Celtics, former Timberwolves GM and coach) was at a trump rally and I was kinda shocked. His family was known for giving out king size candy at Halloween.",
">\n\nYeah I can't wait for it to be socially unacceptable to be a racist douchebag again.. if it ever happens.",
">\n\nI'm not a fan of the prison system in the US, but this guy is no ordinary criminal. He's someone who has been poisoned by the lies of the GOP. It's incumbent on whoever the judge is in this case to make an example out of Pena to make sure that this nonsense doesn't continue. There are literally millions of GOP voters who are also poisoned by the election lies, and if this piece of shit isn't sentenced to at least 30 years, they'll just continue where this asshole started.",
">\n\nYou're not wrong about our prison system, especially the private, for-profit prisons like we have in my right wing shit hole state.Their lobbyist pay off our politicians to keep the laws as draconian and harsh as possible so they can fill them up with mostly non violent \"offenders.\" Marijuana laws are a big one here in Indiana, 45 minutes up the road i can go into any number of dispensaries and legally purchase my meds that make my life tolerable without being made to feel like a criminal, here your life is ruined if you're caught. I do not understand why lobbying is even allowed, how is this not bribery? They're purchasing legislation in their favor. And that's just one small aspect of the complete failure of our prison system..\nAs far as this particular republican terrorist and the rest of the supporters (cult members) are concerned, I would argue that most of these people were not suddenly converted into monsters because of GOP lies, they were always terrible, hateful people and were simply emboldened by the lies, blatant racism, and conspiracy bs. I've lived among these people my entire life and I assure you, they are worse than you think.\nEdit: typos",
">\n\nHe spent 7 years in jail (I think) for a smash and grab scheme he was involved in. Seems like he made some connections in jail",
">\n\nHomegrown Fascist Terrorist Republican!",
">\n\nTucker Carlson: \"Why is he being charged when he never pulled the trigger? Liberals are on tv constantly complaining about the lack of jobs, and when this man hires four people they lose their minds! This is an obvious attack on our second amendment rights.\"",
">\n\nToo mild a defence. Tucker will go straight to “We’re hearing murmurs about Santos being a Liberal plant. Now-this has NOTHING to do with his professed sexuality, and I understand, that’s his choooice.” But we need to ask the question. Why did the Democratic Party sooo conveniently* neglect to do even one iota of oppo research on this clown? I think the answer is simple. I think YOU are smart enough to know the answer yourselves.”",
">\n\nKilling your political opponents? Pretty sure that’s domestic terrorism. Is anyone surprised anymore by Right Wing terrorism?",
">\n\nThey are all Domestic Terrorists now.",
">\n\nIt most assuredly is. And conspiracy.",
">\n\nWatch him get probation."
] |
>
This is what’s most disgusting about conservative politics.
Any other group that engaged in this behavior would be systemically prosecuted for this behavior. At minimum, we’d be hearing conservatives call for profiling and torture. But the rest of us just have to live with these people’s constant insistence that the unpopularity of their beliefs and ideas justifies their violence.
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably",
">\n\nI am Jack's complete lack of suprise.",
">\n\n\n\"It is believed that he is the mastermind behind this,\" Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a press conference on Monday.\n\nI think it is a bit of stretch to use the term \"mastermind\".",
">\n\nFunky Ironic Medina.",
">\n\nOf course he’s Republican, softest group of people",
">\n\nRepublicans really really want a civil war. Wait till they find out liberals also own and know how to use guns.",
">\n\nWe just don't make it our identity",
">\n\nPretty much any time somebody talks to me at the range, they just assume I'm right wing. I never bother to disabuse them.",
">\n\nMy experience in the service. I was just hoping to get money for my liberal college education. Even weirder since I’m a minority.",
">\n\nYeah I'm middle aged white guy living in Texas. People assume right away that I'll agree with their MAGA insanity.",
">\n\nTo be fair it’s insane how many people have shown themselves since 2016. Kevin McHale (played with Celtics, former Timberwolves GM and coach) was at a trump rally and I was kinda shocked. His family was known for giving out king size candy at Halloween.",
">\n\nYeah I can't wait for it to be socially unacceptable to be a racist douchebag again.. if it ever happens.",
">\n\nI'm not a fan of the prison system in the US, but this guy is no ordinary criminal. He's someone who has been poisoned by the lies of the GOP. It's incumbent on whoever the judge is in this case to make an example out of Pena to make sure that this nonsense doesn't continue. There are literally millions of GOP voters who are also poisoned by the election lies, and if this piece of shit isn't sentenced to at least 30 years, they'll just continue where this asshole started.",
">\n\nYou're not wrong about our prison system, especially the private, for-profit prisons like we have in my right wing shit hole state.Their lobbyist pay off our politicians to keep the laws as draconian and harsh as possible so they can fill them up with mostly non violent \"offenders.\" Marijuana laws are a big one here in Indiana, 45 minutes up the road i can go into any number of dispensaries and legally purchase my meds that make my life tolerable without being made to feel like a criminal, here your life is ruined if you're caught. I do not understand why lobbying is even allowed, how is this not bribery? They're purchasing legislation in their favor. And that's just one small aspect of the complete failure of our prison system..\nAs far as this particular republican terrorist and the rest of the supporters (cult members) are concerned, I would argue that most of these people were not suddenly converted into monsters because of GOP lies, they were always terrible, hateful people and were simply emboldened by the lies, blatant racism, and conspiracy bs. I've lived among these people my entire life and I assure you, they are worse than you think.\nEdit: typos",
">\n\nHe spent 7 years in jail (I think) for a smash and grab scheme he was involved in. Seems like he made some connections in jail",
">\n\nHomegrown Fascist Terrorist Republican!",
">\n\nTucker Carlson: \"Why is he being charged when he never pulled the trigger? Liberals are on tv constantly complaining about the lack of jobs, and when this man hires four people they lose their minds! This is an obvious attack on our second amendment rights.\"",
">\n\nToo mild a defence. Tucker will go straight to “We’re hearing murmurs about Santos being a Liberal plant. Now-this has NOTHING to do with his professed sexuality, and I understand, that’s his choooice.” But we need to ask the question. Why did the Democratic Party sooo conveniently* neglect to do even one iota of oppo research on this clown? I think the answer is simple. I think YOU are smart enough to know the answer yourselves.”",
">\n\nKilling your political opponents? Pretty sure that’s domestic terrorism. Is anyone surprised anymore by Right Wing terrorism?",
">\n\nThey are all Domestic Terrorists now.",
">\n\nIt most assuredly is. And conspiracy.",
">\n\nWatch him get probation.",
">\n\nWhen a mass shooter in Buffalo targeted a black supermarket last year, influenced by the gospel of Tucker Carlson, I thought, “maybe the media should stop normalizing the worrying radicalization of the Republican Party?”. But all was forgotten once the next news cycle arrived. It will happen this time too, and the next would-be political killer might succeed."
] |
>
Conservatives are domestic terrorists
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably",
">\n\nI am Jack's complete lack of suprise.",
">\n\n\n\"It is believed that he is the mastermind behind this,\" Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a press conference on Monday.\n\nI think it is a bit of stretch to use the term \"mastermind\".",
">\n\nFunky Ironic Medina.",
">\n\nOf course he’s Republican, softest group of people",
">\n\nRepublicans really really want a civil war. Wait till they find out liberals also own and know how to use guns.",
">\n\nWe just don't make it our identity",
">\n\nPretty much any time somebody talks to me at the range, they just assume I'm right wing. I never bother to disabuse them.",
">\n\nMy experience in the service. I was just hoping to get money for my liberal college education. Even weirder since I’m a minority.",
">\n\nYeah I'm middle aged white guy living in Texas. People assume right away that I'll agree with their MAGA insanity.",
">\n\nTo be fair it’s insane how many people have shown themselves since 2016. Kevin McHale (played with Celtics, former Timberwolves GM and coach) was at a trump rally and I was kinda shocked. His family was known for giving out king size candy at Halloween.",
">\n\nYeah I can't wait for it to be socially unacceptable to be a racist douchebag again.. if it ever happens.",
">\n\nI'm not a fan of the prison system in the US, but this guy is no ordinary criminal. He's someone who has been poisoned by the lies of the GOP. It's incumbent on whoever the judge is in this case to make an example out of Pena to make sure that this nonsense doesn't continue. There are literally millions of GOP voters who are also poisoned by the election lies, and if this piece of shit isn't sentenced to at least 30 years, they'll just continue where this asshole started.",
">\n\nYou're not wrong about our prison system, especially the private, for-profit prisons like we have in my right wing shit hole state.Their lobbyist pay off our politicians to keep the laws as draconian and harsh as possible so they can fill them up with mostly non violent \"offenders.\" Marijuana laws are a big one here in Indiana, 45 minutes up the road i can go into any number of dispensaries and legally purchase my meds that make my life tolerable without being made to feel like a criminal, here your life is ruined if you're caught. I do not understand why lobbying is even allowed, how is this not bribery? They're purchasing legislation in their favor. And that's just one small aspect of the complete failure of our prison system..\nAs far as this particular republican terrorist and the rest of the supporters (cult members) are concerned, I would argue that most of these people were not suddenly converted into monsters because of GOP lies, they were always terrible, hateful people and were simply emboldened by the lies, blatant racism, and conspiracy bs. I've lived among these people my entire life and I assure you, they are worse than you think.\nEdit: typos",
">\n\nHe spent 7 years in jail (I think) for a smash and grab scheme he was involved in. Seems like he made some connections in jail",
">\n\nHomegrown Fascist Terrorist Republican!",
">\n\nTucker Carlson: \"Why is he being charged when he never pulled the trigger? Liberals are on tv constantly complaining about the lack of jobs, and when this man hires four people they lose their minds! This is an obvious attack on our second amendment rights.\"",
">\n\nToo mild a defence. Tucker will go straight to “We’re hearing murmurs about Santos being a Liberal plant. Now-this has NOTHING to do with his professed sexuality, and I understand, that’s his choooice.” But we need to ask the question. Why did the Democratic Party sooo conveniently* neglect to do even one iota of oppo research on this clown? I think the answer is simple. I think YOU are smart enough to know the answer yourselves.”",
">\n\nKilling your political opponents? Pretty sure that’s domestic terrorism. Is anyone surprised anymore by Right Wing terrorism?",
">\n\nThey are all Domestic Terrorists now.",
">\n\nIt most assuredly is. And conspiracy.",
">\n\nWatch him get probation.",
">\n\nWhen a mass shooter in Buffalo targeted a black supermarket last year, influenced by the gospel of Tucker Carlson, I thought, “maybe the media should stop normalizing the worrying radicalization of the Republican Party?”. But all was forgotten once the next news cycle arrived. It will happen this time too, and the next would-be political killer might succeed.",
">\n\nThis is what’s most disgusting about conservative politics.\nAny other group that engaged in this behavior would be systemically prosecuted for this behavior. At minimum, we’d be hearing conservatives call for profiling and torture. But the rest of us just have to live with these people’s constant insistence that the unpopularity of their beliefs and ideas justifies their violence."
] |
>
Republicans. What can’t they do?
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably",
">\n\nI am Jack's complete lack of suprise.",
">\n\n\n\"It is believed that he is the mastermind behind this,\" Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a press conference on Monday.\n\nI think it is a bit of stretch to use the term \"mastermind\".",
">\n\nFunky Ironic Medina.",
">\n\nOf course he’s Republican, softest group of people",
">\n\nRepublicans really really want a civil war. Wait till they find out liberals also own and know how to use guns.",
">\n\nWe just don't make it our identity",
">\n\nPretty much any time somebody talks to me at the range, they just assume I'm right wing. I never bother to disabuse them.",
">\n\nMy experience in the service. I was just hoping to get money for my liberal college education. Even weirder since I’m a minority.",
">\n\nYeah I'm middle aged white guy living in Texas. People assume right away that I'll agree with their MAGA insanity.",
">\n\nTo be fair it’s insane how many people have shown themselves since 2016. Kevin McHale (played with Celtics, former Timberwolves GM and coach) was at a trump rally and I was kinda shocked. His family was known for giving out king size candy at Halloween.",
">\n\nYeah I can't wait for it to be socially unacceptable to be a racist douchebag again.. if it ever happens.",
">\n\nI'm not a fan of the prison system in the US, but this guy is no ordinary criminal. He's someone who has been poisoned by the lies of the GOP. It's incumbent on whoever the judge is in this case to make an example out of Pena to make sure that this nonsense doesn't continue. There are literally millions of GOP voters who are also poisoned by the election lies, and if this piece of shit isn't sentenced to at least 30 years, they'll just continue where this asshole started.",
">\n\nYou're not wrong about our prison system, especially the private, for-profit prisons like we have in my right wing shit hole state.Their lobbyist pay off our politicians to keep the laws as draconian and harsh as possible so they can fill them up with mostly non violent \"offenders.\" Marijuana laws are a big one here in Indiana, 45 minutes up the road i can go into any number of dispensaries and legally purchase my meds that make my life tolerable without being made to feel like a criminal, here your life is ruined if you're caught. I do not understand why lobbying is even allowed, how is this not bribery? They're purchasing legislation in their favor. And that's just one small aspect of the complete failure of our prison system..\nAs far as this particular republican terrorist and the rest of the supporters (cult members) are concerned, I would argue that most of these people were not suddenly converted into monsters because of GOP lies, they were always terrible, hateful people and were simply emboldened by the lies, blatant racism, and conspiracy bs. I've lived among these people my entire life and I assure you, they are worse than you think.\nEdit: typos",
">\n\nHe spent 7 years in jail (I think) for a smash and grab scheme he was involved in. Seems like he made some connections in jail",
">\n\nHomegrown Fascist Terrorist Republican!",
">\n\nTucker Carlson: \"Why is he being charged when he never pulled the trigger? Liberals are on tv constantly complaining about the lack of jobs, and when this man hires four people they lose their minds! This is an obvious attack on our second amendment rights.\"",
">\n\nToo mild a defence. Tucker will go straight to “We’re hearing murmurs about Santos being a Liberal plant. Now-this has NOTHING to do with his professed sexuality, and I understand, that’s his choooice.” But we need to ask the question. Why did the Democratic Party sooo conveniently* neglect to do even one iota of oppo research on this clown? I think the answer is simple. I think YOU are smart enough to know the answer yourselves.”",
">\n\nKilling your political opponents? Pretty sure that’s domestic terrorism. Is anyone surprised anymore by Right Wing terrorism?",
">\n\nThey are all Domestic Terrorists now.",
">\n\nIt most assuredly is. And conspiracy.",
">\n\nWatch him get probation.",
">\n\nWhen a mass shooter in Buffalo targeted a black supermarket last year, influenced by the gospel of Tucker Carlson, I thought, “maybe the media should stop normalizing the worrying radicalization of the Republican Party?”. But all was forgotten once the next news cycle arrived. It will happen this time too, and the next would-be political killer might succeed.",
">\n\nThis is what’s most disgusting about conservative politics.\nAny other group that engaged in this behavior would be systemically prosecuted for this behavior. At minimum, we’d be hearing conservatives call for profiling and torture. But the rest of us just have to live with these people’s constant insistence that the unpopularity of their beliefs and ideas justifies their violence.",
">\n\nConservatives are domestic terrorists"
] |
>
Think rationally, comprehend basic science, compose a coherent thought or sentence, math, mind their own fucking business, keep their draconian legislation out of our country, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...
Oh, that was rhetorical 🤷♂️😁
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably",
">\n\nI am Jack's complete lack of suprise.",
">\n\n\n\"It is believed that he is the mastermind behind this,\" Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a press conference on Monday.\n\nI think it is a bit of stretch to use the term \"mastermind\".",
">\n\nFunky Ironic Medina.",
">\n\nOf course he’s Republican, softest group of people",
">\n\nRepublicans really really want a civil war. Wait till they find out liberals also own and know how to use guns.",
">\n\nWe just don't make it our identity",
">\n\nPretty much any time somebody talks to me at the range, they just assume I'm right wing. I never bother to disabuse them.",
">\n\nMy experience in the service. I was just hoping to get money for my liberal college education. Even weirder since I’m a minority.",
">\n\nYeah I'm middle aged white guy living in Texas. People assume right away that I'll agree with their MAGA insanity.",
">\n\nTo be fair it’s insane how many people have shown themselves since 2016. Kevin McHale (played with Celtics, former Timberwolves GM and coach) was at a trump rally and I was kinda shocked. His family was known for giving out king size candy at Halloween.",
">\n\nYeah I can't wait for it to be socially unacceptable to be a racist douchebag again.. if it ever happens.",
">\n\nI'm not a fan of the prison system in the US, but this guy is no ordinary criminal. He's someone who has been poisoned by the lies of the GOP. It's incumbent on whoever the judge is in this case to make an example out of Pena to make sure that this nonsense doesn't continue. There are literally millions of GOP voters who are also poisoned by the election lies, and if this piece of shit isn't sentenced to at least 30 years, they'll just continue where this asshole started.",
">\n\nYou're not wrong about our prison system, especially the private, for-profit prisons like we have in my right wing shit hole state.Their lobbyist pay off our politicians to keep the laws as draconian and harsh as possible so they can fill them up with mostly non violent \"offenders.\" Marijuana laws are a big one here in Indiana, 45 minutes up the road i can go into any number of dispensaries and legally purchase my meds that make my life tolerable without being made to feel like a criminal, here your life is ruined if you're caught. I do not understand why lobbying is even allowed, how is this not bribery? They're purchasing legislation in their favor. And that's just one small aspect of the complete failure of our prison system..\nAs far as this particular republican terrorist and the rest of the supporters (cult members) are concerned, I would argue that most of these people were not suddenly converted into monsters because of GOP lies, they were always terrible, hateful people and were simply emboldened by the lies, blatant racism, and conspiracy bs. I've lived among these people my entire life and I assure you, they are worse than you think.\nEdit: typos",
">\n\nHe spent 7 years in jail (I think) for a smash and grab scheme he was involved in. Seems like he made some connections in jail",
">\n\nHomegrown Fascist Terrorist Republican!",
">\n\nTucker Carlson: \"Why is he being charged when he never pulled the trigger? Liberals are on tv constantly complaining about the lack of jobs, and when this man hires four people they lose their minds! This is an obvious attack on our second amendment rights.\"",
">\n\nToo mild a defence. Tucker will go straight to “We’re hearing murmurs about Santos being a Liberal plant. Now-this has NOTHING to do with his professed sexuality, and I understand, that’s his choooice.” But we need to ask the question. Why did the Democratic Party sooo conveniently* neglect to do even one iota of oppo research on this clown? I think the answer is simple. I think YOU are smart enough to know the answer yourselves.”",
">\n\nKilling your political opponents? Pretty sure that’s domestic terrorism. Is anyone surprised anymore by Right Wing terrorism?",
">\n\nThey are all Domestic Terrorists now.",
">\n\nIt most assuredly is. And conspiracy.",
">\n\nWatch him get probation.",
">\n\nWhen a mass shooter in Buffalo targeted a black supermarket last year, influenced by the gospel of Tucker Carlson, I thought, “maybe the media should stop normalizing the worrying radicalization of the Republican Party?”. But all was forgotten once the next news cycle arrived. It will happen this time too, and the next would-be political killer might succeed.",
">\n\nThis is what’s most disgusting about conservative politics.\nAny other group that engaged in this behavior would be systemically prosecuted for this behavior. At minimum, we’d be hearing conservatives call for profiling and torture. But the rest of us just have to live with these people’s constant insistence that the unpopularity of their beliefs and ideas justifies their violence.",
">\n\nConservatives are domestic terrorists",
">\n\nRepublicans. What can’t they do?"
] |
>
New Mexico police arrested a failed candidate for the state legislature in connection with a string of January shootings that appeared to be targeting prominent local Democratic officials.
This is a breaking news story and will be updated with new information.
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably",
">\n\nI am Jack's complete lack of suprise.",
">\n\n\n\"It is believed that he is the mastermind behind this,\" Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a press conference on Monday.\n\nI think it is a bit of stretch to use the term \"mastermind\".",
">\n\nFunky Ironic Medina.",
">\n\nOf course he’s Republican, softest group of people",
">\n\nRepublicans really really want a civil war. Wait till they find out liberals also own and know how to use guns.",
">\n\nWe just don't make it our identity",
">\n\nPretty much any time somebody talks to me at the range, they just assume I'm right wing. I never bother to disabuse them.",
">\n\nMy experience in the service. I was just hoping to get money for my liberal college education. Even weirder since I’m a minority.",
">\n\nYeah I'm middle aged white guy living in Texas. People assume right away that I'll agree with their MAGA insanity.",
">\n\nTo be fair it’s insane how many people have shown themselves since 2016. Kevin McHale (played with Celtics, former Timberwolves GM and coach) was at a trump rally and I was kinda shocked. His family was known for giving out king size candy at Halloween.",
">\n\nYeah I can't wait for it to be socially unacceptable to be a racist douchebag again.. if it ever happens.",
">\n\nI'm not a fan of the prison system in the US, but this guy is no ordinary criminal. He's someone who has been poisoned by the lies of the GOP. It's incumbent on whoever the judge is in this case to make an example out of Pena to make sure that this nonsense doesn't continue. There are literally millions of GOP voters who are also poisoned by the election lies, and if this piece of shit isn't sentenced to at least 30 years, they'll just continue where this asshole started.",
">\n\nYou're not wrong about our prison system, especially the private, for-profit prisons like we have in my right wing shit hole state.Their lobbyist pay off our politicians to keep the laws as draconian and harsh as possible so they can fill them up with mostly non violent \"offenders.\" Marijuana laws are a big one here in Indiana, 45 minutes up the road i can go into any number of dispensaries and legally purchase my meds that make my life tolerable without being made to feel like a criminal, here your life is ruined if you're caught. I do not understand why lobbying is even allowed, how is this not bribery? They're purchasing legislation in their favor. And that's just one small aspect of the complete failure of our prison system..\nAs far as this particular republican terrorist and the rest of the supporters (cult members) are concerned, I would argue that most of these people were not suddenly converted into monsters because of GOP lies, they were always terrible, hateful people and were simply emboldened by the lies, blatant racism, and conspiracy bs. I've lived among these people my entire life and I assure you, they are worse than you think.\nEdit: typos",
">\n\nHe spent 7 years in jail (I think) for a smash and grab scheme he was involved in. Seems like he made some connections in jail",
">\n\nHomegrown Fascist Terrorist Republican!",
">\n\nTucker Carlson: \"Why is he being charged when he never pulled the trigger? Liberals are on tv constantly complaining about the lack of jobs, and when this man hires four people they lose their minds! This is an obvious attack on our second amendment rights.\"",
">\n\nToo mild a defence. Tucker will go straight to “We’re hearing murmurs about Santos being a Liberal plant. Now-this has NOTHING to do with his professed sexuality, and I understand, that’s his choooice.” But we need to ask the question. Why did the Democratic Party sooo conveniently* neglect to do even one iota of oppo research on this clown? I think the answer is simple. I think YOU are smart enough to know the answer yourselves.”",
">\n\nKilling your political opponents? Pretty sure that’s domestic terrorism. Is anyone surprised anymore by Right Wing terrorism?",
">\n\nThey are all Domestic Terrorists now.",
">\n\nIt most assuredly is. And conspiracy.",
">\n\nWatch him get probation.",
">\n\nWhen a mass shooter in Buffalo targeted a black supermarket last year, influenced by the gospel of Tucker Carlson, I thought, “maybe the media should stop normalizing the worrying radicalization of the Republican Party?”. But all was forgotten once the next news cycle arrived. It will happen this time too, and the next would-be political killer might succeed.",
">\n\nThis is what’s most disgusting about conservative politics.\nAny other group that engaged in this behavior would be systemically prosecuted for this behavior. At minimum, we’d be hearing conservatives call for profiling and torture. But the rest of us just have to live with these people’s constant insistence that the unpopularity of their beliefs and ideas justifies their violence.",
">\n\nConservatives are domestic terrorists",
">\n\nRepublicans. What can’t they do?",
">\n\nThink rationally, comprehend basic science, compose a coherent thought or sentence, math, mind their own fucking business, keep their draconian legislation out of our country, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...\nOh, that was rhetorical 🤷♂️😁"
] |
>
The gqp is never tired of losing.
|
[
"Failed Republican candidate \n\nHe may be a failed candidate, but he sure does seem to have succeeded in being a Republican.",
">\n\nNext steps are to say it was a joke, blame Jewish space lasers, promote Trump over Bible, and he’ll be the next VP.",
">\n\nI think the Whitmer kidnappers had a good plan: claim anyone who squealed was an FBI agent and then cry about \"entrapment.\"",
">\n\nMAGA Domestic Terrorism continues.",
">\n\nIsn’t this attempted murder? They shot into a 10 year old daughter’s bedroom.",
">\n\nYes. But I'm sure rules are different given this is another Domestic Terrorist (Republican)",
">\n\nWhat’s the definition of terrorism? Asking for a friend.",
">\n\n\"It is still unclear if the shootings were politically motivated.\" /s",
">\n\nbOtH SiDeS tHoUgH, RiGhT?",
">\n\n“WeLl AckShully he’S A rEgiSterD DuMboCraT and ah shit…”",
">\n\n\nI will be rewarded\n\nThat's what all fascists think.",
">\n\nHe meant financially. All he has to do is claim it's rigged and spam a link for donations, and then he'd be set for life.",
">\n\nWell that's just confirms another projection made by MTG when she claimed the shootings have begun in regards to the killing of a kid because he was republican. \nThe shootings indeed have begun but republicans are the ones pulling the trigger",
">\n\nNot surprised. A republican doing republican things when they lose, this is only going to get worse.",
">\n\nSurely, no GOP could be worse than George Santos.\nSolomon Peña, hold my muddafukkin beer homey",
">\n\n19 felonies. How was this dude not locked up for life?",
">\n\nPut him in a cell with George Santos.",
">\n\nIf we don't hear republican politicians speak out against this domestic terrorism tomorrow, all hope is lost for that party. Not addressing the issue, is tacit support at this point.",
">\n\nThey will probably laugh about it like they laughed about Nancy pelosi’s husband while he was in the ICU.",
">\n\nMake an example of this guy and his co-conspirators. Charge them with terrorism in federal court.",
">\n\n\nYou can't chare failed political candidates with crimes within 4 years of a presidential election. You know...fairness and all.\n\nOur DOJ, probably",
">\n\nI am Jack's complete lack of suprise.",
">\n\n\n\"It is believed that he is the mastermind behind this,\" Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said at a press conference on Monday.\n\nI think it is a bit of stretch to use the term \"mastermind\".",
">\n\nFunky Ironic Medina.",
">\n\nOf course he’s Republican, softest group of people",
">\n\nRepublicans really really want a civil war. Wait till they find out liberals also own and know how to use guns.",
">\n\nWe just don't make it our identity",
">\n\nPretty much any time somebody talks to me at the range, they just assume I'm right wing. I never bother to disabuse them.",
">\n\nMy experience in the service. I was just hoping to get money for my liberal college education. Even weirder since I’m a minority.",
">\n\nYeah I'm middle aged white guy living in Texas. People assume right away that I'll agree with their MAGA insanity.",
">\n\nTo be fair it’s insane how many people have shown themselves since 2016. Kevin McHale (played with Celtics, former Timberwolves GM and coach) was at a trump rally and I was kinda shocked. His family was known for giving out king size candy at Halloween.",
">\n\nYeah I can't wait for it to be socially unacceptable to be a racist douchebag again.. if it ever happens.",
">\n\nI'm not a fan of the prison system in the US, but this guy is no ordinary criminal. He's someone who has been poisoned by the lies of the GOP. It's incumbent on whoever the judge is in this case to make an example out of Pena to make sure that this nonsense doesn't continue. There are literally millions of GOP voters who are also poisoned by the election lies, and if this piece of shit isn't sentenced to at least 30 years, they'll just continue where this asshole started.",
">\n\nYou're not wrong about our prison system, especially the private, for-profit prisons like we have in my right wing shit hole state.Their lobbyist pay off our politicians to keep the laws as draconian and harsh as possible so they can fill them up with mostly non violent \"offenders.\" Marijuana laws are a big one here in Indiana, 45 minutes up the road i can go into any number of dispensaries and legally purchase my meds that make my life tolerable without being made to feel like a criminal, here your life is ruined if you're caught. I do not understand why lobbying is even allowed, how is this not bribery? They're purchasing legislation in their favor. And that's just one small aspect of the complete failure of our prison system..\nAs far as this particular republican terrorist and the rest of the supporters (cult members) are concerned, I would argue that most of these people were not suddenly converted into monsters because of GOP lies, they were always terrible, hateful people and were simply emboldened by the lies, blatant racism, and conspiracy bs. I've lived among these people my entire life and I assure you, they are worse than you think.\nEdit: typos",
">\n\nHe spent 7 years in jail (I think) for a smash and grab scheme he was involved in. Seems like he made some connections in jail",
">\n\nHomegrown Fascist Terrorist Republican!",
">\n\nTucker Carlson: \"Why is he being charged when he never pulled the trigger? Liberals are on tv constantly complaining about the lack of jobs, and when this man hires four people they lose their minds! This is an obvious attack on our second amendment rights.\"",
">\n\nToo mild a defence. Tucker will go straight to “We’re hearing murmurs about Santos being a Liberal plant. Now-this has NOTHING to do with his professed sexuality, and I understand, that’s his choooice.” But we need to ask the question. Why did the Democratic Party sooo conveniently* neglect to do even one iota of oppo research on this clown? I think the answer is simple. I think YOU are smart enough to know the answer yourselves.”",
">\n\nKilling your political opponents? Pretty sure that’s domestic terrorism. Is anyone surprised anymore by Right Wing terrorism?",
">\n\nThey are all Domestic Terrorists now.",
">\n\nIt most assuredly is. And conspiracy.",
">\n\nWatch him get probation.",
">\n\nWhen a mass shooter in Buffalo targeted a black supermarket last year, influenced by the gospel of Tucker Carlson, I thought, “maybe the media should stop normalizing the worrying radicalization of the Republican Party?”. But all was forgotten once the next news cycle arrived. It will happen this time too, and the next would-be political killer might succeed.",
">\n\nThis is what’s most disgusting about conservative politics.\nAny other group that engaged in this behavior would be systemically prosecuted for this behavior. At minimum, we’d be hearing conservatives call for profiling and torture. But the rest of us just have to live with these people’s constant insistence that the unpopularity of their beliefs and ideas justifies their violence.",
">\n\nConservatives are domestic terrorists",
">\n\nRepublicans. What can’t they do?",
">\n\nThink rationally, comprehend basic science, compose a coherent thought or sentence, math, mind their own fucking business, keep their draconian legislation out of our country, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...\nOh, that was rhetorical 🤷♂️😁",
">\n\nNew Mexico police arrested a failed candidate for the state legislature in connection with a string of January shootings that appeared to be targeting prominent local Democratic officials.\nThis is a breaking news story and will be updated with new information."
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.