Why do they save stuff for the second term? The second term is not guaranteed, and so I'd think they'd want to do the things they actually want to do so that they can make sure they have a shot at getting them done.
---
Fame is but a slow decay.
-Theodore Tilton
Because the thing they really want most of all, above all that, is the second term.
---
"To truly live, one must first be born." ~ Evan [aX]
Paper Mario Social: The Safe Haven of GameFAQs. (Board 2000083)
Also, it gives the people incentive to vote for the politician, which isn't totally illegitimate. You certainly wouldn't vote for somebody who had no future plans.
Of course, being unproductive on purpose for political gain still sucks.
This makes me lose even more faith in the political system than I had already. :/
And if they don't want to run out of plans, how about this...
Execute all their plans, and then respond to the new state of affairs with new plans? I mean, priorities have to change over four years enough to give new room for new plans? Or at the very least, plans which didn't pan out can be tried from a different angle.
---
Fame is but a slow decay.
-Theodore Tilton
Wouldn't it be nice if the political system could work that way? But our system doesn't promote politicians who make political change for public support. It promotes politicians who can earn enough money from lobbyists to run a successful campaign.
---
"I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific."
I've had enough of this stupid plutocratic republic. Let's try democracy for a change.
---
Jordan, quoting Genesis 2:18: "It is not good for man to be alone."
Fred: "in genesis noah also put two of every animal on a boat when he was 600."
Democracy! I'm still waiting on the robocracy.
---
SIGNATURE
Eh, I don't want a democracy. At least, not until we have herd immunity to stupidity.
(I was having a conversation with some coworkers about this earlier today. It was a conversation about whether we should be pushing so hard for everyone to go to college. And while yes, many people don't need to go, the country overall would be better if enough people had an effective, generalized liberal arts education. And just like how, when enough people get a vaccine it covers for the people who don't, if enough people have an education it covers for the people who don't. But we're not at that level yet.)
---
"To truly live, one must first be born." ~ Evan [aX]
Paper Mario Social: The Safe Haven of GameFAQs. (Board 2000083)
I haven't given much thought to abuses of it, but my immediate reaction to trying to create a form of government would go something like this...
We replace Congress with voting through the internet (though safety precautions would be needed for hacking, and we'd have to find some way to accommodate older people who weren't comfortable with the internet). Anyone could vote on anything, but, you could also set your votes to match another voter's. People with a sufficient number of people using their vote would get some monetary compensation (so that they could afford to work less to become better informed on the issues). People's votes would follow the votes of these representatives by default, but they could change them at any time. Maybe people with enough voters relying on them would have to vote early so that they couldn't pull any twists. Plenty more fine tuning could be done, and even then, there'd probably be some big holes in it, but I think that's going to be true of about any form of government conceivable.
---
Fame is but a slow decay.
-Theodore Tilton
I feel like internet voting to that level would cut out a lot of people who can't afford or don't know how to use a computer. So that's one bad thing.
---
Was it a car or a cat I saw?
Hm, yes, I like this idea of opt-in political representation. Can I set my votes to match Richard Stallman's?
---
Jordan, quoting Genesis 2:18: "It is not good for man to be alone."
Fred: "in genesis noah also put two of every animal on a boat when he was 600."
Well in theory it takes time to build up the political good will to get stuff through congress. That goes double or triple if you have the filibusteringest congress in recent memory.
---
Willis, it seems like every other time you post, I need to look up a word that's in the OED or Urban Dictionary but not both.
-Mimir
Oh, I like that idea, Spock (though of course the logistics need work). It's like you can have an instant recall of a representative, which is good.
---
"To truly live, one must first be born." ~ Evan [aX]
Paper Mario Social: The Safe Haven of GameFAQs. (Board 2000083)
My problem with democracy is that, well, people aren't capable of governing themselves correctly. I don't think they should have that right. We talk about rights and freedom, but while we exercise ours, we destroy the future's right to be. Self-serving styles of government where personal profit determines motive are the slow route to destruction.
Everyone (in general, not necessarily any PMSian) seems to be on the bandwagon that freedom is good without having analyzed what good is and whether freedom is a part of that. Much the same I might say that crack is good, because I like it, but I have my doubts that it's really beneficial to myself or society.
Robots, 2012.
---
SIGNATURE
:damn:
---
Willis, it seems like every other time you post, I need to look up a word that's in the OED or Urban Dictionary but not both.
-Mimir
**** life without freedom.
---
"...you should try reading my posts being getting all emo." --FoxMetal