Legislators...yeah they suck.

[Mithrandir]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-10-11/1A-state-lawmakers-pump-pensions/50522036/1

Wyoming gets it right-- no pensions for legislators.

[Bob Kohm]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ons/50522036/1

Wyoming gets it right-- no pensions for legislators.

That's a great idea-- because what will get more people to stand for election during a period in which they have to undergo a public proctoscopy than making it financially disinteresting, too? I'll never understand why smart people put their frustrations in front of their intellect on this topic.

[Mithrandir]

That's a great idea-- because what will get more people to stand for election during a period in which they have to undergo a public proctoscopy than making it financially disinteresting, too? I'll never understand why smart people put their frustrations in front of their intellect on this topic.

Well maybe the job shouldn't be full time with benefits. I'll never understand why people think throwing money at the situation will somehow lead to a better class of legislature?

Here's a thought Bob..maybe get people who actually are interested in doing what's best for all, instead of people who just want the job for the perks.

But you just stick to your notion that bigger and better financial incentives will get the best people in the position. State budgetary problems prove you wrong. I'll never understand why smart people can't understand this.

[Bob Kohm]

Well maybe the job shouldn't be full time with benefits. I'll never understand why people think throwing money at the situation will somehow lead to a better class of legislature?

Here's a thought Bob..maybe get people who actually are interested in doing what's best for all, instead of people who just want the job for the perks.

People who are actually interested in doing what's best for all frequently have mortgages, families to support, kids in school and if elected frequently need to keep a second residence in another city in the state. They are generally highly educated people who, in order to serve, must either walk away from or curtail a high paying job.

Part time legislatures are an even bigger mess-- they are even more chock full of conflicts of interest that full timers. All of a sudden you have a Senator who must vote on state liquor board issues who also has a legal practice securing liquor licenses (I've known two and worked with a third who were in exactly that situation). Recuse themselves from the votes is what many say-- which effectively strips the people of their district on representation on the issue, making it clearly the wrong answer. How about a land developer faced with land use issues in his part time Assembly seat? Been there, done that one, too. A labor leader voting on union related bills? Bingo, done that one.

Being a legislator is a highly stressful job requiring nights, weekends, extensive travel, frequent family issues resulting from those factors, etc. The solution to getting better legislators isn't taking away benefits or salary, no matter how much that might make some $26,000 per year drone feel warm and fuzzy. Teh solution is adequate compensation and an atmosphere that doesn't make good people look at the job and say, "Why should I have to deal with this crap to serve my state?".

[Mithrandir]

Then why are so mant states so f**cked up budgetarily?

Part of the solution has to be way more accountability on the behavior of the legislators when it comes to doing their job. Does offering adequate compensation mean this will occur? It hasn't so far. You can pay each legislator a million dollars a year if you want, but that won't necessarily mean things will be run better in Capitol City.

Maybe i give them too little credit..and maybe you give them too much credit.

[Bob Kohm]

Then why are so mant states so f**cked up budgetarily?

Part of the solution has to be way more accountability on the behavior of the legislators when it comes to doing their job. Does offering adequate compensation mean this will occur? It hasn't so far. You can pay each legislator a million dollars a year if you want, but that won't necessarily mean things will be run better in Capitol City.

Maybe i give them too little credit..and maybe you give them too much credit.

The answer to the accountability argument is so blindingly obvious-- voter turnout rates. Get more than 13% of eligible voters to turn out for a special election or more than 55% for a general and you're going to have a hell of a lot more accountability. Isn't anybody else weary of the bull**** mantra "Our vote doesn't make a difference"? Our votes are the only thing that make a difference-- let a candidate spend a fortune of lobbyist money on an election-- if you're too smart listen to the commercials the money buys it doesn't buy her anything. People talk about buying votes-- you can't buy votes, you can only buy attention and attention is paid by the voters, not bought by the candidate.

The problem with the system isn't salary or term limits or any of the other old saws we're constantly handed by those too uneducated, stupid or lazy to vote-- it is that many people are too uneducated, stupid or lazy to vote responsibly. Stop this nonsensical drive to teach only math and science in the schools and go back to teaching civics and history; that's how you'll get better government.

[nots]

The answer to the accountability argument is so blindingly obvious-- voter turnout rates. Get more than 13% of eligible voters to turn out for a special election or more than 55% for a general and you're going to have a hell of a lot more accountability. Isn't anybody else weary of the bull**** mantra "Our vote doesn't make a difference"? Our votes are the only thing that make a difference-- let a candidate spend a fortune of lobbyist money on an election-- if you're too smart listen to the commercials the money buys it doesn't buy her anything. People talk about buying votes-- you can't buy votes, you can only buy attention and attention is paid by the voters, not bought by the candidate.

The problem with the system isn't salary or term limits or any of the other old saws we're constantly handed by those too uneducated, stupid or lazy to vote-- it is that many people are too uneducated, stupid or lazy to vote responsibly. Stop this nonsensical drive to teach only math and science in the schools and go back to teaching civics and history; that's how you'll get better government.

I don't really agree with Mith's assertion, but a House of Reps that probably has 300 safe seats for the 2012 election is problematic. Party primaries that are virtually lifetime appointments are part of the problem. A criminal level of arrogance displayed by these lifers (Peter King and Barney Frank for instance) are problematic. When districts are so rigged and so gerrymandered that the outcome is a foregone conclusion, voter apathy sets in--hence your 55% turnouts. Again, I'm not supporting what Mith says--it's just your analysis is pretty superficial.
Any inside word on NY9 being dissolved when the seats are reapportioned?

[Mithrandir]

The answer to the accountability argument is so blindingly obvious-- voter turnout rates. Get more than 13% of eligible voters to turn out for a special election or more than 55% for a general and you're going to have a hell of a lot more accountability. Isn't anybody else weary of the bull**** mantra "Our vote doesn't make a difference"? Our votes are the only thing that make a difference-- let a candidate spend a fortune of lobbyist money on an election-- if you're too smart listen to the commercials the money buys it doesn't buy her anything. People talk about buying votes-- you can't buy votes, you can only buy attention and attention is paid by the voters, not bought by the candidate.

The problem with the system isn't salary or term limits or any of the other old saws we're constantly handed by those too uneducated, stupid or lazy to vote-- it is that many people are too uneducated, stupid or lazy to vote responsibly. Stop this nonsensical drive to teach only math and science in the schools and go back to teaching civics and history; that's how you'll get better government.

100% agree.

[Bob Kohm]

Superficial? Rigged districts? Not really. Why is a district rigged, because it has a higher proportion of people registered to a party? So what-- we've seen quite a few breakdown districts over the previous three cycles, where the "wrong" candidate has won. The reality is that even in a district that goes heavily to one party or another the nominee or incumbent need not be safe from a primary challenge. You're putting the cart in front when you say "rigged district, hence low turnout"; those should be the districts where you would see the higher turnouts if you got good challenges going, particularly in a primary. The standard pushback is that it costs too much to stage a primary against an incumbent, and that is true to an extent-- but breaks down when a candidate runs for the seat two or three times and has a decent media plan. If voters are going to sit around and wait to be energized they're going to get the government they deserve; if they manage to energize themselves they're going to get something more to their liking.

In the end this whole "it's too hard to run/why should I vote" stuff sounds suspiciously like the chorus that small market teams/fans sing every year. You may have to try harder if you're Milwaukee or Cincinnati or running in NY-3 or NY-5, but it can be done and it has been demonstrated time and again. Voter apathy is a symptom that should be so easily cured but people allow it to go on and on and then complain about it as if they have no power over it.

[DMT]

Voter apathy is a symptom that should be so easily cured but people allow it to go on and on and then complain about it as if they have no power over it.

Yes it's called compulsory voting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting#Contemporary

[Bob Kohm]

Yes it's called compulsory voting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compuls...g#Contemporary

Illogical extreme-- it produces an even less informed electorate. People have to want to vote and realize that their vote does matter, and that all comes down to education.

[nots]

. Why is a district rigged, because it has a higher proportion of people registered to a party? .

No--because its boundaries are laughable-- Murtha's old district, most of Texas, City of Philadelphia on a local level. You're not really denying both parties are complicit in creating very arbitrary boundaries in order to keep many, many seats safe are you?