Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Poll Question of the Week: Congressional Control 8

Journal by pudge

"Which party do you want to control Congress?" Since there are 535 members of Congress and no one gets to vote for more than three of them, and those votes often have a lot less to do with parties than incumbencies ... who cares which party anyone wants to control Congress?

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Poll Question of the Week: Congressional Control More

Poll Question of the Week: Congressional Control

Comments Filter:
  • I want more than two parties. I guess its really a pipe dream anymore. I don't want either party to have a clear majority. I want all the parties to have to write bills that help out the people of the United States, and not just the people who contributed to their campaign fund / re-election fund / daughter's braces / son's promising professional foozball career.
    • Anyone know of a republic that only uses winner-take-all [wikipedia.org] voting and has more than just two parties controlling almost everything?

      If libertarians or greens are ever to gain significant power, the election system needs to change. Perhaps by using Condorcet or Proportional election methods. Perhaps by capping campaign spending so smaller parties aren't drowned by advertizing. Perhaps by ending corporate campaign contributions because the SC overturns it's rulings about personhood. Then wealthy libertarians
      • If libertarians or greens are ever to gain significant power, the election system needs to change.

        If that were true, then the Federalists and Democrat-Republicans would still be in control of the U.S. political system. We've basically had five major parties in this country's history, although only two for the past 150 years, and never more than two at a time for more than a very short period of time. But the point is that parties can die off and be replaced *if the people and politicians want them to.*

        Per
        • I only said capping corporate contributions. Let Nader get a million dollars from each of 100 people, just not corporations.

          Perhaps McCain and Feingold will yet find a way to limit PACs.

          Seems like the Dems and Reps will keep shifting their platform to the left and right as much as needed to stay in power. So they'd rather betray some of their principles than die off.
  • From my perspective, I would like to see Republicans in control of the senate, as that is where spending originates. Then, either the house or the president in control by Democrats.

    It is obvious over the last couple years with having the Republicans in control of both houses and the whitehouse spending, or atleast reigning in spending, is not a high priority. Without contention they spend money like it is going out of style.

    Now, the toss up is the presidency or the house. In the event of war, threats, an
    • I would like to see Republicans in control of the senate

      My point is that what anyone wants doesn't matter at all. Public opinion on the matter is unimportant. I don't care who anyone wants to control Congress. :-)

      as [the Senate] is where spending originates

      You have it backward: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." It is raising revenue, not spending, that is restricted to one house, and it is the House, not the Senate, to which it is constricted.
      • Sorry, I thought you were actually asking, not making commentary on public opinion polls. Leave nuance for Kerry.

        You have it backward:

        </idiotmode>

        Doh, curse my damn brain. I shouldn't post without more than 24hours of sleep. My bad.
    • Um, spending bills originate in the house.

Slashdot Top Deals

APL is a write-only language. I can write programs in APL, but I can't read any of them. -- Roy Keir

Close