Quote:
Originally Posted by scaeagles
I agree to an extent. However, their votes would then be more often be in line with what they think is best rather than what they think is politically expedient.
|
Vaguely so, but I really don't think it would be enough to make a huge difference. The only thing it really cuts out is votes and deals based on long standing personal relationships between individual representatives. The larger scale deal making and politic-motivated voting between parties at odds with each other will continue no matter how often you rotate the individuals. I agree that it would be an improvement, but not enough for me to be hugely motivated to fight for term limits. And definitely not enough for me to vote term limits in for my own state while other states remain limit-free.
And yeah, you're right Alex, damned if you do, damned if you don't. They've kinda put themselves in this position, though, by going through the charade of publically reaming Paulson and company, only to turn around and say, "We've almost come to an agreement!" And then, by ditching that agreement, coming to another one, and voting THAT one down, it's painfully obvious that they've stopped making decisions based on what's best to do but they're just riding the wave of public opinion.