Of course we could lose some very good legislators in that process.

I'd like to see some sort of super-majority threshold for incumbents. If you have been there six years and doing a great job you should have to get 55% of the vote to retain your seat, not just a bare majority. For succeeding elections it needs to be 60%.

Maybe apply that to the primary process, but we need to weed out all but the most universally recognized 'cant do without' candidates.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Wtodd

Tampa, FL

Member since Oct 2013

67524 posts

Posted on 10/23/17 at 1:11 pm to ChineseBandit58

quote:
Of course we could lose some very good legislators in that process.

This is 1 of my concerns. The other is, IMO, our forefathers set up a perfect system for electing Prezs, Congressman & Senators; the more power you have the less yrs your term is......House (they have the purse strings) 2 yrs, Prez - 4 yrs and Senators - 6 yrs. So by taking away this constitutional 'power' from the voters doesn't sit well with me. However on the other hand, most voters are idiots and don't do their homework.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by troyt37

Member since Mar 2008

13355 posts

Posted on 10/23/17 at 1:51 pm to ChineseBandit58

quote:
I'd like to see some sort of super-majority threshold for incumbents. If you have been there six years and doing a great job you should have to get 55% of the vote to retain your seat, not just a bare majority. For succeeding elections it needs to be 60%.

Seems a recipe for guaranteed corruption and using taxpayer money to buy votes to me. There are no legislators we can't do without. Only the power of lifetime politicians and their corruption and influence peddling, allows a single legislator the power to make a big difference in Congress.

0 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board