IntenseDebate - Doug

14 years ago @ GrassrootsPA - LEGISLATORS DISAGREE O... · 0 replies · +1 points

With all the heat my previous comment added, I thought it would be useful to post a link to the actual text of the proposed bill:

HB 2052

Always better to actually know what we're discussing...

14 years ago @ GrassrootsPA - LEGISLATORS DISAGREE O... · 0 replies · +1 points

Yeah, you don't support the status quo until anyone has an idea about changing it. Then you denigrate anything that might have a chance of making a difference. Sorry, your claim rings false. You didn't even investigate the proposed bill before belittling it.

14 years ago @ GrassrootsPA - LEGISLATORS DISAGREE O... · 2 replies · +1 points

It seems like you like the status quo enough to keep supporting it too.

14 years ago @ GrassrootsPA - LEGISLATORS DISAGREE O... · 4 replies · +1 points

My point, Russ. And this proposed amendment would be an enforcement mechanism.

14 years ago @ GrassrootsPA - LEGISLATORS DISAGREE O... · 0 replies · +2 points

See my comment immediately above. You're just being an enabler if you give them a pass on not doing their constitutional duty. If you don't care about ignoring this provision of the constitution, then you should push for its removal from the constitution. But saying, don't bother abiding by the constitution is completely wrong-headed.

14 years ago @ GrassrootsPA - LEGISLATORS DISAGREE O... · 0 replies · +1 points

Then repeal the deadline for passing a budget entirely. But having such a deadline and then not enforcing it in any way (and this is at least an attempt at an enforcement mechanism) only encourages the flouting of other laws and constitutional requirements. Your position does nothing to help the situation and encourages even less respect for duty.

14 years ago @ GrassrootsPA - LEGISLATORS DISAGREE O... · 4 replies · +1 points

Those voting machines are brought in and serviced before any election, as you say. This would not be a special election, but would add races to a regularly scheduled general election. The cost increase would likely be minimal. As I mentioned in my response to Russ, his questions need to be answered, but they're no reason to reject the concept out of hand. Your last idea is nice, and will never happen. Unless they're sanctioned for not doing their duty, they will just continue to ignore it as they please.

As to would they pass any crappy budget so as to not face a vote, who knows? Maybe. How would that be worse than not having any budget at all for 101 days?

14 years ago @ GrassrootsPA - LEGISLATORS DISAGREE O... · 0 replies · +1 points

I haven't actually read the bill yet. I don't know if this would be a full-up election with opponents, or a retention election similar to Supreme Court ones. I'll have to look at the state constitution to see if it's possible to hold any legislator legally responsible for his words in the general assembly. I know that what you're proposing would be unconstitutional at a national level. However, this idea is far from ridiculous. It deserves serious consideration. If there are structural problems (and I admit that your questions need to be answered) they should be addressed. But don't throw out the entire concept of accountability to the voters just because you don't see instantly how it would work.

14 years ago @ GrassrootsPA - LEGISLATORS DISAGREE O... · 6 replies · +1 points

Why do you think it would cost the taxpayers any great amount? There are only two possibilities. First, the special elections are called on an odd-numbered year. This would require ballots to be printed with all the races listed on them. Second, the special elections are called on an even-numbered year. This would require ballots to be printed with just a few extra races listed. It's not as though this is calling for special elections. It's calling for votes on the legislators and governor in the next general election. I don't see any major extra expense.

14 years ago @ GrassrootsPA - LEGISLATORS DISAGREE O... · 0 replies · +1 points

Still missing the point. The fact that the cause of the retention was relatively recent would have a marked effect. And I don't think anyone can know what effect quick elections would have as to empowering the parties or not, as they've never been done before. I suspect that they'd have just the opposite effect since there wouldn't be the prolonged period for campaigning, allowing less well funded candidates chances to participate at the same levels as the party-blessed ones.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with Doug_Loss

People I'm following

Doug_Loss