Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (4738)	11/14/2006 3:32:46 PM
From: Jim S	Respond to of 10087

As I said earlier, I don't want it to be a discussion of MY criteria, rather a discussion of some sort of criteria required to reseat a congress critter. The idea is to weed out the worst of the batch, establishing some sort of minimum standard required by both bodies of their members. "That's in terms of addressing specific things and trying to make it work. My larger concern is that political criteria are IMO more important. If someone votes the way I want them to I care more about that then most of the other criteria (the only possible exception being ethics). Of course political criteria get measured by the actual elections, so its not like they are not considered at all, or are replaced by this system." Exactly!! It's up to the voters to decide who they want in Congress, but Congress itself has the ability, and I think the responsibility, to determine its own standards for admission. A low ranked congressman SHOULD be rejected by voters, and even if he isn't rejected, the Congress can refuse to admit him. Now, the Ethics Committee can recommend to the body as a whole that a particular person can be censured or even expelled, so the power is there. Freshman Senators and Reps would come in with a clean slate. The objections you raise regarding my rating points are valid -- but the idea of HOW to implement such a system is something that would have to be worked out by the bodies themselves. I could go on and on about how I would implement such a rating system, but it would be an effort in futility, not worth the effort. "If such a rating system existed, it could have an effect even if it isn't tied to term limits. Someone scoring low would give a club to his opponents to use against him next election." SHACK!! It should motivate congress critters to care at least as much about the job they're doing as spending most of their efforts raising money for their next election.

To: TimF who wrote (4738)	11/14/2006 3:45:02 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10087

I would like to see a ranking system of some sort, that is easily decipherable for the common folk. It could be used by us unsophisticated voters as a way of viewing the job performance of representatives. Much better than the current climate where resources are spent trying to motivate voters to rally behind a particular team. Setting the criteria is tricky. We've tried to do that in education for years, without a lot of success. In education, if you use the scores on tests, then the Calculus teacher will get merit pay while the special ed teacher will be fired, when the quality of work done by each might merit just the opposite. Every other competitive performance measure has similar quirks. We don't have a problem establishing a standard however... show up on time, have decent lesson plans, account for grades, manage your classroom etc. Beyond that, we set individual growth goals for each teacher. Many of us would view the ethics criteria from a zero tolerance perspective, if we had a fair and reliable measure and an accountable reporting system.