Just as we could save by reducing the number of government employees, we could save mucho by reducing the size of Congress. With the two party system we "ENJOY" in the USA, representatives, no matter what state and district they're from, vote whatever way the party directs them to vote. My plan would still allow every eligible person to vote except that they'd vote for the party, not a person. The party would then select one person to represent the party in Washington and they would have a vote weighted by the percentage of the total number if votes the party had received. There'd be no need for debate or a place to debate, no Congressional offices, fewer people to receive pensions and perks and to hire their relatives, and the list goes on.
This suggestion probably sounds facetious, and it is, but in truth, the result of congressional action would not change much and we'd save a ton of money. Why pay all those people, listen to meaningless debates, which sway no one, and often make no sense, when the votes have been predetermined by the party? They could decide between themselves which states get what and how much. That's about all state representation is good for anyhow.
What do you think?
This suggestion probably sounds facetious, and it is, but in truth, the result of congressional action would not change much and we'd save a ton of money. Why pay all those people, listen to meaningless debates, which sway no one, and often make no sense, when the votes have been predetermined by the party? They could decide between themselves which states get what and how much. That's about all state representation is good for anyhow.
What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment