Slashdot Mirror
House Candidate Lets Web Users Set His Schedule
brahn at actblue writes "From ABC News: Jeff Seemann, running for one of Ohio's seats in the House of Representatives, '...has an unusual approach in deciding how to spend his campaign. He asks Web surfers: Should he sleep in? Prepare for his debate? Campaign door to door?' (More coverage here and here.)
Best of all: Jeff is fighting back against Diebold and their paperless voting machines -- and they're based in his district!"
its nice to see a new angle pop up every now and again, but if elected do you think he will still be letting the web votes run his time in office?
considering how Diebold is in his district and will proably crush him with massive donations to his opponent.
If he is very good and genuine, he may stand a chance, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Nifty Ideas for input, though. And I can appriciate a man who stands up for what he thinks is right.
If I had a real
I don't really think any more needs to be said.
Software piracy is victimless theft.
What happens when his opponent hires someone to use millions of proxies for him to drop out of the race? Or something similar?
got sig?
I have always wondered what would happen if one of our representatives hosted a web site that allowed people in his/her district to know what votes were coming up in Congress, how he/she is planning to vote and why, and allowed some informal polling and commentary on the issues. I know this isn't what this guy is doing, but I wonder if it isn't the logical next step. You'd have to think that that sort of system would be the ideal of a representative democracy, but alas I don't expect any career politician to actually document their position on everything and set themselves up to be held accountable to their constituency. Especially since if they ever run for higher office that sort of thing gets used against them.
There is a lot more to the legislative process than showing up and pushing a button.
If they don't have to be there to vote, why should we expect them to show up for anything else? Requiring them to be there in person demands a certain level of responsibility.
If they don't care enough to get off their rear and show up to vote, they don't deserve to be able to be lazy and vote from their sofa.
If you want them to be there more often, you might want to extend their term, then they would spend less time campaigning. Or you could limit any campaigning during the last few months of the term before an election.
Also, Cheney's remark about Edwards missing votes was sort of a lie. Cheney had indeed met Edwards many times before, even on camera. They sat next to each other on stage at a formal event in 2001 (courtesy of the Daily Show). Cheney himself was in the Senate less than Edwards.
What?
The Congressperson must be present in order to vote within a small window of time.
But that's the one time when they really "represent" us? You know, this is, afterall, a *representative* democracy.
Don't think I'm attacking Kerry when I say this; it goes for all congress people: I understand missing one or two unimportant votes--I really do. But when you're too busy whoring yourself out to special interest groups and corporations to be bothered by your "civic duty," there's a problem.
I think we need to enact a law that requires at least 70% attendance for all votes or else the congressperson is sent back to his or her district for re-election. No exceptions.
Of course this would require that congress itself impose this limitation--fat chance, but one could always hope that those its against wouldn't vote as usual.
-Grym