Pennylynn wrote:
Morgan,
Just to make sure we are on the same page. When I read your initial post, I understood that you were angry over some law that the outgoing (the lame duck administration) was trying to pass to make the incoming elected official's job harder or impossible. And reading this, it seems you are saying that you do not know what laws these are, have not read them, or have a link to the offending legislation. But, you are upset because of the lame duck position that the new administration will be put into. A lame duck position is a term that applies to the outgoing official making most of their laws ineffectual. So, I am kinda confused on why you are angry.
What are you suggesting in your second paragraph? As I read it, it seems that you are suggesting that the representatives should not be voted into office, that the seat should be stagnant. A mandatory limitation. Meaning that the only position to be settled by vote would be for President.... or would you like to see that changed too? Am I understanding you right?
I will set this aside and read it again later. I may have simply missed your point because I have not slept for a few days. I admit, I have not searched for the new legislation. I promise I will do that before drawing further conclusions. Sorry, but I guess I am too tired to be on OPP right now.
Morgan, br br Just to make sure we are on the sam... (
show quote)
It's been a busy and exhausting day for me also. I will try and clarify. First, let me say I guess I do get angry over manipulations from either party when it is only in their own self-interest to gain control and not in the best interest of our country or governing.
I don't agree with parties seeking full control I believe we would function better with a balance of seats from each party, I realize that's not how it's done, but the manipulations would stop if the number of seats were set, new people would come and go. This would also fit in well with putting term limits on representatives. That's something I find we al agree on.