That is the worst idea I ever heard.

(Not surprisingly perhaps) I think it's a great idea.

However, I wonder how the vote to make it happen - with basically the same effects for the voters - could itself happen secretly. (I admit I only skimmed the article and perhaps that question was answered.)

I want Trump impeached. Mik, what are your reasons for being so emphatically against this option, other than the opposite wish? Or am I making undue assumptions about how you view the desirability/undesirability of impeachment?

I don't care who or what is being impeached, Secret ballots in this process are about as bad an idea for transparent government as I can imagine.

A whole lot of people have wanted him impeached before he even took office. The damage these constant attempts are doing is, IMO, greater and longer lasting than anything he has done or will do.

I see your point, Mik. It's perfectly valid. Yet we do have juries where the individual votes are not disclosed. In this scenario, the Senate is acting as a jury.

We have the elephant of special interests and a lot of money influencing legislators' actions.

I don't want a particular result, but I do want them to listen to the evidence presented to them , to evaluate it on its merits (or lack thereof), and to vote their conscience rather than protecting their job. I'm not sure they can do that in the current climate and with their dependence on big money. A secret vote would strip away that pressure.

But I get the accountability aspect.

As far as the damage "these constant attempts" are doing, we're far along that path. We've been seeing that unleashed on the Clintons for three decades.

Welcome to our world.

I don't really believe you think "big money" would sway the public vote, wtg. I think you believe that accountability to voters would, and you would be intrigued to see that accountability minimized.

Horace, you're always telling me what I think. I don't know what I'd do without you.

But I'll try.

quote:

Originally posted by wtg:
Horace, you're always telling me what I think. I don't know what I'd do without you.

But I'll try.

quote:

Originally posted by Piano*Dad:

quote:

Originally posted by wtg:
Horace, you're always telling me what I think. I don't know what I'd do without you.

But I'll try.

Ah yes, the patented P*D giggle when someone from his in-group makes fun of someone from his out-group. Such a brilliant sense of humor.

quote:

Originally posted by Horace:

quote:

Originally posted by Piano*Dad:

quote:

Originally posted by wtg:
Horace, you're always telling me what I think. I don't know what I'd do without you.

But I'll try.

Ah yes, the patented P*D giggle when someone from his in-group makes fun of someone from his out-group. Such a brilliant sense of humor.

It seems to me that you open yourself up to justifiable ridicule when you attempt to tell people what they think. (You captioned it as "I don't believe" and "I believe", but somehow those words just didn't seem sincere to me.) And yeah, there are some clever people here, and sometimes the way they poke back is humorous. And yeah, other people are sometimes happy to note their appreciation of the humor.

I'm really sorry you don't think you're one of the cool kids.

Was that you, trying to imagine what I must be thinking? That I imagine that group to be cool? I used the words "in-group" and "out-group". It's funny that you thought I meant "cool" and "not". Actually everybody has in-groups and out-groups, cool or, in that case, not.

But hey, at least you were funny.

I’m with Mik (Even though I think the current President is a disgusting disaster). Secret ballots are a mistake. We should know how people we voted into office would vote on this.

I think the congresscritters who vote should be accountable to their constituents. Secret ballots keep that from happening.

Yes, I agree with Mik and Jodi and Steve. Jurors are not accountable for how they vote. Congresspeople are.

I totally get where you guys are coming from, and I respect your view that the accountability is to the voters.

Unfortunately I no longer believe that individual voters' interests are the ones represented by Congresscritters. With a few exceptions, I think they are largely working in their own interests which are defined and controlled by the people who fund their campaigns. As the saying goes, follow the money.

There has been much reported about what members of the GOP are saying in private versus what they're willing to say publicly. The disconnect is stark.

I'm looking for a way to reduce the power of the money and how it affects the Congresscritters' decision making; you are looking for a way to preserve the power of the people to vote out those who are not representing their interests. I'm thinking that ship is long out of the harbor.

Mitch McConnell's approval rating in Kentucky is 18 percent right now. I'm guessing he'll be re-elected, and I don't think it's going to be because he suddenly changed what he's doing. It's going to be because people with enough money figured out ways to keep him in power.

Like I said, I truly respect what y'all are saying. I wish I had your optimism.