A Closer Look …
with Anthony Newcombe
This month’s topic: Why are there so few prerequisites in running for congress?
Like some of you (okay, many) the past few weeks, we’ve been perusing and marking our bingo cards – I mean, election cards- in the hopes of putting in charge the group that is destined to either botch our next several years or rescue them from the “evil ones” (you feel free to pick your sides – my job is hard enough here folks!).
Then, we patiently endure seemingly endless hours/ days/ weeks in tallying everything up. Then, we huddle up around our televisions (or computers) and moan, groan, cheer, and sigh as the results slowly and methodically drift across our screens. We’ve even been conditioned to wait for “run-off results” later in the year. How does that help to increase “voter turnout?” Koo-koo, right?
My question is: why are we putting ourselves through all of this when it seems all the “elected” must do is find enough people to mark their ballots in their direction? I mean, I don’t know about you, but I personally think it’s irresponsible to run for office to create the laws of the land when you can’t even prove that you know anything about anything.
Are members of congress lawmakers – or very expensive seat fillers with rubber stamps?
I mean, some of these “candidates” couldn’t get elected dog catcher because most American voters love their dogs (cats too) way too much to put them through hell dealing with an incompetent “d-catcher” for the next 2-6 years. There must be a better way.
So, basically, there are age and residence restrictions. Should the candidate be required to know anything about the law? Why not? Why would a lawmaker not be required to know anything about the law before occupying a spot that pays nearly $200,000 per year of tax-payer dollars?