Lightdemon

That rule is suppose to protect the integrity of the house votes. It has the same idea that Nancy Riddle uses in her legislation. Why does Riddle say that there needs to be a law to maintain the idea of "one person, one vote" when she votes more than twice herself on many occasions?

If that rule is not enforced, then there needs to be a change in oversight.

__________________
"My trade is to say what I think" - Voltaire

Lightdemon

Then obviously there is an oversight issue.

Stinger

Like the rest of them who agreed to do so.

That is their decision.

__________________
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." Marcus Aurelius
Proud member of the Gang of Five, the gang that is always right!
No Personal Attacks, if you can't debate the issue go elsewhere.

Stinger

They oversee themselves.

Lightdemon

If they oversee themselves, then who are they accountable to? Themselves? You don't see the inherent problem in this? Tell me, in a democracy, who is the government accountable to?

The fact that law makers are suggesting that the idea of "one person, one vote" is important to maintain, shows just how hypocritical they are. They say that it's part of maintaining integrity, but where's the integrity when they are casting thier own votes? When they're casting votes for other representatives?

Why do we vote for representatives anyway? If they don't actually vote on our behalf?

Stinger

As far as their deliberative rules yes.

No, the federal Congress does the same thing.

We're not a democracy.

For elections where the public is involved, not legislation and deliberations in their house.
It does nothing of the sort.

Of public elections.

If the other congressman is in a committee meeting and ask the other congressman to cast it for them what is your gripe?

If the voted is cast as they want it to be cast how is it not on your behalf?

Lightdemon

Petitio Principii, aka Begging the Question. Fallacy #1

Argumentum ad Populum. Fallacy #2

.....yeah......clearly you're delusional. No fallacy here, you're just wrong.

And that's why it's hypocritical.

Just because you can slice my sentence in half, doesn't make it wrong.

What's the difference voting for different things? It's point was about preserving integrity at the polls, not the type of polls. Why draw distinctions if those distinctions are not important? Another fallacy, red herring.

So why are law makers passing a bill that does not allow people to vote if they cannot drive to the polls themselves? How come law makers want a law that stops people from telling people to vote on thier stead?

Hypocrisy.

And how do we know that the vote was cast correctly? During voting time, how many times do House Reps vote? Do you think that each House Rep knows each other so well, that they memorized how each other would vote?

You're giving optimism where it is not due.

RightinNYC

Again, the two situations are not at all analogous.

The purpose of a "one person, one vote" rule is to address the very serious problem of people using fraudulent ID or incorrect information to affect the outcome of a vote or otherwise commit fraud.

In the case of people voting multiple times illegally, this is a serious concern.

In the case of politicians voting for each other with the full knowledge and consent of their counterpart, this is not a serious concern.

Hence, it is not at all inconsistent to support an enforcement of one and not the other.

__________________
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Stinger

Who do you think makes the procedural rules for that legislative body?



Why? The operate in the same manner, they determine their own rules of behavior. YOU seem to think this is a unique situation, it is not.

No YOU are just wrong. We are not a democracy. We are a federal republic.

My quote>> For elections where the public is involved, not legislation and deliberations in their house.

You are totally confused as to popular elections and deliberations in a legislative body.


That's not what made it wrong, your entire premise is not based in reality.

One is a popular election for the general public, one is a vote in a deliberative body.

What exactly is your beef here? They aren't stealing votes, they are voting for the person who can't be there because of some other commitment. Don't you believe the people that person represents should have their voice heard, even if by proxy?

If you can't make the intellectual distinction I can't help you.

They can submit an absentee ballot and the clerk will cast it for them.

To stop voter fraud, do you have any evidence there is voter fraud going on the the Texas House?

Folly.

That's up to the representative, if you don't think they are vote for someone who will not allow someone else to cast his/her vote if they are in a committee or otherwise occupied. But the vote is recorded and the representative can make sure his/her vote, being cast by their fellow party member is being cast as they requested.
Depends on who asked them to, how may times do House Dems vote? It's a bipartisan practice.

It's a non-story some very bad reporter put together thinking they had something and you fell for it.