With this going on in the house, does it even matter who you vote for?

Old video, but with this going on in the house, does it even matter who you vote for?

NOTE - I JUST REALIZED THIS VIDEO IS FROM 2007. I did not check the date before posting. My mistake

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG6X-xtVask

It looks like a bunch of chickens running around with their heads cut off, playing whack-a-mole. Bing bing bing! How many buttons can I press for green? LOLZ! This game is fun!

If no breaks are the problem -- make breaks. There is no excuse for this.

Thanks, not sure what to change it to. I'd rather it be deleted honestly. I would like to know if this has been rectified though. If my calculations are right, this was taking place just 3 legislative sessions ago.

stealthyeliminator said:

Thanks, not sure what to change it to. I'd rather it be deleted honestly. I would like to know if this has been rectified though. If my calculations are right, this was taking place just 3 legislative sessions ago.

Click to expand...

Holy crap... don't delete it. I'd say this is a pretty good find. These guys are pushing legislation through like this? Or were?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

The rules of houses are not subject to review by anyone other than the house.

Unless also covered by statue and then you have conflict between statue and constitution (most have it where the house can make its own rules)...and the constitution wins of course.

And violations of the rules? Nobody cares .. the judiciary cannot even hear a case due to separation of powers.

Primus said:

Holy crap... don't delete it. I'd say this is a pretty good find. These guys are pushing legislation through like this? Or were?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Well, they were, but I don't know that they still are. I guess there is no reason to delete - just a little embarrassed that I didn't check the date before posting. I suppose it would be interesting to find out if they still follow the same practices.

Now, one thing to consider about this that would still be relevant today is that many people use voting records to analyze candidates, right? So, are these votes the ones that we are seeing record of? How can we possibly use voting records to analyze candidates when we don't even know that the candidate is the one that cast the vote which is associated with his name? I guess you could still say he "allowed" his vote to be cast that way.