As someone who voted for Obama twice (once for change and once against Romney) I will be voting from now on for anyone and everyone who would be new to DC. At this point that's the best hope for change that I can see.
> As someone who voted for Obama twice (once for change and once against Romney) I will be voting from now on for anyone and everyone who would be new to DC.
Actually, unfocussed churn in elected policymakers just means that the unelected powerbrokers -- who are very much not interested in change -- increase in power relative to the rotating classes of novice elected officials.
Especially given the limitations of our electoral system in providing choices and effective representation, educated voting on substance alone without effort outside of voting is insufficient to do much to produce desired change, but reducing the effort involved to just voting blindly for novelty will be even less effective.
It's a tough thing. If you vote for someone with no ties to Washington, you are "voting for someone with no experience." If you vote for someone entrenched in DC, you are "voting for a career politician." It's a lose/lose proposition haha
Obama came from Chicago politics. He was "new to DC" like John Carmack is "new to Occulus Rift". He might be working with a different crew now, but he's bringing a lot of "experience" to bear.
Actually, unfocussed churn in elected policymakers just means that the unelected powerbrokers -- who are very much not interested in change -- increase in power relative to the rotating classes of novice elected officials.
Especially given the limitations of our electoral system in providing choices and effective representation, educated voting on substance alone without effort outside of voting is insufficient to do much to produce desired change, but reducing the effort involved to just voting blindly for novelty will be even less effective.