I've been contemplating the fact that in most states the state legislatures are part time. Which means that legislators have to get a real job - in other words - they are often literally employed by the special interests they represent. Googling around about this brought up a number of efforts in the 4 states that do have full time legislatures to end that practice. The basis? Rampant corruption, and evidence abounds. A bored legislator is indeed a grave threat to freedom. Basically, no one has figured out how to make a state legislature that isn't corrupt, and so there is no clarity on whether full time or part time is the right ingredient. The tea party - incidentally - wants to repeal the 17th amendment, which allowed for the direct election of Senators. The 17th amendment was passed in the early 1900's because state legislatures, which previously selected Senators, were corrupted by corporate interests. The tea party would return us to this structure - continuing to uphold the bizarre preference of "states rights" over individual rights for which so many marched off and died in the civil war, rationalizing that they were fighting for freedom from federal tyranny. Wrapping my head around that confusion is the hardest thing about understanding the civil war. Its much easier to think of the whole logical rats nest as a thin rationalization for slavery, but most people didn't own slaves - I imagine most of the soldiers didn't. They were simply fooled into dying for their particular aristocracy by a set of lies that continues to work to this day. State legislatures are still corrupted by corporate interests. The county is run by diverting your attention to the national government instead. Its much easier to throw ones hands up in frustration than to figure out what steps can be taken to address a problem like this. With that in mind I offer a link to a rambling (and repetitive) anarchist rant against the tradition of voting. Some interesting and entertaining observations are made. I'll pull a few choice quotes: Why should essentially powerless people want to engage in a humiliating farce designed to demonstrate the legitimacy of those who wield power?”
- Dmitri Orlov ...
Under representative pseudo-democracy, voting is just robo-voting, stamping a meaningless, pre-written sheet thrust in front of you, regarding which you have, by design, no knowledge, no input, no reason or even basis for hope or desire, no basis even for understanding. Your role is nothing than to robotically sign the affidavit, certifying your formal ratification of a passel of crimes beyond your ken. And if the gangsters ever run into any trouble, they simply roll out the fraudulent papers bearing your name and proclaim it as ratification of their legitimacy. ... “Voting”, both in reality and symbolically, is the alienation of our own sovereignty and power. Like Rousseau said of the British with their parliamentary elections, they exercised their freedom once every five years, and each time their only act was to relinquish it.
... The system itself is structurally antagonistic toward citizen well-being and public interest policy. Congressional legislation will address these only under duress, only where circumstances force this upon it. And legislation will move to rescind any such concession on the parts of the elites the moment circumstances allow. ... Lest anyone argue that “this demonstrates that representative democracy can work, we just need to be vigilant”, I respond that the people can never maintain that level of vigilance indefinitely. ... Many liberal elitists claim to agree in principle that a high voter turnout is needed to confer legitimacy on the system. But they mean by this the same thing that’s meant where it comes to fraudulent plebiscites in totalitarian countries. Ever hear of the classical “99%” vote in a fascist plebiscite? That’s the essence of tyranny, and that’s the dream of the hack robo-vote advocates. Some even want forcibly enforced turnout, like in Australia where non-voters are fined.
The Cult of Voting « Volatility | 
