@OwlInASack And in a week, they would all be on equal footing. On top of that I remember reading some time back that a majority of the wealthiest congress members are Democrats... if that even matters. Edit: According to wikipedia, I guess it still slightly favors Republicans, but still doesn't matter.

The message is simple, do the job that you were elected for, or their will be penalties that you will feel. If you can't muster the majority vote needed, then guess what... in our system you lose.

But again, this is a pipe dream that will never fly.

@OwlInASack
"That is the definition of the tyranny of the majority. It's not something I aspire to."

But in our representative republic where there are 535 votes, and bills get passed when a predetermined percentage of the majority of votes are cast in favor, what else would you call that?

You may not like the fact that the sky is blue, but I guess I'm confused about why you think we live in a world where it isn't so?

@OwlInASack
The purpose is not to punish the losing side but to provide a reminder via incentive, to do their job period end of story. If they do their job, no penalty. In the same vein of me facing a penalty for not doing my job. I'm not concerned about who's poorer or who's losing. If anything, the wealthier ones have more to lose. Once the poorer losing side is broke they can stalemate it until the other side is broke too. Then they can get down to brass tacks and pass a budget since they are not going anywhere.

Strawman? I guess, but since we're debating a spitball idea of mine that has zero chance of ever becoming law... I'm not even sure of what we are talking about anymore.