How Would You Change Our Government/Political System

[symple19]

WC's change the economy thread got some interesting responses, some of which (like mine or DR's) addressed our political system.

How would you change it?

As Chumpdumper would say, be specific :lol

[boutons_deux]

abandon electoral college for direct election of the President by popular vote (will have to campaign EVERYWHERE, not only in swing states)

Force the Senate to obey the Constitution's simple majority vote of 51, rather than the self-imposed, grid-locking 60.

[leemajors]

Online voting.

[symple19]

Online voting.

I think it would be too easily hacked and difficult to verify. No question voter turnout would go up in a big way, though

[symple19]

I actually like going out to vote. Probably way in the minority in that belief. Maybe changing the election to a spring or summer month would help toward that end?

[leemajors]

I think it would be too easily hacked and difficult to verify. No question voter turnout would go up in a big way, though

Can't be any worse than easily hackable voting machines.

[boutons_deux]

Voting should be moved from a damn workday to Sat and Sun to get more people voting.

oops, did I forget that Human-Americans' votes don't count anyway? :lol

[Th'Pusher]

Voting should be moved from a damn workday to Sat and Sun to get more people voting.

oops, did I forget that Human-Americans' votes don't count anyway? :lol

the 1% would conveniently find a reason to call in all workers on voting Saturday.

[DarrinS]

Online voting.

Wouldn't that disenfranchise those without internet connectivity?

Shit, there are WAAAAAAAAYYYY more people with photo ID than people with internet.

[SA210]

Get the money out of politics, get rid of electoral, ALLOW 3rd party candidates in Debates, get rid of corrupt mainstream media

[clambake]

Wouldn't that disenfranchise those without internet connectivity?

Shit, there are WAAAAAAAAYYYY more people with photo ID than people with internet.

photo id....cuz you're worried about fraud, right?

[elbamba]

WC's change the economy thread got some interesting responses, some of which (like mine or DR's) addressed our political system.

How would you change it?

As Chumpdumper would say, be specific :lol

Increase house terms to 4 years and cap at 3 terms. Cap Senate terms to 2 and leave the same for years.

Continue with lifetime appointment for district court level federal judges but every 4 years hold a yes/no vote to retain them. Cap Circuit/Supreme Court judges at 20 years but they can continue to sit on the district court level after their 20 years if the so choose. While sitting on the higher bench there would be no yes/no vote. The vote would only be for sitting district court judges.

[DarrinS]

photo id....cuz you're worried about fraud, right?

One person -- one vote.

We could use some kind of biometric device, but something tells me that that would be prohibitively expensive.

[Chris]

1. Eliminate the federal bank
2. Eliminate secret societies and secret oaths
3. Anything after that would be a blessing

[symple19]

Increase house terms to 4 years and cap at 3 terms. Cap Senate terms to 2 and leave the same for years.

Continue with lifetime appointment for district court level federal judges but every 4 years hold a yes/no vote to retain them. Cap Circuit/Supreme Court judges at 20 years but they can continue to sit on the district court level after their 20 years if the so choose. While sitting on the higher bench there would be no yes/no vote. The vote would only be for sitting district court judges.

Interesting take on the courts

[symple19]

short of parliamentary system, I'd like to see the president serve 6 years and be limited to 1 term

term limits for everyone else at 3


4 years for sens and keep house at 2

[SA210]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR8NgxGD1sA

[Th'Pusher]

One person -- one vote.

We could use some kind of biometric device, but something tells me that that would be prohibitively expensive.

Voter ID is cost prohibitive when you look at the ROI as it relates to the almost no existent problem.

[baseline bum]

Get the money out of politics

The only way I could ever see that happening other than overthrow of the government and creation of a new constitution is if there could be a democratic initiative system where the popular vote could enact an amendment. I would guess that a ballot outlawing the taking of campaign contributions (bribes) could pass with a 2/3rd popular vote in this nation, but I don't see congress amending the constitution to give the people the kind of power to cut off their meal ticket. No way you get 290 representatives and 67 senators to vote for that, and then 38 states to sign off too, since our constitution gives hugely disproportionate power to the smaller majority of states. Of course that's also the reason the electoral college is here for good until the nation collapses.

[Wild Cobra]

Voter ID is cost prohibitive when you look at the ROI as it relates to the almost no existent problem.
Is there a price increase on purple ink I'm not aware of?

That may be the best solution, you know.

[Clipper Nation]

- Return to the republican form of government guaranteed in the Constitution: let electors do their jobs instead of fining and ridiculing them for not following the majority off a cliff
- Constitutional amendment that abolishes political parties altogether
- Paper ballots only, and they are to be counted in an open, transparent manner

BTW, the Electoral College is a good thing tbh... the majority is not always right, and the EC is a solid backup plan for when the majority gets it wrong tbh.....

[vy65]

Increase house terms to 4 years and cap at 3 terms. Cap Senate terms to 2 and leave the same for years.

Continue with lifetime appointment for district court level federal judges but every 4 years hold a yes/no vote to retain them. Cap Circuit/Supreme Court judges at 20 years but they can continue to sit on the district court level after their 20 years if the so choose. While sitting on the higher bench there would be no yes/no vote. The vote would only be for sitting district court judges.

I'd actually go to the other extreme and pass a constitutional amendment requiring states to appoint their judges for life. People (rightfully) complain about the infusion of money into politics. They focus on congressmen at the federal level, but tend to ignore the fact that state court judges are bought in the same way.

[vy65]

- Return to the republican form of government guaranteed in the Constitution


the majority is not always right, and the EC is a solid backup plan for when the majority gets it wrong tbh.....

wut?

[boutons_deux]

"that state court judges are bought in the same way."

and they're cheap

[ElNono]

I'd actually go to the other extreme and pass a constitutional amendment requiring states to appoint their judges for life. People (rightfully) complain about the infusion of money into politics. They focus on congressmen at the federal level, but tend to ignore the fact that state court judges are bought in the same way.

Not in all states, I don't think. I gotta say though, I like the fact we don't have judicial elections here in Jersey.

[Clipper Nation]

wut?
Democracy = tyranny of the majority

Republic = the public gets a say, but our best and brightest patriots can step in if the majority votes for tyranny

[z0sa]

Free internet provided by rebates from the government. Everyone votes for select (don't know quite which, that would be an entirely different undertaking) local and state issues, with most of the representation locally being replaced by this direct democracy system. Obviously would be a vast amount of tweaking involved but I think in this day and age the general idea is feasible.

[vy65]

The republican form is defined as one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.

[vy65]

Democracy = tyranny of the majority

Republic = the public gets a say, but our best and brightest patriots can step in if the majority votes for tyranny

How? The only way I'm aware of our "best and brightest patriots" (lol) stepping up is by suspending habeas corpus. Which is totalitarianism. In fact, enlightened rule by a select few is totalitarianism too.

[vy65]

And why isn't the majority's choice of which legislators shall govern them any less of an expression of the majorities tyranny?

[boutons_deux]

Democracy = tyranny of the majority

Republic = the public gets a say, but our best and brightest patriots can step in if the majority votes for tyranny

Wow, Clipper Nation of course considers himself one of the "best and brightest patriots", ready to go vigilante and take over the nation if the anti-patriotic people do something HE doesn't like.

[SnakeBoy]

I would like to see term limits for senators, something along the lines of two 6 year or three 4 year terms. Other than that I can't think of much else I would like to see changed.

[boutons_deux]

Senators from states with tiny populations have as much (veto, filibuster) power as Senators from TX, CA, IL, NY. non-respresentional is not democratic.

Most of the proposals here would require Constitutional amendments, and involve a large shift in power, privilege, advantage. iow, won't happen.

[Clipper Nation]

Wow, Clipper Nation of course considers himself one of the "best and brightest patriots", ready to go vigilante and take over the nation if the anti-patriotic people do something HE doesn't like.
Wow, blueteam_douche of course thinks our political system, as Ben Franklin put it, should be "two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner"....

[Clipper Nation]

The republican form is defined as one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
-Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution

[Clipper Nation]

"The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice."
- Twelfth Amendment

[vy65]

No one disputes that the Constitution provides an electoral college. What's your point?

The point of the Minor quote was that the only constitutional reference to the republican form of government is couched as an expression of democracy. Hence your notion that a republic can somehow cure the excesses of democracy is silly.

[leemajors]

Wouldn't that disenfranchise those without internet connectivity?

Shit, there are WAAAAAAAAYYYY more people with photo ID than people with internet.

I didn't say it should be the only option, only meant there is no reason it should not be an option in this day and age.

[boutons_deux]

Wow, blueteam_douche of course thinks our political system, as Ben Franklin put it, should be "two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner"....

You Lie GFY

The Senate is distorting, not proportional representation, which shows up again in the Electoral College.

Small states don't need to be protected, but the majority, the big states need to be protected from the small states holding disproportional power over the majority.

[SnakeBoy]

I didn't say it should be the only option, only meant there is no reason it should not be an option in this day and age.

I think it will happen. You have to remember it takes a long time for any institution that is controlled by really old geezers to adopt new technologies. Most of the old fucks who control congress aren't living "in this day and age".

[Clipper Nation]

I didn't say it should be the only option, only meant there is no reason it should not be an option in this day and age.
Yes there is: online voting is the most easily hacked and rigged system there could possibly be, tbh.....

[Clipper Nation]

You Lie GFY

The Senate is distorting, not proportional representation, which shows up again in the Electoral College.

Small states don't need to be protected, but the majority, the big states need to be protected from the small states holding disproportional power over the majority.
Well of course YOU would want large population centers (like NYC and LA) to have all the power, because they tend to lean more towards the left, tbh....

[Clipper Nation]

No one disputes that the Constitution provides an electoral college. What's your point?

The point of the Minor quote was that the only constitutional reference to the republican form of government is couched as an expression of democracy. Hence your notion that a republic can somehow cure the excesses of democracy is silly.
My point is that an Electoral College that's allowed to do its job is a constitutional protection against the tyranny of the majority, the possibility of 51% of the nation having all the power and shutting down the other 49%, and (nowadays) easily-rigged computer voting systems hand-selecting our President, tbh....

Without the check against the majority that electors provide, we have mob-rule democracy at its worst, which the Founders never wanted or intended....

[Fpoonsie]

In a single, concise sentence, can someone explain to me what "trickle-down govt" is? I keep hearing it every 30 secs from Rom.

[vy65]

My point is that an Electoral College that's allowed to do its job is a constitutional protection against the tyranny of the majority, the possibility of 51% of the nation having all the power and shutting down the other 49%, and (nowadays) easily-rigged computer voting systems hand-selecting our President, tbh....

Without the check against the majority that electors provide, we have mob-rule democracy at its worst, which the Founders never wanted or intended....

Do you not understand that depriving the popular vote in favor of a minority's choice of president is tyrannical? Or that the electoral college renders large swaths of Americans' votes irrelevant? How is having a select group of swing states determining the presidency any less tyrannical?

[boutons_deux]

"Most of the old fucks who control congress"

are "Christian" pandering, sociopathic, retrogressive, misogynistic assholes from The Racist South and red states. And they are of all ages, freshmen up to seniority people.

[vy65]

In a single, concise sentence, can someone explain to me what "trickle-down govt" is? I keep hearing it every 30 secs from Rom.

Economic incentives for the wealthy (i.e., tax cuts) will eventually flow to the middle and lower classes because the wealthy will use the incentives to create jobs or other economic opportunities for the general public.

[SnakeBoy]

Economic incentives for the wealthy (i.e., tax cuts) will eventually flow to the middle and lower classes because the wealthy will use the incentives to create jobs or other economic opportunities for the general public.

Um...your talking about trickle down economics.

Romney's trickle down govt term is another way of referring to wealth redistribution.

[vy65]

My b. That's what I thought the question was. I haven't been paying attention enough to know what trickle-down government is.

[Fpoonsie]

Thanks, vy/SB.

I didn't really phrase my question well. I was more curious about what Mitt is/was referring to as he repeatedly used the term, almost as often as he reminded the audience about MASS's "We're #1!" educ ranking, regardless of how non sequitur it might've been.

[Th'Pusher]

My b. That's what I thought the question was. I haven't been paying attention enough to know what trickle-down government is.

Thats because Mitt Romney's speech writers made it up last week. I personally would prefer the free market distribute the wealth as it would likely be more efficient. Unfortunately, and this has been clearly evidenced over the last 30 years, the free market is not cooperating with the trickle down theory, so the government needs to step in and puppeteer Adam Smith invisible hand.

[Wild Cobra]

I can think of four things off the top of my head I would change.

First is to have runoff elections. The winner must receive 50%+ to win.

Second, truth in advertisement. Slander and lies are to be dealt with. No more "Swift Boating."

Third... Remove the 435 cap on representatives. Give each state an allotted number of representatives based one one for every unit of population. Have this to be less than for every 100,000 people so that we have at least 3,000 representatives. They can use modern communications to vote. Require them to stay in their home districts and listen to the people. Not lobbyists.

Fourth. Return the senate as originally in the constitution. Have the state legislatures pick them rather than the populous.

[ChuckD]

1) eliminate ALL corporate contributions.
2) personal contributions capped at $1,000

[DarkReign]

1) eliminate ALL corporate contributions.
2) personal contributions capped at $1,000

If thats the case, instead of half-assing it, why not just socialize political campaigns entirely, removing all private money from the process?

[Wild Cobra]

Fixed:


1) eliminate ALL corporate contributions.
1.5) eliminate all union contributions.
2) personal contributions capped at $1,000

[z0sa]

That's actually a really good one I agree whole heartedly with, but I'd rather phrase it as something along the lines of "Only allow individual contributions which must all be made public information." However I would not put a cap because the cost of running things like TV ads and travel costs etc is enormously expensive thanks to the private sector.

[boutons_deux]

"eliminate ALL corporate contributions."

but!

"corporations are people, my friend" -- Gecko

And JINO SCOTUS says Corporate-American people's "money is speech" protected by the Constitution.