Changing Washington the Civ 5 Way: Streamline Congress!

[CivCube]

We currently have two legislative houses that too often impede one another, damaging the momentum of both parties while they're in power. Because of this gridlock, we're seeing these huge shifts in power every 2-4 years while nothing gets done.

Hah. Huge generalization there, but that's the assumption for this thread.

Solution: Merge the House and the Senate into one body, but keep both rules for representation. One third of the states has two-Senator representation and the other two-thirds keep their population-based Representatives. The Senators are in charge of the major committees and running sessions with their six-year terms. The Representatives keep their two-year terms. This set-up will cycle through a third of the States every six years.

 

[Cutlass]

Been proposed. Will never happen. Too much opposition to even consider.

 

[generalstaff]

I like the two house system since only have one house can limit the ability of the minority party to act as opposition. Gridlock is good, if the Democrats actually acted as opposition during the Bush years, things would not be as bad as they are now.

If I was going to change the national legislature, I would keep the House of Representatives the same. The Senate I would overhaul. Use a parliamentary party system. Keep it 100 seats, have terms be four years with every seat going up during midterms as a national election. 1% of the vote would equal 1 seat. I know it would never happen because it would hurt both major parties, and yes I know that any system is not perfect, especially anything proposed at CFC, including my ideas.

 

[GenMarshall]

No, what we need is just a one party system controlled by the Democrats. Ban the Republicans. Problem solved.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

What we need is a 0 party system, or rather a system where parties are not so relevant. We should demand the use of Range Voting both for selecting our representatives, and for our representatives deciding on the leadership positions in congress. Granting power based on party loyalty and seniority is a horrible system.


If I were to restructure congress, I would be sure to add some positions for those entrusted to represent the nation as a whole rather than states or districts within states. It would probably work best for the whole nation to be a single multimember district with its representatives elected through reweighted range voting. I'd be be inclined to remove state borders from consideration when forming districts for the house of representatives, and return the senate to being representatives of the state legislatures while making them rely entirely on the states for their support and allowing the states to recall them at any time. I'd consider having congress vote as a whole despite different members being elected differently.

 

[Joecoolyo]

I think the system now functions pretty well, since it does what it intended. The House acts as populist representation, and that's why their seats are up every two years. So the house is more likely to draft things that are much more popular with the public, which of course, might not be the best thing (i.e. banning sharia law). So that's why we have the much more permanent senate, who are seated for much longer. They act as a blocking mechanism, to slow down proposals and and actually consider them before pushing them through. That way we don't have stupid crazy things going through that shouldn't go through (such as banning sharia law).

 

[_random_]

I think the system now functions pretty well, since it does what it intended. The House acts as populist representation, and that's why their seats are up every two years. So the house is more likely to draft things that are much more popular with the public, which of course, might not be the best thing (i.e. banning sharia law). So that's why we have the much more permanent senate, who are seated for much longer. They act as a blocking mechanism, to slow down proposals and and actually consider them before pushing them through. That way we don't have stupid crazy things going through that shouldn't go through (such as banning sharia law).

It wasn't really intended to do that. It was intended to be a compromise between those who wanted representation based on state and those who wanted representation based on population. It's a bit of a slow system, and, as you pointed out, that can be a good thing. Still, if we were to eliminate the senate entirely (possibly putting representatives on a four-year cycle), I'd imagine the system would stabilize itself pretty quickly.

 

[Luckymoose]

No, what we need is just a one party system controlled by the Democrats. Ban the Republicans. Problem solved.

We've talked about your workers revolution ideals CG. You can't be lazy and expect a revolution to support you.

Two party system is horrible but I'd rather it be two party than a one party dictatorship. Way to go Stalin/Hitler/other dictators.

 

[amadeus]

Do we really want a legislature where more laws can get passed?

 

[madviking]

Do we really want a legislature where more laws can get passed?

To add: the Congress was designed to be grossly inefficient and unproductive.

 

[Dachs]

Just because something is WAD doesn't mean the design was a good one

 

[madviking]

But the Founding Fathers were obviously infallible!

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Congress was not designed to be controlled by political parties. Factionalism and especially the granting of leadership positions based on partisan alignments are signs of a design that did not live up to the founders intentions at all.

 

[Dachs]

And yet they created, participated in, and directed political parties of their own...