Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by downtown, May 13, 2011.
Make it into a unicameral parliament.
United States of California?
The Heartland will not be pleased.
Not that i'm against that. But it's probably somewhat hard to accomplish, even by the standards of this thread.
That would help. I'd also like to see party caucuses abolished. You're supposed to represent your district but you end up with Pelosi and Boenhead pulling the strings.
The biggest problem is the hardest to solve--the fact that members of Congress spend their careers redistributing wealth from producers to special interests, either through taxing and spending or through regulation. Then they retire and get cushy, high-paying jobs as lobbyists for those same special interests. But since it's an unwritten rule and not a specific deal, you can't arrest them for bribery. And you can't do much to control their career once they leave--you can ban them from lobbying but they'll still get a job as an analyst or consultant.
As far as unconvincing arguments go, I think you've got me beat.
So what, around 3,000 congressmen? I think we'd have to build a new Capitol building
More importantly, congress works much differently now than it did in the Framers' day. One congressman per hundred thousand is cool for sparsely settled agricultural societies that restrict the vote to landed white males, where information travels primarily through word-of-mouth, networks of personal relationships, and the occasional old newspaper.
Fix them Bob Barker style. Remove their testicles and ovaries.
That's a problem?
No, we can't?
I'm assuming the rate of disenfrenchised in the past and largely disinterested in the present are roughly the same, for arguments sake.
Legalize dueling. That worked well at resolving personal disagreements between politicians before.
I say we get rid of congress, it's alot more trouble than what it's worth.
Agreed. and split the country into 50 states
Then change the Capital of Florida to Ft. Myers
And make me its President for Life
Term limits. Preferably a single term. Then destroy lobbyists. That would solve the vast majority of problems right there.
abolish the 24 hour media circus
Even California has two bodies in the legislature, a senate and an assembly. Nebraska is unicameral, but they have a traditionally styled legislative body with fixed length terms. The beauty of the parliament is that deadlock is essentially impossible. Whenever a budget measure fails, instead of shutting down the government, we would have a new election.
Additionally, because there is not direct campaigning for the office Prime minister, a parliamentary system discourages two-party rule, and opens up the field for contenders of other parties.
I'd rather take away their air conditioning, but thats not bad
I voted other:
The problem with "reforming" Congress by trying to reduce money is the 1st Amendment - money = speech, and it does, especially within the context of political elections (thats why even the SCOTUS still lets individuals spend whatever they want on their own campaigns). Just no way around that...
But the money aint really the problem, its the power - the money just follows it. Congress has long been corrupt but their corruption was limited to their "jurisdiction". The voters have allowed their jurisdiction to expand and thats the cause of the problem - Congress can reach out and screw with people in millions of different ways, or not... Therein lies a motive to send Congress money. Its legalized blackmail and bribery...
The tax code is there for Congress to reward the right people and hurt the wrong people, "equal protection" is still a joke. If people insist on letting Congress basically ignore the Constitution's limits on their power, the only way to control the corruption is an informed and vigilant electorate.
When a change to statutes is done, it is debated one by one and not combined to various other and sometimes unrelated bills. i.e. One change One vote,
NOTE: We have this system in NZ
yeah, most of the crap they wanna hide gets passed in these mega bills
Eliminate lobbyists. Problem solved. Oh and make all campaigns run on public funds.
Guys, even if you take money out of politics, you can't really claim to have a democracy that doesn't allow lobbyists. It's a contradiction in terms. Democracies are about the people, and lobbyists are the voice of the people. Yeah, some of these people (say, corporate fatcats) have too much influence and conflicting interests, but others are salt of the earth types.
But your suggestions would increase the number of disinterested voters! When I said that times had changed, I didn't just mean that we had more enfranchised voters. Voters also get their information in different ways.
Once upon a time, voters learned about candidates through webs of personal connections. You learned about the guy running for congress from the big man in town, who's cousin knew the governor's aide, who in turn really liked this guy. If districts got too big, the degrees of separation became too wide for informed voting.
The days, voters get their information from local and national news sources, and the local sources are becoming less and less relevant. They get some of their information about members of congress by asking the congressmen or his office directly. Mostly however, they get it by waiting for him to do something that makes him stand out. If congressional districts get too small and Congress gets too big, individual legislators never get a chance to stand out. And then it becomes harder to be an informed voter.
Also, did I mention the crazy people? We can't forget about them. You know how the Senate has less crazy people than the House? That's not just an accident of size. Winning heterogeneous districts like states involves being widely acceptable. The tiny little homogeneous districts you'd get with more representatives would give us people who make Michelle Bachmann seem sane.
This. This is the key. Eliminate corporate donations. Cap personal donations, at say $500 (the reason being here that almost nobody personally donates in the first place. Can't have select people being super influential). Hand out money to political parties based on percentage vote count across the country, along with a flat subsidy to the established parties to prevent a party from being completely destroyed in one election.
Add in MMP PR, and boy, you got yourself a political system.
Welcome to NZ
I can't tell. Are you being intentionally ironic, or have you just never read up on British history before?
Separate names with a comma.