NationStates Jolt Archive

So, a brief conversation between Knights of Liberty, Free Soviets, and myself--brought up by Ferrous Oxide accusing the American system as "the worst he's ever heard--in the U.S. Election thread about improving said system needed a new thread.

I'll put it to NSG. How would you improve the current system of government in the United States? That is, what would you alter about elections, powers, checks and balances, and all the good stuff to make it more effective or more to your style?

Well, I'd expand the House of Reps, probably to 999 members. Senate to 212. I would also add a mechanism for a "national propositional referendum". (My own creation)

Otherwise, I'd not do changing to the structure itself. I wouldn't change the role of the President, I wouldn't change the roles of the Congress and Senate, or the Courts.

Hmm... actually I can't really think of anything. Not that the system is perfect, but the damn thing works the way it was intended and if it ain't broke...

Hmm... actually I can't really think of anything. Not that the system is perfect, but the damn thing works the way it was intended and if it ain't broke...

I'd like to increase the linkages of the Congress to their constituencies, by decreasing the size of constituencies, but that's a whole 'nuther story.

So, a brief conversation between Knights of Liberty, Free Soviets, and myself--brought up by Ferrous Oxide accusing the American system as "the worst he's ever heard--in the U.S. Election thread about improving said system needed a new thread.

I'll put it to NSG. How would you improve the current system of government in the United States? That is, what would you alter about elections, powers, checks and balances, and all the good stuff to make it more effective or more to your style?There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.

Put an end to the professional politician. Term limits all around.
I, personally, think that would do quite a bit of good. Wouldn't solve ALL the problems, but would remove a good chunk of the corruption and 're-election syndrome' issues.

how radical do we want to go? i've got some thoughts on improvements ranging from the very moderate (national popular vote for prez, increase the size of the house, etc.), to the rather less so (at least some proportional representation at the national level, and if we're going to keep states as a basis for anything, it's time to redraw them to reflect current social realities - why the hell are we still ruled by the left-overs of colonization, compromises with slavers, and the social facts of 1870?) to my actual favored outcome (global revolution!)

There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.

Nice empty phrase.

Can you please clarify your response by defining wrong and right in this context?

how radical do we want to go? i've got some thoughts on improvements ranging from the very moderate (national popular vote for prez, increase the size of the house, etc.), to the rather less so (at least some proportional representation at the national level, and if we're going to keep states as a basis for anything, it's time to redraw them to reflect current social realities - why the hell are we still ruled by the left-overs of colonization, compromises with slavers, and the social facts of 1870?) to my actual favored outcome (global revolution!)
Cover everything in detail. Right now we're just opening up the door for suggestions, not trying to actually pin anything down.

Put an end to the professional politician.

you could do a sort of jury-duty selection process for at least part of the legislative branch

It's just so damn CONVOLUTED. Eliminate the senate, fuck off the electoral college. The Ukrainian system is pretty solid, it just happens to have the major flaw of being run by Ukrainians.

you could do a sort of jury-duty selection process for at least part of the legislative branch

I was thinking more of a firing squad sort of thing, but your idea works too :P

Nice empty phrase.

Can you please clarify your response by defining wrong and right in this context?That's impossible. My right and wrong does not equate to your right and wrong; therefore, you could simply say that my definition does not match yours. Putting me in the wrong, in your opinion. Thanks for asking a circular question. No elliptical logic, please.

That's impossible. My right and wrong does not equate to your right and wrong; therefore, you could simply say that my definition does not match yours. Putting me in the wrong, in your opinion. Thanks for asking a circular question. No elliptical logic, please.

Um, we don't know that until you define how you view things. That is, what you think is wrong with America, and what you think is right with America, and how you would use what is right to correct what is wrong.

In short, all I'm asking is that you actually give a position rather than saying a phrase that could potentially be used to define EVERYONE'S position.

how radical do we want to go? i've got some thoughts on improvements ranging from the very moderate (national popular vote for prez, increase the size of the house, etc.), to the rather less so (at least some proportional representation at the national level, and if we're going to keep states as a basis for anything, it's time to redraw them to reflect current social realities - why the hell are we still ruled by the left-overs of colonization, compromises with slavers, and the social facts of 1870?) to my actual favored outcome (global revolution!)
I'm curious about the idea of redrawing state boarders...how would you do this? Where do the lines fall?

I've got a change that doesn't require any major rework, just an attitude adjustment.

We need to adopt the true spirit of the Westminster model concept of Loyal Opposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyal_opposition), as opposed to the current role of Obstructionist Opposition. The party in power needs to recognize that it's possible for their opponents to disagree and still love their country. I'm so damn sick of politicians demonizing ideas under the guise of patriotism.

We've made it work (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/11/weekinreview/11SCHU.html?ex=1223524800&en=849830be459a68c2&ei=5070) before. Maybe it's time to trot it out again.

Um, we don't know that until you define how you view things. That is, what you think is wrong with America, and what you think is right with America, and how you would use what is right to correct what is wrong.

In short, all I'm asking is that you actually give a position rather than saying a phrase that could potentially be used to define EVERYONE'S position.I don't think anything should be done to the American government. The people already have the ability to change it as they like, within the bounds of the Constitution. Failing that, America was founded by a revolution....

And for the love of god, ditch the two party system! The entire system assumes that there will only be two parties, so the other parties are fucked from the start.

Make the popular vote worth something.

Its really easy. We can keep the electoral college to satisfy the neo-federalists and to keep a failsafe in case the American people are ever utterly stupid, but just make the popular vote worth electoral votes.

I've got a change that doesn't require any major rework, just an attitude adjustment.

We need to adopt the true spirit of the Westminster model concept of Loyal Opposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyal_opposition), as opposed to the current role of Obstructionist Opposition. The party in power needs to recognize that it's possible for their opponents to disagree and still love their country. I'm so damn sick of politicians demonizing ideas under the guise of patriotism.

We've made it work (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/11/weekinreview/11SCHU.html?ex=1223524800&en=849830be459a68c2&ei=5070) before. Maybe it's time to trot it out again.
Oh, absolutely. Abso-freaking-lutely.
I don't think anything should be done to the American government. The people already have the ability to change it as they like, within the bounds of the Constitution. Failing that, America was founded by a revolution....
Fair enough.
And for the love of god, ditch the two party system! The entire system assumes that there will only be two parties, so the other parties are fucked from the start.

I agree. Unfortunately, there's a slight problem.

The major parties are the major parties because they've got the vast--and I do mean vast--majority of the country's politicians. You see very few competent politicians going to the other parties, and that's because the big parties are well established.

The only way to accomplish what you're suggesting would be to break down the two major parties, and given the huge amount of power investment by the party leaders, etc, I don't see that ever happening voluntarily.

Make the popular vote worth something.

Its really easy. We can keep the electoral college to satisfy the neo-federalists and to keep a failsafe in case the American people are ever utterly stupid, but just make the popular vote worth electoral votes.

Hmm...

That's a pretty good idea. I'm highly in favor of ditching it altogether, but keeping it as a failsafe...failsafes are always good.

I like it.

Fair enough.It's just a thought. Fixing un-broken things is usually a good way to break the thing.

I'm curious about the idea of redrawing state boarders...how would you do this? Where do the lines fall?

to some extent it depends on whether we want to wind up with approximately the same number of states as we have currently or not, but in the abstract i would propose having and actively encouraging a of period of debate within the various communities in the country about who they identify with and who they would like to be politically lumped together with. once we get some sort of a handle on that, starting from some small-scale setting (neighborhoods? municipalities? census tracts? zip codes? whatever, something like that), we'd have places confederate together with other areas on the basis of mutual agreement.

the basic picture is of breaking things up into smaller, more socially fundamental parts and figuring out how the people of those parts would prefer to relate to each other. at least then the 'states' wouldn't be completely arbitrary sets of lines.

1. Term limits for congressional members

2. Proportional representation in the House...which ought to promote more third parties.

I'd like to see those implemented and evaluated before trying anything more extreme.

to some extent it depends on whether we want to wind up with approximately the same number of states as we have currently or not, but in the abstract i would propose having and actively encouraging a of period of debate within the various communities in the country about who they identify with and who they would like to be politically lumped together with. once we get some sort of a handle on that, starting from some small-scale setting (neighborhoods? municipalities? census tracts? zip codes? whatever, something like that), we'd have places confederate together with other areas on the basis of mutual agreement.

the basic picture is of breaking things up into smaller, more socially fundamental parts and figuring out how the people of those parts would prefer to relate to each other. at least then the 'states' wouldn't be completely arbitrary sets of lines.

There was a mapping project not too long ago that divided the nation based on identification with a city (I'll see if I can find it).
Rather than the 6 New England states, part of CT becommes NYC, then there are small regions for Hartford, Bridgeport/New Haven, Providence, and Worcester (those could all easily make one state), a huge area for Boston, a decent area for Burlington, VT (no other big cities in the region), and Portland.

I think that's an interesting way to do it...what culture do you identify with based off of a city.

There was a mapping project not too long ago that divided the nation based on identification with a city (I'll see if I can find it).
Rather than the 6 New England states, part of CT becommes NYC, then there are small regions for Hartford, Bridgeport/New Haven, Providence, and Worcester (those could all easily make one state), a huge area for Boston, a decent area for Burlington, VT (no other big cities in the region), and Portland.

I think that's an interesting way to do it...what culture do you identify with based off of a city.

i just went looking for that site, actually
http://www.commoncensus.org/

one issue i see is the privileging of urban identification over rural regional identifications, which might turn out to be stronger in some areas.

Get rid of the electoral college and have a nationwide whoever gets 50%+1 of the vote wins, since their are only two parties, ok there are "independents" so implement a preferential system.

Allow people to vote for the President and the Vice President separately

Just a few suggestions to start of with, attack as you please.

Hmm... actually I can't really think of anything. Not that the system is perfect, but the damn thing works the way it was intended and if it ain't broke...

Careful that there is conservative talk.

The President and VP shouldn't be elected separately, they should be selected by the winning party.

The President and VP shouldn't be elected separately, they should be selected by the winning party.

Thats an awful idea. A really, really awful idea. It puts a party in charge rather then the man. It makes the leader who is the most powerful person in the US and arguablly the world (at the moment) the party's bitch and leaves little to no room to break with the party's stance on issues.

Id like to stay away from anything resembling the British system.

... Yes! That way, you know exactly what you're voting for! You're not voting for some rockstar-wannabe idiot, you're voting for a party! With views!

Thats an awful idea. A really, really awful idea. It puts a party in charge rather then the man. It makes the leader who is the most powerful person in the US and arguablly the world (at the moment) the party's bitch and leaves little to no room to break with the party's stance on issues.

Id like to stay away from anything resembling the British system.

Which bit the first or the second, his sentence was proposing two separate things. Now if it is the first bit that is The President and the VP should be elected separately rather than together why?

i just went looking for that site, actually
http://www.commoncensus.org/

one issue i see is the privileging of urban identification over rural regional identifications, which might turn out to be stronger in some areas.

That's the same issue I had. I know some people in northern CT who simply don't identify with a city...and we aren't talking an incredibly rural area...it's still pretty densely populated, just not by CT standards.

I like the idea of integrating the megalopolises...BosWash, ChiPitts, I-35 corridor...into states. My primary reasoning for this is due to the massive ammount of goods, services, and people that flood through these regions. To divide them simply complicates areas of the country that are closely tied together.

I know BosWash the best...and while there are divergent cultures in some ways (if I hear one more Yankees/Red Sox argument, I swear...), they are remarkably similar, and very much rely upon the success of the rest of the region.

Careful that there is conservative talk.
Not really, the system was meant to work just well enough to keep the country running, but not well enough that someone would be able to consolidate power. It works very, very well in doing that.

1. Increase the term of Congressmen to 3 years from the current two, reelection campaigns interfere with the work they do, if they only ran every 3 years, we could get one good year out of them maybe.

2. Term limit Congressmen to 5, three year terms.

3. Term limit Senators to 3, six year terms.

4. Mandatory retirement for Article I judges at age 75.

5. Expand the U.S. Supreme Court to 13 members, require they sit in 2 panels of 6, one hearing criminal cases exclusively and one hearing civil cases exclusively and allowing the chief justice to vote only in order to break a tie in one of the two panels.

6. Go back to the practice of nominating and electing the V.P. separately from the president.

7. Require the federal government to have a fully balanced budget except in times of war officially declared by the Congress.

8. Limit the Dept. of Education's power to that of awarding grants that encourage quality education and an equitable distribution of resources dedicated to education, but leave it up to the states to determine educational requirements for their citizens and the manner in which educational assessments will occur.

9. Enact the "Fair Tax" and abolish the income tax.

10. Declare April 15th as "free beer" day.

That's the same issue I had. I know some people in northern CT who simply don't identify with a city...and we aren't talking an incredibly rural area...it's still pretty densely populated, just not by CT standards.

I like the idea of integrating the megalopolises...BosWash, ChiPitts, I-35 corridor...into states. My primary reasoning for this is due to the massive ammount of goods, services, and people that flood through these regions. To divide them simply complicates areas of the country that are closely tied together.

I know BosWash the best...and while there are divergent cultures in some ways (if I hear one more Yankees/Red Sox argument, I swear...), they are remarkably similar, and very much rely upon the success of the rest of the region.
That might work out back east, but in the west...

Not really, the system was meant to work just well enough to keep the country running, but not well enough that someone would be able to consolidate power. It works very, very well in doing that.

Yes but you want to keep things exactly the way there are and not change it. Anyway I'm only having a mess with you, I'm the same way on terms to my country's political system people want it to change for one reason or another (time for a change, class warfare, other shit) and I'm against it so yeah, if it's working fine and there isn't a problem with it why does it need to be changed.

The only way to improve it, is to improve the quality of people running for office. Unfortunately, I know of no feasible way to do that.

Yes but you want to keep things exactly the way there are and not change it. Anyway I'm only having a mess with you, I'm the same way on terms to my country's political system people want it to change for one reason or another (time for a change, class warfare, other shit) and I'm against it so yeah, if it's working fine and there isn't a problem with it why does it need to be changed.
Ah! So-ka, so-ka...

Now where the hell is that damn trout so I can slap you silly? :tongue:

The only way to improve it, is to improve the quality of people running for office. Unfortunately, I know of no feasible way to do that.

Change the rule that says that immigrants can't become president, to "only immigrants can become president".

1. Increase the term of Congressmen to 3 years from the current two, reelection campaigns interfere with the work they do, if they only ran every 3 years, we could get one good year out of them maybe.

2. Term limit Congressmen to 5, three year terms.

3. Term limit Senators to 3, six year terms.

Why? Term limits are ridiculous and go against democratic ideals.

That's what needs to change the term limits of the President abolish them, as well as the rule that you must be at least 35 years old to become president, even abolishing the rule that one must be born in the US to become President is would be a good step.

And I agree with you Free Beer day sounds like a good motion.

Ah! So-ka, so-ka...

Now where the hell is that damn trout so I can slap you silly? :tongue:

:tongue: What is So-ka? I can only imagine it is a Japanese term.

That might work out back east, but in the west...

Again, I run into a problem with the west untill you hit California. I c ould see that taking on Free Soviet's idea of breaking to maybe the county level and then seeing who wants to associate with whom, though that has its possible flaws.

The problem with the megalopolises is that it might be consolidating too much power into certain regions (granted, I benefit from this). Certainly BosWash, stretching from Maine to Virginia and with 55 million people (2006 estimates) would be incredibly powerful. According to Wiki, it accounts for 20% of GDP, would have the 4th or 5th largest economy in the world, holds 54 fortune 500 companies, much of the financial and insurance industries, all the major news outlets, and much of the nations higher education institutes.

This new superstate would be massive...larger in every way than California is today

1. Limit the amount of money a person can spend on a campaign.
2. If you are going to attach something to a bill, at least make sure the attachment and the bill are on the same topic. I don't want Islamofascist-Communazi Day to become a national holiday all because it was attached to a bill that cured cancer or fixed Social Security or declared war on a country whose name nobody can pronounce.
3. Electoral votes go to the candidate who gets the most votes in the appropriate region in a state. Basically, you divide a state into regions, the number of which depend on the number of electoral votes a state has. Each and every region has to have a similar population. The regions will get redrawn after every cencus.

Why? Term limits are ridiculous and go against democratic ideals.

That's what needs to change the term limits of the President abolish them, as well as the rule that you must be at least 35 years old to become president, even abolishing the rule that one must be born in the US to become President is would be a good step.

And I agree with you Free Beer day sounds like a good motion.
first of all, I agree that term limits kind of fly in the face of true democratic ideals. However, with the limits I proposed you could still serve 33 years in the Congress - that is plenty of time to do what ever good you'll be able to do, but at the same time ensure we have a turn over in ideas and power every generation or so instead of an entrenched, powerful few calling all the shots. Plus, it will require the electorate to think about who they are electing instead of blindly electing the incumbent every single time, which I fear is the norm.

I have no issue with the age 35 rule as to run a country like the U.S. takes a degree of experience and maturity that an 18 year doesn't (and cannot have). Also, I have no issue with the "born a U.S. Citizen rule" - Do you really want Schwarzenegger to have a shot at the presidency?

1. Increase the term of Congressmen to 3 years from the current two, reelection campaigns interfere with the work they do, if they only ran every 3 years, we could get one good year out of them maybe.

Interesting...

2. Term limit Congressmen to 5, three year terms.

Probably good idea...


3. Term limit Senators to 3, six year terms.

Another good idea...


4. Mandatory retirement for Article I judges at age 75.

No.

5. Expand the U.S. Supreme Court to 13 members, require they sit in 2 panels of 6, one hearing criminal cases exclusively and one hearing civil cases exclusively and allowing the chief justice to vote only in order to break a tie in one of the two panels.

I don't think that's so great...how do you allocate the judges? What if there's an uneven number of conservative vs liberal judges, etc?

6. Go back to the practice of nominating and electing the V.P. separately from the president.

Nah. Not worth it. The VP, while quite important, isn't that important.

7. Require the federal government to have a fully balanced budget except in times of war officially declared by the Congress.

Sounds like a good idea in principle, but in practice it wouldn't work.

8. Limit the Dept. of Education's power to that of awarding grants that encourage quality education and an equitable distribution of resources dedicated to education, but leave it up to the states to determine educational requirements for their citizens and the manner in which educational assessments will occur.

No. God damn, we've had enough bad crap from state government's as it is. The last thing we need to do is make this 50-state divy educational system worse. If anything we need a federally mandated standard educational system with standard guidelines country wide. It's part of why we keep falling behind so often in education.

9. Enact the "Fair Tax" and abolish the income tax.

No, no, no, no, no. End of story.

10. Declare April 15th as "free beer" day.

:eek:

:gundge:

first of all, I agree that term limits kind of fly in the face of true democratic ideals. However, with the limits I proposed you could still serve 33 years in the Congress - that is plenty of time to do what ever good you'll be able to do, but at the same time ensure we have a turn over in ideas and power every generation or so instead of an entrenched, powerful few calling all the shots. Plus, it will require the electorate to think about who they are electing instead of blindly electing the incumbent every single time, which I fear is the norm.

33 years maybe enough to do what you wanted to do originally but 33 years later and they may still be things a congressman wanted to do as things change, he may still be trying to do the best for his constituency as what they need and want will also change over time. And if people want a particular person representing them they should be allowed to vote for who ever it is regardless of how long this person has been there even if it is 50 years.

I have no issue with the age 35 rule as to run a country like the U.S. takes a degree of experience and maturity that an 18 year doesn't (and cannot have). Also, I have no issue with the "born a U.S. Citizen rule" - Do you really want Schwarzenegger to have a shot at the presidency?

Yes it does take a degree of experience and maturity which a 30 year old might have, but that should be left up to the voters. If an 18 year old is what the voters think is the best candidate running for the position they should be allowed to vote for him and he should be allowed to stand, rather than this "only old people know what's best for the country not these young whippersnappers try to come into my government changing the world in my neighbourhood? I don't think so" mentality.

Yes I do, it would provide hours of amusement, however, it could be someone who would make a better president then any other President or person running for President beforehand yet is unable to because he wasn't born in the US, besides it also goes against these democratic principals the US likes to tell everyone about.

:tongue: What is So-ka? I can only imagine it is a Japanese term.

Pretty sure it means something like "I see."

first of all, I agree that term limits kind of fly in the face of true democratic ideals. However, with the limits I proposed you could still serve 33 years in the Congress - that is plenty of time to do what ever good you'll be able to do, but at the same time ensure we have a turn over in ideas and power every generation or so instead of an entrenched, powerful few calling all the shots. Plus, it will require the electorate to think about who they are electing instead of blindly electing the incumbent every single time, which I fear is the norm.

I have no issue with the age 35 rule as to run a country like the U.S. takes a degree of experience and maturity that an 18 year doesn't (and cannot have). Also, I have no issue with the "born a U.S. Citizen rule" - Do you really want Schwarzenegger to have a shot at the presidency?

I don't have much of an opinion on term limits, but I am highly in favor of immigrants being able to run for President if they otherwise qualify(the amount of time as a U.S. citizen, etc) because there's no good reason to deny them that. We've pretty much based our country on immigration, after all.

Added to that, how many immigrants actually succeed in becoming politically powerful enough to become President anyway? The only one for a long time now is Schwartzeneggar, after all, and while I personally wouldn't want him to be President, I see no reason not to let him run if he wants to.

Pretty sure it means something like "I see."

'Is that so?'
Basically.

Pretty sure it means something like "I see."

Maybe, maybe it would fit and i have a new word to use.

No.Yes.

I don't think that's so great...how do you allocate the judges? What if there's an uneven number of conservative vs liberal judges, etc? Sort of like we have now you mean?

Nah. Not worth it. The VP, while quite important, isn't that important.He is important enough that he should be separate - no more Palins, Cheney and Quayle types in office.

Sounds like a good idea in principle, but in practice it wouldn't work.states manage to do it, I personally do it, I don't see why the Feds can't.

No. God damn, we've had enough bad crap from state government's as it is. The last thing we need to do is make this 50-state divy educational system worse. If anything we need a federally mandated standard educational system with standard guidelines country wide. It's part of why we keep falling behind so often in education.the Feds have been running education for years now, why aren't we ahead if that's the answer? Without a monolithic bureaucracy in charge and setting inflexible standards that may be good in one place, but not in another, give the states the ability to do it their way and put in place incentives that encourage success.

No, no, no, no, no. End of story.yes, yes, yes. Sorry, I believe it to be a much better system and would turn us into the tax haven of the world.


:eek:

:gundge:Well, how about free beer and Scotch day?

Yes.
No, damn it. It's ageist and it assumes a set age that won't continue to expand. We keep extending lifespans and that's going to start ballooning once we get some serious nanotechnology, etc etc.

Sort of like we have now you mean?

But it wouldn't be the same. At least with the current state of affairs, they're together. If you split them up, how do you allocate them? Who ends up with more of what?

Besides, there's no good reason to separate the two, legally speaking.

He is important enough that he should be separate - no more Palins, Cheney and Quayle types in office.

S/he/They, if you please.

And I still disagree. Cheney is a fluke, an odd quirk, etc. He is not typical of Vice Presidents.

states manage to do it, I personally do it, I don't see why the Feds can't.

Because the whole way the economy works tends to require some debt. Debt on the federal level is not bad in the way it is for a personal or state level.

Neu Leonstein can explain this far better than I can.


the Feds have been running education for years now, why aren't we ahead if that's the answer? Without a monolithic bureaucracy in charge and setting inflexible standards that may be good in one place, but not in another, give the states the ability to do it their way and put in place incentives that encourage success.

The problem is that we currently have fifty different educational standards, with far too much state and local control on funding. Added to that we fund improperly, such as funding based upon the wealth of the area. (A school in a rich area gets more money than a school in a poor area, etc.) Don't forget that schools will often spend money more powerful.

Monolithic bureaucracy's aren't that great either, but it is far better to have a uniform standard and to fund things adequately and spend in the right way. We're making a lot of mistakes, and what you suggest would just set us further down the wrong road.

yes, yes, yes. Sorry, I believe it to be a much better system and would turn us into the tax haven of the world.

And it would cripple the federal government's ability to gain funding, and it also doesn't make much sense in practical terms. It's only "Fair" if you're a rich person. It's not fair to the poor. It's not fair to the middle class. And it's certainly not fair to the country that has to spend so much on so many things, and has to get it from where it exists.

Well, how about free beer and Scotch day?
:gundge:

HATE alcohol, I do.

Here is another one allowing people to have a say in such positions as Secretary of State, Defence, Treasury, Argicultral and so on.

And Kyronea, how about a free cheese day?

Here is another one allowing people to have a say in such positions as Secretary of State, Defence, Treasury, Argicultral and so on.

No, because what's needed there is someone the President can count on.

And Kyronea, how about a free cheese day?

Acceptable. :)

No, because what's needed there is someone the President can count on.


Acceptable. :)

Yay

I see your point as these Secretary's are more like a CEO of the department and control the department more than say a minister would in say the Australian government. Am I correct in thinking that?

Yay

I see your point as these Secretary's are more like a CEO of the department and control the department more than say a minister would in say the Australian government. Am I correct in thinking that?

Not exactly, but close enough for analogy purposes.

I don't like First Past the Post voting. Something that gave us better proportional representation would be better. Hence why I was asking about the Irish legislature and how they're elected, since they appear to use a somewhat different system.

I also think the electoral college is a bit cumbersome, but I'm not sure how it would be fixed.

I would increase the term of members of the house of representatives to three years and stagger them. The issue we saw when the bail out was defeated was many republicans were facing reelection and didn't want to vote on anything controversial until after November. this way only 1/3 are up for election any year and they would take away from the got work 1 year campaign 1 year pattern. Next all debates and political ads can only happen one months before the election. No more 6 months out 200 million dollar campaigns.

Change the rule that says that immigrants can't become president, to "only immigrants can become president".

I seriously doubt that opening the Presidency up to immigrants will solve the issue. The problem is that the people who want the power are the very ones who shouldn't have power. It's the person who does his/her damnedest to avoid power that we should elect to any office.

I want the person in office who says "If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve."

:tongue: What is So-ka? I can only imagine it is a Japanese term.
Yes, it is Japanese, and a lose translation would be I see or is that so? It's an equivalent to the English, "Really?" or, "Oh, cool" type of thing.

the Feds have been running education for years now, why aren't we ahead if that's the answer? Without a monolithic bureaucracy in charge and setting inflexible standards that may be good in one place, but not in another, give the states the ability to do it their way and put in place incentives that encourage success.
Uh... when did this happen? The US system is vastly decentralized with each state setting its own standards and the DoEd having very, very little to do with any real policy or decision making. The bulk of education planning is done by state boards of education based upon the directives issued out by the Great School Board that meets in the state capitol however many times it has to. Said directives are then given to the local school districts and their boards to implement. The federal government has very, very little to do with the whole process.

I seriously doubt that opening the Presidency up to immigrants will solve the issue. The problem is that the people who want the power are the very ones who shouldn't have power. It's the person who does his/her damnedest to avoid power that we should elect to any office.

I want the person in office who says "If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve."

So you want Dick Cheney?

I'd get rid of the electoral college. It makes my brain hurt.

The only way to improve it, is to improve the quality of people running for office. Unfortunately, I know of no feasible way to do that.

Good idea, but you missed the second half of the equation: improving the quality of the voters. Right now all you have to do is make it to 18 without a felony conviction, a very low bar indeed.

If everyone has the right to vote, then the value of any individuals vote should be weighted, based on their education, native intelligence, social responsibility and comprehension of the issues they are voting for.

Yes, it is Japanese, and a lose translation would be I see or is that so? It's an equivalent to the English, "Really?" or, "Oh, cool" type of thing.

So-ka, I have a new word to use, thanks.

Monolithic bureaucracy's aren't that great either, but it is far better to have a uniform standard and to fund things adequately and spend in the right way. We're making a lot of mistakes, and what you suggest would just set us further down the wrong road.

I've never understood the desire to make things uniform and standardized just for the sake of uniformity and standardization. As for spending things "the right way" I'm not sure Uncle Sam is the guy you're after for that job.

As for my suggested restructuring of the US Government:

1) Increase the size of the House by however many it takes to make the 2nd point feasible.

2) Each state's House delegation to be chosen by proportional representation.

3) Senators to be chosen by state Legislatures. The Senate was meant to represent the states as states rather than be a redundant House. However, I wouldn't be opposed to a redrawing of state borders in a more natural and logical way. I'm not that supportive of centering these states around urban areas as there are many areas that don't identify with a city, for example it's silly to believe that people in western Upper Michigan actually identify with Detroit (which is hundreds of miles away and most of them will never visit) as in that map.

4) Dual executives much as in the French semi-presidential system. The Speaker of the House would operate much as their Prime Minister with the President (obviously) operating like their President.

5) This isn't so much a government structure thing, but it's something I'd like to see.

The Regular Army and USMC being mandated as no more than a percentage (we'll arbitrarily say 25%) of the total force with the rest being Reserves and National Guard. This would allow for a reasonable expeditionary force but would make larger conflicts rather more politically difficult to conduct.

Democracy is meant to be "for the people, by the people". The problem is, when a country gets large enough, the amount of money required to get people to know you and want to vote for you, means it's for the rich people by the rich people. Or even worse by the people who owe the rich people their election. The biggest problem with democracy, is no matter who you vote for, you get a politician.
The solution, a lottery. Any citizen (by birth or by by being naturalised) can nominate for the senate or congress lottery, or both. Then, a lottery is held. Each district getting an amount of senators and congressman proportional to their size.

I can hear some people going "This guy is an idiot". Think about it. O.K. I accept you will be unlucky and get some crazies, but lets look at Cheney, Rumsfeld, Palin and I'll add Clinton to satisfy those crazy republicans. We already have crazies.

There will actually be some long term planning, as there is no concern about re-election. At the moment, if a great idea wont give a return within one term, it will be abandoned.

Let's look at corruption. Politics at the moment is dominated by people who work for big oil, big pharm, big agri, when they aren't i politics. They then get elected again, just to end up regulating what they worked for. That'll work. :rolleyes:

While I accept this isn't perfect, it's a hell of a lot better than the current system.

The problem is that the system is fundamentally broken and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. I propose that we disband the legislative executive and judicial branches in their entirety and convene a convention to redesign the system. Since the country will need guidance in the interim, I will reluctantly come to the aid of my country and take supreme control of all governmental functions...until a fair, democratic and legitimate new governmental system is put together, of course.

10. Declare April 15th as "free beer" day
Wowmaui - in acknowlegement of your concern for the common man and your "outside of the box" thinking, I shall make you Minister of Beverages and Entertainment.

If everyone has the right to vote, then the value of any individuals vote should be weighted, based on their education, native intelligence, social responsibility and comprehension of the issues they are voting for.
So how you decide that weighting?

how radical do we want to go? i've got some thoughts on improvements ranging from the very moderate (national popular vote for prez, increase the size of the house, etc.), to the rather less so (at least some proportional representation at the national level, and if we're going to keep states as a basis for anything, it's time to redraw them to reflect current social realities - why the hell are we still ruled by the left-overs of colonization, compromises with slavers, and the social facts of 1870?) to my actual favored outcome (global revolution!)

Let's hear your most radical solutions...

you could do a sort of jury-duty selection process for at least part of the legislative branch

That works for me. It's not too far from what the framers envisioned...


to some extent it depends on whether we want to wind up with approximately the same number of states as we have currently or not, but in the abstract i would propose having and actively encouraging a of period of debate within the various communities in the country about who they identify with and who they would like to be politically lumped together with. once we get some sort of a handle on that, starting from some small-scale setting (neighborhoods? municipalities? census tracts? zip codes? whatever, something like that), we'd have places confederate together with other areas on the basis of mutual agreement.

the basic picture is of breaking things up into smaller, more socially fundamental parts and figuring out how the people of those parts would prefer to relate to each other. at least then the 'states' wouldn't be completely arbitrary sets of lines.

Good ideas for sure.

Here're some of my ideas.

I'd like to see a tri-cameral legislature:
The House would be:
expanded by a factor of at least three
de-couled fron the states - match the districts more to the map you give
elected with a mixed system - say 1/3rd from single seat districts, 1/3 from proportional, and 1/3rd from draftees.
serve 3 year terms

The Senate would be selected by the states at their will - that keeps the federal element strong

A third chamber would be directly nationally elected - 9 year terms, 1/3rd 1st past the post, 1/3rd proportional party list, 1/3rd weighted proportional vote.

For the president, equally weight the electoral college, the legislature, the direct vote, and the proportional vote.

A tripartate executive (with one party being responsible for FP, the second for Domestic, and the third for the day to day operations of the executive) is alos in line...


So-ka, I have a new word to use, thanks.

"A! So ka!" adding the excalmatory in front, makes a lovely awful pun on the new prime minister ("Aso ka?" Is it Aso?) that NERVUN will be yelling at me for shortly...

Well, I'd expand the House of Reps, probably to 999 members. Senate to 212. I would also add a mechanism for a "national propositional referendum". (My own creation)

Otherwise, I'd not do changing to the structure itself. I wouldn't change the role of the President, I wouldn't change the roles of the Congress and Senate, or the Courts.

How would you get the Senate to 212? Would you boost it to 4 senators per state and then add three states?

Tackling gerrymandering should be a priority at both the state and federal levels of government.

How about we don't pay the politicians. They'd have to have another job, meaning they'd have experience in business, know how things work & not need a 'Glossary of terms'!

Good idea, but you missed the second half of the equation: improving the quality of the voters. Right now all you have to do is make it to 18 without a felony conviction, a very low bar indeed.

If everyone has the right to vote, then the value of any individuals vote should be weighted, based on their education, native intelligence, social responsibility and comprehension of the issues they are voting for.

Well, we could always go back to the days when we had a property requirement, a literacy requirement, a gender requirement, a race requirement....

I also think the electoral college is a bit cumbersome, but I'm not sure how it would be fixed.

By elimination.

I'd get rid of the Senate and Presidency. An expanded House of Representatives would be chosen by a Mixed Proportional electoral system, half by district and half by proportional vote. A nonpartisan organization would be responsible for making and updating said districts.

Parties that received more than some threshold of voter support would be eligible for public subsidies and would need equal air time on network channels. Combine the above with spending limits on campaigns.

Education wise, I'd definitely have federal funding for education and full public school choice, possibly combined with the right regulated voucher program.

As for the states, I'm not sure of their utility. I like the federal government for funding and standard setting combined with local government implementation and experimentation. Perhaps they provide a decent mediating influence between the two, perhaps not.

How about we don't pay the politicians. They'd have to have another job, meaning they'd have experience in business, know how things work & not need a 'Glossary of terms'!

We certainly could stand to pay most of them less. For example, people elected president are for the most part ALREADY RICH. Last I knew they got paid $400,000 a year. We could also do away with the White House and give them a nice middle class home so they can live like the rest of us. Maybe if they have to live like the rest of us they'll try to make things BETTER for us.

Better but not feasible would be to make elected officials live at the same level as the WORST OFF in their state (or in the Presidents case the country). That would certainly encourage them to try to better the lot of the poor.

So, a brief conversation between Knights of Liberty, Free Soviets, and myself--brought up by Ferrous Oxide accusing the American system as "the worst he's ever heard--in the U.S. Election thread about improving said system needed a new thread.

I'll put it to NSG. How would you improve the current system of government in the United States? That is, what would you alter about elections, powers, checks and balances, and all the good stuff to make it more effective or more to your style?


I've had some ideas and presented them before but don't think my thread exists anymore.

I'll condense them into a short quick thing here:

- remove the electoral college and go to instant runoff voting

- remove private donations from campaigns and go with full public financing

- govt. run website for public discourse on all candidates and issues, using biometrics to log in as no anonymous participation would be allowed.

- 5 presidents each well versed in specific subjects... education president, foreign affairs president, health care president, economy president, military president. They all vote for all final bill approvals as well as political/judicial appointments.

Is it even possible to? Is it possible anywhere in the world?

The solution is fire. And lots of it.

... Yes! That way, you know exactly what you're voting for! You're not voting for some rockstar-wannabe idiot, you're voting for a party! With views!

Which is idiotic. I vote for the person because thinking for ones self is a quality of leadership. I dont vote for party drones.

So, a brief conversation between Knights of Liberty, Free Soviets, and myself--brought up by Ferrous Oxide accusing the American system as "the worst he's ever heard--in the U.S. Election thread about improving said system needed a new thread.

I'll put it to NSG. How would you improve the current system of government in the United States? That is, what would you alter about elections, powers, checks and balances, and all the good stuff to make it more effective or more to your style?

1. I'd make it easier for third parties to get elected into national Congress, and even the Presidency.

2. Cut the government size and power by 3/4th.

3. Implement the Fair Tax

4. Repeal such laws as Patriot Act, Wiretapping bills, etc.

5. Have our laws apply to "captured enemy combatant'.

6. Allow gays to marry, and legalize drugs.

How would you get the Senate to 212? Would you boost it to 4 senators per state and then add three states?

DC, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Ban corporate involvement in elections. Also find a way to restrict revolving door between big buisness and govement. Increase rights like free drug use and make govements concentrate on helping people instead of manageing them.

heres a quick and easy one- get ride of the outdated electoral college, its unnecessary and makes a lot of people i know not bother voting


-cause i live in ny- a blue state- your vote won't do jack shit no matter who you vote for, those electoral votes are still going one way and one way only.

heres a quick and easy one- get ride of the outdated electoral college, its unnecessary and makes a lot of people i know not bother voting


-cause i live in ny- a blue state- your vote won't do jack shit no matter who you vote for, those electoral votes are still going one way and one way only.

I like the electoral college. it ensures the presidential election wont be a repeat of congressional elections (checks and balance and such) and it serves to balance the states with individuals as forms of representation.

not to say you shouldnt vote ;)

I like the electoral college. it ensures the presidential election wont be a repeat of congressional elections (checks and balance and such) and it serves to balance the states with individuals as forms of representation.

ok, but is that really worth the invalidation of your votes? its just over representation.

ok, but is that really worth the invalidation of your votes? its just over representation.

post office box + mail in ballot means I can vote from the battle ground states every time. consider it a test of IQ to get your vote to count.

Why in the hell should farmer Ned from Backwater, Alabama get two votes to my one? His concerns are no longer relevant to our globalized economy and ever growing cities which produce the lions share of our nations GDP. His govt subsidies to keep growing unprofitable crops are part of the problem and caused by farmer Neds extra voting power.

One person, one vote insures that every US American has an equal say in our govt. Farmer Ned is no better informed about anything and should not have more voting power because of where he chooses to live.

I would definately go with the time limits. I think that would help to refocus on the needs of the people and not the government.

1: nuke washington
2: rebuild it
3: ???????
4: PROFIT!

In all seriousness the system needs a large rework but like most govermental ones its bloody convoluted so.....

get yourself elected and maybe you can do something about it ^^

Or shout at people till they do, do something about it........

either way:

1. I'd make it easier for third parties to get elected into national Congress, and even the Presidency.

2. Cut the government size and power by 3/4th.

3. Implement the Fair Tax

4. Repeal such laws as Patriot Act, Wiretapping bills, etc.

5. Have our laws apply to "captured enemy combatant'.

6. Allow gays to marry, and legalize drugs.
In general I vote for the above as well.

Also, in contrast to some other here, I oppose the "mob rule" idea of "pure democracy." The electoral college is a hedge against that. If the majority will always prevails, the minority will be trampled underfoot. Our system is expressly designed to prevent that. Is it perfect? No, but it's better than majority rule all the time in all things.

"mob rule" is a nice buzz phrase but has little meaning. Could you provide realistic examples of what might happen in this day and age if we got rid of the electoral college and went with instant runoff voting for example.

1. I'd make it easier for third parties to get elected into national Congress, and even the Presidency.

2. Cut the government size and power by 3/4th.

3. Implement the Fair Tax

4. Repeal such laws as Patriot Act, Wiretapping bills, etc.

5. Have our laws apply to "captured enemy combatant'.

6. Allow gays to marry, and legalize drugs.I agree with number one, number three, and the first part of number six. Some parts of number four, as well. I don't agree with number two because there's no point in having a government at all if it can't do anything and doesn't have the ability to enforce anything it manages to do? I know the government may not seem to get much done, but running a country as complex as the United States takes a larger government.

post office box + mail in ballot means I can vote from the battle ground states every time. consider it a test of IQ to get your vote to count.

Am I misunderstanding something here or are you actually admitting to voter fraud in an open forum? One which, due to the presence of more than a few radicals, is probably kept under observation by the US government?


Hi Big Brother!

1: nuke Washington
2: ???????
3: PROFIT!


Fixed.

One thing that wouldn't hurt any...


Throw the bums out -- anyone not in their first term is fired is at the end of their current term. Make them sit out at least 4 years before running again.

How about we don't pay the politicians.

so only the wealthy could do it? no thanks

Put an end to the professional politician. Term limits all around.
I, personally, think that would do quite a bit of good. Wouldn't solve ALL the problems, but would remove a good chunk of the corruption and 're-election syndrome' issues.

/threadwin.

so only the wealthy could do it? no thanks

For the most part only the wealthy DO, at least when it comes to running for president. How about a compromise where we pay them on a sliding scale based on how much money they already have.

1. I'd make it easier for third parties to get elected into national Congress, and even the Presidency.

2. Cut the government size and power by 3/4th.

3. Implement the Fair Tax

4. Repeal such laws as Patriot Act, Wiretapping bills, etc.

5. Have our laws apply to "captured enemy combatant'.

6. Allow gays to marry, and legalize drugs.

1. How is it hard now? The only problemis a lack of 3rd party members, the re-election syndrome, and the lack of concentraction of 3rd party voters. You can only fix one of those.

2. Maybe by half, get rid of the uneeded bits.

3. Yes

4. Yes x2.

5. Yep.

6. Yes, and yes.

"Fair Tax", what a joke.

For the most part only the wealthy DO, at least when it comes to running for president.

yes, and that is a problem. which is why doing something that makes it impossible for anyone else to even think about it strikes me as objectionable.

How about a compromise where we pay them on a sliding scale based on how much money they already have.

maybe, though i'm not convinced that the amount we pay them is actually all the problematic, comparatively.

1. How is it hard now? The only problemis a lack of 3rd party members, the re-election syndrome, and the lack of concentraction of 3rd party voters. You can only fix one of those.

different systems create different outcomes (at least probabilistically). if we had proportional representation at some level, we would almost certainly have more than two parties holding seats immediately following the first election, even with all else being held equal, as long as the election threshold was reasonable.

maybe, though i'm not convinced that the amount we pay them is actually all the problematic, comparatively.

Someone who already owns a yacht doesn't need $400,000 a year paid for out of our TAX MONEY.

Under the orginal rules in the United States you didn't even have to be from the same party to become president and vice president. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams who served as vice president and president were from seperate parties for example. Adams had the most votes got the presidency while Jefferson had the second most became vice president.

Thats how things orginally worked since the the founding fathers didn't take into account political parties into the equation when they wrote the constitution. Which is odd since prerevolutionary America politicans had generally associated with either the Whig or Tory parties.

This changed however after an later election when Jefferson's Vice Presidental canidate Blair tried get himself made president when the election got so close it had be decided by congress which led to changes in the electoral process.

so, uh, why do we even have to have a vice president at all again?

so, uh, why do we even have to have a vice president at all again?

Because someone needs to look after the White House while the president is away.

Someone who already owns a yacht doesn't need $400,000 a year paid for out of our TAX MONEY.

yeah, but there are much bigger issues out there. paying them a lot might be wasteful, but not harmful in the way that other bad uses of money are. and in pure monetary terms, top elected official salaries are not that huge of a budget item.

I've never understood the desire to make things uniform and standardized just for the sake of uniformity and standardization. As for spending things "the right way" I'm not sure Uncle Sam is the guy you're after for that job.



The idea is for the sake of efficiency. Which would be more efficient and overall better for the educational system of the United States: fifty different standards, or one?

Which would be better for the United States? Giving rich neighborhoods more money than poor neighborhoods, or standardizing funding?

Which would be better for the United States? Giving everyone equal opportunity at quality education, or allowing it to slip in a lot of areas?

I'm not saying the government is a panacea here, mind. I'm well aware of the inefficiences of government. That's why I want to go into politics to help make it more efficient, rather than more ideological as most people seem to be willing to make it.

And I honestly believe that our current system of allocating so much power to state government's and allowing various standards to fluctuate wildly around the country only harms us in the end. We're better than this.

Someone who already owns a yacht doesn't need $400,000 a year paid for out of our TAX MONEY.

Just like those of public servants who own a house don't need to be paid $50,000 a year out of our TAX MONEY

How would I improve the United States government? I'd start with a wave of terrorist attacks carried out with homemade remote controlled cruise missiles, sniper rifles, and a variety of improvised explosive devices to assassinate the president, vice president, prominent senators and congressmen, the supreme court, and anyone that insulted me in high school. Then I'd order my cult followers to fly commercial jets into civilian targets like landmark buildings and major centers of commerce. I would then go public via the internet with my demands dubbed over a video of Mr. Rogers wearing a clown mask. These would include but are not limited to:
- The United States would be reorganized into the first American Empire
- The date of country's founding would be moved from 1776 to 1897
- I mean 1901
- I really mean 1899
- And by that I mean anus, the country was founded in anus
- The majority of government positions would be decided as objectively as possible through an evalutation taking into consideration education, professional experience, and simulation and test scores instead of popularity or personal preference of those in power to ensure that power is given to those who have demonstrated knowledge and ability
- Saturday would be renamed Caturday
- On my second day in office I would announce the creation of a new Nobel Prize, Mustache, which I would then give to myself
- Every subsequent Nobel Prize for mustache would be given to James Hyneman
- I would declare the economy fixed
- I would promise hope and change and be forever remembered as the best (and worst) American emperor
- I'd probably be dead by my fourth day in office but I'd be sure to set off at least 19 nukes in tiny countries that are no real threat and start even more wars before then

The idea is for the sake of efficiency. Which would be more efficient and overall better for the educational system of the United States: fifty different standards, or one?

Which would be better for the United States? Giving rich neighborhoods more money than poor neighborhoods, or standardizing funding?

Which would be better for the United States? Giving everyone equal opportunity at quality education, or allowing it to slip in a lot of areas?

I'm not saying the government is a panacea here, mind. I'm well aware of the inefficiences of government. That's why I want to go into politics to help make it more efficient, rather than more ideological as most people seem to be willing to make it.

And I honestly believe that our current system of allocating so much power to state government's and allowing various standards to fluctuate wildly around the country only harms us in the end. We're better than this.

Which is better, allowing states to experiment and attempt different approaches or mandating one, very likely mediocre, standard on everyone?

You're very likely mistaking me for a libertarian due to my antifederalist positions but I can tell you that's quite far from the truth. I'm very much a social democrat, in fact I'm borderline democratic socialist.

My issue with having uniform laws around the country is that there are states who enact rather more progressive laws than the rest of the country allows. Massachusetts and California allowing gay marriage, Oregon allowing assisted suicide, California's emission standards, etc. If these were to be voted on in Congress they'd almost certainly be denied. I don't want capital punishment in my state, but we most certainly would have it if Congress were to decide on it.

I think "allowing" (and I don't believe at all that's how it works) the states different policies can only help us. There will be states that succeed and states that fail, but good policies and practices will generally be picked up by the rest of the states until they become de facto national policy and if Texans want to do silly things down there (as long as they don't violate the Constitution, mind) I really don't care.

And one last issue I have with centralizing power in Washington is the difficulty in influencing Congress. It's far more convenient and effective for me to bitch at my Legislators in Lansing than it is for me to bitch at my Congressman. Not to mention that issues that matter to people where I live likely won't matter to people elsewhere in the United States, in fact what is in our interests may be against the interests of people elsewhere (Great Lakes diversions, for example).

Points, all good ones. I don't really have answers for them right now.

Benevolent Dictatorship by a philosopher king.

personally, i would change the role of the president, right now he has too many people under him and Congress is too weak... also, i'd make it illegal to have clearly defined political parties... though that last part would just make the rich richer... still, the two party system has to go

"A! So ka!" adding the excalmatory in front, makes a lovely awful pun on the new prime minister ("Aso ka?" Is it Aso?) that NERVUN will be yelling at me for shortly...
You know.. the day after Aso was elected prime minister by the Diet, that damn pun kept running through my head all day long! I was about ready to go down to Osaka and kill you for that!

You know.. the day after Aso was elected prime minister by the Diet, that damn pun kept running through my head all day long! I was about ready to go down to Osaka and kill you for that!

Doooo eeeet.

You know.. the day after Aso was elected prime minister by the Diet, that damn pun kept running through my head all day long! I was about ready to go down to Osaka and kill you for that!

Hehehe. before I moved to Osaka, when I lived up in Niigata, a god Kansai born friend told me me oyajigagu would be the death of me here....

Still thrive, live, and jive...

;P

I would go back to the original idea in which the Senators are appointed by the governor of each state. The reason that the speaker of the house is 3rd in the line of succession is because originally, the senators were appointed and the representatives were elected.

I would like to see term limits for senators and representatives, or to do away with the presidential term limit. The presidential term limit was brought up after WWII, because the republican senators were pissed at FDR being reelected so many times. It is so damned hypocritical that the president is limited to terms but the senate/house is not.

I would keep the electoral college. Without it, a person only has to win about 5 states to take the popular vote, thus giving the other 45 states no say so as to who should be president.

And most importantly, I want to get rid of this corrupt two-party system. I don't feel like there is no real representation with only 2 parties running everything, and keeping other parties from being able to join the race.

I would keep the electoral college. Without it, a person only has to win about 5 states to take the popular vote, thus giving the other 45 states no say so as to who should be president.

um, how?

Personally, I'm all for completely dismantling the entire federal government and watching what happens. But that's more of an entertainment thing.

So, a brief conversation between Knights of Liberty, Free Soviets, and myself--brought up by Ferrous Oxide accusing the American system as "the worst he's ever heard--in the U.S. Election thread about improving said system needed a new thread.

I'll put it to NSG. How would you improve the current system of government in the United States? That is, what would you alter about elections, powers, checks and balances, and all the good stuff to make it more effective or more to your style?

I would leave the Constitution essentially as it is.

However, I would add an Amendment.

No person shall be eligible for any elected Federal office, to include the Presidency, Vice Presidency, or any member of the Congress or Senate, if they have been to law school (no matter how brief) or have passed the bar in any State, or have worked for any time as a lawyer. Any elected official who obtains a law education or degree, or passes the bar after being elected, shall be immediately and permanently removed from office without any recourse to appeal.

1. I'd make it easier for third parties to get elected into national Congress, and even the Presidency.


I like that idea, but how would you do it?

I'd like to change the way we vote, maybe to instant-runoffs. That wouldn't even necessarily be a legal change, but I think it would solve of a lot of problems concerning third-parties, and just be a better way to gauge who people really want.
All 50 states should also agree to some charter that dictates how parties get on ballots. Again, it wouldn't actually have to be a federal law. It'd just make democracy easier. I'll admit it: that last sentence was thrown in mostly as a slogan; it doesn't actually mean anything.

No electoral college.

post office box + mail in ballot means I can vote from the battle ground states every time. consider it a test of IQ to get your vote to count.

Still waiting on clarification of if you've actually admitted to voter fraud or not . . .

I would leave the Constitution essentially as it is.

However, I would add an Amendment.

No person shall be eligible for any elected Federal office, to include the Presidency, Vice Presidency, or any member of the Congress or Senate, if they have been to law school (no matter how brief) or have passed the bar in any State, or have worked for any time as a lawyer. Any elected official who obtains a law education or degree, or passes the bar after being elected, shall be immediately and permanently removed from office without any recourse to appeal.

What possible good could that do? We don't disqualify any American based upon their occupation, and nor should we.

What possible good could that do? We don't disqualify any American based upon their occupation, and nor should we.

Especially if that occupation is law, something which is handy to know when making...laws.

Personally, I'm all for completely dismantling the entire federal government and watching what happens. But that's more of an entertainment thing.

Why not have 50 individual countries?

I would go back to the original idea in which the Senators are appointed by the governor of each state. The reason that the speaker of the house is 3rd in the line of succession is because originally, the senators were appointed and the representatives were elected.

The direct elections for the senate were put in place in 1913.
The presidential line of succession was made in 1947.
Anything before the cold war never anticipated both the President and Vice President being taken out.
the reason Speaker of the house is inline before the Senate is because VP is technically president of the Senate. The person otherwise performing those duties is president Pro Tempore. Since he is temporary he is considered a step below the speaker of the house.

I would like to see term limits for senators and representatives, or to do away with the presidential term limit. The presidential term limit was brought up after WWII, because the republican senators were pissed at FDR being reelected so many times. It is so damned hypocritical that the president is limited to terms but the senate/house is not.

The president hold more power then any senator or congressman. Not to mention if the republicans introduced term limits to thwart democrats they were eating crow with both Ike and Reagan. Who pretty much could have got elected at will. It likely has more to do with preventing people from serving as head of state until they die like FDR did which would make America look and feel more like a monarchy.


I would keep the electoral college. Without it, a person only has to win about 5 states to take the popular vote, thus giving the other 45 states no say so as to who should be president.


wrong no state fully votes one party even liberal California and conservative Texas is at best a 60/40 split. Why I like the electoral college is that it requires broad regional support in order to win instead of other direct election countries where a few cities are capable dominating elections.


And most importantly, I want to get rid of this corrupt two-party system. I don't feel like there is no real representation with only 2 parties running everything, and keeping other parties from being able to join the race.

All parties are corrupt having two doesn't make it any more. However a multiparty system creates more bureaucracy and pork in legislation. Also with a multiparty system extremist will be able to get elected to national office. I really don't feel like becoming Austria with nationalist in office ranting and raving about non Austrians in the country. Even more scary it looks like the nationalist will lead the coalition government.

um, how?

If we were to base the election on the popular vote, then you only need to concentrate your efforts on the top populated states, which are, in order;

California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pensylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina and New Jersey.

Because those are the most populated states, they also carry the most electoral college votes in order;

California-55; Texas -34; New York- 31; Florida- 27, Illinois- 21, Pennsylvania-21; Ohio-20; Michigan-17; Georgia-15; North Carolina-15 and New Jersey-15.

When the founding fathers created the electoral college, they realized that the states in new england had the majority of the population of the nation. It was a check to keep a handful of states from deciding the presidency.

If we were to base the election on the popular vote, then you only need to concentrate your efforts on the top populated states, which are, in order;

California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pensylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina and New Jersey.

Because those are the most populated states, they also carry the most electoral college votes in order;

California-55; Texas -34; New York- 31; Florida- 27, Illinois- 21, Pennsylvania-21; Ohio-20; Michigan-17; Georgia-15; North Carolina-15 and New Jersey-15.

yeah, i'm still not getting your argument here. the electoral college means that a candidate could win just those states by a couple hundred votes each and become the president while losing in an utter landslide in every other state. under a popular vote, a candidate would need to win approximately 100% of the vote in the top 9 of those 11 states to win the country.

the electoral college causes the problem you claim it solves.

When the founding fathers created the electoral college, they realized that the states in new england had the majority of the population of the nation. It was a check to keep a handful of states from deciding the presidency.

no, it was a way of reusing the 3/5th compromise to let slave states have a bigger say than they would have on the basis of actual votes. va and ma had reasonably similar numbers of free white males in 1790, but va had double ma's total population due to the huge number of slaves there.

as a side note, new england had about a quarter of the total population and a third of the free white males.

Regardless of the type of government any nation has, the quality and effectiveness of the government depends on the quality of people involved. I'm afraid you can't get around it, the only way to improve government is to improve people. And that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

yeah, i'm still not getting your argument here. the electoral college means that a candidate could win just those states by a couple hundred votes each and become the president while losing in an utter landslide in every other state. under a popular vote, a candidate would need to win approximately 100% of the vote in the top 9 of those 11 states to win the country.

the electoral college causes the problem you claim it solves.



no, it was a way of reusing the 3/5th compromise to let slave states have a bigger say than they would have on the basis of actual votes. va and ma had reasonably similar numbers of free white males in 1790, but va had double ma's total population due to the huge number of slaves there.

as a side note, new england had about a quarter of the total population and a third of the free white males.

Thank you for the informaton about the 3/5 compromise. It is a part of history that I am obviously weak on. Have a geat one.

no, it was a way of reusing the 3/5th compromise to let slave states have a bigger say than they would have on the basis of actual votes. va and ma had reasonably similar numbers of free white males in 1790, but va had double ma's total population due to the huge number of slaves there.

as a side note, new england had about a quarter of the total population and a third of the free white males.

Wasn't the whole point of the 3/5ths compromise the hope that it would reduce the voting power of slave states which would have otherwise had a lot more manpower than the free states?

Wasn't the whole point of the 3/5ths compromise the hope that it would reduce the voting power of slave states which would have otherwise had a lot more manpower than the free states?

well, the issue at the constitutional convention was that the slave states wanted their entire populations counted towards representation in the house, while delegates opposed to slavery and/or from non-slave states thought that was a terrible idea. the 3/5ths idea was trotted out as a way to compromise on the issue (having already been tried out as a compromise for a slightly different issue in a failed amendment to the articles of confederation).

Thank you for the informaton about the 3/5 compromise. It is a part of history that I am obviously weak on. Have a geat one.

no problem - it's not really something that is widely known or discussed, but it comes up explicitly in madison's notes (http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0719.html) from the convention:

The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.

How would you improve the current system of government in the United States?

Ignore it.

2. Cut the government size and power by 3/4th.


When Libertarians propose these huge government reductions, do you actually know what you're going to remove, and how exactly that will affect society and the economy as a whole or is it just the delete fucking everything (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Delete_fucking_everything) version of economic policy?

I would institute initiative, referendum, and recall at the national level. I would furthermore abolish both corporate personhood and the electoral college. I would replace the current election system with a Condorcet/IRV system. Also I would propose the abolishment of patents with a prize system, possibly subsidized by the government. I would also provide an interesting service that I think the American people may find interesting: I would authorize the creation of a secure government website where American citizens can create accounts through which they can file taxes or apply for assistance quickly and painlessly w/ tutorials explaining recent government acts and their effects in easy to understand language. This could cut back on administrative costs- thus taxes. I would promote a more socialized economy with power delegated to democratically elected economic councils at the state level, thus allowing each state to chart its own path with the input of its residents. I would also like to see proportional representation in the House of Representatives. Lastly, abolish those bloody ballot access laws that prevent third parties from being actively engaged in politics.

sorry for double posting, however I also would consider the possibility of nonconsecutive terms for elected officials, meaning that say Sen. John Smith is currently serving a term. Sen. Smith, when his term ended, could not run for reelection until his successor (let's call him Sen. Biff) served a term in office, after which Sen Biff could not run for senate. Sen. Smith, however can run for reelection. I would furthermore limit the number of terms to perhaps 3 for senators and 5 for representatives.

Congressional term limits are a good idea, as is eliminating the electoral college.

Also requiring Congress to keep a balanced budget unless agreed by... let's make it... 3/5 of Congress and signed into law by the president like any other bill. And non-balanced budget bills always expire in a year.

And I'd like to break up the two big parties, but I can't figure out any way to do that. Maybe switching to a different voting system would be best. First-past-the-post is stupid.

Oh, and cutting the bureaucracy down as much as possible. And eliminating any redundant or obsolete law. And simplifying any necessary but overcomplicated law, especially the tax code.

So, a brief conversation between Knights of Liberty, Free Soviets, and myself--brought up by Ferrous Oxide accusing the American system as "the worst he's ever heard--in the U.S. Election thread about improving said system needed a new thread.

I'll put it to NSG. How would you improve the current system of government in the United States? That is, what would you alter about elections, powers, checks and balances, and all the good stuff to make it more effective or more to your style?

Having more that 2 polictical parties that are at both extreems.

Having more that 2 polictical parties that are at both extreems.

We don't have two parties at both extremes. We have a far-right part and a center-right party.

We don't have two parties at both extremes. We have a far-right part and a center-right party.

yes, center right....shure....

yes, center right....shure....

Far left would be communism. And I don't see any Democrats advocating the complete abolition of class and government, as well as a complete redistribution of wealth.

I would probably go over the tax code with a fine toothed comb to clean it up. I would not take a hatchet to as my, foolish, libertarian comrades would but instead take a surgeons knife and brain imaging equipment to carefully remove any signs of stupidity or tax evasion. I may in fact rework the corporate tax laws so that the companies don't pay taxes until AFTER they post their profits, which I would require they do at least four times a year and assess the taxes on the profits, thus making it difficult to pass on to the consumer... I hope. The corporate tax money would be spent as follows:
national debt
restoring social security solvency
innovation prizes
social welfare programs
in that order. And while we are on the topic of social security, I would remove the top cap on contributions to the system to bring in more money. Lastly I would make those individuals making less than 15 grand a year tax exempt, while creating a new tax bracket: those making 500 grand plus have to pay 45% income tax rate.

Far left would be communism. And I don't see any Democrats advocating the complete abolition of class and government, as well as a complete redistribution of wealth.

That makes them not far-left, but why not center-left?

That makes them not far-left, but why not center-left?

on average, they're not terribly excited about social democracy either

on average, they're not terribly excited about social democracy either
I see.
A related question concerning the two parties: I know there is a large degree of realism both have to take into account, and shift their platforms accordingly. Does anyone know of any poll or study that compared the political leanings of the members of each party with their party leaders? That is, is the guy who consistently votes Republican more conservative than the people he is electing, or just less liberal than those he is not. I'd think the parties would tend toward moderateness, but it's also possible they move to either side to distinguish themselves.

Ignore it.

You, sir, win this thread.

Why not have 50 individual countries?

Good point. Get rid of the state governments, too. I want to see what happens. :D

I'm an Australian, and while I think that it's a little presumptious my lecturing Americans on their system of government (especially as I've only been in the country for under a month in 2007) but here goes:

I teach national politics in Melbourne, Australia and we borrowed a great deal from the US political system. We too are a federation of states with a bicameral (two chambers) system: a lower house that we too call The House of Representative and an upper house that we call a senate. However, instead of a President we have a Governor General (who represents Queen Elizabeth). Now in the Constitution the Governor General has a great deal of power - however, it is largely symbolic and for all intents and purposes, th ePrime Minister runs the country. However, if the Prime Minister's party does not control the Senate, the Senate can be very obstructionist. The Senate can vote down bills and it can even block supply (which means the national budget can be blocked and the governmnet has no money). What happens then is that the Governor General usually orders new elections.

The Australian system generally works well. It's a pretty conservative model but the electorate seem happy with it by anbnd large. Many Australians would like a Republic and a President but not one with as much power as the US prez . Our lower house has electorates which are all roughly the same size. I believe these to be vastly superior to the electoral college system in the US.
We also have the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) that runs elections. Americans should give the FEC some teeth and make the FEC solely responsible for running US Federal elections. After the shameful Florida fracas in 2000, noone can argue that leaving a federal election in the hands of the states is efficient or even fair.
The AEC in Australia in widely regarded as an honest broker.
We don't have the registered Democrat/registered Republican voter thing either. People are free to join parties and it is the political parties that nominate the candidates. Australian parties tend to be more disciplined than US ones. The spectacle of parties dividing as they did with the Wall St bail out rarely happens in Australia - except on "conscience votes" like abortion.
Some people argue that Australia's political system is becoming more American but there are significant differences. The US system was born of a revolution - a capitalist/landowning one whereas Britain handed over independence to Australia. We have had no revolutions and no civil wars. Australia is arguably more secular than the US. The US was founded by puritan dissidents whereas Australia was founded by convicts and their guards. As a result, there is a lot less "In God we trust" and "One Nation Under God". A great deal of our constitution is unwritten. There is no mention of parties or the Prime Minister in it. But I guess that is true of the US as well.
On ebig difference is that Australia has compulsory voting so 95% of Australians tend to vote in federal elections compared with the 65%-70% of Americans who vote under a voluntary system.
There is a lot to like about US democracy but I do think that it gives too much power and access to the affluent and the poor and the ethnic minorities tend to be disenfranchised.
Perhaps that will change with Obama. Go America! Go for change!

Answering New Limacon's inquiry: generally the political elites hold more extreme views than the rank and file voters. For example a liberal elite is generally more liberal than an ordinary liberal and an ordinary conservative is less conservative than a conservative elite. However they moderate their views to appeal to the broadest audience possible to get elected. There are fringe members who are not elites in both parties that sometimes have even more extreme views than the elites.

That makes them not far-left, but why not center-left?

They support a market economy and thus by definition cannot be left.

In American terms, any party, regardless of whether or not it supports a market economy, if it promotes any sort of welfare, enviromental protection, regulation of markets, equal rights, etc, then it is regarded as left-wing in American eyes. In fact DNC candidates are often denounced as socialists or communists where I'm from for their policy stances, even when they are clearly not socialists. From what I gather many European leaders would be considered leftist in America, even Pres. Sarkozy.

Ignore it.

*Wonders how Vitto's attention decreases the quality of government.*

Here is a satirical view put forward by the English:
To the citizens of the United States of America from Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

In light of your failure in recent years to nominate competent candidates for President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.

(You should look up 'revocation' in the Oxford English Dictionary.)

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas, which she does not fancy).

Your new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a Governor for America without the need for further elections.

Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

-----------------------

1. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'colour,' 'favour,' 'labour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix '-ize' will be replaced by the suffix '-ise.' Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up 'vocabulary').

------------------------

2. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as ''like' and 'you know' is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no such thing as U.S.. English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take into account the reinstated letter 'u'' and the elimination of '-ize.'

-------------------

3. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.

-----------------

4. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not quite ready to be independent. Guns should only be used for shooting grouse. If you can't sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist,then you're not ready to shoot grouse.

----------------------

5. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. Although a permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

----------------------

6. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left side with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

--------------------

7. The former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline) of roughly $10/US gallon. Get used to it.

-------------------

8. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.

-------------------

9. The cold, tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. South African beer is also acceptable, as they are pound for pound the greatest sporting nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of the British Commonwealth - see what it did for them. American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.

---------------------

10. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie Macdowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.

---------------------

11. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies).

---------------------

12. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the South Africans first to take the sting out of their deliveries.

--------------------

13. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.

-----------------

14. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).

---------------

15. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 p.m. with proper cups, with saucers, and never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; plus strawberries (with cream) when in season.

------------------

God Save the Queen!

PS: Only share this with friends who have a good sense of humour (NOT humor)!

I concur with that list. Especially the bit about the football.

And the beer too; I made the mistake of having a Budweiser once.

*Wonders how Vitto's attention decreases the quality of government.*

Ha. Believe me, I pay as little attention to the government as a possibly can. If the government knew how little I cared for it or listened to it, I would be spending time in jail.

So, a brief conversation between Knights of Liberty, Free Soviets, and myself--brought up by Ferrous Oxide accusing the American system as "the worst he's ever heard--in the U.S. Election thread about improving said system needed a new thread.

I'll put it to NSG. How would you improve the current system of government in the United States? That is, what would you alter about elections, powers, checks and balances, and all the good stuff to make it more effective or more to your style?

Powers checks and balances need no changes.

I would get rid of the electoral college and party politics. Political parties and their rivalreis against each other are what keep things stagnant and ensures only the stupidest legislation gets through so that one party or the other can go "I told you so! I told you they were (insert derogatory comment heres)."
With people voting for or against someone just because of what label they put on themselves and who they choose to associate with. Hell half the people inside each political party can't stand each other but they work together just because they are democrats.. or republicans... or wigs... or torries... its all been BS since the beginning and will remain BS until it either kills the whole nation or is a major wake up call.

The system of government can only be fixed by entirely redoing it or changing the election system such that it no longer favors a two-party system to the exclusion of all other parties.

They support a market economy and thus by definition cannot be left.

Wait, what?

Capitalism means auto-right wing, no matter what?

Well, we could always go back to the days when we had a property requirement, a literacy requirement, a gender requirement, a race requirement....

Well, as things are right now, we obviously do not have an intelligence requirement, either to run for office, or to vote. Thats all I ask: A little bit of intelligence and education in the voters and the candidates.

BTW your post implies that I am a racist and sexist. I am niether. I am an elitist, and selfist. If you are going to imply any character flaws I may posses, please use the right ones

Wait, what?

Capitalism means auto-right wing, no matter what?

More or less, yes.

More or less, yes.

Even market socialists are right wing then?

Even market socialists are right wing then?

Which type of market socialism? One isn't even a market economy, and the other approaches anarcho-capitalism.

Which type of market socialism? One isn't even a market economy, and the other approaches anarcho-capitalism.

The kind with a market and a state. So Langian state planning would be out and so would any anarchos. I'm thinking more along the lines of an economy full of workers co-ops and/or Roemer's Coupon socialism.

The kind with a market and a state. So Langian state planning would be out and so would any anarchos. I'm thinking more along the lines of an economy full of workers co-ops and/or Roemer's Coupon socialism.

Which doesn't seem to be any variety of market socialism. I'm not familiar with the concept of Roemer's Coupon, so I'll have to figure out what that means before I get back to you. And the Internet's just confusing me more.

Which doesn't seem to be any variety of market socialism. I'm not familiar with the concept of Roemer's Coupon, so I'll have to figure out what that means before I get back to you. And the Internet's just confusing me more.

Roemer's Coupon Socialism is

In a nutshell, his[Roemer's] proposal involves creating two kinds of money in a society: commodity-money, used to purchase commodities for consumption, and share-money, also referred to as "coupons", used to purchase ownership rights in firms. These two kinds of money are nonconvertible: you cannot legally trade coupons for dollars. Coupons are distributed to the population in an egalitarian manner. Citizens, upon reaching the age of majority, are given their per capita share of the total coupon value of the productive property in the economy. With these coupons they can then by shares from which they derive certain ownership rights, including dividends from the profits of firms and the right to vote for at least some of the people on the boards of directors of firms. There is thus a stock market, but the stocks can only be purchased with coupons, not dollars. Shares and coupons are nontranferrable. You cannot give your shares away, but must sell them at the market coupon rate, and you cannot give your coupons away. At death, all shares and unspent coupons revert to the state for redistribution. The nontransferability and nonconvertibility of coupons prevents ownership from becoming concentrated: the rich (in dollars) cannot buy out the poor. Since stocks are sold for coupons, not dollars, firms cannot directly raise capital by selling stocks. Financial capital is raised through credit markets organized by state banks and through various schemes by which the state converts the coupons acquired by firms into dollars. This involvement of the state allows for a significant degree of "planning the market". The result of this scheme, Roemer argues, is relatively freely functioning market mechanisms along with a sustainable egalitarian distribution of property rights, a roughly equal distribution of profits, and a significant planning capacity of the state over broad investment priorities. Thus: market socialism.

Source (http://www.havenscenter.org/realutopias/1994)

It is said that the democracy is the worst government that has ever been invented, except all others have been tried.

Roemer's Coupon Socialism is



Source (http://www.havenscenter.org/realutopias/1994)

Honestly, that looks more like a planned economy than a market economy to me.

It is said that the democracy is the worst government that has ever been invented, except all others have been tried.

And every time I hear that, I ask why it is that democratically elected leaders are always mediocre at best.

The more I think about it, the more a parliamentary or semi-parliamentary government structure makes sense, especially given the problems that has been facing the US for the latter half of the 20th Century.

These central problems have stemmed from runaway executive power and a lack of clear accountability. The Imperial Presidency seems to be the rule, rather than the exception, and the insolvency of national issues is easily deflected to the other branch of government.

At least in a parliamentary system, the executive is much more accountable to the people's representatives in the legislature. It's also very clear who to blame: everyone. Both the executive and the legislature are equally responsible for any problems.

As sort of a middle ground between my more radical impulses and what we have today, I would like to see a semi-parliamentary structure with a clear division between head of state and head of government. The head of state can still be responsible for foreign policy, and nominating the head of government, but the head of government would be responsible for domestic policy.

We should move to a more unitary form of a legislature along with this shift, somewhat like the British parliament. The people's house, whatever it may be called, will have supremacy, espescially in domestic policy. The Senate will be stripped of legislative power and reformed as an advisory, deliberative policy. Thus it would retain its powers of advice and consent in treaty making and judicial appointment, but it's check on the acts of the people's house would be limited to delaying function, perhaps a supermajority veto (i.e., if 2/3 or 3/4 of the Senate oppose an Act, it is vetoed)

A lot of electoral reform would go into this. Proportional representation for elections to the people's house. This will serve to break up the two party system. And for the Presidency and Senate elections, I would imagine that some form of a instant runoff voting would serve the same effect.

Stop electorical college.

It is said that the democracy is the worst government that has ever been invented, except all others have been tried.
By Winston Churchill, who contradicts himself even regarding this. Eugh.

* Eliminate the electoral college
* Make all politicians swear an oath that the country means more to them than anything else
* Ban smear campaigns (thus weeding out the people who have no good points and try to win my mudslinging)

Asking how one would improve the U.S. system of government is like asking how someone would "improve" dogshit. Even if you cover the dogshit in whipped cream and sprinkles, it's still dogshit.

Ideal solution: No government at all.

Asking how one would improve the U.S. system of government is like asking how someone would "improve" dogshit. Even if you cover the dogshit in whipped cream and sprinkles, it's still dogshit.

Ideal solution: No government at all.
Eh no.

Eh no.

Why do you support monopolies?

Why do you support monopolies?

Why do you support prepetual gang warfare?

Why do you support monopolies?
The government does not have a monopoly of force, nor does the military, nor the economy, nor the general public, consensus is the absolute foundation of success in any country.

Why do you support prepetual gang warfare?

I don't. Is that all you have, is insults and strawmen? You're pathetic.

The government does not have a monopoly of force, nor does the military, nor the economy, nor the general public, consensus is the absolute foundation of success in any country.

A government is by definition a monopoly of force.

I don't. Is that all you have, is insults and strawmen? You're pathetic.


When you do the same and repeat the same pathetic "arguements" and "ideas" then yes, yes it is all I have.


Lets spell this out for you kiddo. You saying "If you support government, you support monoploies" is the same a me saying "If you support anarchy, you support prepetual gang warfare".

Well, not totally the same. Mine is more accurate.

A government is by definition a monopoly of force.
Dunno what definition you're going by...

Hmmm, I'd draw up this thing called a Constitution and actually have the government STICK TO IT!

That's traitorous jewcommie talk, Rathanan. Your name has been forwareded to the FBI. Enjoy your stay in the Guantanomo Hilton