Plenty of people in the US and outside seem to agree that the US political system is totally fucked. The United States has more corporate influence, more deadlock, and a stronger two-party system than pretty much any other Western democracy. Democrats, Republicans, and independents seem to be more-or-less united in the belief that something is wrong, but they differ on what exactly needs to be changed. Let's figure this out and save the world, FP.
One of the more common suggestions is to abolish the Senate filibuster. The filibuster can effectively make any bill in the Senate require 60 votes in order to pass. This could actually be okay on its own, but with such a polarised two-party system, it's often impossible to muster 60 votes and this leads to deadlock. The filibuster isn't in the Constitution and it seems an unnecessary addition to a system where different parties can already hold the various branches and houses of government. Having the House, Senate, and Executive divided between different parties is already enough to maintain checks and balances - the filibuster is just overkill and increases the chance for deadlock.
Another common suggestion is campaign finance reform. You know the deal: the only way to win an election right now is to pander to rich donors and promise to help them out once you're in office, so campaign finance should be reformed in some way so that rich people and corporations have less influence on politics. There are a lot of different proposals on how to do this, but thanks to Supreme Court rulings like Citizens United it seems the only way to make any of it happen would be a constitutional amendment. Regardless, I think campaign finance reform would only be one part of making US politicians less reliant on money, and there are some other things that need to happen as well.
Campaign finance reform would cut down on the politicians' ability to get shitloads of cash, but what about cutting down on their need to spend all that money? An overwhelming amount of money in political campaigns currently goes towards TV ads, and swing states in presidential elections are bombarded with endless pleas from the two candidates whenever they turn on their TV. I live in the UK, and like many European countries we don't allow any political ads on TV. Instead, before each election all the major parties are given free TV slots called "party election broadcasts" where they can put across their message and say why you should vote for them. The US has a similar tradition of televised debates, and I think it's one of the best elements of the US system (despite currently excluding third parties). I'm not saying the US should necessarily ban political ads like we do, I'm just making the point that there should be more ways for the parties and candidates to get big-time national exposure without needing to spend tens of millions of dollars.
I've got another idea for this that I haven't actually seen people talk about very much. Currently, the US House and a third of the Senate is elected every two years. I think this causes a lot of problems: for one, it makes the system too unstable - Congresses and governments don't exist for long enough to get stuff done. It's also a bit like a perpetual war - the parties never want to compromise because they're always thinking "well the midterms are just around the corner, so we can just fuck the other guys over and win big next time". Combined with the campaign finance situation it becomes an absolute fucking mess, because members of the House know their next election is just around the corner and they constantly have to be soliciting donations for their next campaign. So I think midterm elections should be abolished and the House should switch to being elected every four years in sync with the Presidency. The Senate's a bit more difficult; the only options I can think of are 4-year terms, or 8-year terms with half elected every 4 years. Both of these are kind of problematic so I'm not sure exactly what to do with the Senate. Any ideas?
Let's swing back to a more popular proposal: abolishing the electoral college. Currently the US President is indirectly elected through a group of electors chosen by the American people. There seems to be barely any justification for this system at all - some people say it gives the small states a fairer level of influence, but all it really does is concentrate everything on a handful of swing states. If you're a Republican voter living in a blue state you can just stay home, because your vote isn't going to be counted at all in the end. It just doesn't make any sense to have this extra level of abstraction between the popular vote and the election result IMO, so that could go.
Another thing which could perhaps be considered is the introduction of a mechanism for federal referendums. Currently there's no legal framework for any proposal to be put to a national referendum - I think this is a symptom of how ancient the US Constitution and political system is. A few states do have this, like how Colorado and Washington voted to legalise marijuana, but there's nothing like it on the national level. It just seems like a strange omission from a country that's always banging on about democracy and freedom, and on certain issues it can really engage the public and cut through all the partisan bullshit. I'm not saying go full Switzerland, but just allowing the government to put certain issues to a public vote could be really useful for breaking deadlocks. One step further would be allowing public petition results to trigger a referendum, but that might be too radical.
Ultimately I think it would be a good idea to have some sort of constitutional convention that can consider all these options. Americans venerate their constitution in a way that might be unique among democratic nations, but I think there's plenty of stuff in there could do with revising and updating. A convention involving a healthy level of public participation could also reignite the public's interest in politics, where I think people are increasingly thinking it's all just a load of bullshit in the end. A lot of people blame the current crop of politicians for the problems the US is facing, but I blame the system itself. The [I]reason[/I] that politicians take millions of dollars from rich donors and do anything they say is because that's the only way you can get into office. A lot of politicians would probably love to not have to do all these fundraisers and suck up to all these corporations, but they have to. And the system is tailored to make sure that the people who are best at wooing donors are the people who win.
What do you think of my ideas, and what would you change about the US political system?
-Total public financing for campaigns and a ban on donations from anything but individuals, and tight controls on outside spending. Obviously never going to happen, because it severely erodes incumbent advantage...which is the point.
-Direct popular election of the President. No more pandering to Iowa and Ohio and ignoring the rest of the country, and no more George W. Bush stealing the election from the person who rightfully got most of the votes. GUARANTEES legitimacy for the winner, which is critical for stability.
-Proportional representation in Congress, through party lists or multi-member districts or something other than the gerrymandered plurality shitshow we have today.
The issue of making government more responsive to regular people's needs and less beholden to wealthy corporate interests has been studied ad nauseum, and the solutions are pretty simple and straightforward. The problem is, the system we have today perfectly serves the needs of the people that run it. The rich get whatever they demand, and members of Congress have incredible job security. The vast majority of the country, despite having the numbers, have too little money or political influence to actually change the system. Congress routinely ignores legislation supported by 80-90% of the country because their jobs are rigged to be safe from angry voters and the other 10% of the country controls their ability to win primaries.
Term limits on Senators and House Representatives. Can't have progress when the same people stay in power.
[QUOTE=Apache249;45971624]Term limits on Senators and House Representatives. Can't have progress when the same people stay in power.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. These positions used to be a temporary way for citizens to make necessary changes to the government. Not to become a career choice.
I agree with most everything you say in this post. However, I 100% disagree with you on this particular point.
[QUOTE=smurfy;45970350]Another thing which could perhaps be considered is the introduction of a mechanism for federal referendums. Currently there's no legal framework for any proposal to be put to a national referendum - I think this is a symptom of how ancient the US Constitution and political system is. A few states do have this, like how Colorado and Washington voted to legalise marijuana, but there's nothing like it on the national level. It just seems like a strange omission from a country that's always banging on about democracy and freedom, and on certain issues it can really engage the public and cut through all the partisan bullshit. I'm not saying go full Switzerland, but just allowing the government to put certain issues to a public vote could be really useful for breaking deadlocks. One step further would be allowing public petition results to trigger a referendum, but that might be too radical.[/QUOTE]
The absence of direct, democratic referendums on a national level in the United States is no accident. In fact, this was the linchpin of the debate between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists during the writing of the constitution. James Madison expresses his misgivings perfectly in Federalist No. 10, where he argues that only a large republic can defend against the dangers of faction, which would and do dominate direct democracies. It has nothing to do with the constitution being "ancient;" this was a calculated move. Direct democracies end with majority tyranny and the oppression of small parties that cannot contend with large factions.
I would highly recommend reading the Federalist Papers (and the criticism by Brutus) if you want to learn about the US constitution and what its writers were trying to accomplish. It really frustrates me when people talk about interpreting the constitution and how it's hard to know what the founders meant. They literally wrote it down and told us. It's not some big mystery. The Federalists Papers cover a ton of disputed topic, from term limits to gun rights, and they're a must read if you want to interpret the constitution today. I would encourage you to at least read Federalist No. 10 and 51.
[QUOTE=Explosions;45972011]I agree with most everything you say in this post. However, I 100% disagree with you on this particular point.
The absence of direct, democratic referendums on a national level in the United States is no accident. In fact, this was the linchpin of the debate between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists during the writing of the constitution. James Madison expresses his misgivings perfectly in Federalist No. 10, where he argues that only a large republic can defend against the dangers of faction, which would and do dominate direct democracies. It has nothing to do with the constitution being "ancient;" this was a calculated move. Direct democracies end with majority tyranny and the oppression of small parties that cannot contend with large factions.
I would highly recommend reading the Federalist Papers (and the criticism by Brutus) if you want to learn about the US constitution and what its writers were trying to accomplish. It really frustrates me when people talk about interpreting the constitution and how it's hard to know what the founders meant. They literally wrote it down and told us. It's not some big mystery. The Federalists Papers cover a ton of disputed topic, from term limits to gun rights, and they're a must read if you want to interpret the constitution today. I would encourage you to at least read Federalist No. 10 and 51.[/QUOTE]
I don't really know anything about the Federalist Papers, I'll have to read up on them. I was kind of approaching this from a comparative position of wondering why America does so much stuff differently from other Western countries and I just assumed that referendums weren't really considered at the time.
[editline]13th September 2014[/editline]
These are just ideas I've had btw I mean I'm not even American lole. America is just a very interesting case because it's the most powerful country on earth and it's so different from other countries in lots of ways.
Increase competitiveness between parties by installing proportional systems. For the federal level, either double the number of Senate seats and have all the seats in one state up for election simultaneously then run STV elections, or eliminate the current electorates for the House and have new electorates being entire states, where each state returns a number of legislators proportional to their population via PLP (also eliminates gerrymandering). Makes it easier for other parties to compete and have more views represented.
Remove the position of President as it is today. The President should be a unifying figure, but the position cannot be unifying when its office holder is only elected on a plurality of indirect votes from across the nation (pretty much half of the population is disenchanted for four years). Obviously proposing a parliamentary system would anger many Americans, but the only other idea I could think of would be having three co-Presidents elected simultaneously (via STV) as an executive council. That doesn't exactly provide a solution for how cabinet would be formed though, unlike the parliamentary system.
[QUOTE=Explosions;45972011]I agree with most everything you say in this post. However, I 100% disagree with you on this particular point.
The absence of direct, democratic referendums on a national level in the United States is no accident. In fact, this was the linchpin of the debate between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists during the writing of the constitution. James Madison expresses his misgivings perfectly in Federalist No. 10, where he argues that only a large republic can defend against the dangers of faction, which would and do dominate direct democracies. It has nothing to do with the constitution being "ancient;" this was a calculated move. Direct democracies end with majority tyranny and the oppression of small parties that cannot contend with large factions.
I would highly recommend reading the Federalist Papers (and the criticism by Brutus) if you want to learn about the US constitution and what its writers were trying to accomplish. It really frustrates me when people talk about interpreting the constitution and how it's hard to know what the founders meant. They literally wrote it down and told us. It's not some big mystery. The Federalists Papers cover a ton of disputed topic, from term limits to gun rights, and they're a must read if you want to interpret the constitution today. I would encourage you to at least read Federalist No. 10 and 51.[/QUOTE]
I do find it funny how we have law degrees specifically about the constitution when it was written for the layman to understand.
And then we're given these complex explanations on how it functions by politicians and judges in order to work their way through some sort of loophole when the plain text is as simple as it can be read.
I actually have a somewhat unpopular opinion and that is that congressional terms get lengthened to 4 years and two terms. Senators are kept at six years and limited to 2 terms.
Public financing for all campaigns only, no more donations via corporate interests.
That's just one way I feel it works, the reasoning for lengthening the congressional term is because with the current two year, you're elected in and already campaigning to keep said job. Congress need time to actually do shit instead of worry about the next election cycle.
After that, everything Salesman said. Keep referendums out though.
[QUOTE=Apache249;45971624]Term limits on Senators and House Representatives. Can't have progress when the same people stay in power.[/QUOTE]
that should be left to a state by state basis but thanks to life-long senators they've somehow been able to argue that term limits are unconstitutional
[QUOTE=Apache249;45971624]Term limits on Senators and House Representatives. Can't have progress when the same people stay in power.[/QUOTE]
Personally against term limits on the bases that if you have a good representative there is no cause to remove him, then why should he be forced to resign.
As well with term limits you end up like California where you get a bunch of young Reps. that are don't have the experience in writing bills so they have lobbyist and etc. etc. write them.
I'm not saying an older generation in power is good, nor am I saying that a young reps are bad. However, I don't think good politicians should be kicked out of power because the system limits them.
[QUOTE=The Haski;45997649]Personally against term limits on the bases that if you have a good representative there is no cause to remove him, then why should he be forced to resign.
As well with term limits you end up like California where you get a bunch of young Reps. that are don't have the experience in writing bills so they have lobbyist and etc. etc. write them.
I'm not saying an older generation in power is good, nor am I saying that a young reps are bad. However, I don't think good politicians should be kicked out of power because the system limits them.[/QUOTE]
It's not as if if one good representative gets into office, it makes his successor automatically a bad one.
Also, not everyone would be inexperienced. Many people who look into federal office usually have a lot of state and local political experience under their belt.
I'd like to see 2 terms for senators and 3 terms for House members.
Anonymous is working on it, join them and bring the Revolution
I always thought that the President and Congressmen should have a pay-rate determined by the average household income instead of being decided by Congress. That way if they wanna increase their standard of living they have to find a way to increase everyone's.
[QUOTE=spiritlol;46014043]I always thought that the President and Congressmen should have a pay-rate determined by the average household income instead of being decided by Congress. That way if they wanna increase their standard of living they have to find a way to increase everyone's.[/QUOTE]
This^
As well I say i'm against referendums in most cases, unless it's based on a special case, something along the lines of succession or joining political unions. The idea of people having direct democracy and the ability to create laws without no proper check and balance is terrifying as it comes down to majority rule. Which is why the founders opposed any idea of it, since they though the majority would take away rights of the minority. Which is in a way kinda what happened with Prop 8 in California, until it was struck down by the supreme court(another function that's not in the constitution that the founders would have opposed).
I recommend Fed. N.10
Madison explains why they're against a system like a single parliament and why it's necessarily to divide factions power.Whether you agree with that or not it's still a good read.
[QUOTE=spiritlol;46014043]I always thought that the President and Congressmen should have a pay-rate determined by the average household income instead of being decided by Congress. That way if they wanna increase their standard of living they have to find a way to increase everyone's.[/QUOTE]
That would open up the government to horrifying amounts of corruption. What goes on today would be nothing compared to a salary system like that. All that congress would do is take bribes and work for lobbyists who promise them higher paying jobs in the future.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46015903]That would open up the government to horrifying amounts of corruption. What goes on today would be nothing compared to a salary system like that. All that congress would do is take bribes and work for lobbyists who promise them higher paying jobs in the future.[/QUOTE]
There would definitely have to be a major campaign funds reform, like smurfy mentioned, in order for that to work.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46015903]That would open up the government to horrifying amounts of corruption. What goes on today would be nothing compared to a salary system like that. All that congress would do is take bribes and work for lobbyists who promise them higher paying jobs in the future.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't sound too different than right now to be honest.
[QUOTE=spiritlol;46017370]That doesn't sound too different than right now to be honest.[/QUOTE]
Except there would be even less of an incentive not to openly suck lobbyist cock/take large bribes. Right now, the threat of punishment usually outweighs the benefits of corruption. If congressmen only made ~$50,000 a year, they would have a much bigger incentive to engage in corrupt activities.
I believe that voting restrictions should be put in place, so that you have to be well informed on a subject before you're allowed to vote on it. Basically, a short test before you're allowed to vote on a topic.
The only [I]real[/I] argument anyone has against this is by pointing at "Jim Crow laws" from the 1870's. However, what happened then will never happen again. Segregation is illegal now, versus 1870 when it was basically government sponsored.
Additionally, back then tons of things were left to the individual states. Nowadays all tests would be standardized by a centralized government committee. Additionally, if by any chance something racist/discriminatory did happen on the test, it would be on the front page of reddit in 15 minutes. Lawsuits from ACLU lawyers will be flying before voting even ends.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46015903]That would open up the government to horrifying amounts of corruption. What goes on today would be nothing compared to a salary system like that. All that congress would do is take bribes and work for lobbyists who promise them higher paying jobs in the future.[/QUOTE]
As if those in Congress aren't already rich as fuck and milk lobbyists for all they have.
[QUOTE=Apache249;45971624]Term limits on Senators and House Representatives. Can't have progress when the same people stay in power.[/QUOTE]
I agree, it's stupid how they can just keep running and do the same things they're doing in the past years.
[QUOTE=Recession;46024858]I agree, it's stupid how they can just keep running and do the same things they're doing in the past years.[/QUOTE]
tbh I think there are some positives to no term limits. One, if that member continues to win the primary for the seat they are contesting and goes on to win the seat in the general election then that's democracy in action. Two, over time legislators typically gather vast experience as part of the committees they are involved in and of course not all older legislators are dinosaur conservatives.
[editline]20th September 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;46020905]I believe that voting restrictions should be put in place, so that you have to be well informed on a subject before you're allowed to vote on it. Basically, a short test before you're allowed to vote on a topic.
The only [I]real[/I] argument anyone has against this is by pointing at "Jim Crow laws" from the 1870's. However, what happened then will never happen again. Segregation is illegal now, versus 1870 when it was basically government sponsored.
Additionally, back then tons of things were left to the individual states. Nowadays all tests would be standardized by a centralized government committee. Additionally, if by any chance something racist/discriminatory did happen on the test, it would be on the front page of reddit in 15 minutes. Lawsuits from ACLU lawyers will be flying before voting even ends.[/QUOTE]
No that's bad for democracy. The whole point of democracy is that all citizens have an equal say in how their society is run. If you introduce 'tests' to only grant some people the right to vote, where do you stop? Why do you not grant that right to all citizens?
All that needs to happen is everyone should have to go to a class about how government works and how their vote works during the last stage of compulsory schooling. No stupid tests or anything.
[editline]20th September 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;45974766]I do find it funny how we have law degrees specifically about the constitution when it was written for the layman to understand.
And then we're given these complex explanations on how it functions by politicians and judges in order to work their way through some sort of loophole when the plain text is as simple as it can be read.[/QUOTE]
Maybe if the writers of your constitution weren't so ambiguous in their writing, and if Americans didn't glorify their constitution in the same way that a Christian glorifies the bible.
I would limit the corporate influence in the legislative branch, and make it a federal crime for representatives, agencies, or presidents to start conflicts by deceptive means i.e gulf of Tonkin. I would scrap the two party system, and the us vs them mentality by having candidates of smaller parties in more televised debates. I would make religion and politics totally separate, and have people swear under oath on the constitution rather than the bible. This is y opinion on what should be done for maintaining the republic.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;46026743]
Maybe if the writers of your constitution weren't so ambiguous in their writing, and if Americans didn't glorify their constitution in the same way that a Christian glorifies the bible.[/QUOTE]
They were not ambiguous. They were clear and direct. The problem is, people started twisting the meaning of things, or expanding them with stretchy logic to corrupt into what is today's government.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46027413]They were not ambiguous. They were clear and direct. The problem is, people started twisting the meaning of things, or expanding them with stretchy logic to corrupt into what is today's government.[/QUOTE]
The US constitution, particularly the bill of rights is very ambiguous, considering that key words are not defined within the constitution (unless I am wrong). The number of supreme court cases on the Second Amendment alone isn't because people want to twist the meaning of things, but because you can't be very specific when you have a section governing a key and quite wide aspect of the lives of American citizens having a grand total of only 27 words. Hell, it might have even been deliberately ambiguous given that the US uses a common law system, where the dinosaur that is statutory law can be replaced instead with case law and the precedents they create (which the Supreme Court has clearly done with such sections of the US constitution to define those ambiguous terms).
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46027413]They were not ambiguous. They were clear and direct. The problem is, people started twisting the meaning of things, or expanding them with stretchy logic to corrupt into what is today's government.[/QUOTE]
Even when they were clear and direct there is still much you can debate about. Such as the elastic clause, an early topic was how often should it even be used as an example. I think the original unamended constitution is much more clear then the amendments though.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;46026743]
No that's bad for democracy. The whole point of democracy is that all citizens have an equal say in how their society is run. If you introduce 'tests' to only grant some people the right to vote, where do you stop? Why do you not grant that right to all citizens?
All that needs to happen is everyone should have to go to a class about how government works and how their vote works during the last stage of compulsory schooling. No stupid tests or anything.
[/QUOTE]
Not really. You already don't let anyone under 18 vote... How is that any different than not letting uninformed people vote?
Personally I find it counterproductive how Bill Nye's vote on climate change holds the same weight as the likes of the woman in this video:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1QunAkBWBo[/media]
[editline]20th September 2014[/editline]
People have a right to be ignorant, but their rights end when they start encroaching on mine. I don't want to live on a shitty planet just because a person chooses to be ignorant. And you could definitely argue that her ignorance is a matter of her upbringing rather than her personal choice; the fact of the matter still stands that her (false) opinion is harmful to a healthy and self-sufficient society.
[editline]20th September 2014[/editline]
Ultimately, educating everyone to a college level is obviously the best solution, but will likely never happen. Time is of the essence when it comes to climate change, we don't have 1000 years to wait for a Utopian society where every member is intelligent and has the greater good in mind.
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;46030138]Not really. You already don't let anyone under 18 vote... How is that any different than not letting uninformed people vote?
Personally I find it counterproductive how Bill Nye's vote on climate change holds the same weight as the likes of the woman in this video:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1QunAkBWBo[/media]
[editline]20th September 2014[/editline]
People have a right to be ignorant, but their rights end when they start encroaching on mine. I don't want to live on a shitty planet just because a person chooses to be ignorant. And you could definitely argue that her ignorance is a matter of her upbringing rather than her personal choice; the fact of the matter still stands that her (false) opinion is harmful to a healthy and self-sufficient society.
[editline]20th September 2014[/editline]
Ultimately, educating everyone to a college level is obviously the best solution, but will likely never happen. Time is of the essence when it comes to climate change, we don't have 1000 years to wait for a Utopian society where every member is intelligent and has the greater good in mind.[/QUOTE]
Broadly speaking, people under the age of 18 are heavily subject to undue influence from parents or guardians. Also, you do realise that the US at one point in its time did utilise literacy tests with the purpose of preventing African Americans from voting? Would it not be possible that literacy tests, if re-implemented, could prevent certain sections of society from voting?
Bill Nye's vote on climate change holds the same weight as anyone else's because that's democracy, that's the right of every member of society to have equal influence on the self-determination of that society. But Bill Nye as an influential figure can make the most of his position by trying to get people on his side, which not exactly any average person can do.
[QUOTE=smurfy;45972110]I don't really know anything about the Federalist Papers, I'll have to read up on them. I was kind of approaching this from a comparative position of wondering why America does so much stuff differently from other Western countries and I just assumed that referendums weren't really considered at the time.
[editline]13th September 2014[/editline]
These are just ideas I've had btw I mean I'm not even American lole. America is just a very interesting case because it's the most powerful country on earth and it's so different from other countries in lots of ways.[/QUOTE]
The federalist papers are particularly interesting, because they do shine a lot of light on what forms the US constitution and what many of the thoughts behind it are.
Also why some things work how they work.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;46027534]The US constitution, particularly the bill of rights is very ambiguous, considering that key words are not defined within the constitution (unless I am wrong). The number of supreme court cases on the Second Amendment alone isn't because people want to twist the meaning of things, but because you can't be very specific when you have a section governing a key and quite wide aspect of the lives of American citizens having a grand total of only 27 words. Hell, it might have even been deliberately ambiguous given that the US uses a common law system, where the dinosaur that is statutory law can be replaced instead with case law and the precedents they create (which the Supreme Court has clearly done with such sections of the US constitution to define those ambiguous terms).[/QUOTE]
The thing is, this is done intentionally. Not because the state wants to see an abuse of the system, but because they want to leave space for a modernisation via judicature. Society changes, shifts and some things are often considered to have a higher or lower morality. By leaving some terms ambiguous you essentially leave space for society challenge older views.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
