[QUOTE=wraithcat;46036327]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.
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.[/QUOTE]
Which is exactly what I was saying.
No matter how you want to spin it, underneath it all, we are animals, and that must become a variable in the thought process of the governing documents, without sacrificing our divinity.
Please explain to me how the parliamentary system is better when it allows for minority extremist parties that only have 4% of the national vote to act as kingmakers when parliament tries to form a regime?
As in regards to corporate and union influence, you can regulate it as much as you want, but it doesn't stop collusion at every level of government making regulations more symbolic than changing the dynamic.
The problem with the current US Political system is the lack of third parties, and how funding/money provisions are not made transparent to the general public. I would personally like to believe that we should nationalize the banking system and require that every state has it's own state bank. These state banks would control, monitor, and ensure that all local banks are unable to simply fuck over the entire state's economy and further improve transparency among the political scene by requiring all documents in relation to the government can be released through the Freedom of Information Act.
We also need to further government aid systems to actually do something worth a damn. You cannot toss money at a problem, and expect it to fix itself. We need to give people experiences, knowledge, and the capability to reach locations where their trade/type of laborer is needed.
ex. Nomad Employment Act which ratifies that all state has a branch of government dedicated to offering services and insurance to employers and employees in order to ensure that employees can quickly be aided in moving themselves and their family across the country in order to find prosperity in different job markets.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;46031171]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?
[/QUOTE]
Yes... But isn't that [I]exactly [/I]what I covered 10 posts up?
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;46020905]
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]
In regards to the electoral college, I think we should not abolish it, but it could be subject to reform. We should remove the extra two electors every state gets from its senators so its more proportional. We should also legally bind electors to vote in line with their district/state. The USA is not a democracy in the strictest sense and I don't want to see it become one; the person that should become president shouldn't necessarily be the more popular one, they need to be able to draw some kind of political consensus.
[QUOTE=Derubermensch;46118168]In regards to the electoral college, I think we should not abolish it, but it could be subject to reform. We should remove the extra two electors every state gets from its senators so its more proportional. We should also legally bind electors to vote in line with their district/state. The USA is not a democracy in the strictest sense and I don't want to see it become one; the person that should become president shouldn't necessarily be the more popular one, they need to be able to draw some kind of political consensus.[/QUOTE]
definatly does need reform in that there is no federal statute forcing the electorate to cast their ballot in line with what their constituency has cast, most states though already cover it, but theres a few exceptions where they have though not swung their vote, but refused to vote.
the electoral college in general is not completely broken, its just the problem lies in how districts are drawn out, the gerrymandering today through computer precision is disgusting and should be done away with, districts should be assigned county by county, then counties are added to a representative, and only counties geographically touching can be lumped togather, this way it'll prevent what my current district is, where it stretches about 6 counties and represents people from the westside of cleveland all the way to the east side of toledo some 200 miles away
[editline]2nd October 2014[/editline]
establishing (or strengthening) federal election funds, abolishing PACs, Super PACS, Capping campaign donations, re-illegalising corporate donations, rolling back citizens united's decision that corporations have free speech,(they don't, there's plenty of laws that can be used as an example such as how big tobacco cannot advertise freely), generally removing so much damn money from politics and leveling the field somewhat
that is of course, not going to happen since the grand old party keeps getting older and older and is stuck to the law of deminishing returns so they're forced to further destabalize the system to hold onto power
[editline]2nd October 2014[/editline]
also making it clear money =/= speech
Preferential voting so that people can vote for the candidates they like in order of best to worst. I don't know if this will change the two party system, but maybe more people will vote independent as long as they feel their vote is being wasted.
Improving education and moral values for all citizens across the nation so that we end up with a society of decent and rational people who actually inform themselves before they vote.
[QUOTE=cqbcat;46139207]Preferential voting so that people can vote for the candidates they like in order of best to worst. I don't know if this will change the two party system, but maybe more people will vote independent as long as they feel their vote is being wasted.
Improving education and moral values for all citizens across the nation so that we end up with a society of decent and rational people who actually inform themselves before they vote.[/QUOTE]
Adding preferential voting to majoritarian voting systems like the single-seat constituencies of the US does nothing in getting rid of the two party system. In fact it probably makes the situation worse, as it increases the requirement for candidates to win a seat from having simply the largest number of votes (could be just two votes in total!) to having at least half of them (plus one).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
