What fundamental changes would you make to the US government?

nordstrodamusnordstrodamus
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
I'm not asking for laws, but congressional amendment type stuff.



Here's some of my ideas...



1. Instant run-off or ranked voting to break the two party duopoly.



2. # of state representatives determined by voter turnout, not population.



3. Automatic, built-in expiration date for any legislation - Result: no blue laws, all laws re-evaluated for effectiveness. Each renewal may last longer, I would have to do a historical survey of laws to work out the right durations. Maybe 5 yrs, then 7, then 10, then 15, etc...



4. Make it illegal for federal funds to be conditioned on anything other than their stated use. This would eliminate federal blackmail like tying highway funds to lowering blood alcohol limits.



5. Eliminate the income tax (possible exceptions for times of war), go to a national sales tax or, possibly, a money tax (requires some explaining).
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 42
    naderfannaderfan Posts: 156member
    Proportional Representation
  • Reply 2 of 42
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Naderfan

    Proportional Representation



    yup
  • Reply 3 of 42
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    NO RIDERS ON BILLS!
  • Reply 4 of 42
    henrikhenrik Posts: 2member
    remove bush from office.



    that doesn't answer the question but i don't care.
  • Reply 5 of 42
    nordstrodamusnordstrodamus Posts: 828member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Naderfan

    Proportional Representation



    Ok, how would you implement that exactly? That is, what would the ammendment dicate?
  • Reply 6 of 42
    naderfannaderfan Posts: 156member
    Basically, we're talking about changing the way we run elections. So the amendment would have to dictate that all elections would no longer function under the rules of plurality. People would vote for parties and that party would get as many seats as proportional to the number of votes they get. This would make it easier for third parties to get elected, allowing a better representation of what people want, instead of creating a two party system that can win without even a majority of votes, just a plurality.
  • Reply 7 of 42
    argentoargento Posts: 483member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Henrik

    remove bush from office.



    that doesn't answer the question but i don't care.



    Worst answer ever. I do agree with Nader though. You communist
  • Reply 8 of 42
    naderfannaderfan Posts: 156member
    Haha, thanks Argento. You know it!
  • Reply 9 of 42
    thuh freakthuh freak Posts: 2,664member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    NO RIDERS ON BILLS!



    fucking riders piss me off too. people can't drink at 20 11/12ths (age), because the state fears getting cut off from funding from some completely unrelated bill. ridiculous.



    A fundamental change I would make is codify into law the right to privacy. Extending from it: abortion, and personal drug use. Stuff I do to myself is my own business and not the governments'.
  • Reply 10 of 42
    maxparrishmaxparrish Posts: 840member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Nordstrodamus

    I'm not asking for laws, but congressional amendment type stuff.



    Here's some of my ideas...



    1. Instant run-off or ranked voting to break the two party duopoly.



    2. # of state representatives determined by voter turnout, not population.



    3. Automatic, built-in expiration date for any legislation - Result: no blue laws, all laws re-evaluated for effectiveness. Each renewal may last longer, I would have to do a historical survey of laws to work out the right durations. Maybe 5 yrs, then 7, then 10, then 15, etc...



    4. Make it illegal for federal funds to be conditioned on anything other than their stated use. This would eliminate federal blackmail like tying highway funds to lowering blood alcohol limits.



    5. Eliminate the income tax (possible exceptions for times of war), go to a national sales tax or, possibly, a money tax (requires some explaining).



    Here?s mine:



    1)\tArrest all members of the executive, congressional, and judicial branch. All to be sent re-education camps to learn: ethics, logic, economics, and morality. Certain recalcitrant members (e.g. Byrd and Helms) will be summarily executed to set an example.



    2)\tIn the meantime, establish a people?s assembly of like-minded, and enlightened citizens (well, at least me)to rule in the intirm. Establish a new constitution that limits government, and does not make a mockery of the law through continual judicial interventions.



    3)\tReturn the remaining (surviving) members of the branches to work as clerks, janitors, messengers, etc. Let them intern under the people's representatives.



    4)\tPut explosive collars about their necks and return them to government office with $100 cash, new suits, and stipends to live in government barricks.



    5)\tInform them that the collars will be detonated if any of the following conditions are met: failure to pass a budget, deficit spending, pork barreling, log-rolling, lying, grandstanding, and general rudeness.



    That ought to do it.
  • Reply 11 of 42
    agent302agent302 Posts: 974member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Naderfan

    Proportional Representation



    If it's Single Transferable Vote, then yes. If it's a straight up proportion by party, then no.
  • Reply 12 of 42
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    In addition to proportional representation, how about drastic reform of the timeline of elections? This would provide the reason to implement much needed campaign finance reform, and curtail the ability of special interests to buy candidates/politicians.The presidential campaign, for example, has a two year cycle, and the mega-funding necessary to maintain such a campaign over this protracted period could well eliminate the most suitable potential candidates...ie those with the most ability, as opposed to a handful with the most funding, access to media and corporate/elite/dynastic/nepotistic connections.



    When campaigns (of either political persuasion) buy media exposure, democracy goes out of the window. Elections to public office should be publicly funded, and campaigns shouldnt last any longer than, say, 2 months.
  • Reply 13 of 42
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    The best and most reasonable change that could be made would be to take most of the politics out of redistricting. People on both sides of the aisle have seen this as a real threat to fair play in politics. What's the point in voting if your district has already been gerrymandered to be democrat or republican? What's the point in voting for the hispanic candidate when where you live has been gerrymandered for black representation?



    It's all a farce.
  • Reply 14 of 42
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    i would love to see all laws expire after a certain set number of years. too much crap on the books as is.



    of course, people can hardly get anything done now as is, imagine if they spent countless hours just rehashing old crap.



    as for proportional representation, does it really help? you just end up with countless under the table deals between parties to get your majority of the week. in the end the voters is still being sold out by their "representative".
  • Reply 15 of 42
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Naderfan

    Proportional Representation



    To illustrate: In the 1992 presidential election Ross Perot's Reform Party polled 19% of the votes cast, one in 5 of every vote, or close to half that of either the Republican or Democratic vote. How many seats did the Reform Party win in the Senate or Congress? A big fat ZERO.



    Now thats a farce.
  • Reply 16 of 42
    nordstrodamusnordstrodamus Posts: 828member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    To illustrate: In the 1992 presidential election Ross Perot's Reform Party polled 19% of the votes cast, one in 5 of every vote, or close to half that of either the Republican or Democratic vote. How many seats did the Reform Party win in the Senate or Congress? A big fat ZERO.



    Personally, I would like to see all institutional recognition of parties eliminated, but it's so entrenched it is difficult to propose a way to do it.
  • Reply 17 of 42
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Nordstrodamus

    Personally, I would like to see all institutional recognition of parties eliminated, but it's so entrenched it is difficult to propose a way to do it.



    Plus we have that whole "freedom" thing going on here.
  • Reply 18 of 42
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Plus we have that whole "freedom" thing going on here.



    Yes, people are free to organize themselves into a party. That does not mean that the government therefore must recognize the party and structure itself based around the corrupt practices of said party.
  • Reply 19 of 42
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    So you'd have the government outlaw what's protected by the bill of rights? I mean I don't understand. How does this work out in the end?
  • Reply 20 of 42
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    To illustrate: In the 1992 presidential election Ross Perot's Reform Party polled 19% of the votes cast, one in 5 of every vote, or close to half that of either the Republican or Democratic vote. How many seats did the Reform Party win in the Senate or Congress? A big fat ZERO.



    Now thats a farce.



    The alternative is a parliamentary system where the people never get to directly elect their leader. Or a proportional representation system where one vote fills both branches without any further input from the voters. No thanks to both; I'll vote for the president I want, and vote for the Congressman I want, and vote for the Senator I want. But, ideally, with instant-runoff so I have more than two real choices for each office.
Sign In or Register to comment.