Or, god forbid, we could go back to the way it was *originally* set up...
Presidential candidate with the most votes gets to be President.
Next most votes? Vice-President.
Talk about requiring parties to work together...
(Oh, and get rid of the two-party system altogether... it's a farce.)
And, not really *fundamental*, but...
No politician can accept *any* campaign funds, donations, or 'perks' of any sort from any person or company not *directly* a constituent in *their own district*.
This having Utahn senators pimping for Hollywood is just inane.
1) It'd cut down on special interest group funding right quick.
2) It'd cut down on candidate financing *period*. Make a lot of the rest of funding reform moot.
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.
This thread is very heartening. Most everyone seems to be focused on how the elections are run and how people are elected. So it would seem that our three branches of government work well for most of us.
One nice thing would be for congress to change the way it budges and funds the government. It would be nice to see more long range focus and maybe a eye toward smart money management. I think it would be nice if it were very hard to get funding for something. And then that would be hooked up with longer range planning. Or some other better model of thinking about how money is spent and why and what it will mean in 5-10-50 years.
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.
19% of people voted for Ross Perot, not for the Reform Party. Show me the nation wide vote totals for Reform Party candidates in Congressional races, and then we'll discuss party-based proportional representation.
PR, while it may allow for more parties, entrenches the party-system itself.
And I think the examples of Italy, Israel (pre-separate Prime Ministerial Elections), and the French 4th Republic show the fallacy of PR as a workable voting system.
Most of whose votes and when did it work that way?
Electors' votes, and I think it worked that way for exactly three elections before the two-party system killed it. Adams-Jefferson in 1800 was the last P-VP pair elected under the original system. Electors had two votes for President, and runner-up became VP. Beginning in 1804 they had only one, and cast a separate vote for VP.
It seems surprisingly naive of the founders not to anticipate that parties would come to dominate politics. Or maybe even more naive to think they could prevent parties from dominating.
2. Removal of fund matching for political parties.
3. Removal of media advertising for all candidates. With the exception of Debates, where issues are to be discussed and the candidates are electrically shocked when they dodge or avoid questions.
4. Addition of a "none of the above" ballot on all elections. If over 50% of the voters choose this option all parties are forced to drop the current candidates and start again from scratch.
5. Removal of career politicians from office. How? Lower the pay. Keep politicians in touch with real people by making them live in real neighborhoods with them. Remember them? The ones they're supposed to represent?
6. Removal of all political action committees, soft money, and corporate payoffs... errr donations. If they represent people, let them do it without being bought sold and bribed.
7.All issues put forth for voting must be described in detail from both sides of the argument. The public needs to actaually be INFORMED about all of the issues involved with the vote.
8. Taxation should be fair and if an individual is forced to pay taxes within a certain area they should also have the right to vote within that area. Taxation without represntation is one of the reasons we have a nation and constitution, let's enforce that.
Electors' votes, and I think it worked that way for exactly three elections before the two-party system killed it. Adams-Jefferson in 1800 was the last P-VP pair elected under the original system. Electors had two votes for President, and runner-up became VP. Beginning in 1804 they had only one, and cast a separate vote for VP.
It seems surprisingly naive of the founders not to anticipate that parties would come to dominate politics. Or maybe even more naive to think they could prevent parties from dominating.
Okay so under the Electoral College where people don't vote for a candidate but vote for someone to vote for a candidate. So they never really were voting for Adams & Jefferson but some guy to go to DC and figure out who they should vote for. So ... I never really worked the way you make it sound.
Get rid of the ing electoral college. THAT'S the biggest joke of 'em all. I want to cast a vote for who I want, not for some "elector" to choose for me. What the hell is up with that?
Have a primary (with unlimited outside funds) to limit the field to fewer candidates (3 or 4 with the most votes, even if they are in the same party). Then give each candidate the same amount of money to campaign for the election allowing no outside funds. The election should take place four to eight weeks after the primary.
Eliminate the income tax and replace with a sales tax and a property tax. The highest sales taxes would be on luxury goods, gasoline, and alcohol.
Significantly reduce pay of politicians and limit increases to no higher than those for Social Security. Set term limits to no more than two terms in a row, but allowed to serve again after two terms away from office.
No free health care for government workers.
Eliminate public schools and replace with private and home schools. Provide free training to teachers. Provide fixed funds per student regardless of school.
Stop the war on drugs. Educate against use and provide recovery programs for addicted.
Force large companies to partner with small businesses so that everyone can have access to health care.
In a utopia I would scrap the entire Executive/Legislative bifurcation and instead establish a parliamentary system like that of Britain, with a flexible election schedule, but with proportional representation (with a fairly high qualifying limiter... say 7% of the vote).
I would require a 90% majority in the legislature to pass a Constitutional amendment.
I would have the government provide all funding to all campaigns and find some way to disallow unions, corporations, political parties, etc, from advertising for or against candidates.
I would legally dissolve and have executed everyone who works for Fox News.
Except in times of war, I would cap the percentage of the budget which could be spent on military expenditures.
If I had to reform our current system I would:
Do all of the above, except for the proportional voting system. In its place I would require that all Congressional districts be drawn by computer, based solely on population and population density figure, with no concern given to racial, political or ethnic composition of districts drawn.
The first thing I would do is bag the electoral college. I'm sorry, but if my state has 50 million people in it, and yours has 800,000, we *should* have a much bigger say in who gets elected, because many more people are affected by the outcome. It's an artificial balancing system that causes more problems than it solves IMO.
Obviously every state needs to run from the same standardized vote-counting process (and that process surey needs work). But the winner of any given election should always be based simply on the number of people who voted for him / her, and not some weighting system based on that number of votes.
-----
As noted in my recent thread about American ignorance, I also would absolutely add in a simple system of qualification for every single voter in every state, for every election (presidential or otherwise). Each voting year, you take a 5 minute multiple choice quiz in your little booth.
Questions should address common knowledge issues that are relevant to our Democratic process (or our most crucial political issues), and they should confirm a person's ability to inform themselves and remember relevant educational facts, like:
? Which branch of the Federal Government is responsible for deciding important legal matters that can affect the entire nation?
(Executive, Legislative, Judicial, None of the Above)
?Which of the following government officials is responsible for initially choosing Supreme Court Justices and Federal Judges?
(State Senators, The President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Interior)
? Which of the following is not a branch of Congress?
(House of Representatives, Senate, House of Commons)
? How many US Senators represent the state of California?
(3, 5, 2, 14)
?Which of the following topics does the G7 summit address in detail?
(science, economics, religion, healthcare)?
? Which of the following countries is not a member of the European Union?
(France, Germany, Portugal, Russia)
? True or False, the United Nations is headquartered in New York City and is always headed by an American official.
... there are literally hundreds of very basic to moderately tricky questions you could ask, and be perfectly fair-minded in expecting that if each person has to answer 10 of them, they should get at least 6 right before getting a ballot.
----
I would ban corporate campaign contributions of more than $10,000.
----
I would make it mandatory that during a presidential campaign (and perhaps Senate campaigns) that each candidate must engage in a minimum of two public debates, moderated by someone not affiliated with any national media conglomerate (PBS is probably the best bet), and televised in a very stark, basic format. No chances to walk up to a citizen and thank them for their "good question", or any of that crap. Look into the camera and answer the question. Candidates are not allowed to direct questions or comments towards one another, etc.
Further, one debate would have the moderator field questions sent in by citizens (they're just not present at the debate), and the other would field questions by specifically named panelists that specialize in various fields. Examples could be: a municiple judge who feels regulatory reform is needed in his/her state, a well-known economist, a well-known scientist, a head of surgery at a local hospital, etc. People who know WTF they're talking about and can ask the hard-hitting questions (with their name attached).
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?
I'm not sure where you are getting this conclusion, but I said that I would like to see an elimination of laws respecting party affiliation BY THE GOVERNMENT. People are still free to assemble into parties just as they are free to start/join a religion, but the government grants no special recognition whatsoever. No officially recognized parties, no party-line voting, new rules to eliminate majority party domination of congressional committees, etc...
I didn't include this in my original list because it requires quite extensive and specific reforms that I haven't had time to think about, but I believe the rationale is along the lines of the "seperation of powers" the FFs were shooting for.
No election in which less than 50% of the eligible population vote is valid.
I thought about something like this, but couldn't figure how to implement it. You'd have to have all sorts of fallback provisions with the incumbents most likely benefiting. That's why I thought the idea of determining the number of state representatives by voter turn out might motivate people to vote.
I do think there is something to the notion that a law may not have validity if less than 50% of the population vote for it. I'd certianly like to see your idea apply to ballot initiatives, but in electing representatives I'm not sure if it is workable.
On a similiar note, I'd like to see it established as a legal principle that if a certain percentage of the people break a law, that law is invalid. The actual application of such a principle would have to be discrete to be corrective and beneficial (i.e. there are still speed limits, but if one particular stretch of road is producing an excessive amount of tickets then the limit should be raised or other measures employed) The implementation would be tricky, maybe too tricky to work, but I like the idea. It would certainly benefit us 60 million file sharers.
Here's some of what I'd do (I'll be repeating a few things that have already been said):
1) Remember that shooting for Utopia is dangerous. One person's utopia is another person's hell. My goal would be allowing the maximum individual freedom that does not encroach on others having that same degree of freedom, coupled with some small but reasonable demands on public responsibility (taxation, military or other public service), and some measure of protection against excessive concentration of political or economic power.
2) Make sure that the difference between democracy and freedom is well understood, and that the balance between the two is better spelled out in the constitution.
3) Make sure that people understand that it really is the job of the judicial branch to be an "intellectual elite" (I hear this said with a sneer a lot, as if it was something wrong), as a counterbalance to encroachment upon individual liberties when democracy edges into majoritarianism.
4) Better define the legal and constitutional standing of minors, legal and illegal aliens, the unborn, and members of the military. (In the case of the unborn, I'd spell out that the unborn have a lesser standing under the law than the born, specifically lesser than the mothers carrying them.)
5) Institute voting reform, with ranked, weighted candidate selections (first choice, second choice) and instant run-offs when no clear majority choice emerges.
6) Proportional representation in legislative bodies and the committees within, rather than a "winner takes all" approach, along with establishment of parliamentary procedures that eliminate the need to form political coalitions in order to proceed with basic legislative work.
7) As others have said, "no riders". Require that legislation be focused on clear and specific issues, and give the judicial branch the power to overturn, in part or in totality, any legislation that does not follow this requirement.
8) Clarify, in an expansive way, freedom of speech and expression. Rather than relying on judicial precedent, make constitutionally clear narrow exceptions for libel, slander, fraud and deceptive advertising, reckless endangerment (the old "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater), disturbing the peace, disruptive abuse of communications systems, etc.
9) Clarify issues of religious freedom and the separation of church and state. Specifically: Expand "church" to include not only narrowly defined established churches, but any broad religious or spiritual belief systems, that is, anything which is not purely secular. No Ten Commandments monuments, no "In God We Trust", no prayer sessions in Congress, etc. Also, clarify that an individual's freedom of religion does not entail an obligation on the part of the government or one's fellow citizens to actively facilitate one's practice of one's religions, does not excuse one from legal requirements that one's fellow citizens must meet, and does entail an obligation to protect one or one's children from exposure to ideas that are at odds with one's religion. No tax-exempt status for churches, except to the extent they qualify the same way as any organization as a non-profit (but not non-prophet ) entity.
The government should, however, be accommodating to religious practice when accommodation does not entail any great burden or significantly special treatment relative to other citizens, e.g. different days off from work, but not that many more days off, providing meals compatible with various religious practices when that can be done without incurring greatly larger costs that all tax payers must bear, etc.
Some might worry that not allowing exemptions from laws based on religion could be used as a disguise for discrimination, e.g. ?We aren?t discriminating against Jews and Muslims. We?re making everyone eat pork! The same law applies to everyone, so how can that be discrimination?? Such a law would not be constitutionally permissible, however, because as I?d have it, that law would be ruled out of bounds for limiting personal freedom with no greatly compelling or overriding state interest, a situation where individual liberty clearly trumps even a majority that might wish to pass such a law.
So much more... civil rights, right to bear arms, federal vs. state powers, government secrecy... it'll have to wait until later.
Just wanted to make a point between the proportional vote and the majority one.
The bad point of the majority one, is that it promote dual politic system, and it's not representative of the public opinion. If both candidate have nearly the same numbers of votes, it's not normal that the candidate who win only represant 50 % of the population.
The bad point of the proportional vote, it that it leads to multiple party, and no clear majority. In short it leads to coalitions. And coalitions are bad, because it's essentially some dirty cooking between politicians in order to have the power. It also leads in some case in the paralysis of the governement, and instability. Something wich is bad for countries.
You will notice also, that the notion of a president is in opposition with the proportional vote, unless we introduce Schizoprhenic candidates with multiples personalities.
For the good points , take the first two points in reverse
Quote:
6) Proportional representation in legislative bodies and the committees within, rather than a "winner takes all" approach, along with establishment of parliamentary procedures that eliminate the need to form political coalitions in order to proceed with basic legislative work.
Good you see the necessity of avoiding coalitions, but don't you think that the parliamentary procedures to avoid them are an utopia.
Quote:
) As others have said, "no riders". Require that legislation be focused on clear and specific issues, and give the judicial branch the power to overturn, in part or in totality, any legislation that does not follow this requirement.
Be carefull, even if it's good that the judicial branch could overturn politicians willing to do a free ride, the judicial branch should not be above the political system.
Democratia is a story of representation, mostly indirect, because we are too big for direct democratia. The judicial branch is not truly representative.
I think it's good that this branch check if something is constitutional or not, but it should not go further : i am agaisnt the republic of the judges.
Oh yah, almost forgot one: I'd replace the existing Executive with someone who at least moderately resemebles the words "intelligent, wise and candid".
Comments
Presidential candidate with the most votes gets to be President.
Next most votes? Vice-President.
Talk about requiring parties to work together...
(Oh, and get rid of the two-party system altogether... it's a farce.)
And, not really *fundamental*, but...
No politician can accept *any* campaign funds, donations, or 'perks' of any sort from any person or company not *directly* a constituent in *their own district*.
This having Utahn senators pimping for Hollywood is just inane.
1) It'd cut down on special interest group funding right quick.
2) It'd cut down on candidate financing *period*. Make a lot of the rest of funding reform moot.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
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.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Or, god forbid, we could go back to the way it was *originally* set up...
Presidential candidate with the most votes gets to be President.
Next most votes? Vice-President.
...
Most of whose votes and when did it work that way?
This thread is very heartening. Most everyone seems to be focused on how the elections are run and how people are elected. So it would seem that our three branches of government work well for most of us.
One nice thing would be for congress to change the way it budges and funds the government. It would be nice to see more long range focus and maybe a eye toward smart money management. I think it would be nice if it were very hard to get funding for something. And then that would be hooked up with longer range planning. Or some other better model of thinking about how money is spent and why and what it will mean in 5-10-50 years.
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.
19% of people voted for Ross Perot, not for the Reform Party. Show me the nation wide vote totals for Reform Party candidates in Congressional races, and then we'll discuss party-based proportional representation.
PR, while it may allow for more parties, entrenches the party-system itself.
And I think the examples of Italy, Israel (pre-separate Prime Ministerial Elections), and the French 4th Republic show the fallacy of PR as a workable voting system.
Originally posted by Scott
Most of whose votes and when did it work that way?
Electors' votes, and I think it worked that way for exactly three elections before the two-party system killed it. Adams-Jefferson in 1800 was the last P-VP pair elected under the original system. Electors had two votes for President, and runner-up became VP. Beginning in 1804 they had only one, and cast a separate vote for VP.
It seems surprisingly naive of the founders not to anticipate that parties would come to dominate politics. Or maybe even more naive to think they could prevent parties from dominating.
Scott: What he said.
2. Removal of fund matching for political parties.
3. Removal of media advertising for all candidates. With the exception of Debates, where issues are to be discussed and the candidates are electrically shocked when they dodge or avoid questions.
4. Addition of a "none of the above" ballot on all elections. If over 50% of the voters choose this option all parties are forced to drop the current candidates and start again from scratch.
5. Removal of career politicians from office. How? Lower the pay. Keep politicians in touch with real people by making them live in real neighborhoods with them. Remember them? The ones they're supposed to represent?
6. Removal of all political action committees, soft money, and corporate payoffs... errr donations. If they represent people, let them do it without being bought sold and bribed.
7.All issues put forth for voting must be described in detail from both sides of the argument. The public needs to actaually be INFORMED about all of the issues involved with the vote.
8. Taxation should be fair and if an individual is forced to pay taxes within a certain area they should also have the right to vote within that area. Taxation without represntation is one of the reasons we have a nation and constitution, let's enforce that.
Originally posted by Towel
Electors' votes, and I think it worked that way for exactly three elections before the two-party system killed it. Adams-Jefferson in 1800 was the last P-VP pair elected under the original system. Electors had two votes for President, and runner-up became VP. Beginning in 1804 they had only one, and cast a separate vote for VP.
It seems surprisingly naive of the founders not to anticipate that parties would come to dominate politics. Or maybe even more naive to think they could prevent parties from dominating.
Okay so under the Electoral College where people don't vote for a candidate but vote for someone to vote for a candidate. So they never really were voting for Adams & Jefferson but some guy to go to DC and figure out who they should vote for. So ... I never really worked the way you make it sound.
Eliminate the income tax and replace with a sales tax and a property tax. The highest sales taxes would be on luxury goods, gasoline, and alcohol.
Significantly reduce pay of politicians and limit increases to no higher than those for Social Security. Set term limits to no more than two terms in a row, but allowed to serve again after two terms away from office.
No free health care for government workers.
Eliminate public schools and replace with private and home schools. Provide free training to teachers. Provide fixed funds per student regardless of school.
Stop the war on drugs. Educate against use and provide recovery programs for addicted.
Force large companies to partner with small businesses so that everyone can have access to health care.
I would require a 90% majority in the legislature to pass a Constitutional amendment.
I would have the government provide all funding to all campaigns and find some way to disallow unions, corporations, political parties, etc, from advertising for or against candidates.
I would legally dissolve and have executed everyone who works for Fox News.
Except in times of war, I would cap the percentage of the budget which could be spent on military expenditures.
If I had to reform our current system I would:
Do all of the above, except for the proportional voting system. In its place I would require that all Congressional districts be drawn by computer, based solely on population and population density figure, with no concern given to racial, political or ethnic composition of districts drawn.
Obviously every state needs to run from the same standardized vote-counting process (and that process surey needs work). But the winner of any given election should always be based simply on the number of people who voted for him / her, and not some weighting system based on that number of votes.
-----
As noted in my recent thread about American ignorance, I also would absolutely add in a simple system of qualification for every single voter in every state, for every election (presidential or otherwise). Each voting year, you take a 5 minute multiple choice quiz in your little booth.
Questions should address common knowledge issues that are relevant to our Democratic process (or our most crucial political issues), and they should confirm a person's ability to inform themselves and remember relevant educational facts, like:
? Which branch of the Federal Government is responsible for deciding important legal matters that can affect the entire nation?
(Executive, Legislative, Judicial, None of the Above)
?Which of the following government officials is responsible for initially choosing Supreme Court Justices and Federal Judges?
(State Senators, The President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Interior)
? Which of the following is not a branch of Congress?
(House of Representatives, Senate, House of Commons)
? How many US Senators represent the state of California?
(3, 5, 2, 14)
?Which of the following topics does the G7 summit address in detail?
(science, economics, religion, healthcare)?
? Which of the following countries is not a member of the European Union?
(France, Germany, Portugal, Russia)
? True or False, the United Nations is headquartered in New York City and is always headed by an American official.
... there are literally hundreds of very basic to moderately tricky questions you could ask, and be perfectly fair-minded in expecting that if each person has to answer 10 of them, they should get at least 6 right before getting a ballot.
----
I would ban corporate campaign contributions of more than $10,000.
----
I would make it mandatory that during a presidential campaign (and perhaps Senate campaigns) that each candidate must engage in a minimum of two public debates, moderated by someone not affiliated with any national media conglomerate (PBS is probably the best bet), and televised in a very stark, basic format. No chances to walk up to a citizen and thank them for their "good question", or any of that crap. Look into the camera and answer the question. Candidates are not allowed to direct questions or comments towards one another, etc.
Further, one debate would have the moderator field questions sent in by citizens (they're just not present at the debate), and the other would field questions by specifically named panelists that specialize in various fields. Examples could be: a municiple judge who feels regulatory reform is needed in his/her state, a well-known economist, a well-known scientist, a head of surgery at a local hospital, etc. People who know WTF they're talking about and can ask the hard-hitting questions (with their name attached).
Those are a start, anyway.
Originally posted by Scott
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?
I'm not sure where you are getting this conclusion, but I said that I would like to see an elimination of laws respecting party affiliation BY THE GOVERNMENT. People are still free to assemble into parties just as they are free to start/join a religion, but the government grants no special recognition whatsoever. No officially recognized parties, no party-line voting, new rules to eliminate majority party domination of congressional committees, etc...
I didn't include this in my original list because it requires quite extensive and specific reforms that I haven't had time to think about, but I believe the rationale is along the lines of the "seperation of powers" the FFs were shooting for.
Originally posted by midwinter
No election in which less than 50% of the eligible population vote is valid.
I thought about something like this, but couldn't figure how to implement it. You'd have to have all sorts of fallback provisions with the incumbents most likely benefiting. That's why I thought the idea of determining the number of state representatives by voter turn out might motivate people to vote.
I do think there is something to the notion that a law may not have validity if less than 50% of the population vote for it. I'd certianly like to see your idea apply to ballot initiatives, but in electing representatives I'm not sure if it is workable.
On a similiar note, I'd like to see it established as a legal principle that if a certain percentage of the people break a law, that law is invalid. The actual application of such a principle would have to be discrete to be corrective and beneficial (i.e. there are still speed limits, but if one particular stretch of road is producing an excessive amount of tickets then the limit should be raised or other measures employed) The implementation would be tricky, maybe too tricky to work, but I like the idea. It would certainly benefit us 60 million file sharers.
1) Remember that shooting for Utopia is dangerous. One person's utopia is another person's hell. My goal would be allowing the maximum individual freedom that does not encroach on others having that same degree of freedom, coupled with some small but reasonable demands on public responsibility (taxation, military or other public service), and some measure of protection against excessive concentration of political or economic power.
2) Make sure that the difference between democracy and freedom is well understood, and that the balance between the two is better spelled out in the constitution.
3) Make sure that people understand that it really is the job of the judicial branch to be an "intellectual elite" (I hear this said with a sneer a lot, as if it was something wrong), as a counterbalance to encroachment upon individual liberties when democracy edges into majoritarianism.
4) Better define the legal and constitutional standing of minors, legal and illegal aliens, the unborn, and members of the military. (In the case of the unborn, I'd spell out that the unborn have a lesser standing under the law than the born, specifically lesser than the mothers carrying them.)
5) Institute voting reform, with ranked, weighted candidate selections (first choice, second choice) and instant run-offs when no clear majority choice emerges.
6) Proportional representation in legislative bodies and the committees within, rather than a "winner takes all" approach, along with establishment of parliamentary procedures that eliminate the need to form political coalitions in order to proceed with basic legislative work.
7) As others have said, "no riders". Require that legislation be focused on clear and specific issues, and give the judicial branch the power to overturn, in part or in totality, any legislation that does not follow this requirement.
8) Clarify, in an expansive way, freedom of speech and expression. Rather than relying on judicial precedent, make constitutionally clear narrow exceptions for libel, slander, fraud and deceptive advertising, reckless endangerment (the old "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater), disturbing the peace, disruptive abuse of communications systems, etc.
9) Clarify issues of religious freedom and the separation of church and state. Specifically: Expand "church" to include not only narrowly defined established churches, but any broad religious or spiritual belief systems, that is, anything which is not purely secular. No Ten Commandments monuments, no "In God We Trust", no prayer sessions in Congress, etc. Also, clarify that an individual's freedom of religion does not entail an obligation on the part of the government or one's fellow citizens to actively facilitate one's practice of one's religions, does not excuse one from legal requirements that one's fellow citizens must meet, and does entail an obligation to protect one or one's children from exposure to ideas that are at odds with one's religion. No tax-exempt status for churches, except to the extent they qualify the same way as any organization as a non-profit (but not non-prophet
The government should, however, be accommodating to religious practice when accommodation does not entail any great burden or significantly special treatment relative to other citizens, e.g. different days off from work, but not that many more days off, providing meals compatible with various religious practices when that can be done without incurring greatly larger costs that all tax payers must bear, etc.
Some might worry that not allowing exemptions from laws based on religion could be used as a disguise for discrimination, e.g. ?We aren?t discriminating against Jews and Muslims. We?re making everyone eat pork! The same law applies to everyone, so how can that be discrimination?? Such a law would not be constitutionally permissible, however, because as I?d have it, that law would be ruled out of bounds for limiting personal freedom with no greatly compelling or overriding state interest, a situation where individual liberty clearly trumps even a majority that might wish to pass such a law.
So much more... civil rights, right to bear arms, federal vs. state powers, government secrecy... it'll have to wait until later.
The bad point of the majority one, is that it promote dual politic system, and it's not representative of the public opinion. If both candidate have nearly the same numbers of votes, it's not normal that the candidate who win only represant 50 % of the population.
The bad point of the proportional vote, it that it leads to multiple party, and no clear majority. In short it leads to coalitions. And coalitions are bad, because it's essentially some dirty cooking between politicians in order to have the power. It also leads in some case in the paralysis of the governement, and instability. Something wich is bad for countries.
You will notice also, that the notion of a president is in opposition with the proportional vote, unless we introduce Schizoprhenic candidates with multiples personalities.
For the good points , take the first two points in reverse
6) Proportional representation in legislative bodies and the committees within, rather than a "winner takes all" approach, along with establishment of parliamentary procedures that eliminate the need to form political coalitions in order to proceed with basic legislative work.
Good you see the necessity of avoiding coalitions, but don't you think that the parliamentary procedures to avoid them are an utopia.
) As others have said, "no riders". Require that legislation be focused on clear and specific issues, and give the judicial branch the power to overturn, in part or in totality, any legislation that does not follow this requirement.
Be carefull, even if it's good that the judicial branch could overturn politicians willing to do a free ride, the judicial branch should not be above the political system.
Democratia is a story of representation, mostly indirect, because we are too big for direct democratia. The judicial branch is not truly representative.
I think it's good that this branch check if something is constitutional or not, but it should not go further : i am agaisnt the republic of the judges.