|
|
08-31-2009, 07:00 PM
|
|
Guðríð the Gloomy
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lansing, MI
Gender: Female
|
|
Restructure the US Government
This exchange in the Health Care Reform Dead thread got me thinking:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam
If they had the spines to make the Republicans actually filibuster it wouldn't even be an issue.
High on my list of political pipe dreams is changing the Senate so that it's proportionally representative based on a national election.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael
That'll happen the day after they do the same for the Presidential election. Hold your breath.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam
Yes, that's what I mean. I don't necessarily buy the argument that it's crucial for individual states to have federal representation at the federal level, but even so:
1) Congress would still be done by district.
2) I don't think it's fair that California's 36.7 million people have 2 Senators to represent them and Wyoming's .5 million people also have 2 Senators to represent them.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by godfry n. glad
Well, I think the whole national structure is a joke. The United States is too large.
It needs to be disassembled into about six smaller nations. Then we could have each of those nations restructure their electoral functions as they see fit (I'd push for a single house parliamentary style for Cascadia, with anybody practicing law forbidden to serve as a legislator).
But that's just me.
|
If you could completely restructure the US government, how would you do it?
|
08-31-2009, 07:15 PM
|
|
California Sober
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Silicon Valley
Gender: Bender
|
|
Re: Restructure the US Government
Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
|
Thanks, from:
|
Adam (08-31-2009), California Tanker (08-31-2009), ChuckF (08-31-2009), Crumb (08-31-2009), Deadlokd (09-01-2009), Dingfod (09-01-2009), Nullifidian (08-31-2009), Pan Narrans (08-31-2009), Qingdai (09-01-2009), zachhcaz22 (09-01-2009), Zehava (08-31-2009)
|
08-31-2009, 07:19 PM
|
|
Guðríð the Gloomy
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lansing, MI
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: Restructure the US Government
Ahhh, the Nuclear Option...
* Garnet ducks and runs
|
08-31-2009, 07:19 PM
|
|
California Sober
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Silicon Valley
Gender: Bender
|
|
Re: Restructure the US Government
Sorry to be silly in your thread. It's a good topic. Do carry on...
|
08-31-2009, 07:23 PM
|
|
Guðríð the Gloomy
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lansing, MI
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: Restructure the US Government
Silliness is a good thing.
|
08-31-2009, 08:00 PM
|
God Made Me A Skeptic
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
|
|
Re: Restructure the US Government
I think I'd probably push for bringing back some of the intentionally-inefficient structures, devolve a lot of power away from the feds. The basic design strikes me as good, though -- it is very hard for it to be efficient, and that's good.
__________________
Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open
See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware
Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together
Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
|
08-31-2009, 08:36 PM
|
|
Compensating for something...
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: San Jose, California
|
|
Re: Restructure the US Government
Maintain the current structure of the legislature as per the Constitution. Move to the Single Transferrable Vote for elections, though. I've had enough of voting against the guy you don't want. I want to vote for someone I -do- want. Might reduce the power of the two main parties.
NTM
__________________
A man only needs two tools in life. WD-40 and duct tape. If it moves and it shouldn't, use the duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should, use WD-40.
|
08-31-2009, 08:43 PM
|
|
Vice Cobra Assistant Commander
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA
|
|
Re: Restructure the US Government
Probably not. As long as we have a first past the post system and people who want to get elected are following optimal strategies, we're always going to see two big parties dominate. We might see the specific dominant parties change more often than once a century, though.
ETA: Assuming we're starting from the current system and making modifications, my big wish list items are changing the Senate to proportional representation on a national level and electing the President via a national popular vote.
__________________
"Trans Am Jesus" is "what hanged me"
|
08-31-2009, 09:24 PM
|
|
ne'er-do-well
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Restructure the US Government
Someone wrote a book about this, actually:
A More Perfect Constitution, by Larry J. Sabato
He expands on each proposal in (sometimes mind-numbing) detail in the book. I really like his ideas about term lengths and limits, for all three branches of government.
I also like his restructuring of the presidential election process (#18). Basically, you condense the primary season to four months, and make each state's primary meaningful. Iowa and New Hampshire would disagree, but they represent such a small percentage of our population, so they can just go fuck themselves.
|
08-31-2009, 09:33 PM
|
|
Guðríð the Gloomy
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lansing, MI
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: Restructure the US Government
Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs
I think I'd probably push for bringing back some of the intentionally-inefficient structures, devolve a lot of power away from the feds. The basic design strikes me as good, though -- it is very hard for it to be efficient, and that's good.
|
You do realize that you made my internal business analyst go, "Whut?"
Why would you want to make government less efficient? In my mind, less efficient means more cost.
|
08-31-2009, 09:33 PM
|
|
Just keep m'nose clean, egg, chips & beans, I'm always full of steam
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: so far out, I'm too far in
Gender: Bender
|
|
Re: Restructure the US Government
I support any proposal wherein Iowa and New Hampshire are instructed to go fuck themselves.
__________________
"Her eyes in certain light were violet, and all her teeth were even. That's a rare, fair feature: even teeth. She smiled to excess, but she chewed with real distinction." - Eleanor of Aquitaine
...........
|
Thanks, from:
|
Adam (08-31-2009), Crumb (08-31-2009), Dingfod (09-01-2009), erimir (09-01-2009), Kael (09-01-2009), Master Taran (08-31-2009), Nullifidian (08-31-2009), Pan Narrans (09-01-2009), Qingdai (09-01-2009), Waluigi (09-01-2009), Zehava (08-31-2009)
|
08-31-2009, 10:04 PM
|
|
rude, crude, lewd, and unsophisticated
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Puddle City, Cascadia
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Restructure the US Government
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garnet
Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs
I think I'd probably push for bringing back some of the intentionally-inefficient structures, devolve a lot of power away from the feds. The basic design strikes me as good, though -- it is very hard for it to be efficient, and that's good.
|
You do realize that you made my internal business analyst go, "Whut?"
Why would you want to make government less efficient? In my mind, less efficient means more cost.
|
Because an efficient government is likely to be an oppressive tyrannical government. The most 'efficient' decisions are made by a single person. That's tyranny.
Many of the 'inefficiencies' designed into the US system were done purposefully to impede interest groups, generally 'populist fashions' and the passing fancies of potentially violent mobs. That why the 'checks and balances' were incorporated; because our founding fathers did not trust 'efficient' government.
The unexpected consequences are rather interesting, though, in that doing so seems to have thrown power to those who can wield great amounts of wealth, which, of course, is rarely done in the 'public interest'.
|
08-31-2009, 10:07 PM
|
|
rude, crude, lewd, and unsophisticated
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Puddle City, Cascadia
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Restructure the US Government
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sock Puppet
I support any proposal wherein Iowa and New Hampshire are instructed to go fuck themselves.
|
That would be the 'States' Cheney Rights' option, then, huh?
|
09-01-2009, 02:58 AM
|
|
Re: Restructure the US Government
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garnet
Why would you want to make government less efficient? In my mind, less efficient means more cost.
|
As long as the US government is this huge honey pot it is gonna attract lots of flies. There is nothing to be done for it other than reduce the over all size of the government. You can argue the merits of that, but it is different topic. Given the government that we have what can you do to make sure that even if the flies take control they can't do much harm?
Make it so difficult to get anything done that only during crisis will the factions cooperate (i.e. make it inefficient by pitting several sides against each other).
For this to work you have to make sure that no faction gains overall control. Keep them balanced.
|
09-01-2009, 02:59 AM
|
|
Guðríð the Gloomy
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lansing, MI
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: Restructure the US Government
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garnet
Why would you want to make government less efficient? In my mind, less efficient means more cost.
|
As long as the US government is this huge honey pot it is gonna attract lots of flies. There is nothing to be done for it other than reduce the over all size of the government. You can argue the merits of that, but it is different topic. Given the government that we have what can you do to make sure that even if the flies take control they can't do much harm?
Make it so difficult to get anything done that only during crisis will the factions cooperate (i.e. make it inefficient by pitting several sides against each other).
For this to work you have to make sure that no faction gains overall control. Keep them balanced.
|
Bold added for emphasis. This is pretty much what we have now. No thanks.
|
09-01-2009, 03:12 AM
|
|
rude, crude, lewd, and unsophisticated
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Puddle City, Cascadia
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Restructure the US Government
Ya know...I keep leaving honey out and it never attracts flies.
Then there's that 'you attract more flies with honey than vinegar' crap. It's bullshit. Honey doesn't attract flies and vinegar will attract fruit flies. Where do people get these inaccurate metaphors and examples? You'll attract more ANTS with honey, not flies.
Besides, why would you want to attract more flies? Flies are annoying spreaders of disease.
If you want to attract more flies, use shit, not honey.
That said, lots of money in one place will attract predators eager to obtain as much of that money as possible....and they won't necessarily be civil or legal about it. Rather than attracting flies, I'm more interested in discouraging the vermin from degrading the communal resources. I want to trap, shoot, poison, electrocute...whatever it takes to end the continual parade of rats and other unwanted pests from raiding the national stores of wealth.
|
09-01-2009, 03:22 AM
|
|
Re: Restructure the US Government
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garnet
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Make it so difficult to get anything done that only during crisis will the factions cooperate (i.e. make it inefficient by pitting several sides against each other).
For this to work you have to make sure that no faction gains overall control. Keep them balanced.
|
Bold added for emphasis. This is pretty much what we have now. No thanks.
|
So you got any ideas? As long as the government collects and spends trillions it is gonna attract people that are willing to claim they are in it for the public good but are only in it for themselves. If I have a choice of them skimming the coffers vs. having unopposed control, I'll settle for skimming the money.
|
09-01-2009, 03:22 AM
|
|
A fellow sophisticate
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cowtown, Kansas
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Restructure the US Government
1. I would add a third house to Congress, a House of Commons, made up of representatives drawn by lottery, people of all walks of life, serving only two years, one time only. This house would have the power to veto anything the other two come up with, even resolutions, and the ability to draw up legislation of its own, made law with simple majority of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Commoners would win a cash prize of $1 million when their term is completed. Until that time, they're merely made whole, their salaries or earnings at the time of induction, plus actual expenses. Their jobs would be guaranteed upon return or an equivalent position would be found for them. Exemptions from this service would be very limited, only to those that would experience a profound hardship or for health reasons.
2. The President would serve a single six year term, consecutive terms now allowed, but they could run again after sitting out a term.
3. The Senators would also serve only one 6 year term, again, like the President, if they could get elected again after sitting out a term, they can do it again.
4. The Representatives would serve a maximum of three 2 year terms, the home they go, or run for Senate or President. I imagine a career politician might do his six years in the House, then six years as Senator, then run for President. If that goes well, they might be able to get reelected to the Senate for another term.
5. Senators and Representatives would be paid $1 million a year, out of which they would have pay staff, their own expenses, and their own damn postage stamps.
6. Accepting a single dollar from a lobbyist or corporate representative or foreigner would result in expulsion from Congress and a jail term equal to the amount of time they've served in government.
7. What the hell, a million dollars isn't much these days, pay the President that much too, same conditions. They have to pay their own way, including personal staff.
__________________
Sleep - the most beautiful experience in life - except drink.--W.C. Fields
|
09-01-2009, 03:37 AM
|
|
Re: Restructure the US Government
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingfod
6. Accepting a single dollar from a lobbyist or corporate representative or foreigner would result in expulsion from Congress and a jail term equal to the amount of time they've served in government.
|
Who would police them? One of the major problems we have now is not a lack of laws but that the Senate and House police themselves. But at the same time if one branch could remove members from another branch I would expect things to get pretty crazy.
|
09-01-2009, 03:38 AM
|
|
A fellow sophisticate
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cowtown, Kansas
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Restructure the US Government
I don't know, I hadn't thought that one all the way through. Perhaps an independent prosecutor?
__________________
Sleep - the most beautiful experience in life - except drink.--W.C. Fields
|
09-01-2009, 03:41 AM
|
|
Re: Restructure the US Government
We all know it doesn't work but the best solution to this that I can see is that the public watch the government like a hawk, not let them get away with anything and make sure to vote the bums out on a regular basis. For this to work people would have to pay as much attention to Washington and their state legislatures as they do to sports or their favorite pop stars.
We are screwed.
|
09-01-2009, 03:47 AM
|
|
rude, crude, lewd, and unsophisticated
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Puddle City, Cascadia
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Restructure the US Government
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
So you got any ideas? As long as the government collects and spends trillions it is gonna attract people that are willing to claim they are in it for the public good but are only in it for themselves. If I have a choice of them skimming the coffers vs. having unopposed control, I'll settle for skimming the money.
|
Well...I'd just as soon as they didn't have all that money "the government collects". I don't see the need of all that money going to Washington, DC, where the legislators divide it up and send it back to various locations, like paying farmers not to grow stuff and underwriting roads and bridges to nowhere.
I'd say the first step is to terminate income taxes. That would make the IRS a lot less important and should make them a lot less powerful.
Then, get the federal government out of things which can be better done by powers closer to the citizen. Education stands out in my mind as an area in which the federal government would be best not even being there. "Defense" should be reworked so that it is truly "defense", not offensive materials to wage offensive wars....gut the MIC and the permanent war machine. Nationalize defense contractors. Institute a public military service that is required of EVERY citizen and for which a commensurate public service component is added...Defense should make every US citizen part of the nation's protection. It would be a no-volunteer military, as EVERYONE would be a part and it would not depend upon either recruits or draftees. Close all overseas bases and withdraw all troops...we do not need to be the loose-cannon thug armed to the teeth intimidating and terrorizing the rest of the world. We just need to convince anyone and everyone that it is not in their interests to invade us. It is basically the Swiss approach to national defense (as I understand it, at least).
As noted earlier...I think that the country is just too big. Decisions are made where a goodly portion of the country's people are separated from the decision-makers by physical and cultural distance. Plus, being big has enabled big corruption and led to 'big answers', like ICBMs, H-bombs, and assininities like SDI.
Smaller nations, with smaller agendas and more participation by the citizens who are eventually affected. More resources for local governments to do those things which governments really need to be involved in...providing quality education, clean water, safe roads, justice and the like.
Big nations foster big armies and big debacles.
Let me ask you...How many countries has Luxembourg unilaterally invaded on trumped up charges of weapons of mass destruction?
None, right? So...There's your example: Luxembourg.
|
09-01-2009, 03:55 AM
|
|
Re: Restructure the US Government
Quote:
Originally Posted by godfry n. glad
As noted earlier...I think that the country is just too big. Decisions are made where a goodly portion of the country's people are separated from the decision-makers by physical and cultural distance. Plus, being big has led to 'big answers', like ICBMs, H-bombs, and assininities like SDI.
Smaller nations, with smaller agendas and more participation by the citizens who are eventually affected. More resources for local governments to do those things which governments really need to be involved in...providing quality education, clean water, safe roads, justice and the like.
|
Big rich countries also fund lots of good things as well. Like huge national parks and reserves, big programs like exploring the solar system, universe, genomes of the globe and so on. The sword cuts both ways.
But maybe the good does not outweigh the harm?
So the next time Texas wants to secede from the union do you think we should put up the border fences right away?
|
09-01-2009, 04:13 AM
|
|
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Restructure the US Government
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam
2) I don't think it's fair that California's 36.7 million people have 2 Senators to represent them and Wyoming's .5 million people also have 2 Senators to represent them.
|
QFT.
So borrowing a little from that Sabato link, here are some ideas I've had before or just now:
1. Change the Senate to be more representative in some way. Even if the change was simply so that it was allocated just like the House, it's much smaller size would still make it significantly less representative while not giving small states such a ridiculous margin. There are other ways of changing it, such as Sabato's suggestion, or Adam's. Those would both be preferable to the current system.
My vote in NC is worth 1/18th of a Wyomingite's vote, a Californian's is 1/73rd when it comes to the Senate. That's ridiculous, and there's really no justifiable reason that Wyoming should have that much more influence. The reasons for adopting the Senate/House compromise at the time of the Constitution don't really apply in today's America.
Furthermore, as explained on 538 here, in combination with the campaign finance and media problems in our current political system, an unintended consequence is that small-state senators are owned by corporations (even more so than their big-state counterparts). One senator is just as good as another, and the smaller costs necessary for a small-state senate campaign mean that's it's much cheaper to buy a small-state senator than a big-state one.
2. Some reform of House redistricting. Either strong anti-gerrymandering measures - i.e. some mandated, simple mathematical method for determining districts (such as a shortest splitline algorithm, resulting in districts like so rather than this).
Another option that has appeal is instead having state-wide elections with proportional representation for a state's House delegation, more like many parliaments are elected. Such a system would eliminate gerrymandering and make third parties more viable, since in larger states third party candidates could get elected even if their party only got something like 5% of the vote.
That could be combined with Sabato's suggestion of increasing the size of the House.
3. Include Congressional representation for DC and possibly some US territories (perhaps statehood for them?), depending on what sort of status the inhabitants of those territories want (I already know that DC residents are very much in favor of Congressional representation or even statehood).
4. Perhaps term-limits for Congress members, altho I don't know what they should be.
5. Consistent rules across states for replacement of Congress members who resign, die or otherwise leave office during the middle of their term.
6. Abolish the electoral college. While it supposedly boosts the small states to increase their importance compared to big states, the truth is it just boosts the importance of the few states that are polling closely enough - whether they're big or small. Non-competitive states are ignored, on both sides of the aisle, big states and small states.
7. A more general change would be to implement range voting or approval voting to replace plurality voting in elections. This would reduce the stranglehold of the Democrats and Republicans, and result in elections where people can vote for who they actually like rather than voting to defeat a candidate they dislike.
8. Sabato's suggestion for the primary system sounds pretty good.
9. Corporations should not be able to make campaign donations. Corporations are not people, and they do not have a right to vote.
There are other measures for reducing the influence of money and lobbyists, but I don't really know what they ought to be exactly. There should be stronger anti-corruption measures.
Note: Lobbyists shouldn't be a problem in theory they're just someone working to disseminate a particular point of view on an issue to the Congress members (i.e. in favor of gay rights or gun rights or what have you). The problem is the influence of money with regards to them.
10. Make voting easier and less easily corrupted. People's voting rights shouldn't be taken away except by some uniform national standard (felons shouldn't lose their voting rights, imo), registration should be automatic or possible on election day, election day shouldn't be on a Tuesday (which is idiotic), perhaps more early voting is a good idea, or a more extended voting process (e.g. perhaps voting should go on for a whole weekend rather than a day, alleviating lines in crowded areas and so forth).
There should be paper records of votes, and those running the elections should not be partisans (a bi/multipartisan panel would work, for example). Voting procedures should be more consistent across states - America's system is slower and stupider than a lot of countries' systems.
11. There should be better and more explicit anti-discrimination measures in the Constitution, covering race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender/gender expression, sexual orientation, etc. There should be language rights also, both for linguistic minorities in themselves, to prevent language being used as a proxy for discrimination on other grounds and to ensure quality education for non-English speakers to the extent that it's practical.
12. There should be more government transparency. Not sure to what extent, or how it should be implemented, but there needs to be better ways of holding them accountable.
That's all that comes to mind right now.
I'll just also note that Sabato's suggestions:
4. Lengthen House terms to 3 years (from 2) and set Senate terms to coincide with all Presidential elections, so the entire House and Senate would be elected at the same time as the President.
and
9. Establish a new 6-year, 1-time Presidential term with the option for the President to seek 2 additional years in an up/down referendum of the American people.
Are self-contradictory, since making presidential terms 6 or 8 years would make it so that you couldn't have Congressional elections line up with Presidential elections unless you just mandated new Congressional elections in any Presidential election year.
Last edited by erimir; 09-01-2009 at 04:25 AM.
|
09-01-2009, 04:49 AM
|
|
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: Restructure the US Government
Divide the country into regions of roughly equal population.
Scrap the current election process and replace it with televised regional contests using a system similar to the American Idol model.
That is all.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:51 AM.
|
|
|
|