I made this thread to brainstorm about ways to fix our(USA) current government. Try and keep your responses short, on topic, impersonal, serious, and only ideas for improving democracy. Do not simply suggest a different system. I have been thinking about the distrust of our elected officials and how many of them are probably corrupt. It seems politics has gotten in the way of government, and this upsets me. Here is my idea thus far: I think we should not have ANY campaign contributions after the primaries (and you cant use the money you get from the primaries to run in the general election). We should have no commercials, and ban 501c3s (and other groups) from running commercials. Then have a series of about 10 of 3 hour long debates, with an 1 hour for the moderators questions, 1 hour for talking about their platform, and one hour for direct questioning of each other.
Your handle implies that you're probably a fellow libertarian. I believe the first step in this process would be for the Supreme Court to wake up and realize that their job is to enforce the Constitution. It has been so blatantly ignored for so many decades that some day soon a clever lawyer is going to successfully argue that it is de facto no longer in force.
ok, but I am not sure how you can realistically do that. I am mostly talking about things that can, in theory, be done. like making it illegal to accept any campaign contributions for presidential elections. p.s. the funny part is that I consider my self a republican =]
Bottom line, Democracy is only as good as the quality of the public debate. So, How to improve the debate? Ban all political advertising from non-text media. Emotions are the core of everything human but political debate needs to be intellect based if democracy is to rise to it's potential. Real intellectual content can not be expressed in one or two minutes therefore TV and Radio are not proper medium for political advertising to add to the debate. If people feel informed because of seeing or hearing TV or radio advertising then the advertising has harmed the debate. A few big font words and some graphics on a mailing also does not help the debate. I would mandate a certain amount of text per page of paid advertising. I will go on from here in another thread because American Democracy will never be what we would like it to be without big changes to the form of government. Also What kind of democracy would work best for Iraq or Nigeria is another good qustion?
It would not be hard to make a internet voting system that could be trusted. Let the voting be done over a week on any internet connection. Each person gets a voter number and password from their state that gives them an internet ballot on the a computer owned by the state. Each person can go online and see how they voted using their voter number and password as a way of making sure some computer program created to do voter fraud did not change their vote. Each party gets to count all the ballots but does not get to know the voters names and addresses. The parties only see the voter number and the votes. This eliminates any chance for counting fraud. This system would be cheaper, easier to to use and fraud proof.
We first need to ditch the idea that we a democracy. No where in the constitution does it state we are or even have the word in it. It does give us this little tidbit. Artice IV, Section. 4 states "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence." (underlining is my doing) I have noticed that we are increasingly claiming that the popular vote in this country is to be heeded. It isn't. Why have representatives from your local area then. Why not just go to the people every time. Oh, there is so much that needs to be fixed and checked to bring this country back around.
Wrong. Public debate serves no purpose beyond that of potentially changing the minds of the undecided. Democracy is only as good as the elected representatives' performance in their duty: serving the will of the people. What needs to be changed are two things: Firstly, financial lobbying has to be eliminated, for there is no better way to manipulate someone than to buy them; secondly, representatives have to be made culpable for their actions.
We have not seen what a good public debate could do because it has not existed. People vote based on their beliefs. Their beliefs come frome the public debate. That which is spoke at the kitchen table is influenced by the public debate. If voters don't understand the issues then there is no point in having elections. Who other than a informed public can make represtatives culpable for their actions? The main method by which representatives are being bought is by giving money for advertising which is used to alter the public debate. Perhaps I should have defined public debate. """Democracy is only as good as the elected representatives' performance in their duty: serving the will of the people."" What does the "will of the people" mean to you. If the will of the people means is that the politician should do X, do Y, and do Z because the people have asked for these thing in the hopes that doing these things will improve the lives of the people and their children then your good politician can not help the people if the people are not informed enough to know what they should be wanting. If the will of the people means that the people and heir children should always be happy, healthy and wealthy and the politician should do what ever he thinks will help then what are elections needed for? When we have elections we ask uniformed people to choose somebody wiser than themself to represent them. The adverising money is used to change our beliefs about who is wise. Why have the election that brings the need for advertising money into the picture if the people are not going to be informed? Randomly choose one voter per district. Give that voter the power to hire and fire the representative for one term. The politician would no longer have to spend half his time fundraising. Pay the one voter per district 10% of the politicians salary and ask the voter to try to stay informed. Everybody else can watch "reality" tv and completely ignore politics.
ok, so here is what I have gathered so far: 1. we need to stop lobbying (no brainer). 2. we need less sensational campaigning. 3. easier voting so people are more accurately represented. 4. safeguards against voter fraud. 5. a closer tie between government and people. 6. more people voting with their heads and less voting with their hearts. so here is what I propose: an Internet voting system that would have highly redundant safeguards against fraud. with this system, we could allow people to vote for a week or so, in order to make sure everyone gets a chance to vote. secondly, perhaps have a certain set of questions, voted on by the people, which politicians must answer to be able to run in an election. if the politicians don't adhere to the answers they give on the questions (say one thing and do another) they can be impeached. thirdly, and this is just an idea, (not too sure how well this would work) have people be able to vote directly on some matters. for example, if there were a bill in front of the house you could log onto the Internet and read the entire bill. after reading the bill you could then actually vote on said bill, but with your voter only worth a small amount compared to the elected official. perhaps on that third idea you would need people to take a test in economics (to prove they understand what the bill will do) in order to be able to vote in that area. they would have to take a similar test in order to vote in any other category what do you think?
I agree that financial lobbying needs to be taken out. Constitutional amendment would be the only way to do it since you can argue that the act of "lobbying" your representative or senator is a protected right given by the 1st amendment. We have seen that they have extended in most cases the use of money as a freedom of speech issue. Lobbying itself is protected and needed. If we cannot access the halls of our government to persude those that can make or break policy, then we have fallen from one of our founders' dreams to be able to assemble and discuss ideas amongst each other. Voting times should remain the same. 1 day. It isn't that hard to get down and vote. Maybe open the polls longer, say 16-18 hours. 6am to 10pm. That would give everyone the opportunity to go vote. In my opinion, allowing people to vote directly on an issue at a federal level is unconstitutional. We have elected representatives and senators to do that job. You don't like the voting record of your man, oust him. Article 1 of the Constitution states "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." I wholeheartedly believe that we as citizens should assemble and require certain standards of our elected officals. It is our duty in a self-governed society to present those standards and make them known. This isn't to say that you cannot keep someone from trying to run, but you can say "sorry, you just aren't what we are looking for". Many people don't understand this concecpt.
Sorry about the confusion. Lobbying should stay, financial lobbying should go. why not make it more days? just one extra day would help. you have you ever taken a good look at the people who run those places? they are 90% old people, you can’t have them working 18 hour days. once again, why not allow people to vote? sure congressmen are elected to do these things, but it’s a bit like rolling the dice with them. you elect congressmen hoping they will represent you properly, but why would you take that chance? why not have some controls after they are elected? just because it’s in the constitution does not mean it’s the best way of doing it. I am pretty sure the reason they put that in the constitution was not to block regular people from having a say in legislation, but rather to protect against becoming a kingdom. I am not saying we should eliminate congress, just saying that people who can pass a test to prove they know the issue at hand can also have a very small say. perhaps even limit the votes of the people, so that no matter how many people vote their combined voting power is only equal to 2 times a congressmen’s vote. thus, if there were a split senate/house it could be broken by the people. Agreed.
Career politicians is one of the major problems with our system. In fact, without long-term congressman, even lobbying is not much of an issue. Term limits is the only way around the major issues of our system ...with it, most of the other issues fall right into place without doing anything. The other one is a "human" issue ...democracy is based almost exclusively on the ability of congressmen and voters to compromise on major national and international issues. That ability is lost in our society today, in my humble opinion. Baron Max
I don't think that is ture. when you have short terms the lobbying problem might get worse because you will have people who are just trying to get rich off their 1 or 2 terms. if their terms are up then why would they care about what the voters think of their accepting money from big buisnesses.
First: In response to Android- Who decides they are wise? Themselves? A decree from God or by the sword? Agreed that most voting booth personnel are old. I guess I can't seem to find a reason though to increase the days needed to vote. That just opens the door to more voter fraud in my opinion. I believe that we have the technology today to have a better voting system, but I still think having a physical voting location is essential. You don't think that it would be rolling the dice with allowing anyone that can pass a test to help vote on an issue. That is where you as a community are to band together and take part in the process. Pressure your congressman and let it be known that you either like his voting record or you don't. Besides, I know people that are highly intelligent, but choke on tests....so they won't be able to help in the process because of this and on the same note, I know those that can take a test without barely any prior knowledge to the subject and get good scores. Regarding individuals coming together and requiring their congressman to "pass a test"- From www.wallbuilders.com. This article is written by Daniel Webster and speaks of our duty to have qualifications for office. Today, people would read that and say it is unconstitutional or some bs notion of seperation of church and state, but it just isn't true. He simply states that we have a right, given by the 1st Amendment to assemble and come to an agreement on to what we should have in our congressman. I believe the #1 PROBLEM in this country is complaceny on the peoples' part. We have allowed everything to happen under OUR watch. We are to be the main branch of government. We are to keep those that we elect into power in check, but we don't. I have a congresswoman back home that spends most of her time and effort dealing with problems in Mexico. She is only pandering to the Mexican population (that is high in her district) and not focusing on issues and problems near her. I feel this is a fraud, waste and abuse of power on her part. I speak up, but do others. (By the way, she has never responded to attempts to contact her). Another example of a good congressman. In New Mexico, Rep. Steve Pearce has called out to the people of his district to help him with ideas with privitizing social security. In my opinion, that is the correct thing to do.
Yeah, but who would be stupid enough to give them money if they had no "power" to get anything done for them? A single-term congressman would be no more powerful than anyone else ...just a single vote for a lobbyist's special interest concern. Sure, the congressman might take the money, but no lobbyist would offer any! Baron Max
Well, I don't know about it being the #1 problem, but I agree with you about complacency of the people. But then you go also say: "That is where you as a community are to band together and take part in the process." If the people are already complacent, how do you get them to "band together"? See? The two go hand in hand, don't they? But also, even if the people "band together", have you ever found a group of people who are able to reach any kind of concensus on issues?? The art of compromise is important in a democratic process, yet I think we've lost that art ...if humans ever had it to begin with?! Man is terribly selfish and terribly ego-centric ...compromise is not easy for him. And that's why we have so many special-interest groups protesting and demonstrating ....they don't necessarily care about Joe Blow's issues, but those few are working like hell on their own little pet project/issue ...selfishness and ego. But didn't the people vote him into office specifically to represent them? And again, the problem is not ideas, but too damned many ideas ...most of which probably wouldn't work anyway. "The people" aren't too damned smart and they couldn't agree on anything anyway ...so we're right back where we started, aren't we? And maybe that's the very reason that people are complacent?? Baron Max
Just because the people voted him in doesn’t mean that he is automatically smarter than everyone. I think asking for help like that is a good thing. I agree that the people need to get more involved, but how do you get them motivated? This was the reason I proposed the people get a vote on individual issues. if they had even a small amount of say, they could be motivated enough to talk about it at the water cooler the next day, which in turn might motivate more people. the average person knows very little of what is being voted on in the house and senate. I feel that if people could vote, even if it counts for very little, it will at least allow them to see how their congressmen voted on that same issue and perhaps effect who they vote into office. people seem to have a lot of ideas about what is wrong, you guys need to think of possible ways to fix it.
*takes out democracy fixing helmet and hamer* DIE COMMIES DIE DIE DIE DIE!!!! ok guys i fixed it, return to your homes and proceed thinking that you have a choice in anything.
Oops, sorry ...I didn't mean smarter or anything, I meant that they elected him so they wouldn't have to screw with such issues! Sorry for the misunderstanding. The rest of your post is about people not getting involved, not caring, apathetic, etc. And while that's all true, it's also true that it's basic human nature ...if things are going well and the people are basically happy, they don't give a damn about such bullshit political issues. Changing that attitude is nothing short of changing human nature ...and you ask me how?? ...LOL! One thing that you might take a moment to consider all of the recent "major happenings" in the world ...and then look at the entertainment expenditures of the American people. During the beginning stages of the war with Iraq, for example, the American people spent almost the same amount on entertainment as they did previously. Right in the middle of the war, the spending remained relatively the same. During the tsunami in Southeast Asia, the entertainment spending was ...yep, about the same! What does that tell you about the attention span of the American people? What does it tell you about the "give-a-shit" attitude of the American people? And rmember, I don't know about other nations, I haven't seen those numbers. But my best guess is that the spending in Europe didn't change much either. If things are going well, people aren't interested; if things are not going well, there's usually nothing they can do about it by then, so why try. See? Human natue is a difficult thing to consider ...we sometimes don't like to face such things about ourselves. Baron Max
