Needed change in American Politics

[Teclis2323]

Hi guys,

I'm not a regular on the boards, but I check them every so often. This is just a personal view of what I think we need, as both Americans and citizens of the world, to become a better nation. Let me tell you just a little bit about myself so that you'll know where I'm coming from. Please, be respectful when posting.

I, myself, am a moderate/Liberal. I don't identify with the Democratic or Republican parties, because I don't like to submit myself to such denominational jargon. I have mixed views, and I can see points on both sides of the spectrum.

It's my opinion that we need to straighten out the parties and stop giving the "extremists" power. By extremists, or radicals, I mean the people (on BOTH sides) who can't/won't see things from other points of view. That pertains to both the crazy-ass right wingers (Ann Coulter) and the crazy-ass left-wingers (New Jersey Solidarity group). Here are some of my ideas about what we need:

- a TRUE democracy, without electoral weighting.
- a cabinet, much like the Knesset, which allows for many different political parties.
- politicians who are willing to admit that they don't know everything.
- politicians who are trustworthy (both sides!!!)
- the executive branch should have (mandatory) tri-party advising (demo, repub, third)


I hope that you guys can come up with some of your own suggestions to add to my partial list. Please, let's not bash anyone, let's just add our general stipulations and necessities.

 

[Czar]

we can only dream

 

[PELarson]

quible - knesset = congress not cabinet!

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Teclis2323
Hi guys,

I'm not a regular on the boards, but I check them every so often. This is just a personal view of what I think we need, as both Americans and citizens of the world, to become a better nation. Let me tell you just a little bit about myself so that you'll know where I'm coming from. Please, be respectful when posting.

I, myself, am a moderate/Liberal. I don't identify with the Democratic or Republican parties, because I don't like to submit myself to such denominational jargon. I have mixed views, and I can see points on both sides of the spectrum.

It's my opinion that we need to straighten out the parties and stop giving the "extremists" power. By extremists, or radicals, I mean the people (on BOTH sides) who can't/won't see things from other points of view. That pertains to both the crazy-ass right wingers (Ann Coulter) and the crazy-ass left-wingers (New Jersey Solidarity group). Here are some of my ideas about what we need:

- a TRUE democracy, without electoral weighting.
- a cabinet, much like the Knesset, which allows for many different political parties.
- politicians who are willing to admit that they don't know everything.
- politicians who are trustworthy (both sides!!!)
- the executive branch should have (mandatory) tri-party advising (demo, repub, third)


I hope that you guys can come up with some of your own suggestions to add to my partial list. Please, let's not bash anyone, let's just add our general stipulations and necessities.

So basically a total rewriting of the best, and longest lasting constitution in the world?

 

[TheBDB]

So basically a total rewriting of the best, and longest lasting constitution in the world?

You can argue it is the best constitution in the world, but does that mean that if there is a suggestion to make it even better we shouldn't?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Teclis2323
Hi guys,

I'm not a regular on the boards, but I check them every so often. This is just a personal view of what I think we need, as both Americans and citizens of the world, to become a better nation. Let me tell you just a little bit about myself so that you'll know where I'm coming from. Please, be respectful when posting.

I, myself, am a moderate/Liberal. I don't identify with the Democratic or Republican parties, because I don't like to submit myself to such denominational jargon. I have mixed views, and I can see points on both sides of the spectrum.

It's my opinion that we need to straighten out the parties and stop giving the "extremists" power. By extremists, or radicals, I mean the people (on BOTH sides) who can't/won't see things from other points of view. That pertains to both the crazy-ass right wingers (Ann Coulter) and the crazy-ass left-wingers (New Jersey Solidarity group). Here are some of my ideas about what we need:

- a TRUE democracy, without electoral weighting.
- a cabinet, much like the Knesset, which allows for many different political parties.
- politicians who are willing to admit that they don't know everything.
- politicians who are trustworthy (both sides!!!)
- the executive branch should have (mandatory) tri-party advising (demo, repub, third)


I hope that you guys can come up with some of your own suggestions to add to my partial list. Please, let's not bash anyone, let's just add our general stipulations and necessities.

-These are about the most ridiculous idea for political reform I have ever heard. True democracy without electoral weighting?? Uh, getting rid of the electoral college won't make it a true democracy. The problems with democracy in America (and all other western democracies) is a LOT more complicated than that.

More on that here:

Now, the nation under the rule of the U.S. government will be compared to the structure of a club. The U.S. government has unfortunately actually forced the the nation into much more than a club. Today?s government has been constructed with the idea that the government should be a parent or caregiver. People are not the same in the eyes of the government, to the government there are groups of people who need to receive benefits and be cared for and there are other groups of people who must pay in order to have the benefit of living in the U.S. Through the use of the tax code and the manner in which the government hands out benefits and privileges the government has passed these judgments. The passing of these judgments has radical implications in regards to the foundations of democracy and freedom.

Democracy cannot be claimed under such conditions and nor can equality. The government has taken a role that has gone far beyond its club status where it creates benefits for everyone, which are shared equally and receives dues from everyone on an equal basis and therefore it has disrupted its status as a democracy. Everyone having an equal vote is only half the equation when it comes to democracy, everyone also must pay into the government system and receive the same amount in return. When this delicate balance is disrupted groups of people in society can vote for politicians who will enact government programs that are not paid for by the people who voted them into office. Put another way, those who receive government benefits are not necessarily the ones who paid for them even though their votes are counted on an equal basis of those who paid for the benefits. The head tax is the only suitable way to fix this glaring problem with our current pseudo-democracy where the top earners in the nation foot the bill for the rest of the country. Even under other tax schemes such as the consumption tax and the flat tax there will inevitably be a group of people who pay for government and a group of people who do not. If there was a club where certain members who did not pay dues were able to vote for increases in dues there would certainly be members of the club crying foul, and rightfully so.

from my essay: The Case for a Head Tax

-The president's cabinet makes up less than 1% of the total number of bureaucrats in government and cabinet members are often frustrated by their inability to manage/change the huge bureaucracies beneath them. Therefore, structure the cabinet in any way you want, won't change much, if anything.

-A politician willing to admit he doesn't know everything isn't going to change government. There is no correlation between this act and changing government. If every politician tomorrow stood up and said he didn't know everything your criteria for this point would be met but government would not change.

-Politicians who are untrustworthy will always exist in a government in which benefits and penalties can be bestowed upon citizens willy nilly. This ties into the concept above about how we live in a pseudo-democracy. Any system where laws can be passed that directly affect citizens that have been classified by government will breed corruption. A huge example of this is social security, the reason why this program is so huge and out of control is because so many old people vote. Politicians who want those votes must swear they will increase benefits. On the flipside, to denounce social security is political suicide. The only main semi-political figure I have seen saying social security benefits need to be cut is Alan Greenspan and that's only because he doesn't have to run in an election.

-Executive branch having tri-party advising? I don't see how this will change government, if you could explain how in more detail then maybe I will understand.

 

[Colt45]

I've never understood why people in the US scream democracy all the time, when there is only two parties that really have a chance. (although this is a self induced problem)


Hell, most of the ex-socialist european countries have several parties that have a decent chance at winning, i'd imagine. Yet the US is uber democratic for some reason or other. go figure.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted byigitalsm

So basically a total rewriting of the best, and longest lasting constitution in the world?

It's being shredded anyway.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Teclis2323

Please, let's not bash anyone, let's just add our general stipulations and necessities.

I'd be extremely surprised if you don't see individual attacks, one side/group can't defend their Parties actions so they attack the opposing individuals.

 

[chess9]

Your idea about politicians admitting they don't know everything is actually a good one. I would prefer what I call the PROFESSORIAL APPROACH (PA).

The President who used the PA would tell the American people something like this: "We don't know if Iraq currently has WMD. We don't know what our exit strategy will be if we remove SH. We don't know what the other countries in the world will do in response to any invasion we may carry out in Iraq. Having said that, we think invading Iraq would a) remove a brutal dictatorship; b) strengthen Israel; c) ultimately bring peace and stability to the Middle East; d) remove a source of state sponsored terrorism."

Instead of the PA we get the HARD SELL, which amounts to a statement of all the PROS of a position with no mention of the often fatal CONS. Both parties do it because they fear the consequences of appearing balanced and therefore weak. The English and Israelies do the same thing. I find it tiresome and sophomoric.

-Robert