Re-creating the U.S. Government

[SagaLore]

If you could start back at the beginning when the new government was created, how would you have made it different? They can be subtle or drastic differences.


For me:

- 3 Houses. Senate, Representatives, and Commons. The house of Commons is elected by districts carved out by population, not by state borders.

- The President can serve two 5 year terms. There is no Vice President. He/she is elected by popular vote only. The President heads the House of Reps, and oversees National affairs only.

- The Prime Minister can serve two 5 year terms. He/she is also elected by popular vote. The PM heads the House of Commons, and oversees International affairs only.

- The Commander in Chief can serve two 5 year terms, and is elected by majority vote from Reps and Commons. He/she oversees the Senate. The Commander only oversees military and emergency operations.

- It is not a two party system.

- The federal government cannot tax individuals. It can only tax States. The States have to figure out what is the best way to collect taxes/funds.

- The federal government can only spend what money they have. A deficit is now allowed. The budget can only consist of programs necessary for the operations of the legislative/executive, and judicial branches - they cannot benefit any one state or any one political interest.

 

[conjur]

I'm not so sure having separate entities handling domestic and international policy is necessarily a good thing and could be a hindrance (esp. if they are opposing parties).

And, popular vote would skew elections toward the larger cities, largely ignoring the more rural areas.

Also, not allowing deficits has the potential to make recessionary times worse. Some deficit spending is necessary to maintain economic activity and bolster capital investment/trade/etc.

I think a more parliamentary style government would be good, though. It would open up our government to more than just Democrats and Republicans. Also, I'd limit House/Senate terms to six to eight years, no reelection possible. Right now, our Reps. and Senators spend a large amount of their time fundraising for the next election and not focusing on doing what they were elected to do.

 

[piasabird]

Outlaw all party affiliations!

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Outlaw all party affiliations!

What he said. Two party system is teh :thumbsdown:

For me the only other requirement would be that I rule and everybody does what I say! 😀

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: conjur
I'm not so sure having separate entities handling domestic and international policy is necessarily a good thing and could be a hindrance (esp. if they are opposing parties).

It is supposed to be both a hindrance and an advantage. When you choose a President, you try and pick the guy with most qualities you believe in, but no matter what that person will not be perfect. If you take 3 different realms and put a person in charge of it, they will be able to focus all their time and effort into it, and the combo of all 3 will be a better representation of what the majority wants.

And, popular vote would skew elections toward the larger cities, largely ignoring the more rural areas.

I don't have a problem with that. Everyone should get 1 vote, and that 1 vote should matter just as much as the next guy. A popular vote would be national - it wouldn't be a popular vote that wins a state, and each state is worth X amount of votes that add up - it would be majority vote across the board.

Also, not allowing deficits has the potential to make recessionary times worse. Some deficit spending is necessary to maintain economic activity and bolster capital investment/trade/etc.

If they're forced into having to deal with that, then they need to budget for a Surplus and keep that tucked away. Or at the very least, set a limit for the deficit that they cannot exceed.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Outlaw all party affiliations!

I was thinking of changing the way parties work. Like right now, you're either Republican, or Democrat, or Libertarian, or Green, or... and then you adjust your position by saying you're Conservative, or Moderate, or Liberal.

So we end up with a Conservative Democrat, or Moderate Republican, or...

Why not make it more granular. Say there is a Pro-Choice Party. And a Pro-Environment Party. And a Pro-Business Party. Etc. Then instead of a single party affiliation, the congress can form committees based on those mini-parties, and you can be part of multple parties.

That way the country is only polarized on an issue-by-issue basis.

 

[piasabird]

I am not so sure having Representatives and Congressmen is such a good idea. I really believe each distric should have its own vote. I think the states control of their entire state's electorial votes is not such a good idea. What happens in reality is if you have a large city in your state, whatever that city votes for the rest of the state is stuck with. Take Chicago for example. Chicago represents about half the population in Illinois just about. Of courese I just made up the numbers. My point is that what city people want shouldnt force all the other voting districts to be counted one way. Every District should have its own vote.

I had this other Idea I was playing around with. What if we had a rule that says when a city or metro area gets to a certain size they are converted over to a District like the district of columbia. They would in essence be an entity separate from the state. Large Cities need this kind of ability to be like a state unto themselves. I think we will begin to see this kind of conflict between the people that live in a metro area and people that live in the rest of the state.

Look out you city monsters, the ignorant peasants are coming to get you with pitcforks and torches. . .

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Interesting OP . . . unnecessarily complex, though.

I used to be opposed to term limits despite being a Young Republican, but after too many years of Jesse Helms, Ted Kennedy, and Strom Thurmond . . . I think the time has come. I would say two terms for Senator and three terms for the House. I think the House should turn over more b/c technically it represents the people. You cannot represent the people if you only live amongst them during elections and weekends.

I think Congress should be able to run deficits but they take 10% paycut for every 1% in budget red ink. By my estimation, every member of Congress would owe ~225,000 for fiscal 2005. Naturally, the money goes into a federal election fund for challengers to incumbents.

Lobbyists would register with the government and would have to report EVERY interaction with an elected official or their staff members. A registry of lobbyists and contact with officials would be published monthly. Gifts would be prohibited. Buckley would be overturned (money!=speech).

Admittedly, I kinda like the parliamentary style of government.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Interesting OP . . . unnecessarily complex, though.

I used to be opposed to term limits despite being a Young Republican, but after too many years of Jesse Helms, Ted Kennedy, and Strom Thurmond . . . I think the time has come. I would say two terms for Senator and three terms for the House. I think the House should turn over more b/c technically it represents the people. You cannot represent the people if you only live amongst them during elections and weekends.

I think Congress should be able to run deficits but they take 10% paycut for every 1% in budget red ink. By my estimation, every member of Congress would owe ~225,000 for fiscal 2005. Naturally, the money goes into a federal election fund for challengers to incumbents.

Lobbyists would register with the government and would have to report EVERY interaction with an elected official or their staff members. A registry of lobbyists and contact with officials would be published monthly. Gifts would be prohibited. Buckley would be overturned (money!=speech).

Admittedly, I kinda like the parliamentary style of government.

Agreed. If you can force labor to labor, then you should be able to force managemnt to manage.

 

[YoshiSato]

I have a better idea.

A Supreme Dictator who has the power to delegate power to lesser dictators over the differnet regions of the states. "Represetnative" would represente the ignorate masses but the final power lies with the dictator. The Supreme Dictator can over rule a lesser one however this would not be likely because I would have more pressing matters like conquering Europe and the middle east.

I would aslo bring a return to the class system. Citizens(thoes whom work and pay taxes or service in military) Would be protected by the Empire meaing their rights can not taken away by a local lord. Residents would no have the protection of the Empire and would be subjected to the laws of the Lesser Dictator(These would be the wealfare bums should any survive)


Long Live the Empire. 😉

 

[YoshiSato]

Ok, this post is serious now.

The is nothing wrong with the current government set up. The problem is the people in the system. The way to solve the problem is with a systematic pruge of everything in D.C(Take this how you want)

Store over from Scratch, problems solved

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: YoshiSato
I have a better idea.

A Supreme Dictator who has the power to delegate power to lesser dictators over the differnet regions of the states. "Represetnative" would represente the ignorate masses but the final power lies with the dictator. The Supreme Dictator can over rule a lesser one however this would not be likely because I would have more pressing matters like conquering Europe and the middle east.

I would aslo bring a return to the class system. Citizens(thoes whom work and pay taxes or service in military) Would be protected by the Empire meaing their rights can not taken away by a local lord. Residents would no have the protection of the Empire and would be subjected to the laws of the Lesser Dictator(These would be the wealfare bums should any survive)


Long Live the Empire. 😉

I forgot to mention that "re-creating the government" would be based on the premise that all people are equal, the principles of the Bill of Rights are preserved, and that democracy is the fairest government.

😕

 

[OrByte]

term limits.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
- It is not a two party system.

Banning a two party system isn't something that should be written in law since it evolves from our 'winner takes all' type of elections. Basically the difference between the election method of the House and Senate vs the Commons as you described it. Otherwise it will always recollapse into a two party system. If you have three parties and party A wins and party B & C loses, party B&C will make compromises and reform into party D so that they don't lose everything.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: SagaLore
- It is not a two party system.

Banning a two party system isn't something that should be written in law since it evolves from our 'winner takes all' type of elections. Basically the difference between the election method of the House and Senate vs the Commons as you described it. Otherwise it will always recollapse into a two party system. If you have three parties and party A wins and party B & C loses, party B&C will make compromises and reform into party D so that they don't lose everything.

I'm not proposing to "ban a two party system". I'm saying don't base our government on an explicit two party system. We have majority leader and minority leader, we have rules governing how states are split up for voting based on party, we have pre-elections based on two party, etc.

 

[YoshiSato]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: YoshiSato
I have a better idea.

A Supreme Dictator who has the power to delegate power to lesser dictators over the differnet regions of the states. "Represetnative" would represente the ignorate masses but the final power lies with the dictator. The Supreme Dictator can over rule a lesser one however this would not be likely because I would have more pressing matters like conquering Europe and the middle east.

I would aslo bring a return to the class system. Citizens(thoes whom work and pay taxes or service in military) Would be protected by the Empire meaing their rights can not taken away by a local lord. Residents would no have the protection of the Empire and would be subjected to the laws of the Lesser Dictator(These would be the wealfare bums should any survive)


Long Live the Empire. 😉

I forgot to mention that "re-creating the government" would be based on the premise that all people are equal, the principles of the Bill of Rights are preserved, and that democracy is the fairest government.

😕

Was a joke to counter you joke of a British based system.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I think that our current winner-take-all system has resulted in political apathy and very poor representation of the people. It may have made sense when the nation was founded and when the main issues involved the foreign policy and states' rights, back when the big issue was the power of the federal government over local authorities and interests, and also when the population was more homogeneous, but today it is dysfunctional. Our current system places too much emphasis on local representation with a majority winner-take-all result.

Our current electoral process does a poor job of representing the populace. For example, we have 435 Representatives in the House and they are almost all from two parties. The Congressmen may very well represent the majority of the people in their district, but the problem is that the federal government deals with federal issues that transcend localities. The end result is that even though a significant percentage of the populace (say 5%) supports a different kind of ideology, they don't have any representation. You would think they'd be entitled to, say, 21 representatives.

I think we should consider turning the House of Representatives into a Parliament where seats would be apportioned to political parties on the basis of their fraction of the national vote. Representatives would thus be elected on a national and not a local scale. This way people would actually be able to obtain representation for their ideologies. So, when you go to vote Libertarian, or vote for the Atheist party, or vote for a party advocating local capitalism combined with trade protectionism, your vote won't be completely wasted because even if your party receives only 0.5% of the vote nationally you'd still get two seats in a 435 member House. (The number of representatives should be brought to a nice round number, such as 500.) This way, just about everyone could obtain representation.

A Parliamentary type of system for electing the House of Representatives would also make elections less superficial and more substantive as political parties advocated their ideologies instead of people having to choose between two candidates who try to be all things to everyone.

Ameican politics would be much more interesting. It would have a contingent of religious nutcase parties, various racial and ethnic parties, an atheist party, socialists, communists, Libertarians, Environmentalists, labor interests, trade protectionists, etc.

 

[Cerb]

The problems are all social and economic in nature. Changing the houses and party workings will just make new holes for slime to seep into.

Put everyone in a sensory deprevation environment for one week of each year (forced introspection 🙂). IMO, that'd do more good than some novel check and balance system. It was not the system that failed, but the people under it allowing it to inch towards this mess we have now. We've got too many sheeple, and they are too comfortable.

So, if I were to recreate it...I'd outlaw Christianity, let the natives keep their land, and realize it will fall anyway, because these cycles will happen, no matter how you try to stop them. Rise, peak, rot, fall, vacuum, repeat.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: OrByte
term limits.

Power to the party!!


Before we declare our current system a failure, why don't we at least try it first? We never have yet. Read up: Text