Would you support a proportional electoral system in the US?

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: jdjbuffalo
I don't like this. I can't imagine it being better than what we've got.

What reforms we really need:
- Campaign Finance Reform - All public funding. Max $2000 to any candidate. No corporate money allowed in ANY form (direct/indirect money, gifts etc.)
- No lobbying in ANY form. If we want corporations input then we'll ask for it. This also leads into corporations shouldn't be considered people (see below)
- Term Limits - No more lifetime politicians. Term should be max of 12 years as a senator, 8 years as a rep. and 12 years max in the Congress.
- Eliminate parties. I would prefer everyone to be voted in on their own merits and not because they are "the 'best' we can find for your party".
- I would accept keeping parties if we can make some reasonable changes to the current system.
---Presidents should not be affiliated with a party. Since the each branch is supposed to be fairly independent, so as to allow proper checks and balances, the Executive branch should not be aligned with anyone in Congress.
---In the Congress we need more than 2 parties. We need at least 3 but 4-5 would be preferable.

Corporations shouldn't be considered people for a number of reasons. Corporations should be considered their own separate legal entity with their own set of laws governing them. I know that the mantra of people who support the current setup will argue that corporations are merely collections of people and it's convenient for legal reasons to consider them people. The problem is corporations have huge disproportionate amount of power and say in our government than any one person (not including the few people who own massive corporations). They don't have a direct vote for a representative but can be instrumental in getting "their guy" elected.

I could go into further details about corporations but I won't so as to try and keep this reply short(ish).

100% agree with everything you said. I would actually prefer 5-8 parties in order to cover all the major political philosophies.

 

[Modelworks]

I am for tossing out all parties ability to pass anything. Let them write it but let the people vote to decide if it passes or not. We do it for local things like school bonds, why not for bank bailouts ?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Democrats are supposed to be federalists/socialists, but are turning to private insurance to provide basic human services. Republicans are the party of individual right and liberty but squashed habeus corpus and the first amendment whenever possible. How can a party that wants government out of our lives support government making rules about marriage, or sex, or drug use? Which party is pro-market economics and which is against it? Which is the party of states rights? Which party wants smaller government? Last I checked both parties were roughly equivalent in all those things.

There are no meaningful differences in the two main parties, and what differences do exist are based on voting issues, not theoretical foundations. So a party may be pro-states rights in some things, but against it in others. If the left is the opposite of the right, then how can both parties be supporting increased spending? Who do you vote for if you're AGAINST spending increases and AGAINST debt/deficits and AGAINST the whole market economy idea?

If you design parties around general theories then all of their platforms are derived from those theories and you get no such contradictions. That means people could once again expect our representatives to vote closer to our ideas rather than being forced to go along with one of only two options.

I think your concept of where these parties stand is pretty flawed because you're looking for a binary choice on most issues where one doesn't exist.

The Democrats aren't supposed to be 'socialists', they are a free market, capitalistic party. In almost any other industrialized nation on earth, they would be the right wing party when it comes to economics. They are to the left of the Republicans, but that's because by world standards the Republicans are by far the furthest right wing major party on the planet. (at least that I am aware of) In addition, the Republicans are a big government/authoritarian party, just like the Democrats are. So the parties aren't jumbled messes, they just don't have the ideals that you ascribe to them.

Your best complaint is probably that the parties are too similar to one another, and I think that's true. It's precisely because they both grow from the same fundamental principles however. In America we have a center-right party in the Democrats, and an ultra right party in the Republicans. That's just how we work.

You wouldn't need to eliminate parties or structure them around general theories to get what you're looking for, a multiparty system would do it for you. In a 2 party system, both parties compete for the median voter (which is why the two parties act so similarly), in a multipolar system everyone competes for their own constituencies.

 

[RedChief]

Originally posted by: jdjbuffalo
I don't like this. I can't imagine it being better than what we've got.

What reforms we really need:
- Campaign Finance Reform - All public funding. Max $2000 to any candidate. No corporate money allowed in ANY form (direct/indirect money, gifts etc.)

No matte what kind of finance reform that you pass, there will always be those who find legal ways around it. I go the opposite direction and would allow unlimited donations to any candidate from any source BUT there must be complete transparency. All donations over $25 must be made public (both in print and on the internet). Additionally, no hiding behind SIGs. If GE formed a special interest group called Citizens for Green Power and gave $1 million to a Senator, it should be recorded that GE gave $1 million to that Senator.

- No lobbying in ANY form. If we want corporations input then we'll ask for it. This also leads into corporations shouldn't be considered people (see below)

Cannot a employee of a corporation be able to lobby for what they think the corps best interest is? Why not? Arn't you then putting restrictions on that employees free speech?

- Term Limits - No more lifetime politicians. Term should be max of 12 years as a senator, 8 years as a rep. and 12 years max in the Congress.

Totally agree. Additionally, we need to repeal the 17th amendment. Ever since states gave up their right to appoint senators, they have gave up more and more of their residents liberties to that of the federal gov.

- Eliminate parties. I would prefer everyone to be voted in on their own merits and not because they are "the 'best' we can find for your party".

So you would restrict one persons freedom to associate with another? Because that is, in essence, a political party.

- I would accept keeping parties if we can make some reasonable changes to the current system.
---Presidents should not be affiliated with a party. Since the each branch is supposed to be fairly independent, so as to allow proper checks and balances, the Executive branch should not be aligned with anyone in Congress.

The branch is only independent in that it is separate from the legislative and judicial branches of government. The chief executive has always been and always will be a partisan position (the exception being the presidency of George Washington, who knew and understood party politics would follow).

---In the Congress we need more than 2 parties. We need at least 3 but 4-5 would be preferable.

All right, how do you determine what those 3-5 parties will be? Any way you that you come up is contrary to our system of representative government. The US is a Federal Republic, not a parliamentary republic.

Corporations shouldn't be considered people for a number of reasons. Corporations should be considered their own separate legal entity with their own set of laws governing them. I know that the mantra of people who support the current setup will argue that corporations are merely collections of people and it's convenient for legal reasons to consider them people. The problem is corporations have huge disproportionate amount of power and say in our government than any one person (not including the few people who own massive corporations). They don't have a direct vote for a representative but can be instrumental in getting "their guy" elected.

I could go into further details about corporations but I won't so as to try and keep this reply short(ish).

I don't believe corps are people, but those who work for corps should not have their rights restricted because they work for a corp.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Democrats are supposed to be federalists/socialists, but are turning to private insurance to provide basic human services. Republicans are the party of individual right and liberty but squashed habeus corpus and the first amendment whenever possible. How can a party that wants government out of our lives support government making rules about marriage, or sex, or drug use? Which party is pro-market economics and which is against it? Which is the party of states rights? Which party wants smaller government? Last I checked both parties were roughly equivalent in all those things.

There are no meaningful differences in the two main parties, and what differences do exist are based on voting issues, not theoretical foundations. So a party may be pro-states rights in some things, but against it in others. If the left is the opposite of the right, then how can both parties be supporting increased spending? Who do you vote for if you're AGAINST spending increases and AGAINST debt/deficits and AGAINST the whole market economy idea?

If you design parties around general theories then all of their platforms are derived from those theories and you get no such contradictions. That means people could once again expect our representatives to vote closer to our ideas rather than being forced to go along with one of only two options.

I think your concept of where these parties stand is pretty flawed because you're looking for a binary choice on most issues where one doesn't exist.

The Democrats aren't supposed to be 'socialists', they are a free market, capitalistic party. In almost any other industrialized nation on earth, they would be the right wing party when it comes to economics. They are to the left of the Republicans, but that's because by world standards the Republicans are by far the furthest right wing major party on the planet. (at least that I am aware of) In addition, the Republicans are a big government/authoritarian party, just like the Democrats are. So the parties aren't jumbled messes, they just don't have the ideals that you ascribe to them.

Your best complaint is probably that the parties are too similar to one another, and I think that's true. It's precisely because they both grow from the same fundamental principles however. In America we have a center-right party in the Democrats, and an ultra right party in the Republicans. That's just how we work.

You wouldn't need to eliminate parties or structure them around general theories to get what you're looking for, a multiparty system would do it for you. In a 2 party system, both parties compete for the median voter (which is why the two parties act so similarly), in a multipolar system everyone competes for their own constituencies.

I think the binary is forced on us by having a two party system. Those parties evolved originally from the clearly defined two position issues of the day (states rights versus federalism for instance). I do believe that there are limited trinary axes of political beliefs (left, middle, right) which can describe all possible political philosophy however.

That simply doesn't work because there would need to be an ENORMOUS number of parties if you form them around voters like these are. One party for pro-gun but pro-gay, one party for pro-gun but anti-gay, one party for anti-gun but pro-gay, etc etc etc. The number of voters are endless. Theories are finite and defensible. One way or another all voters have a few defining theoretical foundations: economics, individual liberty versus collective authoritarianism, etc. By examining the relationship and interplay of those few fundamental philosophies you can determine an infinite number of voters with only limited parties (I argue the number as 9, but that's liquid).

 

[yllus]

The 2006 elections in Israel resulted in a prime minister who received 22% of the nation's votes. His coalition government represented 52% of the nation's votes spread across five parties.

I just don't see elections that end in that manner being beneficial, at least compared to the current system where I live.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands


I think the binary is forced on us by having a two party system. Those parties evolved originally from the clearly defined two position issues of the day (states rights versus federalism for instance). I do believe that there are limited trinary axes of political beliefs (left, middle, right) which can describe all possible political philosophy however.

That simply doesn't work because there would need to be an ENORMOUS number of parties if you form them around voters like these are. One party for pro-gun but pro-gay, one party for pro-gun but anti-gay, one party for anti-gun but pro-gay, etc etc etc. The number of voters are endless. Theories are finite and defensible. One way or another all voters have a few defining theoretical foundations: economics, individual liberty versus collective authoritarianism, etc. By examining the relationship and interplay of those few fundamental philosophies you can determine an infinite number of voters with only limited parties (I argue the number as 9, but that's liquid).

That gets to the point I was trying to make, but you made it much better than I. There are a few key issues/principles/platforms that would make it difficult to come to a committee consensus on law making.

I mean given your point on all the "cannot and will not budge on these issues" no majority vote could be had if it impacted issues of the platforms. And it seems no major bill only impacts a single issue, it's always sweeping legislation. When a bill does address a simple, singular concern the vote is swift. That's why the 2 party system evolved, not that I agree with it, not that I defend it.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: RedChief

Originally posted by: jdjbuffalo
Corporations shouldn't be considered people for a number of reasons. Corporations should be considered their own separate legal entity with their own set of laws governing them. I know that the mantra of people who support the current setup will argue that corporations are merely collections of people and it's convenient for legal reasons to consider them people. The problem is corporations have huge disproportionate amount of power and say in our government than any one person (not including the few people who own massive corporations). They don't have a direct vote for a representative but can be instrumental in getting "their guy" elected.

I could go into further details about corporations but I won't so as to try and keep this reply short(ish).

I don't believe corps are people, but those who work for corps should not have their rights restricted because they work for a corp.

Personally I would like to see corporations not be a separate legal entity. At the very least corporations should not have the same rights (e.g., free speech) as people. Corporations have a huge inherent advantage over individuals. What happened to the govt by the people, of the people, for the people?

 

[RedChief]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: RedChief

Originally posted by: jdjbuffalo
Corporations shouldn't be considered people for a number of reasons. Corporations should be considered their own separate legal entity with their own set of laws governing them. I know that the mantra of people who support the current setup will argue that corporations are merely collections of people and it's convenient for legal reasons to consider them people. The problem is corporations have huge disproportionate amount of power and say in our government than any one person (not including the few people who own massive corporations). They don't have a direct vote for a representative but can be instrumental in getting "their guy" elected.

I could go into further details about corporations but I won't so as to try and keep this reply short(ish).

I don't believe corps are people, but those who work for corps should not have their rights restricted because they work for a corp.

Personally I would like to see corporations not be a separate legal entity. At the very least corporations should not have the same rights (e.g., free speech) as people. Corporations have a huge inherent advantage over individuals. What happened to the govt by the people, of the people, for the people?

So if a corporation is not a seperate legal entity, what is it? Corporations don't lobby, people do. Now those people, for whatever reason, have beliefs or goals that align with that of the corp they work for. Who are the people?

Your talking a slippery slope here on who would be allowed to lobby and who wouldn't When you start restricting it for one person, you start restricting it for everyone. A simple example is that under current campaign finance laws, if a group of citizens of a city got together to oppose a city measure and spent money on their campaign, they now have to register as a pac and follow all the myriad of campaign finance laws.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: RedChief

So if a corporation is not a seperate legal entity, what is it? Corporations don't lobby, people do. Now those people, for whatever reason, have beliefs or goals that align with that of the corp they work for. Who are the people?

Your talking a slippery slope here on who would be allowed to lobby and who wouldn't When you start restricting it for one person, you start restricting it for everyone. A simple example is that under current campaign finance laws, if a group of citizens of a city got together to oppose a city measure and spent money on their campaign, they now have to register as a pac and follow all the myriad of campaign finance laws.

Sorry, but, unlike people, corporations are creatures of the state devised for the purpose of commerce. They are intended as a means to facilitate investment by limiting the liability of the stockholders to the amount of their investment, unlike a sole proprietorship or general partnership where the owner(s) may be held liable for damages to the full extent of their assets, regardless of how that liablity arises.

As "creatures of the state," they can and should be regulated by the state to assure that they don't amass such wealth and power as to abuse, subjugate or otherwise damage or destroy the rights of individual citizens whose interests the Constitution is intended to protect and serve.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: RedChief

So if a corporation is not a seperate legal entity, what is it? Corporations don't lobby, people do. Now those people, for whatever reason, have beliefs or goals that align with that of the corp they work for. Who are the people?

Your talking a slippery slope here on who would be allowed to lobby and who wouldn't When you start restricting it for one person, you start restricting it for everyone. A simple example is that under current campaign finance laws, if a group of citizens of a city got together to oppose a city measure and spent money on their campaign, they now have to register as a pac and follow all the myriad of campaign finance laws.

Sorry, but, unlike people, corporations are creatures of the state devised for the purpose of commerce. They are intended as a means to facilitate investment by limiting the liability of the stockholders to the amount of their investment, unliike a sole proprietorship or general partnership where the owner(s) may be held liable for damages to the full extent of their assets, regardless of how that liablity arises.

As "creatures of the state," they can and should be regulated by the state to assure that they don't amass such wealth and power as to abuse, subjugate or otherwise damage or destroy the rights of individual citizens whose interests the Constitution is intended to protect and serve.

Thank you.

The constitution gave a bill of rights to the people, not corporations, and it allows the people to engage in commerce. Corporations should only have the right to engage in commerce and not have any rights over individuals.

Let people form groups on their own. They will still be just as many voices as there are people in that group. Corporations, on the other hand have much larger resources to peddle influence than the people it is composed of.

 

[RedChief]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: RedChief

So if a corporation is not a seperate legal entity, what is it? Corporations don't lobby, people do. Now those people, for whatever reason, have beliefs or goals that align with that of the corp they work for. Who are the people?

Your talking a slippery slope here on who would be allowed to lobby and who wouldn't When you start restricting it for one person, you start restricting it for everyone. A simple example is that under current campaign finance laws, if a group of citizens of a city got together to oppose a city measure and spent money on their campaign, they now have to register as a pac and follow all the myriad of campaign finance laws.

Sorry, but, unlike people, corporations are creatures of the state devised for the purpose of commerce. They are intended as a means to facilitate investment by limiting the liability of the stockholders to the amount of their investment, unliike a sole proprietorship or general partnership where the owner(s) may be held liable for damages to the full extent of their assets, regardless of how that liablity arises.

As "creatures of the state," they can and should be regulated by the state to assure that they don't amass such wealth and power as to abuse, subjugate or otherwise damage or destroy the rights of individual citizens whose interests the Constitution is intended to protect and serve.

Thank you.

The constitution gave a bill of rights to the people, not corporations, and it allows the people to engage in commerce. Corporations should only have the right to engage in commerce and not have any rights over individuals.

Let people form groups on their own. They will still be just as many voices as there are people in that group. Corporations, on the other hand have much larger resources to peddle influence than the people it is composed of.

Yet my question has yet to be answered.

Do you support restricting the rights of employees of corporations to lobby on behalf of corporations?