Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
we need term limits. right now we have a stable of old guard in there. half these guys are well past retirement age. no new fresh ideas are getting through. even if you are a bright young star with good ideas and willing to be non partisan, you are shut down b the old school. its poison and congress is locked up as a result. even the supreme court has become partisan. there is no way the court should be allowed to become either too liberal or too conservative. it ceases to become and impartial body. the supreme court is just as partisan as congress. we need to do away with the electoral. 90% of the states are usually decided before the election even starts. it stifles people from getting out to vote. Conservatives in NY or CA say why bother, the state is going blue, and I'm sure liberals in TX say why bother, it's going red. we need to get the vote back in the hands of the people. all the people. Right now the vote comes down to a handful of states and that is where the campaigning is focused. the goal is to win those states to win the election. the dynamic has to be changed so the goal is to win based on what the majority of americans want.
For Senators and Representatives, I would make a tweak to the numbers. Instead of the 1,000 representatives, I would standardize the amount to 500 (just 65 more than the 435 we have currently). Or 10 representatives covering 10 distinct districts in their states, regardless of population, meaning equal representation regardless of population. Furthermore, of those 10 representatives, each party would get to vote for 5 of them. Meaning that at no point in time in any state would one party have an advantage over the other. The districts would be drawn to encompass equal portions of the respective state's population, and would remain permanent.
I would keep the 2 year cycle, for 8 years could a senator or representative remain at his position, or four two-year terms. I would outlaw gerrymandering altogether. These districts would not change for any reason whatsoever. Instead of having so many moving parts for the electorate to discern, make the electoral process more static. Many people decide not to vote because of issues like this.
I would actually keep the 100 senators. You would have 2 senators from each state regardless of population size. One Republican, one Democrat; as with representatives, both parties would have a representative they would vote into the Senate. At no point in time would a party hold the advantage in one state or another, or in either house.
All votes would require a 60-40 margin in the Senate, and a minimum of a 275-225 vote in the House to pass any legislation. In my opinion, having 1,000 representatives complicates the electoral process. Having 160 Senators is I feel in excess, and also complicates the electoral process. Personally, I feel all of this number crunching to be unnecessary.
By not allowing one party to have an advantage, it forces them to act for the good of their constituents. I would make it illegal to lie under oath, meaning that a Senator or Representative should set attainable goals for his term in office. Bribery and gift giving for votes will be outlawed. Breaching an oath of office would immediately warrant a 20 year prison term, and a revocation of elected status. I would eliminate arm twisting. I would make a law requiring each member of congress to vote of his own accord, and that accepting bribes, gifts or sweetheart deals would be illegal.
Each Senator and representative would conduct a referendum vote for their respective state, so as to assess the pertinent issue at hand at that current time, and bring this issue to the attention to the governor, and eventually to the President himself.
As for elections, I feel the electoral college should be eliminated. The presidency should determined by a straight up and down popular vote. A term should constitute 8 years instead of two four year terms. A runoff would constitute a result of 50.5% to 49.5% result (including Vice President). If either candidate fails to attain 51% of the vote, a minimum of 1 runoff would occur. Should the margin fail to exceed 51% for either candidate once again , the house should elect elect the president, confirmation would require a supermajority vote of 301-199. Given that, you would force everyone to think hard about the person(s) they put in the White House.
Liberals complain that voter suppression is happening. Conservatives complain that there is voter fraud. Both sides have some very valid complaints.
I disagree with this. It is all well and fine (as well as academically sound) to acknowledge and answer every argument, but it is technically incorrect to give every argument the same weight of legitimacy if they do not, in fact, equal out.
Liberals complain that voter suppression is happening. Conservatives complain that there is voter fraud. Both sides have some very valid complaints.
I disagree with this. It is all well and fine (as well as academically sound) to acknowledge and answer every argument, but it is technically incorrect to give every argument the same weight of legitimacy if they do not, in fact, equal out.
I am not giving them equal legitimacy. The operative word in my statement was "some".
In fact, I have already mathematically proven that voter fraud in Ohio in 2014 was practically null. But the idea that Conservatives have that there should be voter ID is an idea I share.
Where I disagree with most Conservatives is on the practical application of the idea.
In Gemany, people MUST have ID to vote, and their ID is exactly what I recommend in the OP.
Coconuts and pineapples for refreshments, folks!
You made some brilliant and thoughtful responses!!
Legislative: yes, we would need more office space, no doubt.
The entire idea of moving the term for a Rep from 2 to 3 years (which was the original proposal at the Constitutional Convention and 2 years became the compromise) is to increase the amount of time governing before having to campaign again. It is also 1/2 of 6 years and fits well into a presidential term of 6 years.
In other words, we would be going from a 2 and 4 year cycle to a 3 and 6 year cycle.
I don't see how term limits leads to corruption, but we have more than ample evidence that staying decades long in the HOR and the Senate has often led to massive corruption.
I like your idea about the alternate, but then again, it is not necessarily conclusive that the two people would agree with each other or get along. Plus, in a jungle primary situation, this could mean that the alternate to a GOP candidate could be Democrat, or visa versa.
Redistrticting: exactly for the reasons you listed, a Supercomputer with only the three parameters I listed would do the job. In this way, human bias would be out of the equation.
The Problem with the Senate is that the the idea of eliminating the "Tryanny of the Majority" has actually become a tool for tryanny of the minority.
At the time of the founding of the Republic, the largest state, Virginia, was only 10 times larger than Delaware. Now, California is 61 times larger than Wyoming. It is absolutely ridiculous that 2 Senators from Wyoming should in essence carry 61 times more electoral firepower than the 2 Senators from California.
Even with a changed Senate, the smallest states would still have disproportionately more firepower in the Senate, but less than at current time.
I like your comments about gridlock.
Gridlock can SOMETIMES be effective, but it should not be the A and O of governance, and at the moment, it is.
You are right: I forgot to mention that a person must be a resident of the district from which he is to be elected. That should of course be so and it should be enshrined in law.
I really like the idea of the National Senators for a number of reasons:
We pay Presidents a lot of money for the 4-8 years in which they currently serve. Ditto Vice-Presidents. The Presidents' / Vice-Presidents' club is one of the most exclusive in the world. Whether or not you like them or are/we in agreement with their policies, Presidents have a lot to offer once they have left office, and G-d knows we paid them a major fee while they were in office.
Take George H. W. Bush, for example, the president with arguably the longest and most impressive resume of any president in our history:
-Rep
-Ambassador
-Senator
-Head of the CIA
-Vice-President
-President
In that man is knowledge and experience that would be good for every member of the Senate.
Most presidents have gone on to utter quietness and almost obscurity after leaving office. I am sure that part of their reason for this is to allow the next President to govern without having any shadow of the former President over his shoulder.
But imagine how helpful it would have been in a divisive Senate of 1962 had Eisenhower also been there to give input.....
I really, really like the idea of National Senators. I think it would be good for our Union as a whole.
Why do we even have a Senate? Who here knows (or can summize) why the founding fathers decided to have two legislative bodies, one seen as somewhat higher than the other in some eyes, and what was the Senate supposed to do?
You made some brilliant and thoughtful responses!!
Legislative: yes, we would need more office space, no doubt.
The entire idea of moving the term for a Rep from 2 to 3 years (which was the original proposal at the Constitutional Convention and 2 years became the compromise) is to increase the amount of time governing before having to campaign again. It is also 1/2 of 6 years and fits well into a presidential term of 6 years.
In other words, we would be going from a 2 and 4 year cycle to a 3 and 6 year cycle.
I don't see how term limits leads to corruption, but we have more than ample evidence that staying decades long in the HOR and the Senate has often led to massive corruption.
I like your idea about the alternate, but then again, it is not necessarily conclusive that the two people would agree with each other or get along. Plus, in a jungle primary situation, this could mean that the alternate to a GOP candidate could be Democrat, or visa versa.
Redistrticting: exactly for the reasons you listed, a Supercomputer with only the three parameters I listed would do the job. In this way, human bias would be out of the equation.
The Problem with the Senate is that the the idea of eliminating the "Tryanny of the Majority" has actually become a tool for tryanny of the minority.
At the time of the founding of the Republic, the largest state, Virginia, was only 10 times larger than Delaware. Now, California is 61 times larger than Wyoming. It is absolutely ridiculous that 2 Senators from Wyoming should in essence carry 61 times more electoral firepower than the 2 Senators from California.
Even with a changed Senate, the smallest states would still have disproportionately more firepower in the Senate, but less than at current time.
I like your comments about gridlock.
Gridlock can SOMETIMES be effective, but it should not be the A and O of governance, and at the moment, it is.
You are right: I forgot to mention that a person must be a resident of the district from which he is to be elected. That should of course be so and it should be enshrined in law.
I really like the idea of the National Senators for a number of reasons:
We pay Presidents a lot of money for the 4-8 years in which they currently serve. Ditto Vice-Presidents. The Presidents' / Vice-Presidents' club is one of the most exclusive in the world. Whether or not you like them or are/we in agreement with their policies, Presidents have a lot to offer once they have left office, and G-d knows we paid them a major fee while they were in office.
Take George H. W. Bush, for example, the president with arguably the longest and most impressive resume of any president in our history:
-Rep
-Ambassador
-Senator
-Head of the CIA
-Vice-President
-President
In that man is knowledge and experience that would be good for every member of the Senate.
Most presidents have gone on to utter quietness and almost obscurity after leaving office. I am sure that part of their reason for this is to allow the next President to govern without having any shadow of the former President over his shoulder.
But imagine how helpful it would have been in a divisive Senate of 1962 had Eisenhower also been there to give input.....
I really, really like the idea of National Senators. I think it would be good for our Union as a whole.
The difference you have with my opinions are based on the differences you see in being governed versus being represented in most cases.
Terms and Term Limits ...
A shorter individual term puts the Representative back in front of their constituency in a measure of accountability more often.
It gets them out of the “beltway” and on the ground in their districts … Face to face with the people they represent.
Increasing the number of representatives would decrease the size of the district and allow for more exposure to the constituency per campaign cycle.
I think it is a better idea if Representatives spend more time understanding and answering question from the people they represent … And are held under more scrutiny for their decisions than just riding out their term passing more legislation.
Their job is to represent the people in their district … Not to dictate what the people in their district need to do.
Shorter term limits as to the number of terms interferes with the ability of the Representative to establish a reputation that allows them to escape the “handlers” due to familiarity with the process and other members.
The Representatives often change … But a lot of the “handlers” remain the same … They are also the people that set priority and manage availability of the Representative.
They give advice and consent to the Representative who may not be a professional in every field necessary to properly examine certain legislation.
They summarize legislative matters … They influence contacts … They tailor the encounters the Representatives engage in.
If you would rather the handlers have more influence on how legislation is handled and what comes up from time to time … Then limit the amount of time the Representative can use to become more familiar.
If you want your Representative to spend more time building relationships and cooperation with other members … Whether they be in the same party or across the aisle … Then the time is required.
Placing a decent limit of a decade helps guard against the idea of establishing a Reign over Representation.
Representatives associated with Presidential Terms ...
In whatever ways they do not coincide now … Then that is the measure in place to keep the governance at the mercy of representation and not popular swing.
Popular swing is important to the election process … But not as important to the governance process … In as a Representative is someone we can get rid of and legislation isn't something we can get rid of.
Again … The difference is settled in the idea that legislation and governance needs to be tied to longevity and serving the better purpose of the masses for centuries to come … Not what is popular today.
Alternates from Opposing Parties …
No way – No How … Not the purpose of electing a Representative.
In the specific case of opposing parties … The alternate and the people who support them would be intently determined to do everything possible to remove the sitting Representative from office prior to the end of their term.
In no way should the people who vote for a member of the Green Party be forced to put a Republican in the position because their term was unfulfilled due to whatever reason.
Saying that the people will be equally represented by a Democrat if their Republican Representative is seriously injured and incapacitated in a car accident is foolish and does not support valid representation.
This is primary reason the selection of Vice President was altered from the original process that named the second runner up to President as Vice President.
They often have starkly opposing views and the second runner up nor their views (platform) was not elected to the position.
Redistricting and Human Bias …
As long as the bias is not incorporated into the redistricting process through the programming of the computer (there is always bias when humans are involved and computers only do what they are told to do) … Then that is acceptable.
What I mentioned is in respects of allowing district to maintain some autonomy as far as constituency pool.
Some regions do favor certain ethnic or socio-economic influences that tailor their particular stance on legislation.
Some divisions must be maintained to ensure the idea that each vote counts equally … And if measures are made to balance the votes … Than that goes further towards “canceling” votes.
The Difference in the Senate and What it Protects ...
I think you have the idea of the Senate a little too far towards Federal powers versus States Rights.
The people of California and New York don't get to decide how the rest of the country is governed.
Each region of the country has its own interests that should never be subjugated to the desires of another region.
If people are disgusted with the way Nebraska is run and favor the way California is run … Then they can move to California.
What the process of separation and equality in the Senate provides … Is the individuality of each State and in some cases Regions.
It does require that Senators from larger States acknowledge and respect the desires of people they have not been elected to represent.
It requires that legislation is not used as a tool to exploit and abuse States and Regions in regards to to popular consent from immediate representation of others who are not truly concerned with how it affects places where they don't live.
The idea of basing the legislative power of the Senate on population is directly contradictory to its purpose of protecting the States themselves.
You might as well just rename the country America instead of the United States of America … And get rid of the States altogether … Which was certainly not the intention of our Founders.
This is not New York ... Lolz!
Gridlock and Governance …
As a Conservative … I can say we may just have to disagree.
I would rather have better legislation … Constructed to better serve everyone … Than simply whatever a simple majority can get passed.
The desire to require more agreement to pass legislation is based in a desire to establish and implement legislation that better serves the good and will of all … And can more effectively stand the test of time.
My ideas on legislation are nowhere near … “More is Better”.
National Senators …
When the Mayor leaves office at the end of their term … You don't then assign them as “Dog Catcher for Life”.
I can honestly say that there are very few Presidents I know of that I wasn't ready to get rid of when they left office.
The idea of keeping them around longer in a capacity to influence legislation is not what the term limits try to do in regards to disallowing a “nobility class”.
Also … They in no way should cloud the issue of Individual State Representation in the Senate … Texas, Arkansas, Georgia and Hawaii/Illinois don't get extra Senate seats because they have provided us with a President.
We can use their influence and experience in effective and beneficial ways … But not as active participants in Governance past the limits of their term.
.
The difference in the stances the both of us take is centered the desire to protect the States and limit legislation to more responsible measures that draw better support across the board.
I want us as a nation to start doing more to respect the opinions of each other as a nation ... Than running around chasing party politics.
If we cannot establish and implement legislation that better serves more than 51% of the public ... Then the Representatives we have chosen suck and need to quit ... Nothing they can produce is worth implementing in the first place.
.
[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]
Excellent post!
Yes, things need to change, and it has been needed for quite some time now.
Gerrymandering should have never been allowed to happen in the first place. To me, it's nothing more than a bookie paying an athlete to throw a game in his favor. If a politician can't win an election based on his actions in office, then he/she does not deserve to be handed the office by some idiot that redraws the district lines. They either earn their keep in office or get thrown out on their ass.
Term limits are needed. I believe the general public is starting to notice what politicians actually achieve and when. (For example: If it's something that is in the interest of the people, most believe it's ignored, but if it's in the interest of the politicians on a personal level, they act on it.) Lobbyists and the corporations/interests they serve should be banned/illegal.
The number of people in Congress, Senate, and House of Representatives needs updating. Times have changed since the original was set, population has changed, etc.
Red bolded 1: spot-on
Red bolded 2: I never said they should not listen to their consituency. Indeed, they should. But with the two-year cycle, they are spending an inordinate amount of time already gearing up for the next election, which undercuts your argument for a 2 year term. A 3 year term is better, and they still have to be accountable, imo.
I respectfully reject your argument about handlers. If that is truly the case, then we can just as well give up. But if it is just half the case, then it again supports my argument for a longer term, so that a new Rep can learn to resist such handlers. Plus, term limits lets the handlers, as you call them, know that they will only have limited sucess swaying a rep, who is supposed to be listening to his constituents, anyway. Here, we can agree to disagree with each other.
It looks like we agree on the 10 year limit. Plus, there are a lot of reps who like to move up after 10 years, anyway.
Bolded no. 3: I never said that. CA and NY are just two of the nine largest states in the Union. In fact, in terms of those nine, the four quadrants of the nation are pretty evenly split:
West Coast: CA
South: TX, FL, GA
East: NY, PA
Midwest: OH, IL, MI
I just want to make that point very clear. My reasoning for an enlarged Senate has no partisan hidden agenda. In fact, at least in the short term, an enlarged Senate could end up being a real boondoggle for the GOP, but with time, things would achieve balance.
Even with an enhanced Senate, the small states are STILL protected, they STILL have an inordinately large percentage of the Senate, FAR larger than their actual populations. Surely, the founding fathers never imagined that the largest state of the Union would be 61 times the size of the smallest state.
Are you aware that the amount of votes cast in the city of LA alone is more than the combined populations of the nine smallest RED states? That is just a massive disparity.
Even with a new Senate, the smaller states have a massive say in things.
And once again, not only that, but the chances for the opposing party to pick up seats in states with more than just 2 Senators is enormous.
Bolded no. 4: hard to insert bias into a computer algorythm when the only three parameters are:
-population, based directly on the last census and calculated percentually, of course.
-state boundary, meaning, the CD cannot be drawn over state boundaries
-Geography - so that no CD would ever again look like a Gerrymandered snake. Logically, most CDs, when possible, should include entire counties and not split counties up, where possible. In LA county, this is obviously not possible.
I never said I recommended an alternate from the opposing party. That would destroy the entire objective. I did point out to another member who wanted to simply have the number 2 guy from a primary be the alternate, that that would not work in a jungle primary situation for exactly the reasons you listed. Here, we are on the same page, always were. But I like the idea of an alternate very much.
We will have to disgree on the idea of National Senators, because there has never been a President where I said, "good riddance" when he was gone, except for Nixon, who was the crook of the 20th century. And it is certainly not a fair comparison to compare Potus to National Senator vs. Mayor to Dog Catcher. Senators are not dog catchers in relation to the President. They never have been.
It was great to hear from you. Keep it coming!
I couldn't determine whether you're suggesting it's the POLITICIANS that are corrupted or that the SYSTEM ITSELF is corrupted.Interesting ideas. (Insert your preferred Deity here) knows SOMEthing needs to change.
I firmly believe, however, that any changes like those above are going to become just another game of corruption for the well-to-do to play unless we first start with a fair and simple tax code, and public budgets that are balanced by law.
As long as politicians have the power to customize the tax code for friends, supporters and those who're willing to pay for special treatment, it matters little how we choose them, big money will purchase corrupting influence because of the potential for avoiding the paying of a fair tax for years.
Same thing with balancing public budgets. As long as politicians have the power to spend money that they are unwilling or unable to collect from their current constituencies in the form of deficit spending, it matters little how those politicians are chosen.
There are symptoms and there are diseases. Right now, the disease is corruption and everyone seems to want to treat the symptoms. Our politicians obviously can't handle the power to customize taxes and to deficit spend without giving in to the corrupting influence of the well-heeled, so those powers need to be removed first, then we can discuss the modernization of our election processes.
Just my 2 cents...
If the possibility of special elections are still present, then I believe that nothing much would change.I just want to throw a couple of quick thoughts out. Having read the legislative section, I don't believe in term limits : I think they are a way of telling voters they cannot vote for the person they want. I can understand the desire for them, as we have too many entrenched politicians, but I would like to see a different solution to that problem if possible.
The other thing is that I don't understand how the 'ticket' option would be viable. What does the alternate person do while the elected official is in office? What if the alternate is unable to take over when the situation arises? It seems too difficult to me.
I have more to read, but I'm watching the little one now and can't go too deeply into anything.
I thought about just responding with tl;dr, for the humor.
Ding, ding!!! Happy bells for the first person to actually pose a question based on the material.
I didn't broach that, hoping a smart soul would bring it up. Which you just did!
2 things:
-the alternate would need to keep his day job!!
-and should the alternate no longer be available for any reasons, then a special election would indeed have to be called. But at least we could lower the number of special elections this way. Which saves time and $$$ and stress.
-this could also have postive implications for a political party in a highly competitive district.
Lets say that two Republicans duke it out in the primaries for a congressonal seat in Wisconsin, in a district that is R+1 maybe, very swingy. Now, after a long fought primary battle, one of the two dudes wins, but the party is split. Meanwhile, the Democrat flew through his primary unopposed. One way to unify the GOP in this case COULD be for the winner of the GOP primary to select the loser of the primary to be his alternate, which could bring out some unity votes for his party in the Fall.
Food for thought.
we need term limits. right now we have a stable of old guard in there. half these guys are well past retirement age. no new fresh ideas are getting through. even if you are a bright young star with good ideas and willing to be non partisan, you are shut down b the old school. its poison and congress is locked up as a result. even the supreme court has become partisan. there is no way the court should be allowed to become either too liberal or too conservative. it ceases to become and impartial body. the supreme court is just as partisan as congress. we need to do away with the electoral. 90% of the states are usually decided before the election even starts. it stifles people from getting out to vote. Conservatives in NY or CA say why bother, the state is going blue, and I'm sure liberals in TX say why bother, it's going red. we need to get the vote back in the hands of the people. all the people. Right now the vote comes down to a handful of states and that is where the campaigning is focused. the goal is to win those states to win the election. the dynamic has to be changed so the goal is to win based on what the majority of americans want.
Both boldeds: I concur with you, and strongly.
The only reason I did not put you on the mention list is I believe you told me once that you did not want mentions. But I may have mixed you up with someone else...
if i did i don't remember that. but any way. we need a better turnover, we need fresher ideas and we need to break a good old boys strangle hold. the problem is legislators legislate for them selves. there is no control. and we need to take steps to make every voters vote count. today, it definitely doesn't
if i did i don't remember that. but any way. we need a better turnover, we need fresher ideas and we need to break a good old boys strangle hold. the problem is legislators legislate for them selves. there is no control. and we need to take steps to make every voters vote count. today, it definitely doesn't
Very true - the good ol' boys' club isn't working today, not like it did yesterday either. Politicians will continue to get things done that benefit them personally, and will continue to stonewall the things that they have no personal use for. I say vote every damn one of them out of office - not one needs to stay in as it is right now. A group of toddlers can get more done than the ones we have now. If you were to ask them to build a tower out of blocks, the politicians would bitch, argue, and throw hissy fits over how to do it and who goes first; the toddlers would build it and get it done while having fun.
if i did i don't remember that. but any way. we need a better turnover, we need fresher ideas and we need to break a good old boys strangle hold. the problem is legislators legislate for them selves. there is no control. and we need to take steps to make every voters vote count. today, it definitely doesn't
Very true - the good ol' boys' club isn't working today, not like it did yesterday either. Politicians will continue to get things done that benefit them personally, and will continue to stonewall the things that they have no personal use for. I say vote every damn one of them out of office - not one needs to stay in as it is right now. A group of toddlers can get more done than the ones we have now. If you were to ask them to build a tower out of blocks, the politicians would bitch, argue, and throw hissy fits over how to do it and who goes first; the toddlers would build it and get it done while having fun.
you or i could not be elected and be able to make an impact in congress no matter how hard we tried. we could go in ther with 100% good intent and we would be shut down cold. I mean look at some of the politicians who have tried to take an independent stance. Lieberman, kicked out of the party by the democrats. Ron paul, labeled a fanatic by the republicans. and that comes from powerbases built up over time. you go into a situation where there is a protocol. and you do not deviate from that. that dynamic has to be destroyed. and a way to break it is to keep people rotating out.
