Fixing a broken system

[unixronin]

For those who haven't seen it yet, this essay on reforming the US political system makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Some of the author's key points:

• Absolute term limits for ALL high elected offices -- eight years in the House, the Senate, and/or the Oval Office, combined, and term limits for political appointees as well.  It's public service; it shouldn't be a lifetime career.
• No more lesser of two evils -- put a binding "None of the above" on ALL ballot choices, including for the Presidency.  If "None of the above" gets more votes than any candidate, nobody is elected for that office, and there has to be a new election for it with all new candidates.
• Shorter election seasons -- You get 60 days to get your message across, instead of spending two years of your first term working on getting elected for the second.
• Shorter congressional sessions -- Congress should sit for only 60 days at a time, then go home, "because nobody's life, liberty or property is safe when Congress is in session."
• Representative Congressional pay -- the pay you get as Congressman, Senator or President is the median income for the constituency you represent.  You say you represent average Americans?  Learn to live like one.

Comments

[pernishus.livejournal.com]

Lovely -- if it weren't against the 1st amendment, I would add a severe limit on spending -- perhaps limit all campaign spending to the posting of an official position paper on some universally-accessible place -- but what do I know, anyhow? I live in Canada...

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

There's definitely changes I'd like to see in that regard, starting with a complete, absolute moratorium on corporate contributions to, or endorsements of, political candidates. A corporation is NOT A HUMAN BEING and does not have a right to vote; it shouldn't be able to get around that by influencing the outcome of an election in other ways.

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

He forgot:

• Government is overhead -- i.e. it is not productive in and of itself, so an explicit limit should be placed upon it, e.g. no more than 10% of GDP, at all levels (federal, state, county, city), combined.
  

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That's a good call. I like it. "That government is best which governs least."

[olafthunderfoot.livejournal.com]

what's GDP?

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

Gross Domestic Product (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDP) (formerly called Gross National Product). It's a measure of the total economic activity of a nation. I am asserting that "government" should be no more than 10% of that activity.

[olafthunderfoot.livejournal.com]

thanks, i agree with that!

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Gross Domestic Product.

[olafthunderfoot.livejournal.com]

danke!

[johnkzin.livejournal.com]

I'd also like to see the priority/preference based ballot (you don't vote for candidate X, you rank all of the candidates; at first your vote gets counted for your highest rank candidate ... if that candidate is the lowest then your vote gets re-cast for your 2nd favorite, and so on, until you've got 1 candidate with all of the votes; but it also means that special-topic candidates get a direct rating for how important their platform was to the voters, so that the winner knows what special platforms are actually important; it also means that voting for a 3rd party as your top pick isn't a throw-away vote ... just put your idealism vote at #1, and your practical vote at #2).

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Yup, you won't hear any disagreement from me on that. "First past the post, winner takes all" is in most regards the worst of all possible voting systems. There are MANY good preference-based or ranking systems, and all of them are better than the current US system. Some of them are complex in terms of actual result determination, such as the Single Transferrable Vote system selected by Ireland and its multiple recounts ... but, hey, computers are HOW cheap these days?

[radarrider.livejournal.com]

At first blush, most of it sounds good. There are a couple that I'm not sure on, however.

- The 60-day Congressional session. I can envision a case where something has to be voted on by Congress that won't wait until the next session. There should be provision for emergency sessions, or the ability to vote on something remotely.
- Eliminating the Electoral College. There are valid arguments for keeping the College. Basically it boils down to making sure that smaller states aren't ignored. But there are valid arguments for eliminating it as well so my mind isn't made up on this one yet.

I would also add:
- Repeal the 17th Amendment. Return the responsibility of selecting Senators to the respective state legislatures.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I agree on both of your first two points. The "emergency sessions" provision needs to have strong protections against abuse, though. And while we're at it, I think the provision that allows two senators to meet in the middle of the night, assert a quorum, and pass a bill needs to go.

I'm not greatly familiar with the 17th. I should look it up. But on that subject, I'd like to see an end to the practice of joint Presidential/Vice-Presidential tickets, and a return to the original intent that the winner was President, and the first runner-up became Vice-President. I'm all in favor of keeping a balance of viewpoints in the White House.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

I think the elimination of the 17th is the first step towards getting the country back under control.

The Electoral College wouldn't have 1% of the importance is has today if the damned President weren't really an elected Emperor.

-Ogre

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

Forget about the Electoral College, and fantasies about getting rid of it. It is enshrined in the actual Constitution, so it will take an amendment to get rid of it. No small state will ever let senators take it that far, and it will never be ratified by enough states (too many small ones.)

[smandal.livejournal.com]

I like the LP's perspective on this: don't try to take the money out of politics -- take politics out of the business of making money.

The less influence the gov't has on the economy through taxation, regulations, subsidies and contracts, the less purview there is for influence-peddling. Term limits and approval voting might break up power networks of the extent of Ted Stevens or Tom DeLay, but junior legislators are becoming quite adept at the game starting with campaigns. Shortening campaigns might help but lobbyists would adapt; same with a 60 day session. And, the real money for legislators is in speaking fees, lobbying perks and jobs after term.

In addition to repealing the 17th amendment, repealing the 16th amendment would be huge.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I agree. Politics will continue to be corrupt until it is no longer sufficiently profitable to support corruption. At that point, we will once again have a chance of getting statesmen into office who actually have the best interestsof the nation at heart.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Obviously, I don't think it goes far enough. Then again, I don't seek "reform" so much as "complete and utter dismemberment." I think the move from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was a bad one.

-Ogre

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

I heartily agree with your sentiments, but I disagree with the conclusions. The problem does not lie with politicians, but with the populace. Restricting congress and politicians is simply a cop out for citizens that will not get involved. Ben Franklin did comment that we had, "A republic, If you can keep it." We are currently getting the government that the majority deserve.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

I don't know that I agree. The system as built is too easy to game. People are all different, and have different motivations. The way things are now, it's far too easy for people who have power to retain it by simply emphasizing divisions.

Though there is certainly some portion of things that are the fault of apathetic populace.

-Ogre

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

I maintain that the ability to "emphasizing divisions", will only work on a populace that is not engaged. OTOH, there will always be divisions in what people want, we will never have a homogeneous population.

Democrats and republicans both want a better America. What that means and how to get there are comically different. Are you saying that people should not be able to vote for someone that represents their views?

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Are you saying that people should not be able to vote for someone that represents their views?

No, I'm saying we can't do that now.

Here are two basic problems with the government as it stands today, as I see it.

Given that we started out as a Constitutional Republic, there are supposed to be some limitations on what people are even allowed to vote on. Thus the concept of the "unconstitutional law". Now, I don't know what a good braking mechanism is, to prevent the majority from overwhelming the minority, in the event that the majority wants something the minority has, short of "good education" to tell people right from wrong. No, sadly, I don't have a better definition of what a good education comprises.

Another problem is that our elected representatives represent too many people. This is part of what re-enforces the strict two party system we have ended up with. So, minority votes basically get drowned out, because it takes so many votes to get one of the seats that it's an almost impossible hurdle to climb in any one geographic location.

So we need to have a much larger congress. About one congressman for every 30,000 citizens is where we started at the founding of the country, and it's a good place to go back to. They'd never get anything done, because there would be too many of them, and minority voices would finally have a venue and nominal amount of power that represented the actual interests of the population of the country. I'm also thinking that voting districts would need to be eliminated, to remove the gerrymandering temptation. If a candidate can get 30,000 votes, from any where in the country, he gets a seat. Every citizen gets one vote, for his congressman, to represent him. Senators should remain limited to 2 per state, and the 17th amendment should be repealed, so they are again chosen by state legislatures. In this fashion, we return to the true bicameral system envisioned by the architects of the constitution, with the Senate representing the interests of the States, and the House representing the populace.

-Ogre

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Are you saying that people should not be able to vote for someone that represents their views?

No, I'm saying we can't do that now. (Part two.)

I never really explained what I meant by this.

Basically, there are so many people represented by any given congressman, that the elected play a balancing game of pissing off just enough people, and rewarding others in just the right amounts, to play them all one against the other, for his own gain, so that when it comes time for elections, the populace is divided enough that they can't come together to remove him from office.

Combined with the fact that there are a lot of people who don't understand the concept of "not a pure democracy" because they've been fed through the government school system which, shockingly enough, fails to impart this sort of knowledge detrimental to the interests of the people who run it, leaves us with a population that doesn't even understand some of the things they should be livid about.

-Ogre

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

To be fair, a large part of that is because the system has turned into one in which the majority is poorly represented if at all, and they know it. Convinced that their vote is useless, most of them simply don't vote. This then leaves the office-seekers to simply choose which portion of the still-voting electorate they can best lead around by the nose, leaving the true majority effectively disenfranchised.

I think there is definite merit to the Australian idea of the vote -- you MUST vote in general elections, and will be fined if you did not, unless you have a good reason why you were unable to do so.

[jmkelly.livejournal.com]

I like some of these ideas -- especially representative Congressional pay, "none of the above" and preferential voting -- but term limits suck (and as a California resident I speak from experience). When you get a jerk in office, term limits means two years later he's not gone, he's just in another office. When you get a good one -- it happens sometimes -- two years later term limits takes him away.

We have always had term limits, of a more discriminating sort that allowed us to throw out the bad and keep the good -- they were called "elections".

All term limits do now in California is force politicians to shuffle from one office to another. Thompson anticipates this objection by broadening the definition of office and by applying term limits to staff positions as well -- but he leaves out lobbyists, and lobbyists' assistants, and lobbyists' consultants, and so on -- perhaps because he realized that the shuffle is limited only by human ingenuity, and such attempts to limit it are futile.

Want real term limits? Have each politican shot at the end of his or her term. Anything short of that is just wanking. But all in all, regular elections -- with some real curbs on campaign spending, and none of this "free speech for corporations since they're legally persons" bullshit -- are far better.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Want real term limits? Have each politican shot at the end of his or her term.

I like it. You think we can get Congress to pass it?

-Ogre

[jmkelly.livejournal.com]

I don't know -- seems impossible, but they just might be just stupid enough. "Have you seen these polls, Senator? Oh, and Bechtel called -- they strongly support."

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I follow your point, but I think that along with the other reforms mentioned, much of the issue you raise would be addressed. As has been previously pointed out in this thread, politics can support corruption only as long as it's profitable. If it stops being a money tree, the corrupt will move elsewhere to more profitable niches.

[mrmeval.livejournal.com]

Death penelty for ballot box stuffing or otherwise tampering with the system. Should reduce the population of Chicago and kill off Diebold.