Changes to the governmentFollow

I was having a debate with my uncle yesterday, and he asked me if I had the ability to make any sort of changes to the government, what would I do?

It sounded like a good general question to put to the OOT forum, so what would you change if you had the power?

That would actually put the Public in control .. you really want that?? people are morans.


that's half sarcasm

That wound't work either,

That'd mean they have to want the job to improve society and provide for other people... and not just themselves.

I love the eliminate electoral college idea. It works for 40+ elections and all of a sudden it goes against the public, a very small margin might i add, and he wants to do away with it...negative.

Do you really want them to agree on everything? Government gets out of control when the two parties agree. A divided congress is a good thing.

So the general consensus is change who's running the government, but pretty much no changes to the structure or substance of the government?

That's interesting

It's just as likely it'll help a Republican. It's just an outdated antiquated system.

I think Kennedy may not have won the popular vote, either, but I'm too lazy to check.

Let one man equal one vote like in other Democracies around the world.

If we're talking about electoral reform, it's not really the electoral college that's a problem. It's also not salaries. Heck. We should pay our politicians *more*, not less (makes them harder to bribe). What we should have is hard caps on campaign funds set depending on the level/size of the election. Everyone who can qualify for the ballot simply gets a fund for their election, and not a penny more. Make it illegal for *anyone* to campaign for a candidate outside of that fund.

This would force special interests to actually get politicians on their side on the merits of their cause rather then how much money they donated to their campaigns. It would also level the playing field for elected officials. One would not need to be wealthy or have wealthy friends in order to compete. The funds should also go with stipulations setting a minimum number of public debates the candidate must participate in as well.


It's a rough idea, and I'm sure it would need a lot of tweaking to make workable, but it at least attempts to address the major problems with our electoral system. Every politician who makes it to any major office starts out owning a whole bunch of people before he starts his first day. Any politician not willing to "owe" anyone anything simply doesn't make it to office. That's a problem IMO.

How does the freedom of speech and freedom of the press relate to campaign funds? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm actually curious to know how this applies.

Twiztid

Hmmm... First amendment, first assmendment!

We already have laws that restrict speech in relation to campaigning though, so this isn't some radical idea from left field. You're not allowed to campaign at a polling place for example.

I don't have a problem with people advertising for their "stance". If you want to save the whales, go ahead and make up advertisements saying so. I'm just saying that you if we had laws that prevented people from specifically using advertising money to support or oppose a particular candidate or party during an election then it would force people to campaign on issues instead of hiding the issues from the people and making it purely about who manages to garner the most funds from interest groups.


For example: Right now the "save the whales" groups donate money to someone's campaign fund, with a wink and a nod and an assumption that if elected, they'll get to present their desires to that official and more or less insist that they get something for their money (or they'll withdraw it for the next election). What happens is that the actual issue never comes before the people and it's all done behind the scenes. With soft money donations it can be even worse. Random groups just put advertisements out there for or against a candidate, and don't have to be associated with the campaign at all (which means that the candidate can "officially" distance himself from a questionable group while still getting benefit from them, presumably at the cost of this ear/vote during his term). All of this serves to remove the voting public from the issues they should be voting on.


Take the same group, except that now they *can't* donate to that campaign. They are free to take out adds saying they want to save the whales. The candidate is free to choose to say that he's for saving the whales as part of his campaign platform. This would allow the public to connect the advertising with the candidate, so it's kinda the same. The difference is that the "cause" must be out in the open. The candidate must say what he's for and against and the interest groups must say what they are for or against. They can't just say they support the candidate and leave the people wondering exactly what that means.


You still have the freedom to express your views. This just prevents people from *hiding* their agenda from the people while getting them to vote for a candidate of their chosing. It's not a perfect way to do it, but it would be a step in the right direction.

What would I change to "fix" government? I would make sure that some relative of each Congressperson, Senator, and officer in the Executive Branch had family active duty in the military. During a war, that family would have to be stationed in the military zone.

What would that do? It would make sure that whatever war or conflict we're involved in would be worth not only sending other peoples' friends and family to war over, but it would be worth sending your own.

Grady

People need to be fixed, not the government.

Only a right wing whacko would use "save the wales" as an example of political influence.

Because that's the big problem. Enviornmental activist groups just have too much damn say in the political process. What we need is a system where large corperations can have more influence!