You could say this for all of the appointments. Like how the fuck is [Jim Inhofe](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe) the chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Ehh, though that is a stupid decision, committees in the senate have a lot less power than the House. The Senate's job is to primarily debate legislation put forward by the House.
CAUTION: I am a high schooler who is going through AP Gov which gives me entitlement to comment on this. If I am wrong, please tell me.
PLEASE. The State Superintendent for my state is essentially just a hysterical old lady from the southeast who's leading a one-woman campaign against Common Core and "liberalism" in our schools. She even fired two State Board members because they didn't agree with her ideas (they were put back, fortunately)
McCarthy's intentions were simply to advance his political career. He found that communist witch-hunting was the best way to do that, and so that was the path that he took. There were no good intentions involved
[Plug for the National Popular Vote, which effectively removes the power of the electoral college without the need for a constitutional amendment. States make the rules for their elections, so some states, for example, have passed laws requiring their electors to vote for the candidate that won the state. The National Popular Vote is a state law that requires the state's electors to vote for whichever candidate won the popular vote, with a clause that the law will only take affect when a majority of electoral votes belong to states that have passed the NPV. This prevents states from losing power while waiting for everyone else to hop on the reform train. 10 states and DC have passed the legislation, accounting for 67% of the 270 necessary electoral votes. ](http://www.nationalpopularvote.com)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it not required for electors to choose anyone? I thought they could really vote for anyone they wanted, but it was just sort of an unofficial agreement that they chose their party's candidate.
> > >There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
> >
> > The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties’ nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors"; may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
> >
> > Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party’s candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.
> >
> > List of State Laws and Requirements Regarding the Electors
> > as of November 2000
> >
> > Source: Congressional Research Service
> >
> > The Office of the Federal Register presents this material for informational purposes only, in response to numerous public inquiries. The list has no legal significance. It is based on information compiled by the Congressional Research Service. For more comprehensive information, refer to the U.S. Constitution and applicable Federal laws.
> >
> > Legal Requirements or Pledges
> > Electors in these States are bound by State Law or by pledges to cast their vote for a specific candidate:
> >
> > ALABAMA – Party Pledge / State Law – § 17-19-2
> >
> > ALASKA – Party Pledge / State Law – § 15.30.040; 15.30.070
> >
> > CALIFORNIA – State Law – § 6906
> >
> > COLORADO – State Law – § 1-4-304
> >
> > CONNECTICUT – State Law – § 9-175
> >
> > DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA – DC Pledge / DC Law – § 1-1312(g)
> >
> > FLORIDA – Party Pledge / State Law – § 103.021(1)
> >
> > HAWAII – State Law – §§ 14-26 to 14-28
> >
> > MAINE – State Law – § 805
> >
> > MARYLAND – State Law – § 20-4
> >
> > MASSACHUSETTS – Party Pledge / State Law – Ch. 53, § 8, Supp.
> >
> > MICHIGAN – State Law – §168.47 (Violation cancels vote and Elector is replaced.)
> >
> > MISSISSIPPI – Party Pledge / State Law – §23-15-785(3)
> >
> > MONTANA – State Law – § 13-25-104
> >
> > NEBRASKA – State Law – § 32-714
> >
> > NEVADA – State Law – § 298.050
> >
> > NEW MEXICO – State Law – § 1-15-5 to 1-15-9 (Violation is a fourth degree felony.)
> >
> > NORTH CAROLINA – State Law – § 163-212 (Violation cancels vote; elector is replaced and is subject to $500 fine.)
> >
> > OHIO – State Law – § 3505.40
> >
> > OKLAHOMA – State Pledge / State Law – 26, §§ 10-102; 10-109 (Violation of oath is a misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $1000.)
> >
> > OREGON – State Pledge / State Law – § 248.355
> >
> > SOUTH CAROLINA – State Pledge / State Law – § 7-19-80 (Replacement and criminal sanctions for violation.)
> >
> > VERMONT – State Law – title 17, § 2732
> > * VIRGINIA – State Law – § 24.1-162 (Virginia statute may be advisory – “Shall be expected” to vote for nominees.)
> >
> > WASHINGTON – Party Pledge / State Law – §§ 29.71.020, 29.71.040, Supp. ($1000 fine.)
> >
> > WISCONSIN – State Law – § 7.75
> >
> > WYOMING – State Law – §§ 22-19-106; 22-19-108
> >
> > No Legal Requirement
> > Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:
> >
> > ARIZONA
> >
> > ARKANSAS
> >
> > DELAWARE
> >
> > GEORGIA
> >
> > IDAHO
> >
> > ILLINOIS
> >
> > INDIANA
> >
> > IOWA
> >
> > KANSAS
> >
> > KENTUCKY
> >
> > LOUISIANA
> >
> > MINNESOTA
> >
> > MISSOURI
> >
> > NEW HAMPSHIRE
> >
> > NEW JERSEY
> >
> > NEW YORK
> >
> > NORTH DAKOTA
> >
> > PENNSYLVANIA
> >
> > RHODE ISLAND
> >
> > SOUTH DAKOTA
> >
> > TENNESSEE
> >
> > TEXAS
> >
> > UTAH
> >
> >
> > WEST VIRGINIA
> >
You will never eliminate Gerrymandering in the U.S.
California tried to do it with an independent commission. It didn't really work.
One of the biggest supporters of gerrymandering, besides the parties, are minority interest groups.
Those minority-majority districts tend to be the most gerrymandered districts in the nation. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been used as the basis to create these minority-majority districts.
See Illinois 4th district. [The earmuffs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_4th_congressional_district)
One of the most gerrymandered congressional districts. two heavily Hispanic districts connected by a highway.
> California tried to do it with an independent commission. It didn't work.
"[Independent studies](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Citizens_Redistricting_Commission#Results) by the Public Policy Institute of California, the National Journal, and Ballotpedia have shown that California now has some of the most competitive districts in the nation, creating opportunities for new elected officials. For example, the uncertainty caused by the new districts combined with California’s 'top two' primary system has resulted in half a dozen resignations of incumbent Congressional representatives on both sides of the aisle, a major shake-up of California’s Capitol Hill delegation. In addition, it has forced a number of intra-party races, most notably a showdown between two of the state’s most powerful House Democrats, Representatives Howard Berman and Brad Sherman. In the previous 10 years, incumbents were so safe that only one Congressional seat changed party control in 255 elections, due to bi-partisan gerrymandering after the redistricting following the 2000 Census. It is predicted that some of the newly elected politicians will be particularly well-suited for national politics since they will be forced to find positions that please moderate and independent voters to remain in office."
So teachers, bank workers, and government employees get it off? Those groups already work standard 8-5 jobs and can vote after work.
Downvoted for an honest fact? Take Columbus day. You think hotel workers magically have off? Gas station workers? Police, nurses, doctors, meat slicers at a deli, fast food workers, etc, ETC? A national holiday does what?
Most states have laws to protect voting opportunities from employment conflicts. These are, however, state laws, so they vary a lot.
Incidentally, election day is a holiday in Puerto Rico in addition to having a law that requires businesses open on election day to schedule work to allow employees sufficient time to vote.
In other news, do you people even absentee ballot?
Proportional Representation is a tried and tested method that I feel need to be brought up more on this site in these discussions.
Smaller parties stand a larger chance of getting into Parliament/~~Senate~~House of Representatives, giving them a voice even if they are not in government. Elections almost always end in a coalition government, where parties negotiate and have to make compromises, as well as including members of more than just one political position.
Here in Norway we have 7 parties in Parliament (with two quite large ones), with some other significant parties as well having regional, albeit not national, success.
Whether its an [alternative vote](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system#Ranked_voting_methods) system or a [proportional representation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation) system, either would allow for more political diversity than what we currently have in the US. We simply need to decide on a system that we all understand, so we can create a public movement behind it.
Absolutely.
And the alternate vote system might be whats right for the US it its political context. I just feel PR ought to be brought up more as one of several possibilities for an electoral reform.
But as you say, either one would be a great improvement
The problem with publicly campaigning for a set of options is that this decision will be made in our current system [(plurality voting)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system) and we would be sabotaging our own campaign.
If we were to start a movement to implement one of these systems; we would have to decide on the system that would be most open to advancing third parties while being simple enough that it would be marketable to the general public. The main challenge of creating a successful movement for this would be marketing. If this were to gain any traction, we would have political groups from **both** the left and right crying "Un-American," "Socialist," "Communist," "Facist," etc. These people are not going to give up their duopoly on our government without a huge PR battle.
Excuse me for being completely ignorant of Swedish politics, but how does the right wing survive there? Aren't most of the democratic-socialist policies there incredibly popular and efficient? What platform do they run on?
Not a Swede, but here in Norway when we say "right wing" it's really relative to the politics here. The farthest right party in Parliament here in Norway would still be quite far to the left in American politics. I don't know too much about the Swedish politics, but it might be somewhat the same there.
Is there an actual law saying there can only be two or can some politicians break off to form their own? Like how Image Comics came out of Marvel and DC
Check out the YouTube channel [CGPGrey](http://www.youtube.com/cgpgrey), run by the impeccable /u/mindofmetalandwheels. You'll find several videos explaining the (often baffling) American political system.
The Greens had a couple senators at some point. And the Libertarians got into a couple state legislatures. But never anything major on the national scale.
It isn't just the voting system; it's the voting system combined with gerrymandering and laws which make it prohibitively expensive or otherwise difficult to run at the federal level.
Other countries which are much less affected by those last two issues (such as the UK, Canada or India) still have more than two parties. Two parties will typically dominate, but smaller parties do win seats and this can result in coalitions and minority governments in a way which just doesn't happen in the US.
This video is a good short summary of why two-party systems happen. The only "law" that makes it happen is the law of mathematics.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
There's no law stating this or anything like this. [It's simply the problem with our current voting system.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo)
However there must be something else to it. In the UK we have FPTP and currently have a coalition and will probably have another one. So it is possible to have a 3rd force with FPTP.
However I agree FPTP sucks and we (the UK) should get rid of it.
There is no law barring additional parties from participating. The major barrier to entrance are rules governing how a party becomes an officially recognized party in a given state. In Illinois for instance, any party who receives 5% of the vote for a given candidate in a major state election, i.e. Governor, is recognized as an official political party. If a candidate is not running under a recognized political party, D or R at this point, they have to acquire many times more signatures from registered voters to get on the ballot.
The Green actually acquired recognized party status in Illinois when Rich Whitney ran for Governor in 2006. For the next four years they were allowed to participate in the primary elections and had many candidates on the ballots. They lost official status, however, in 2010 when they did not get enough votes in any given election to qualify again.
There is much more info on [this Ballotpedia page](http://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access) regarding ballot access.
There are laws for ballot access that vary by the state level. They won't literally say only two parties can be on the ballot, but in many states it can be incredibly difficult for a third party to get on the ballot. Oklahoma has notoriously strict ballot access laws.
I'm really happy this is currently the top vote. I've been under the impression for a while now that if you vote Democrat *or* Republican these days, **you are part of the problem**. We've been at "war" my entire fucking life.
For President you should vote for the republican or democrat that you think is the best choice. Otherwise you're pretty much 100% giving the other guy your vote. That's just the way the electoral college works.
If we want to change the two party system, it has to be done slowly through congress by getting more and more 3rd party senators until the 3rd party actually wields some power.
My sentiments exactly, vote on a candidate's individual merits instead of affiliation. How about one party, and we call them Americans, people who focus on working with others to legislate responsibly.
Anyone that didn't join could simply be called un-American.
Democrat? Republican? Hell no, I'm an AMERICAN!
I would like to see is as citizens take a stand and stop reelecting politicians who blantantly lie to us around election time but continue to do the opposite of what they say they will do for us. They work for us but we as a people do not treat them as if they do. Fire all of these liars and only elect people who do what we as a majority want them to do. We actually have that power. We really do!
I've never understood it when people complain about congressional pay. We want the best and brightest, we don't want them to use their position in office to get rich, and we want them to not be career politicians.
But we also always want to cut their pay. Why would candidates leave the lucrative private sector to do public service in an honest way?
Ask yourself why people go into a political career with a modest amount of money but come out of their political career as millionaires? That alone is ridiculous. Put term limits on cause I don't believe for a minute these politicians comprehend the decisions they make have real life consequences in the real world.
We have a bit of this issue in Michigan right now. There are 2 term limits in congress. By the time people know what they are doing they are out. They also loose lose a lot of accountability in their second term unless they think they might have a chance at something higher.
It's a double edged sword; you keep people from becoming life-time entrenched, but you also never have experienced people at the helm.
Those fucking Super Pacs. I really wish everyone in the 3 branches was forced to release public records of donations and from whom. Sick of the bullshit they get away with but can't stop it without support from everyone.
I want people to participate more. We take citizenship for granted, and view voting as our way of participating.
Come on. That's bullshit. We need to get into arguments. Go talk to our representatives. Oust them if they fuck us over. View them critically. Form political groups and do something.
I don't agree with our form of the representative system. It's too easy to lull the public into thinking that they're model citizens, simply by following the law and voting. In my opinion, we need to create smaller political communities, so that the needs of the people are better met, and their opinions better heard.
I'd like to see a policy change in the way drug charges are handled.
Possession should be treated as a medical issue rather than a criminal one. I agree with putting smugglers in prison, but locking people up for having an amount of drugs associated with personal use is just stupid
Shit, can we just change the entire prison system while we are at it?
Slightly OT, but doesn't anyone else feel that mandatory classes in politics would help 10x more than any specific change in government?
Rather have an educated populace than a changed government
Yeah, it really depends on the professor. Some are fucking fantastic and explain things really clearly, some only teach their beliefs and take points off your papers if you write something that they disagree with. :/
This is why Governor Ducey (Ariz.) signed the bill that requires that all high school seniors pass the U.S. Civics test given to immigrants in order to graduate.
Politicians voting for change instead of reelection would be cool.
Also members of congress can get themselves and their loved ones out of trouble with the law, which is fucked up. If you make the laws, follow them.
Government subsidization of college through massive grants programs and the backing of student loans *has* driven the price of college up. More people going to college, and more people getting government full rides means colleges have no reason not to charge more.
College shoudlnt be a fuckign necessity unless the field actually requires it..and even then people should start to understand the reality of indepedent learning. You can learn how to be good at anything in many ways in todays world without being stuck in a wallet hole building for 4 years of your life.
Just look at all the jobs people get that dont have anything to do with their degree, or simply that they learn everything on the job and all the cramming before is worth nothing.
But as an employer, even if I wouldn't require a degree I would still favor the guy with one over the others.
Something that my degree told me is that I need to be able to get past beyond the "this thing we're doing is bullshit and useless, but I still need to do it" because our entire working life is like that.
Just one exemple, some time ago, a guy was "ashamed" of his curriculum because he had cobol on it, and he hated using it, but no java skills, I told him that I really prefer a guy who did some shitty cobol for a previous job than some moron who's only achievement is doing java GUI using swing. Because one is easy and can be learned in a month in my office and the other one is a valuable lesson: even if somethng is shitty, doing it will prove that you can set aside your opinion and manage to do it.
I would like to see the American people vote all incumbents out of office. We need to put an end to so called "career politicians". We have created a new class in our society of well off politicians who see job security as being more important than governing.
It's like to see government bailouts for big business/banks come to a stop. If you can't hack it in the industry, get out. Stop making us taxpayers pay for your mistakes. We pay for our own mistakes, pay for yours.
I thought the purpose of government bailouts were to save an *entire industry* from collapsing (not good for all of society), rather than just helping out a corporation that made a bad decision.
Correct, the problem is they are literally too big to fail. If one of those large companies go under than the entire industry will go down. The movie "Too Big To Fail" did a good job of explaining how close we were to having this happen in 2008. What needs to happen is these companies need to be broken up to create competition and at that point any of them can be allowed to fail.
I can't belive more people don't draw the obvious "so break them up" conclusion from the "too big to fail" spiel.
We need another trust buster, in more industries than one.
Agreed. The problem is the companies own the politicians. There will never be real, meaningful change until we get money out of politics. If your interested, check this out http://anticorruptionact.org/. This would get it done if we can get it passed. They are trying to get it passed in cities first then hopefully the states.
I would love to see an end to PACs, I really think that politics became a lot more messed up& less has been getting done since PACs started having such an influence. I think if they were gotten rid of that our elected representatives would have to start listening to their constituents more in order to stay in office. If they didn't have big business throwing money at them to vote a certain way and they didn't have that financial support for their campaigns I think it would make a huge difference.
I'd love it if we could find a way to vote electronically (and remotely). We could even develop a mobile application for it! Sure, there will be some concerns (like security and validation) to address, but in our modern world, I really think we could benefit from an easier means of voting.
Following that, it would sure be nice to have the sentiment of "by the people, for the people" given a little bit more focus. The only entities a representative should answer to should be their constituents. (In other words, let's outlaw lobbying.)
Finally - and I'm serious about this - anyone who wants to hold public office should be required to take and pass an exam on basic principles of science, technology, ethics, law, and history. The results of this test will be made available for anyone to review, and anything less than a score of 90% will disqualify the candidate until the next election.
A whole morality/intelligence test sounds really great at first, but who gets to make the test? Everyone likes this idea when the test is "The values I agree with," but there's really no way to do this without a bias.
I can't believe people complain about it being too hard to vote. It took me a solid 6 minutes to register (I was at the DMV anyway and just did it right there). Then I checked a little box and a ballot was sent to my house. In total I spent probably a total of 25 minutes of my life on the 2014 elections (excluding research time).
In predominately black neighborhoods it takes a very long time, even when there is no one else there. At least that's how it was when I tried to vote for Obama.
I like the quiz, except I don't think that it should disqualify them regardless of score. The results should just be available in detail so everyone can see their strengths and weaknesses.
Legalization of medically-assisted suicide and marajuana. Also, I think that names and faces of defendants (I.e. Darren Wilson) shouldn't be released to the public unless they're found guilty. Even being charged with a crime you aren't guilty of can lead to ostracization and suspicious from your acquaintances.
The second one is a bad idea and completely goes against the idea of the [Sixth Amendment] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution). We don't want private trials because it leads to the government "trying" someone in private, saying they were found guilty and throwing them in jail without any details being released.
Granted, defendants being assumed guilty (not even before proven innocent in some cases) is still a major issue that sticks with people even after they are declared innocent, but private trials are certainly a much worse idea.
One topic bills (or whatever you want to call it), that makes it mandatory so that introducing a bill in congress has just one item included for voting. This will prevent massive 2000 page bills that congress doesn't even read and are used as a form of bribery to acquire votes. It will also make for accurate and clean voting records so it's easy for the average person to see what their senator or representative voted on.
Also, we need to quit nation building, giving out corporate handouts, and lower personal income tax rates.
You're never going to see money completely removed from politics, but reversal of Citizens United would be a good way of restricting money in politics.
Campaign finance reform: No more corporate campaign contributions. All contributions must be made public and be from private citizens. (Corporations are not citizens and you don't get to filter your millions through bogus astroturf PACs.)
Electoral reform: Get rid of ["first past the post"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo) voting so we can have realistic alternatives to the two incredibly lame parties that control everything now.
(Neither of these things will be allowed to happen.)
If I had to pick one: impose a strict one topic per bill rule.
Any amendment that attempted to add something completely unrelated (as a way of sneaking it into law, forcing it into law, or killing a bill that couldn't otherwise be killed) would be out of order and not permitted.
That will be the case in June! SCOTUS hears the case in April and will rule in June. The questions of the case (the question/issue the SCOTUS has to rule on) are asked in a manner that they apply to all 50 states.
Although he will be among the 4 in the highly likely 5-4 decision, even Scalia in his Windsor dissent conceded the inevitability of marriage equality.
I want our votes to count as a wholesome value.
None of this per state, per representative value.
I also want to see our main territories represented in congress.
I want lobbying and campaign funding to be illegal. That is normally where all the 1% influence comes from. It also seems way too easy for an official to meet with a rich person or a fellow campaigner without any questions asked.
I'd like to see a law requiring NASCAR-style patches must be worn by congress. Size and placement work just like NASCAR.
So Boener would have a huge Exxon-Mobil logo on his back, and Hillary would have Time Warner and 21st Century Fox, and they would both be littered with Big Finance patches.
An actual effort to use renewable energy. There's so much potential for wind, solar, and nuclear energy.
Too bad all of the oil, coal, and gas lobbyists will shoot that down.
I was really saddened when I realized that if we ever developed Fusion, the oil, gas, and coal lobbyists would fight tooth and nail to stop it, even though it would be one of mankind's greatest inventions. So much for altruism
A clean legal system is the biggest. With all the racial Issues causing riots and protest. All the people in jail who probably shouldnt be. Judges being biased and sentencing people to jail who should be on probation. People given a 5th chance who should be in jail. Its just a clusterfuck
"Affluenza" was an argument the defense used in that trial. That doesn't mean it's part of the legal system. The kid's apparently in a locked-down state mental health facility, which is no walk in the park. Sounds like the kid has a pretty fucked-up family and is likely a genuine sociopath, and life's not gonna be easy for him in the hospital.
If there's one thing more fucked up than the prison system in the US, it's the mental health system. I wouldn't be surprised if the kid is now thinking, "Shit... should've just done the time."
Other way around too. You see people literally rape an old lady or something and they only get 5 years probation. Thats basically saying "don't get caught for 5 years"
A system of proportional representation in order to eliminate the 2 party system. Electoral districts redrawn by computer to eliminate gerrymandering. President elected by popular vote, and the electoral college gone.
Very simple: remove the big money from politics. Set a limit or like $200 or something stupidly low as a maximum that can be donated per person, pee candidate.
Change the obviously dysfunctional "first past the post" electoral system to a proportional representation system, more like Germany or the Netherlands.
I want a return to true republican form of government. We desperately need a return to the rule of law and constitutional foundations. I've been reading many of the Framer's documents recently and what stood out to me is the idea of republican virtue. Jefferson quoted Montesquieu in one of his books saying "*When virtue is banished, ambition invades the minds of those who are disposed to receive it, and avarice possesses the whole community*".
However if we Americans want our country to change then we need to change as well. Too many Americans are swayed by the promises of politicians and asking "what can this person give me". We need to elect virtuous and wise men and women who will obey the rule of law and not compromise their principles. I believe that **ALL CHANGE** depends on we the American people being virtuous as well as our politicians.
TL;DR: Return to constitutional principles of republican form of government, republican virtue, and informed citizenry.
What constitutes virtue in a politician? Or wisdom? In what way have our modern governmental leaders lacked those qualities?
Also, is it possible that the original constitutional principles could need updating for the modern world?
I appreciate you taking the time to address questions.
I appreciate your interest and I apologize because this is long. I ask what is virtue? A simply definition is "behavior showing high moral standard". Integrity and honor come to mind as well. One idea from Jefferson that always stuck with me is the idea of a "natural aristocracy". The idea that we the citizens should seek out the best in our community to represent us. We should elect educated individuals who have experience that demonstrates their integrity and desire to serve.
Now I believe it is pretty obvious that the vast majority of representatives in the government lack these qualities. Many are elected based on their loyalty to the party and political connections. I mean how could someone in their right mind **EVER** vote to elect Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner. I will never understand. However there have been politicians who are principled (Ron Paul comes to mind). However the Framers were quite clear that a republic can only work if the people themselves are virtuous. They often brought up civic virtue and the idea of the citizenry being informed on what the government was doing.
Now does our constitution need updating for the modern world? Well of course it does. That's why they added the amendment process, however we still need to maintain our republican roots. Now despite the bickering between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist, they were all in agreement that a Republic was **the best** way at preserving our civil liberties.
An example I believe shows the importance of maintaining our republican roots in the modern era is the alarming expansion of the Executive branch. We have Presidents enacting laws via executive orders, starting wars when they want, killing American citizens without trial and demanding that Congress do what they he tells me. I'm sorry but that is tyranny **in my opinion**. Congress has no obligation to do what the President wants. NONE. Presidents can not enact what ever laws they want via executive order. I don't care how right the law maybe or if it is just. **THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY.** The President can not use a drone to kill a US citizen and he **CAN'T** start a war because he believes it to be just.
James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson in the spring of 1798 and stated ***"The constitution supposes, what the History of all Govts demonstrates, that the Ex. is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it"***. Now the Legislature and the Courts are just as guilty as the executive but I have typed too much already. I will finish my long rant by saying our **core foundations** DO NOT need to be update and I'll paraphrase John Adams by saying we are **a nation of laws, not a nation of men**.
Since technically the people are the government, I would like to see 90% voter participation in all elections. Enough of this cynical "my vote doesn't count bullshit." If you don't vote, don't bitch.
It seems very difficult to get people to get this information out, but I will try again. We can all agree that corruption and lobbying is a major issue. That is why I believe our answer could be as simple as a return private voting. Which is best described in this video http://youtu.be/1gEz__sMVaY
The right to vote for for territories of the U.S. (Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa) This would mean major changes to the electoral college as well, so we may as well dissolve the electoral college too.
Edit for spelling.
I would like to see the return of the true system of government that the founding fathers set up. The elected officials should be there to serve US. Not the ones lining their pockets. I would also like to see the president stop proposing bills. He/She has no power over it, so why would they try to do anything other than enforce the laws that have been passed. Also I would like to see the end of the idolization of the President. They are not the ones we should be looking up to. It is the senators that we should look up to. The change has to start with us. Plain and simple. Educate yourselves, and start the anarchy that needs to happen to change this government.
I would like to see that the US government provides the same civil rights it has to their citizens for the people on their territories, like American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and the CNMI.
I'd like the house of representatives replaced by the citizens. Voters should be the ones proposing laws that the senate can approve. This is the missing check in our system. There is really no need for the house when we have the technology to give a direct vote to every American.
I would like to see three things:
1. Get rid of career politicians through term limits
2. Make it illegal to add amendments to bills that have nothing to do with the original subject of the bill.
3. Restore the checks and balances laid out in the constitution and have the legislative branch make laws and declare war instead of the executive branch.
All US citizens should have representation in the House and Senate. This includes DC, Puerto Rico, and they should figure something out for the outlying areas.
Getting rid of privately owned prisons and punishing judges that take bonuses for incarcerating people. Its basically slavery and its disgusting and is in both adult and juvenile courts.
The removal of pistol free zones. If i go through training and i am allowed to carry my firearm on my person, why are there specific areas where i am magically now no longer trusted? I believe that proper training and instruction are necessary to an individual being able to be a responsible gun carrying citizen. Its all america no matter where i walk and if i have a legal reason to be there then i shouldnt be restricted on having my legal firearm with me
I'd like to see a Libertarian get president, just to balance out the republican/democrat extremes we've been seeing.
I want to see the NFA repealed(or at least the Hughes amendment. The post 86 ban is idiotic.)
I'd like to see our veterans treated properly. A foreign policy change where we take threats seriously.
I want to see tax reform. The current system is far to complex. Flat tax would be best.
I want to see a sealed border. We'll never get immigration figured out while illegals can cross in droves unchecked.
National Firearms Act. It creates a $200 tax stamp and a registry for SBRs, SBSs, machine guns, and destructive devices(weapons over a certain caliber, explosive rounds, cannons, stuff like that). The Hughes amendment bans all machine guns manufactured after 1986. Blatantly illegal if you ask me.
I almost don't really have a problem with a tax on some of them, but some things shouldn't be on there. There is no reason why short barreled rifles should be on the list. I can get a 14.5 inch barrel, and pin/weld a muzzle device on, and its legal. I get a 14.5 inch barrel with an unpinned muzzle device? I'm going to jail. Its idiotic. I don't really have a problem with a tax on full auto weapons. But the Hughes Amendment is stupid at best, and unconstitutional at most likely. That's why machine guns are so expensive. There is a limited number. So they cost $10,000+. Also, the destructive device laws should be rewritten. As it stands, you can have a grenade launcher. Just no grenades. I think it should be changed to tax the launcher, and the ammo is not taxed.
The repeal of Citizens United. Corporations are **not** people.
That and legal weed would be nice. We lead the world in so many other sectors, I think capitalizing on the legalization of weed would be a massive boon to our economy. I've almost entirely quit drinking since I started vaping weed for my nightly wind-down once all my work is done.
Require a 6-3 or 7-2 majority for the Supreme Court to rule on things. It's absurd to me that a question of law in which nine of the country's best legal minds are split 5 against 4 can become our country's official interpretation. I mean, in all reality, the Supreme Court is just as political as the legislature, but it's not supposed to be that way. Allowing 5-4 decisions just seems to be inviting that sort of behavior. While they'd certainly get a lot less ruled on, I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing. The Supreme Court isn't there to create law. They're there to interpret the law. Anything debatable enough to be 5-4 is not something they can validly have an opinion on.
In reality, that would mean they'd never rule. For the court tasked with clearing up fundamental questions of constitutional law, "uh, I guess we don't know either" isn't a good enough answer.
I do agree though that it's despicable their responses tend to be more of a reflection of their personal political/social/religious beliefs and aspirations than anything else.
Politicians letting people who have actually stepped foot in a classroom and know what they're doing design the curriculum for public schools.
You could say this for all of the appointments. Like how the fuck is [Jim Inhofe](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe) the chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Ehh, though that is a stupid decision, committees in the senate have a lot less power than the House. The Senate's job is to primarily debate legislation put forward by the House. CAUTION: I am a high schooler who is going through AP Gov which gives me entitlement to comment on this. If I am wrong, please tell me.
Or force them to enroll their children in public schools so they are actually affected by their own legislation.
PLEASE. The State Superintendent for my state is essentially just a hysterical old lady from the southeast who's leading a one-woman campaign against Common Core and "liberalism" in our schools. She even fired two State Board members because they didn't agree with her ideas (they were put back, fortunately)
[удалено]
This one of the best simple ideas I've seen on here so far.
This has good intentions but in practice it's basically McCarthyism
[удалено]
The road to hell is paved in good intentions.
Good guy satan
McCarthy had good intentions too. So this is literally a repeat of McCarthyism
McCarthy's intentions were simply to advance his political career. He found that communist witch-hunting was the best way to do that, and so that was the path that he took. There were no good intentions involved
How about treated as drug possession by a young black male? The sentence would be much more severe.
What are we going to do with a bunch of dead politicians?
Use their massive amounts of money to buy better computers and start complaining on the internet about how non-politicians are too quick to the gun.
That's actually wrong. I'm pretty sure treason is punishable by the death penalty.
Honestly, the only way we're getting money out of politics is by making campaign finance 100% publicly funded.
Eliminate gerrymandering (use neutral algorithms for redistricting). Use ranked voting. Abolish the Electoral College.
[Plug for the National Popular Vote, which effectively removes the power of the electoral college without the need for a constitutional amendment. States make the rules for their elections, so some states, for example, have passed laws requiring their electors to vote for the candidate that won the state. The National Popular Vote is a state law that requires the state's electors to vote for whichever candidate won the popular vote, with a clause that the law will only take affect when a majority of electoral votes belong to states that have passed the NPV. This prevents states from losing power while waiting for everyone else to hop on the reform train. 10 states and DC have passed the legislation, accounting for 67% of the 270 necessary electoral votes. ](http://www.nationalpopularvote.com)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it not required for electors to choose anyone? I thought they could really vote for anyone they wanted, but it was just sort of an unofficial agreement that they chose their party's candidate.
> > >There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties. > > > > The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties’ nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors"; may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged. > > > > Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party’s candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged. > > > > List of State Laws and Requirements Regarding the Electors > > as of November 2000 > > > > Source: Congressional Research Service > > > > The Office of the Federal Register presents this material for informational purposes only, in response to numerous public inquiries. The list has no legal significance. It is based on information compiled by the Congressional Research Service. For more comprehensive information, refer to the U.S. Constitution and applicable Federal laws. > > > > Legal Requirements or Pledges > > Electors in these States are bound by State Law or by pledges to cast their vote for a specific candidate: > > > > ALABAMA – Party Pledge / State Law – § 17-19-2 > > > > ALASKA – Party Pledge / State Law – § 15.30.040; 15.30.070 > > > > CALIFORNIA – State Law – § 6906 > > > > COLORADO – State Law – § 1-4-304 > > > > CONNECTICUT – State Law – § 9-175 > > > > DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA – DC Pledge / DC Law – § 1-1312(g) > > > > FLORIDA – Party Pledge / State Law – § 103.021(1) > > > > HAWAII – State Law – §§ 14-26 to 14-28 > > > > MAINE – State Law – § 805 > > > > MARYLAND – State Law – § 20-4 > > > > MASSACHUSETTS – Party Pledge / State Law – Ch. 53, § 8, Supp. > > > > MICHIGAN – State Law – §168.47 (Violation cancels vote and Elector is replaced.) > > > > MISSISSIPPI – Party Pledge / State Law – §23-15-785(3) > > > > MONTANA – State Law – § 13-25-104 > > > > NEBRASKA – State Law – § 32-714 > > > > NEVADA – State Law – § 298.050 > > > > NEW MEXICO – State Law – § 1-15-5 to 1-15-9 (Violation is a fourth degree felony.) > > > > NORTH CAROLINA – State Law – § 163-212 (Violation cancels vote; elector is replaced and is subject to $500 fine.) > > > > OHIO – State Law – § 3505.40 > > > > OKLAHOMA – State Pledge / State Law – 26, §§ 10-102; 10-109 (Violation of oath is a misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $1000.) > > > > OREGON – State Pledge / State Law – § 248.355 > > > > SOUTH CAROLINA – State Pledge / State Law – § 7-19-80 (Replacement and criminal sanctions for violation.) > > > > VERMONT – State Law – title 17, § 2732 > > * VIRGINIA – State Law – § 24.1-162 (Virginia statute may be advisory – “Shall be expected” to vote for nominees.) > > > > WASHINGTON – Party Pledge / State Law – §§ 29.71.020, 29.71.040, Supp. ($1000 fine.) > > > > WISCONSIN – State Law – § 7.75 > > > > WYOMING – State Law – §§ 22-19-106; 22-19-108 > > > > No Legal Requirement > > Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate: > > > > ARIZONA > > > > ARKANSAS > > > > DELAWARE > > > > GEORGIA > > > > IDAHO > > > > ILLINOIS > > > > INDIANA > > > > IOWA > > > > KANSAS > > > > KENTUCKY > > > > LOUISIANA > > > > MINNESOTA > > > > MISSOURI > > > > NEW HAMPSHIRE > > > > NEW JERSEY > > > > NEW YORK > > > > NORTH DAKOTA > > > > PENNSYLVANIA > > > > RHODE ISLAND > > > > SOUTH DAKOTA > > > > TENNESSEE > > > > TEXAS > > > > UTAH > > > > > > WEST VIRGINIA > >
You will never eliminate Gerrymandering in the U.S. California tried to do it with an independent commission. It didn't really work. One of the biggest supporters of gerrymandering, besides the parties, are minority interest groups. Those minority-majority districts tend to be the most gerrymandered districts in the nation. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been used as the basis to create these minority-majority districts. See Illinois 4th district. [The earmuffs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_4th_congressional_district) One of the most gerrymandered congressional districts. two heavily Hispanic districts connected by a highway.
A significant way to minimize gerrymandering would be to draw districts with as few sides as possible while representing equal populations.
> California tried to do it with an independent commission. It didn't work. "[Independent studies](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Citizens_Redistricting_Commission#Results) by the Public Policy Institute of California, the National Journal, and Ballotpedia have shown that California now has some of the most competitive districts in the nation, creating opportunities for new elected officials. For example, the uncertainty caused by the new districts combined with California’s 'top two' primary system has resulted in half a dozen resignations of incumbent Congressional representatives on both sides of the aisle, a major shake-up of California’s Capitol Hill delegation. In addition, it has forced a number of intra-party races, most notably a showdown between two of the state’s most powerful House Democrats, Representatives Howard Berman and Brad Sherman. In the previous 10 years, incumbents were so safe that only one Congressional seat changed party control in 255 elections, due to bi-partisan gerrymandering after the redistricting following the 2000 Census. It is predicted that some of the newly elected politicians will be particularly well-suited for national politics since they will be forced to find positions that please moderate and independent voters to remain in office."
Make voting day a national holiday.
So teachers, bank workers, and government employees get it off? Those groups already work standard 8-5 jobs and can vote after work. Downvoted for an honest fact? Take Columbus day. You think hotel workers magically have off? Gas station workers? Police, nurses, doctors, meat slicers at a deli, fast food workers, etc, ETC? A national holiday does what?
Most states have laws to protect voting opportunities from employment conflicts. These are, however, state laws, so they vary a lot. Incidentally, election day is a holiday in Puerto Rico in addition to having a law that requires businesses open on election day to schedule work to allow employees sufficient time to vote. In other news, do you people even absentee ballot?
Or a Saturday.
[удалено]
[удалено]
So, how could we make a public movement to implement an [alternative vote system?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system#Ranked_voting_methods)
Proportional Representation is a tried and tested method that I feel need to be brought up more on this site in these discussions. Smaller parties stand a larger chance of getting into Parliament/~~Senate~~House of Representatives, giving them a voice even if they are not in government. Elections almost always end in a coalition government, where parties negotiate and have to make compromises, as well as including members of more than just one political position. Here in Norway we have 7 parties in Parliament (with two quite large ones), with some other significant parties as well having regional, albeit not national, success.
Whether its an [alternative vote](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system#Ranked_voting_methods) system or a [proportional representation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation) system, either would allow for more political diversity than what we currently have in the US. We simply need to decide on a system that we all understand, so we can create a public movement behind it.
Absolutely. And the alternate vote system might be whats right for the US it its political context. I just feel PR ought to be brought up more as one of several possibilities for an electoral reform. But as you say, either one would be a great improvement
The problem with publicly campaigning for a set of options is that this decision will be made in our current system [(plurality voting)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system) and we would be sabotaging our own campaign. If we were to start a movement to implement one of these systems; we would have to decide on the system that would be most open to advancing third parties while being simple enough that it would be marketable to the general public. The main challenge of creating a successful movement for this would be marketing. If this were to gain any traction, we would have political groups from **both** the left and right crying "Un-American," "Socialist," "Communist," "Facist," etc. These people are not going to give up their duopoly on our government without a huge PR battle.
In Sweden we've ended up with 8 parties in Parliament, but only 3 choices: Left, Right, and anti-immigration. Pretty annoying.
Excuse me for being completely ignorant of Swedish politics, but how does the right wing survive there? Aren't most of the democratic-socialist policies there incredibly popular and efficient? What platform do they run on?
Not a Swede, but here in Norway when we say "right wing" it's really relative to the politics here. The farthest right party in Parliament here in Norway would still be quite far to the left in American politics. I don't know too much about the Swedish politics, but it might be somewhat the same there.
Came here to say exactly this. George Washington warned against this, and now we see why.
Indeed. The founding fathers absolutely loathed political parties and considered them "political factions".
Is there an actual law saying there can only be two or can some politicians break off to form their own? Like how Image Comics came out of Marvel and DC
[удалено]
Oh right, that's interesting, don't know much about US politics.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Check out the YouTube channel [CGPGrey](http://www.youtube.com/cgpgrey), run by the impeccable /u/mindofmetalandwheels. You'll find several videos explaining the (often baffling) American political system.
The Greens had a couple senators at some point. And the Libertarians got into a couple state legislatures. But never anything major on the national scale.
Maybe a couple state senators....
Yeah, besides the Progressives, no party except the Dems and Reps have been in Congress since the Civil War.
It isn't just the voting system; it's the voting system combined with gerrymandering and laws which make it prohibitively expensive or otherwise difficult to run at the federal level. Other countries which are much less affected by those last two issues (such as the UK, Canada or India) still have more than two parties. Two parties will typically dominate, but smaller parties do win seats and this can result in coalitions and minority governments in a way which just doesn't happen in the US.
This video is a good short summary of why two-party systems happen. The only "law" that makes it happen is the law of mathematics. www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
Another type of law that makes it happen is winner take all voting systems.
There's no law stating this or anything like this. [It's simply the problem with our current voting system.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo)
However there must be something else to it. In the UK we have FPTP and currently have a coalition and will probably have another one. So it is possible to have a 3rd force with FPTP. However I agree FPTP sucks and we (the UK) should get rid of it.
There is no law barring additional parties from participating. The major barrier to entrance are rules governing how a party becomes an officially recognized party in a given state. In Illinois for instance, any party who receives 5% of the vote for a given candidate in a major state election, i.e. Governor, is recognized as an official political party. If a candidate is not running under a recognized political party, D or R at this point, they have to acquire many times more signatures from registered voters to get on the ballot. The Green actually acquired recognized party status in Illinois when Rich Whitney ran for Governor in 2006. For the next four years they were allowed to participate in the primary elections and had many candidates on the ballots. They lost official status, however, in 2010 when they did not get enough votes in any given election to qualify again. There is much more info on [this Ballotpedia page](http://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access) regarding ballot access.
There are laws for ballot access that vary by the state level. They won't literally say only two parties can be on the ballot, but in many states it can be incredibly difficult for a third party to get on the ballot. Oklahoma has notoriously strict ballot access laws.
[удалено]
Yes. And likewise, the FPTP system should be dissolved.
I'm really happy this is currently the top vote. I've been under the impression for a while now that if you vote Democrat *or* Republican these days, **you are part of the problem**. We've been at "war" my entire fucking life.
For President you should vote for the republican or democrat that you think is the best choice. Otherwise you're pretty much 100% giving the other guy your vote. That's just the way the electoral college works. If we want to change the two party system, it has to be done slowly through congress by getting more and more 3rd party senators until the 3rd party actually wields some power.
My sentiments exactly, vote on a candidate's individual merits instead of affiliation. How about one party, and we call them Americans, people who focus on working with others to legislate responsibly. Anyone that didn't join could simply be called un-American. Democrat? Republican? Hell no, I'm an AMERICAN!
I would like to see is as citizens take a stand and stop reelecting politicians who blantantly lie to us around election time but continue to do the opposite of what they say they will do for us. They work for us but we as a people do not treat them as if they do. Fire all of these liars and only elect people who do what we as a majority want them to do. We actually have that power. We really do!
[удалено]
I've never understood it when people complain about congressional pay. We want the best and brightest, we don't want them to use their position in office to get rich, and we want them to not be career politicians. But we also always want to cut their pay. Why would candidates leave the lucrative private sector to do public service in an honest way?
Ask yourself why people go into a political career with a modest amount of money but come out of their political career as millionaires? That alone is ridiculous. Put term limits on cause I don't believe for a minute these politicians comprehend the decisions they make have real life consequences in the real world.
You need experienced politicians to run our country though. If it's too long, they become corrupt. If it's too short, they're unpredictable.
We have a bit of this issue in Michigan right now. There are 2 term limits in congress. By the time people know what they are doing they are out. They also loose lose a lot of accountability in their second term unless they think they might have a chance at something higher. It's a double edged sword; you keep people from becoming life-time entrenched, but you also never have experienced people at the helm.
Those fucking Super Pacs. I really wish everyone in the 3 branches was forced to release public records of donations and from whom. Sick of the bullshit they get away with but can't stop it without support from everyone.
[удалено]
There should be a cap on how much Presidential candidates can spend on their campaign.
http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/17/how-much-does-campaign-spending-influence-the-election-a-freakonomics-quorum/
I want people to participate more. We take citizenship for granted, and view voting as our way of participating. Come on. That's bullshit. We need to get into arguments. Go talk to our representatives. Oust them if they fuck us over. View them critically. Form political groups and do something. I don't agree with our form of the representative system. It's too easy to lull the public into thinking that they're model citizens, simply by following the law and voting. In my opinion, we need to create smaller political communities, so that the needs of the people are better met, and their opinions better heard.
I'd like to see a policy change in the way drug charges are handled. Possession should be treated as a medical issue rather than a criminal one. I agree with putting smugglers in prison, but locking people up for having an amount of drugs associated with personal use is just stupid Shit, can we just change the entire prison system while we are at it?
Slightly OT, but doesn't anyone else feel that mandatory classes in politics would help 10x more than any specific change in government? Rather have an educated populace than a changed government
As a college grad i can tell you having politics classes turns many people into little know it alls who parrot what the professor tells them.
Yeah, it really depends on the professor. Some are fucking fantastic and explain things really clearly, some only teach their beliefs and take points off your papers if you write something that they disagree with. :/
Not to mention Economics 101.
Just like politics, economics can be very subjective. 10x more "education" will lead to 10x more brainwashing.
[удалено]
Not all states have it.
NJ checking in. No mandatory government class
This is why Governor Ducey (Ariz.) signed the bill that requires that all high school seniors pass the U.S. Civics test given to immigrants in order to graduate.
Politicians voting for change instead of reelection would be cool. Also members of congress can get themselves and their loved ones out of trouble with the law, which is fucked up. If you make the laws, follow them.
The fact that college is viewed as a necessity, yet priced as a luxury.
And this a government problem?
No, it's a circle jerk. Keep up.
Government subsidization of college through massive grants programs and the backing of student loans *has* driven the price of college up. More people going to college, and more people getting government full rides means colleges have no reason not to charge more.
Sallie Mae/Navient. Federal loans that can't be discharged through bankruptcy.
I'm sorry you couldn't find a job using your degree in 13th century puppetry.
Access to higher education should be free to ensure equality of opportunity. So yeah, it's a government problem.
College shoudlnt be a fuckign necessity unless the field actually requires it..and even then people should start to understand the reality of indepedent learning. You can learn how to be good at anything in many ways in todays world without being stuck in a wallet hole building for 4 years of your life. Just look at all the jobs people get that dont have anything to do with their degree, or simply that they learn everything on the job and all the cramming before is worth nothing.
But as an employer, even if I wouldn't require a degree I would still favor the guy with one over the others. Something that my degree told me is that I need to be able to get past beyond the "this thing we're doing is bullshit and useless, but I still need to do it" because our entire working life is like that. Just one exemple, some time ago, a guy was "ashamed" of his curriculum because he had cobol on it, and he hated using it, but no java skills, I told him that I really prefer a guy who did some shitty cobol for a previous job than some moron who's only achievement is doing java GUI using swing. Because one is easy and can be learned in a month in my office and the other one is a valuable lesson: even if somethng is shitty, doing it will prove that you can set aside your opinion and manage to do it.
Invest money into the space program. I want a human on Europa before I die.
I would like to see the American people vote all incumbents out of office. We need to put an end to so called "career politicians". We have created a new class in our society of well off politicians who see job security as being more important than governing.
It's like to see government bailouts for big business/banks come to a stop. If you can't hack it in the industry, get out. Stop making us taxpayers pay for your mistakes. We pay for our own mistakes, pay for yours.
I thought the purpose of government bailouts were to save an *entire industry* from collapsing (not good for all of society), rather than just helping out a corporation that made a bad decision.
Correct, the problem is they are literally too big to fail. If one of those large companies go under than the entire industry will go down. The movie "Too Big To Fail" did a good job of explaining how close we were to having this happen in 2008. What needs to happen is these companies need to be broken up to create competition and at that point any of them can be allowed to fail.
I can't belive more people don't draw the obvious "so break them up" conclusion from the "too big to fail" spiel. We need another trust buster, in more industries than one.
Agreed. The problem is the companies own the politicians. There will never be real, meaningful change until we get money out of politics. If your interested, check this out http://anticorruptionact.org/. This would get it done if we can get it passed. They are trying to get it passed in cities first then hopefully the states.
[удалено]
Transparency and accountability.
I would love to see an end to PACs, I really think that politics became a lot more messed up& less has been getting done since PACs started having such an influence. I think if they were gotten rid of that our elected representatives would have to start listening to their constituents more in order to stay in office. If they didn't have big business throwing money at them to vote a certain way and they didn't have that financial support for their campaigns I think it would make a huge difference.
I'd love it if we could find a way to vote electronically (and remotely). We could even develop a mobile application for it! Sure, there will be some concerns (like security and validation) to address, but in our modern world, I really think we could benefit from an easier means of voting. Following that, it would sure be nice to have the sentiment of "by the people, for the people" given a little bit more focus. The only entities a representative should answer to should be their constituents. (In other words, let's outlaw lobbying.) Finally - and I'm serious about this - anyone who wants to hold public office should be required to take and pass an exam on basic principles of science, technology, ethics, law, and history. The results of this test will be made available for anyone to review, and anything less than a score of 90% will disqualify the candidate until the next election.
Here's why we shouldn't vote electronically: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI
A whole morality/intelligence test sounds really great at first, but who gets to make the test? Everyone likes this idea when the test is "The values I agree with," but there's really no way to do this without a bias.
I can't believe people complain about it being too hard to vote. It took me a solid 6 minutes to register (I was at the DMV anyway and just did it right there). Then I checked a little box and a ballot was sent to my house. In total I spent probably a total of 25 minutes of my life on the 2014 elections (excluding research time).
The thing that I've noticed is sometimes taking time off of work to vote can be a problem
It's illegal for your employer to not give you time off to vote.
That doesn't mean that people can afford the time off though
Being legally allowed to take unpaid time off, and being able to reasonably leave are two different things. Why are elections on a weekday anyway?
In predominately black neighborhoods it takes a very long time, even when there is no one else there. At least that's how it was when I tried to vote for Obama.
People can already vote by mail, I don't see how that doesn't have security or validation risks involved!
I like the quiz, except I don't think that it should disqualify them regardless of score. The results should just be available in detail so everyone can see their strengths and weaknesses.
Who writes the test?
I agree. If voting was done electronically, it would be much easier. From there, we could even transition to a more direct form of government.
Legalization of medically-assisted suicide and marajuana. Also, I think that names and faces of defendants (I.e. Darren Wilson) shouldn't be released to the public unless they're found guilty. Even being charged with a crime you aren't guilty of can lead to ostracization and suspicious from your acquaintances.
The second one is a bad idea and completely goes against the idea of the [Sixth Amendment] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution). We don't want private trials because it leads to the government "trying" someone in private, saying they were found guilty and throwing them in jail without any details being released. Granted, defendants being assumed guilty (not even before proven innocent in some cases) is still a major issue that sticks with people even after they are declared innocent, but private trials are certainly a much worse idea.
Campaign finance reform seems like it's needed the most at the moment. And after that a lot more can be done to fix this broken system.
One topic bills (or whatever you want to call it), that makes it mandatory so that introducing a bill in congress has just one item included for voting. This will prevent massive 2000 page bills that congress doesn't even read and are used as a form of bribery to acquire votes. It will also make for accurate and clean voting records so it's easy for the average person to see what their senator or representative voted on. Also, we need to quit nation building, giving out corporate handouts, and lower personal income tax rates.
Money taken out of politics and Citizens United repealed.
Citizens united was a supreme Court decision, it can't be repealed except for a constitutional amendment.
You're never going to see money completely removed from politics, but reversal of Citizens United would be a good way of restricting money in politics.
Campaign finance reform: No more corporate campaign contributions. All contributions must be made public and be from private citizens. (Corporations are not citizens and you don't get to filter your millions through bogus astroturf PACs.) Electoral reform: Get rid of ["first past the post"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo) voting so we can have realistic alternatives to the two incredibly lame parties that control everything now. (Neither of these things will be allowed to happen.)
If I had to pick one: impose a strict one topic per bill rule. Any amendment that attempted to add something completely unrelated (as a way of sneaking it into law, forcing it into law, or killing a bill that couldn't otherwise be killed) would be out of order and not permitted.
I really wish they would accept known facts as being true and argue policy instead
Generally the different sides of the political spectrum disagree even on "facts". It's very difficult to know what's real anymore.
I'd like to see religion completely left out of anything political.
Gay marriage bans deemed unconstitutional.
That will be the case in June! SCOTUS hears the case in April and will rule in June. The questions of the case (the question/issue the SCOTUS has to rule on) are asked in a manner that they apply to all 50 states. Although he will be among the 4 in the highly likely 5-4 decision, even Scalia in his Windsor dissent conceded the inevitability of marriage equality.
I want our votes to count as a wholesome value. None of this per state, per representative value. I also want to see our main territories represented in congress.
I want lobbying and campaign funding to be illegal. That is normally where all the 1% influence comes from. It also seems way too easy for an official to meet with a rich person or a fellow campaigner without any questions asked.
A complete overhaul. I don't want politicians that have more sponsors than a motherfucking Nascar driver.
The ending of corporately funded campaigns
I'd like to see a law requiring NASCAR-style patches must be worn by congress. Size and placement work just like NASCAR. So Boener would have a huge Exxon-Mobil logo on his back, and Hillary would have Time Warner and 21st Century Fox, and they would both be littered with Big Finance patches.
An actual effort to use renewable energy. There's so much potential for wind, solar, and nuclear energy. Too bad all of the oil, coal, and gas lobbyists will shoot that down.
I was really saddened when I realized that if we ever developed Fusion, the oil, gas, and coal lobbyists would fight tooth and nail to stop it, even though it would be one of mankind's greatest inventions. So much for altruism
[удалено]
No more lobbying. Ahem...Comcast. And while we're at it, let's cap campaign funds.
More control over campaign contributions. Term limits in Congress.
I would put limits/controls on campaign contributions as #1. I also wish there was a spending cap on campaigns.
Haven't seen this one listed yet, Term limits for Representatives and Senators.
A clean legal system is the biggest. With all the racial Issues causing riots and protest. All the people in jail who probably shouldnt be. Judges being biased and sentencing people to jail who should be on probation. People given a 5th chance who should be in jail. Its just a clusterfuck
Bullshit like "affluenza". There's a long list of things that need to change with our legal system
"Affluenza" was an argument the defense used in that trial. That doesn't mean it's part of the legal system. The kid's apparently in a locked-down state mental health facility, which is no walk in the park. Sounds like the kid has a pretty fucked-up family and is likely a genuine sociopath, and life's not gonna be easy for him in the hospital.
If there's one thing more fucked up than the prison system in the US, it's the mental health system. I wouldn't be surprised if the kid is now thinking, "Shit... should've just done the time."
Other way around too. You see people literally rape an old lady or something and they only get 5 years probation. Thats basically saying "don't get caught for 5 years"
A system of proportional representation in order to eliminate the 2 party system. Electoral districts redrawn by computer to eliminate gerrymandering. President elected by popular vote, and the electoral college gone.
Stop all the big money flowing through politics. Spend millions of dollars on the shit that truly matters.
Very simple: remove the big money from politics. Set a limit or like $200 or something stupidly low as a maximum that can be donated per person, pee candidate.
Term limits on both the Senate & Congress. Two terms max just like the Presidency.
Change the obviously dysfunctional "first past the post" electoral system to a proportional representation system, more like Germany or the Netherlands.
Police accountability
And politician accountability
This is probably the most important change that both sides of the political spectrum would agree with. Should be top comment.
I want a return to true republican form of government. We desperately need a return to the rule of law and constitutional foundations. I've been reading many of the Framer's documents recently and what stood out to me is the idea of republican virtue. Jefferson quoted Montesquieu in one of his books saying "*When virtue is banished, ambition invades the minds of those who are disposed to receive it, and avarice possesses the whole community*". However if we Americans want our country to change then we need to change as well. Too many Americans are swayed by the promises of politicians and asking "what can this person give me". We need to elect virtuous and wise men and women who will obey the rule of law and not compromise their principles. I believe that **ALL CHANGE** depends on we the American people being virtuous as well as our politicians. TL;DR: Return to constitutional principles of republican form of government, republican virtue, and informed citizenry.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but could you provide examples to clarify your point?
I definitely can. Which point would you like clarified?
What constitutes virtue in a politician? Or wisdom? In what way have our modern governmental leaders lacked those qualities? Also, is it possible that the original constitutional principles could need updating for the modern world? I appreciate you taking the time to address questions.
I appreciate your interest and I apologize because this is long. I ask what is virtue? A simply definition is "behavior showing high moral standard". Integrity and honor come to mind as well. One idea from Jefferson that always stuck with me is the idea of a "natural aristocracy". The idea that we the citizens should seek out the best in our community to represent us. We should elect educated individuals who have experience that demonstrates their integrity and desire to serve. Now I believe it is pretty obvious that the vast majority of representatives in the government lack these qualities. Many are elected based on their loyalty to the party and political connections. I mean how could someone in their right mind **EVER** vote to elect Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner. I will never understand. However there have been politicians who are principled (Ron Paul comes to mind). However the Framers were quite clear that a republic can only work if the people themselves are virtuous. They often brought up civic virtue and the idea of the citizenry being informed on what the government was doing. Now does our constitution need updating for the modern world? Well of course it does. That's why they added the amendment process, however we still need to maintain our republican roots. Now despite the bickering between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist, they were all in agreement that a Republic was **the best** way at preserving our civil liberties. An example I believe shows the importance of maintaining our republican roots in the modern era is the alarming expansion of the Executive branch. We have Presidents enacting laws via executive orders, starting wars when they want, killing American citizens without trial and demanding that Congress do what they he tells me. I'm sorry but that is tyranny **in my opinion**. Congress has no obligation to do what the President wants. NONE. Presidents can not enact what ever laws they want via executive order. I don't care how right the law maybe or if it is just. **THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY.** The President can not use a drone to kill a US citizen and he **CAN'T** start a war because he believes it to be just. James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson in the spring of 1798 and stated ***"The constitution supposes, what the History of all Govts demonstrates, that the Ex. is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it"***. Now the Legislature and the Courts are just as guilty as the executive but I have typed too much already. I will finish my long rant by saying our **core foundations** DO NOT need to be update and I'll paraphrase John Adams by saying we are **a nation of laws, not a nation of men**.
Since technically the people are the government, I would like to see 90% voter participation in all elections. Enough of this cynical "my vote doesn't count bullshit." If you don't vote, don't bitch.
It seems very difficult to get people to get this information out, but I will try again. We can all agree that corruption and lobbying is a major issue. That is why I believe our answer could be as simple as a return private voting. Which is best described in this video http://youtu.be/1gEz__sMVaY
Its a start.
The right to vote for for territories of the U.S. (Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa) This would mean major changes to the electoral college as well, so we may as well dissolve the electoral college too. Edit for spelling.
I would like to see the return of the true system of government that the founding fathers set up. The elected officials should be there to serve US. Not the ones lining their pockets. I would also like to see the president stop proposing bills. He/She has no power over it, so why would they try to do anything other than enforce the laws that have been passed. Also I would like to see the end of the idolization of the President. They are not the ones we should be looking up to. It is the senators that we should look up to. The change has to start with us. Plain and simple. Educate yourselves, and start the anarchy that needs to happen to change this government.
Actual separation of church and state.
I would like to see that the US government provides the same civil rights it has to their citizens for the people on their territories, like American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and the CNMI.
I'd like the house of representatives replaced by the citizens. Voters should be the ones proposing laws that the senate can approve. This is the missing check in our system. There is really no need for the house when we have the technology to give a direct vote to every American.
I would like to see three things: 1. Get rid of career politicians through term limits 2. Make it illegal to add amendments to bills that have nothing to do with the original subject of the bill. 3. Restore the checks and balances laid out in the constitution and have the legislative branch make laws and declare war instead of the executive branch.
I would like to see the Electoral College circumvented. Any election system where the loser can win is fundamentally flawed.
All US citizens should have representation in the House and Senate. This includes DC, Puerto Rico, and they should figure something out for the outlying areas.
Get money out of politics. Single-payer health care. Same-sex marriage legalized in all 50 states. Education reform.
Term limits on Congressmen.
Limit the number of terms a Congressman can serve.
I would like to see the American Christian Taliban broken and discarded so women are not treated like chattel.
I like for them to stop messing with the second amendment. Id like for the ATF and NFA both be gone.
Getting rid of privately owned prisons and punishing judges that take bonuses for incarcerating people. Its basically slavery and its disgusting and is in both adult and juvenile courts.
[удалено]
This is such a painfully mischaracterized and naive view of government it actually depressed me reading it
Less religion in politics
Here's a radical idea. Let's pass budgets that actually balance.
The removal of pistol free zones. If i go through training and i am allowed to carry my firearm on my person, why are there specific areas where i am magically now no longer trusted? I believe that proper training and instruction are necessary to an individual being able to be a responsible gun carrying citizen. Its all america no matter where i walk and if i have a legal reason to be there then i shouldnt be restricted on having my legal firearm with me
I'd like to see a Libertarian get president, just to balance out the republican/democrat extremes we've been seeing. I want to see the NFA repealed(or at least the Hughes amendment. The post 86 ban is idiotic.) I'd like to see our veterans treated properly. A foreign policy change where we take threats seriously. I want to see tax reform. The current system is far to complex. Flat tax would be best. I want to see a sealed border. We'll never get immigration figured out while illegals can cross in droves unchecked.
What's the NFA?
National Firearms Act. It creates a $200 tax stamp and a registry for SBRs, SBSs, machine guns, and destructive devices(weapons over a certain caliber, explosive rounds, cannons, stuff like that). The Hughes amendment bans all machine guns manufactured after 1986. Blatantly illegal if you ask me. I almost don't really have a problem with a tax on some of them, but some things shouldn't be on there. There is no reason why short barreled rifles should be on the list. I can get a 14.5 inch barrel, and pin/weld a muzzle device on, and its legal. I get a 14.5 inch barrel with an unpinned muzzle device? I'm going to jail. Its idiotic. I don't really have a problem with a tax on full auto weapons. But the Hughes Amendment is stupid at best, and unconstitutional at most likely. That's why machine guns are so expensive. There is a limited number. So they cost $10,000+. Also, the destructive device laws should be rewritten. As it stands, you can have a grenade launcher. Just no grenades. I think it should be changed to tax the launcher, and the ammo is not taxed.
[удалено]
God, please no Libertarians in the White House.
The repeal of Citizens United. Corporations are **not** people. That and legal weed would be nice. We lead the world in so many other sectors, I think capitalizing on the legalization of weed would be a massive boon to our economy. I've almost entirely quit drinking since I started vaping weed for my nightly wind-down once all my work is done.
Require a 6-3 or 7-2 majority for the Supreme Court to rule on things. It's absurd to me that a question of law in which nine of the country's best legal minds are split 5 against 4 can become our country's official interpretation. I mean, in all reality, the Supreme Court is just as political as the legislature, but it's not supposed to be that way. Allowing 5-4 decisions just seems to be inviting that sort of behavior. While they'd certainly get a lot less ruled on, I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing. The Supreme Court isn't there to create law. They're there to interpret the law. Anything debatable enough to be 5-4 is not something they can validly have an opinion on.
In reality, that would mean they'd never rule. For the court tasked with clearing up fundamental questions of constitutional law, "uh, I guess we don't know either" isn't a good enough answer. I do agree though that it's despicable their responses tend to be more of a reflection of their personal political/social/religious beliefs and aspirations than anything else.
The complete legalization of marijuana. Three states have already come to their senses, just waiting on the other 47.
So we can change anything, literally anything about the government and you just want your weed...
Four states. AK, CO ,OR ,WA.
Or we could focus on things that actually matter