Guide to Fix American troubled Political Systems

[Universals]

Lobbying and Croniesm has incapcitated our political system. Here's what must be done to fix it.

* More Political Parties

* Member's of Congress who are Independents should be allowed to stand
alone and not caucus with one the two major parties.

* There should be a retirement age that matches with the rest of the public
-A 90 year old man making decision healthcare is not the best for
country I think.

* Senatorial and Congressional terms can't be longer than two terms (much
needed)
-Joe Biden has been in the Senate (before becoming VP) since he was 29
yrs old. that's 36 yrs and he'll still be there if not for the VP post.

-Robert Byd of WV has been there since 1959 (91 yrs old)
-Edward Kennedy has been in there since 1962
-Strom Thurmond was there 1956 – January 3, 2003
-John Mutter since 1974

These are just few examples. They are there not because they are the best at the job but because power tastes so good and they can’t let it go. They are not continuously reelected because they are the best for the job but because they’ve curried the favor of every big donor in district or state as the case may be. Case in point is John Murtha of Pennsylvania.

Sadly these changes have to be introduced and approved by these same folks at the capitol. So, I know it won't .

[INAT]

You cannot change the system by using the system to change the system.


How about we stop wasting money on those very old folks we know have 6-12 months to live anyway.

"Look, you are gonna die and America is a spiritual country so go with dignity and honor to meet Jesus and let us spend the healthcare money on those that have a fighting chance" Grandma.

[Mu-Meson]

I agree with everything but the first one.
Senators and Congresspeople going for a 3rd term should be taken outside and beaten with sticks.

[Universals]

Those guys are mini dictators...

[tyovan]

* More Political Parties

* Member's of Congress who are Independents should be allowed to stand
alone and not caucus with one the two major parties.


I strongly agree with both of these points. But I think we need some type of proportional representation to help get third parties into congress.

Without proportional representation you get situations like the Bull Moose party 1912, Perot 1992, and Nader 2000.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

What you're trying to build - what you're asking for - is a political system that's better than the people it serves. The problem isn't the system, it's We the People. We're the ones who selfishly keep sending these dinosaurs back to Washington. We're the ones who tolerate it when they write laws that consolidate their power at the expense of the country. We're the ones who do nothing when they pass legislation they haven't even read. We're the ones who stupidly continue to pay into systems that ratchet up the dependency state. We're the ones who don't burn Washington to the ground when they talk about giving voting rights to illegal aliens and tax rebates to people who never paid taxes to begin with. In order to fix our system, we'd have to take millions of our people and set them adrift on barges in the middle of the Atlantic.

[vryhpyammoadded]

When the majority of the public realize that theft, enslavement and acting like uncivilized, lazy, entitled punks suckling on someone else’s hard work are wrong, the opportunistic people of power will fear retribution again and the government will change for the better. Only then will positive changes actually be allowed.

For now, it’s not possible as too many people have gone to rot weakening US culture. Our public and, therefore, our government are currently too fragmented and polarized for any trustworthy repairs to be made to DC or the party(s). Integrity has been lost and the nation has to stagger through the long slog of this deadlock till culture reassembles itself to rediscover that integrity (personal opinion, doubtful this go around) or the party(s) fail (more likely) so that Americans can learn through fast pain and hardship to not rely on Federal crack daddy the entitlement dope pusher buying license from the addicted to “rob” the successful of wealth and liberties.

Once changes are made, I’d hope the Fed is rendered down to a pale shadow of today’s monstrosity. I’d hope the Senate is brought back too its appointed elitist, corrupt social club roots while the House is expanded in number and altered design to connect more with its local constituencies and not the mega wealthy national and multinational interest groups of today. As for the Executive, I’d hope some manner of checks and balances in the party system preventing future party/oligarch puppets and instead promoting individualist leaders not tied down to favors. Do all this and get good legislation/regulation going again and the courts will follow suit and no longer take up the Hill’s legislative slack and our need for more lawyers than the world combined will go away.

Most importantly, I’d like to see a filleting knife taken to the Federal bureaucracy cutting out this 40% BMI (Body Mass Index) slug down to a lean endurance runner 5% tossing the burden of responsibility back to the people.

A complete overhaul of the people and government back to our western enlightenment, rational individualist, laissez fair economic roots and complete ditching of the current pop culture chic communitarian managerial theory is in order for another 233+ years of success.

[brainplay]

What you're trying to build - what you're asking for - is a political system that's better than the people it serves. The problem isn't the system, it's We the People. We're the ones who selfishly keep sending these dinosaurs back to Washington. We're the ones who tolerate it when they write laws that consolidate their power at the expense of the country. We're the ones who do nothing when they pass legislation they haven't even read. We're the ones who stupidly continue to pay into systems that ratchet up the dependency state. We're the ones who don't burn Washington to the ground when they talk about giving voting rights to illegal aliens and tax rebates to people who never paid taxes to begin with. In order to fix our system, we'd have to take millions of our people and set them adrift on barges in the middle of the Atlantic.

+1


Minus the term limits and politician age standards the rest is already allowed to happen freely. The problem goes back to what 2Sheds has already mentioned. We've seen candidates take shots as a third party candidate only to be shot down by the voters themselves.

We look to the other multi-party nations and see....a two party system made up of dozens of members all backing each other but in a much more confusing way. The only difference is that you can pretend that you voted for something "different" although you already know which side your candidate is going to side with (once again liberal or conservative).

Term limits sound good but its got its own problems. Usually lack of experience leads to some expensive mistakes. The fact that most incumbents have to really screw up before the people of a district decide to elect someone new (even if within the same party) shows to just how lazy many can be.

[Universals]

What you're trying to build - what you're asking for - is a political system that's better than the people it serves. The problem isn't the system, it's We the People. We're the ones who selfishly keep sending these dinosaurs back to Washington. We're the ones who tolerate it when they write laws that consolidate their power at the expense of the country. We're the ones who do nothing when they pass legislation they haven't even read. We're the ones who stupidly continue to pay into systems that ratchet up the dependency state. We're the ones who don't burn Washington to the ground when they talk about giving voting rights to illegal aliens and tax rebates to people who never paid taxes to begin with. In order to fix our system, we'd have to take millions of our people and set them adrift on barges in the middle of the Atlantic.

I will disagree with you on the basis that the longer these folks stay in office the harder it becomes for a new comer to defeat them in congressional election. They are hugely advantaged when it comes to name recognition as well as donations which are the key to winning elections in the US. Without donations or name recognition ( which you can only get through expensive outreach programs including ads) , nobody will even know that you are running for office. However, when these cronies get in the pockets of big donors while protecting their interest in the corridors of power.Chris Dodd (IMO) is a great example. This guy, at the last check, he's donation tally has less than 1% coming from his constituents, while the rest come from the fat cats. Country wide and all those other financial firms have been keeping him in office. Term limits are important if they weren't, they won't be imposed on the president.

[Ordie]

* More Political Parties

No body is stopping you


* Member's of Congress who are Independents should be allowed to stand
alone and not caucus with one the two major parties.

No body is stopping them.
But I wish them good luck in getting any bill passed.


* There should be a retirement age that matches with the rest of the public
-A 90 year old man making decision healthcare is not the best for
country I think.

It should be up to the voters to hire or fire respresentatives. Not legislation. Elder statesmens can be highly valued for thier institutional memory and leadership.

That is something we lack in California where term limits created a revolving door rookie politicians with no motivation for compromises.


-Joe Biden has been in the Senate (before becoming VP) since he was 29
yrs old. that's 36 yrs and he'll still be there if not for the VP post

The Vice President is still a voting member of the Senate. He usually votes to break a deadlock.


They are not continuously reelected because they are the best for the job but because they’ve curried the favor of every big donor in district or state as the case may be.

In the end, its the voters that makes the decisions. Keep in mind that bad people are sent to Washington by good people who don't vote.

If you don't like the system, there's nobody stopping you from voting or creating your own political movement. Or volunteering for a canidate.

Politics is akin to making sausages. You really don't want to know how they are made. Yet it's the human means of sorting issues within our familes, work, community and country.

This is why third or alternative parties fail to materialize. They tend to be engrossed within thier politics at the exclusion of others. They usually end up being the spoilers to benefit the status quo.

Ross Perot helped Clinton get elected just as Ralph Nader help Bush Jr. get elected.

[Fat Lazy American]

I am pleased with this country and its political system.

Pretty wacky, huh?

[Mackie]

Hang every lobbiest in front of the capitol. Hard but works.

[Universals]

You sound like a retired congressman.

No body is stopping you

If you are not aware, US runs a 2 party system. A thriving third party is not part of the plan.




No body is stopping them.
But I wish them good luck in getting any bill passed.

That's the Irony of it. can't quench fire with fire.


It should be up to the voters to hire or fire respresentatives. Not legislation. Elder statesmens can be highly valued for thier institutional memory and leadership.

Really? how come Presidential third term is not up to the people? most of those folks with" lifetime contracts" in capitol are cronies and mostly in pockets of big donors. That's why many of the times these congresspeople go unopposed in their districts or state...a free country like America? Bro that's sad. If that's not evidience of the systemic flaws, I don't know what is.



The Vice President is still a voting member of the Senate. He usually votes to break a deadlock.

Yes he votes to break tie but he's not a senator. He's the Vice President. Voting to break tie doesn't make him a Senator!

[brainplay]

You sound like a retired congressman.


If you are not aware, US runs a 2 party system. A thriving third party is not part of the plan.

There have been dozens of attempts at 3rd and even 4th parties since the Whigs disappeared. Even when the US had several parties they all fell to one side or another. Why didn't they succeed? Paul, Perot, Nader? They all had big followings but no one would vote for them. Various reasons not to do so as well. 3rd and 4th parties can happen at any time. Getting people to vote for them is a different story. Trying to say that there is some conspiracy to not let a 3rd party in is asinine.

We had a bigshot 3rd party big talker here in Texas this last election running for governor. He got lots of airtime and had a big grass roots push. He was beat out by the liberal guy who's name I've already forgotten. No conspiracy. He just couldn't convince anyone that he was the right choice (thank the baby jesus p-)).

Maybe if a 3rd and 4th party candidate would happen if they weren't as bat-**** nuts as the previous guys have been.

[Universals]

There have been dozens of attempts at 3rd and even 4th parties since the Whigs disappeared. Even when the US had several parties they all fell to one side or another. Why didn't they succeed? Paul, Perot, Nader? They all had big followings but no one would vote for them. Various reasons not to do so as well. 3rd and 4th parties can happen at any time. Getting people to vote for them is a different story. Trying to say that there is some conspiracy to not let a 3rd party in is asinine.

We had a bigshot 3rd party big talker here in Texas this last election running for governor. He got lots of airtime and had a big grass roots push. He was beat out by the liberal guy who's name I've already forgotten. No conspiracy. He just couldn't convince anyone that he was the right choice (thank the baby jesus p-)).

Maybe if a 3rd and 4th party candidate would happen if they weren't as bat-**** nuts as the previous guys have been.

You miss the point. A third party under current system is a sham.
Anybody elected as a third party or independent still have caucus with one of the larger one by law. In other words, you are essentially a proxy for either party (you chose the lesser of two evil).
People know that under current conditions that a third party isn't viable that why they don't vote that way. That doesn’t mean that if the system was changed to create a viable multiparty system that people aren’t ready to vote. The Democratic Party is likely to splinter into progressive and the Blue Dogs, Libertarians are likely to break out of the Republican Party. A lot of people who has these affiliation such as Ron Paul only stays with the larger Major parties due to the constraints of the system.
Besides, about a third of the people in this country consider themselves Independents. So, don't discount the need for such a change pal.

[Ordie]

The fact of the matter is that US Political parties are not ideologically fixed but very broad.

This reflects the general attitude of the majority of Americans who are independents and moderates.

Multiple political parties thrive within the Parlamentary system because the government of the day is determined by the majority of seats. This gives minor parties much more clout to develop coalitions and alliances to form a government.

Our Federal system is the opposite. The Head of State is elected seperately from the Congress. This allows canidates to get elected based on local issues and character, not on political affiliation.

Therefore it is not uncommon for an American to vote for a President of one party and a local representative of another. Thus making US political parties less relevant than thier European counterparts.

However, thanks to Karl Rove, 2006 congressional mid-term elections is seen as one of the first "parlamentarian" elections where voters voted for the Political Party rather than individuals. I think that was an anomoly than a norm.

In this last election. US political parties are becoming weak institutions. Both Ron Paul and Obama both were able to use the web and fund raise alot of money independent from both the RNC and DNC. Both Ron Paul and Obama used the branding of political parties but offered alternative visions apart from the status quo.

The future:
- Expect open primaries
- Expect more independent voters
- Expect purple states
- Expect political party branding over ideology

[brainplay]

You miss the point. A third party under current system is a sham.
Anybody elected as a third party or independent still have caucus with one of the larger one by law. In other words, you are essentially a proxy for either party (you chose the lesser of two evil).

By law? Can you point out which law that would fall under? Its one thing to have a Congressional caucus whose members are already members of a declared party. Its another when you actually declare a party.

Its ironic that you put it that way. The multiple parties of other nations caucus as if they were CMO's. In the end there are only two power bloc's and 90% of the time you know who is going to vote with who from the onset. When you start to look at parties like states the similarities to our electoral system are scary.


People know that under current conditions that a third party isn't viable that why they don't vote that way. That doesn’t mean that if the system was changed to create a viable multiparty system that people aren’t ready to vote. The Democratic Party is likely to splinter into progressive and the Blue Dogs, Libertarians are likely to break out of the Republican Party. A lot of people who has these affiliation such as Ron Paul only stays with the larger Major parties due to the constraints of the system.
Besides, about a third of the people in this country consider themselves Independents. So, don't discount the need for such a change pal.

This might happen, but neither party is strong enough to accomplish any legislation on their own. In the end they'll caucus with the Republican's or Democrats to get some of what they want.

[Henry's Fork]

Guide to Fix American troubled Political Systems

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/9776/secondamendment.jpg (http://img40.imageshack.us/i/secondamendment.jpg/)

p-)....................

[Universals]

By law? Can you point out which law that would fall under? Its one thing to have a Congressional caucus whose members are already members of a declared party. Its another when you actually declare a party.

Its ironic that you put it that way. The multiple parties of other nations caucus as if they were CMO's. In the end there are only two power bloc's and 90% of the time you know who is going to vote with who from the onset. When you start to look at parties like states the similarities to our electoral system are scary.



This might happen, but neither party is strong enough to accomplish any legislation on their own. In the end they'll caucus with the Republican's or Democrats to get some of what they want.

Is the US a two Party system? if so why?

If you answer this question, then we wont have an argument.

[Ordie]

Is the US a two Party system? if so why?.

The US Political Parties are more like broad coalitions than a single ideological entity.

The majority of members within US political parties usually consider local constituent issues above partisan ideology. More often than not reflecting the values and norms of the constituency.

[CantGetRight]

What you're trying to build - what you're asking for - is a political system that's better than the people it serves. The problem isn't the system, it's We the People. We're the ones who selfishly keep sending these dinosaurs back to Washington. We're the ones who tolerate it when they write laws that consolidate their power at the expense of the country. We're the ones who do nothing when they pass legislation they haven't even read. We're the ones who stupidly continue to pay into systems that ratchet up the dependency state. We're the ones who don't burn Washington to the ground when they talk about giving voting rights to illegal aliens and tax rebates to people who never paid taxes to begin with. In order to fix our system, we'd have to take millions of our people and set them adrift on barges in the middle of the Atlantic.


your my hero

[MichaelF]

Unicameralism.

[DaveDash]

Before you want to fix it, I'd first like to see what you think is wrong with it.

Feel free to go galivanting down the path that parlimentary systems use, but take a look over the pond and see how well things are over there before decrying the grass is greener on the other side.

The biggest problem with the American system is not the American system. It's the people, who show either too much apathy or indoctrined hatred of the other side.
While George W. Bush was president, there were Americans that hated him more than Osama Bin Laden. The same probably holds true for Obama in some circles, and there's your problem. No amount of system changes is going to fix that.

There is also the fact that America is a huge country. You can't look at say, Sweden, and go "we should do that". The fact of the matter is Democractic/Republic systems are starting to outgrow their optimal size all across the globe. There is a reason the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire. Plato had a lot of interesting things to say on this in his book The Republic that are still very relevant today.

[Universals]

Before you want to fix it, I'd first like to see what you think is wrong with it.

Feel free to go galivanting down the path that parlimentary systems use, but take a look over the pond and see how well things are over there before decrying the grass is greener on the other side.

The biggest problem with the American system is not the American system. It's the people, who show either too much apathy or indoctrined hatred of the other side.
While George W. Bush was president, there were Americans that hated him more than Osama Bin Laden. The same probably holds true for Obama in some circles, and there's your problem. No amount of system changes is going to fix that.

There is also the fact that America is a huge country. You can't look at say, Sweden, and go "we should do that". The fact of the matter is Democractic/Republic systems are starting to outgrow their optimal size all across the globe. There is a reason the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire. Plato had a lot of interesting things to say on this in his book The Republic that are still very relevant today.

What are you talking about? Apparently you didn't read my post.

[DaveDash]

What are you talking about? Apparently you didn't read my post.

You're right, I missed the first line. My bad.

I think it would be hard to eliminate lobbys within the U.S. tho, given so much money within private organisations. Limiting terms won't really do it.

However cleaning out the old definitely can't hurt.

[asch]

Senators and Congresspeople going for a 3rd term should be taken outside and beaten with sticks.
i positive to see this implemented to any politican in the world :)

[Universals]

You're right, I missed the first line. My bad.

I think it would be hard to eliminate lobbys within the U.S. tho, given so much money within private organisations. Limiting terms won't really do it.

However cleaning out the old definitely can't hurt.

Yea I agree

[Durandal]

I am not too sure how we fix our system.

I am not too sure we want to fix it, because fixing it involves bloodshed and Americans, the people at large are not up for the task. We are talking about a group of people who have better records in voting for some reality TV show than they do in local politics.

The problem with discussions like this is that someone's ideas of fixing the system might run contrary to mine. I think its also a mistake to think that the nation built by the founding fathers over 200 years ago with a population, the fraction of what it is now, in a world where communications can happen instantaneously, and decisions made at 6 AM can have and have effects far ranging hours, if not minutes later world wide could survive now.

Oh it might, but I also think that none of us would agree what they wanted. Based on what I have read, my view of folks like Jefferson, Washington, Madison, and the like is that they A) were deists (not Christians) B) intellectual liberals (in the traditional sense of liberalism) and C) absolutely feared a government that was truly OF the people. The believed no good would come of a national government led BY the people and truly determined BY the people. You can also see how they felt about the clear division between States and Federal governments as well.

I am not even too sure where I would begin in terms of making change. Much of the change would not even be in HOW we did things as reducing WHAT the government does.

I somehow how doubt that over 300 million Americans can agree on it and I'll argue that 75% or more of our population is so ignorant in terms of government's role in our lives that the conversation would get quite ugly.

The problem with the original framework of our nation is that it was built by intellectual patriots who had an idea that they managed to agree on...more or less...and not kill each other over....like their European cousins. It was far from perfect but worked so long as a minority ruled and the original founders were still living or could install the same sense of duty and lack of party politics that run contrary to today's society. That changed over time...ever during their lives.

We are now a nation of people content of collecting "stuff", enjoying mindless entertainment, and eating processed food. We are nation of laws that prevent and radical shift, but rather a homogenized "go with the flow" government that is slow and cumbersome and restrictive.

The alternative would be ugly at this point...American has been and can very easily related to a violently conflicting set of states or religious/non-religious groups that would tear apart the fabric of what remains of our society.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Return to the Empire, Adopt a Westminster government and all will be forgiven.

[Dragonscript]

Return to the Empire, Adopt a Westminster government and all will be forgiven.


Sounds interesting. What's your tax policy?

[brainplay]

Is the US a two Party system? if so why?

If you answer this question, then we wont have an argument.

It is a two party system because a multi-party system was found to be too weak in the long run. You forget that the US started out with Republicans, Democratic's, Whigs, and Ferderalists being the top parties (Republican-Democrat actually started as a single entity) with a slew of others that eventually were absorbed by the larger parties. There are actually dozens of parties all over the US. But if they don't have enough votes to get an electorate in a state then they aren't going to get air time and be virtually unknown. Then they fall into obscurity.

Remember Nader's Green Party? Not a single state was swept up. Thats not a "deemed by law" thrid party system. That just "the people" saying they're more comfortable with voting for a known party.

[Universals]

Sounds interesting. What's your tax policy?

13% flat tax just like mother Russia!! lol

[acosta]

i just hope all the factions within the party voice out instead smuthered for the "unison"

[Chiptox]

We are now a nation of people content of collecting "stuff", enjoying mindless entertainment, and eating processed food. We are nation of laws that prevent and radical shift, but rather a homogenized "go with the flow" government that is slow and cumbersome and restrictive.
The Twinkie Defense lives!

[maw]

#1. to restore democracy in america we need to abolish corporate personhood.
#2. restore the feca act.
#3. implement term limits.

[MichaelF]

Move the Capital to Rapid City, South Dakota.

Overnight.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

#1. to restore democracy in america we need to abolish corporate personhood.
#2. restore the feca act.
#3. implement term limits.

Term Limits do not work.

[Universals]

Term Limits do not work.

works for the Presidency doesn't it?

[Umbro2914]

It is a two party system because a multi-party system was found to be too weak in the long run. You forget that the US started out with Republicans, Democratic's, Whigs, and Ferderalists being the top parties (Republican-Democrat actually started as a single entity) with a slew of others that eventually were absorbed by the larger parties. There are actually dozens of parties all over the US. But if they don't have enough votes to get an electorate in a state then they aren't going to get air time and be virtually unknown. Then they fall into obscurity.

Remember Nader's Green Party? Not a single state was swept up. Thats not a "deemed by law" thrid party system. That just "the people" saying they're more comfortable with voting for a known party.

The legal restrictions on any third party are ridiclious, and yet you blame the message of the third party.

Ralph Nadar was barred from participating in any of the main debates
His campaign had to devote much time, money and energy simply getting on the ballots in all the states, rather then actually campaigning and getting his message accross to the ingnorant masses.

And who "made" this decesion that a multi party system is weak in the long run?

[MaverickCowboy]

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.