T O P I C ��� R E V I E W
|
Omega
Member # 91
|
posted
There are things I consider absolutely basic if we're going to live in a free country with a sane system of government. These include:
* Government transparency. Everything the government does, excepting military actions, should be ultimately available for public review. No branch of government is above the law. * Candidate transparency. We should expect political candidates to be fully open about every dollar they take in and spend, with instant disclosure. * Balanced budget. No government should live outside its means. * Low inflation of the money supply. Creation of new money should be strictly controlled in an open and easily understandable process. The Federal Reserve needs to die. * Single-issue bills. Riders should not be allowed. Every bill should have a single subject, and any law passed otherwise should be thrown out. * Open voting process. The voting process should be fully inspectable at any point in the process, including any hardware and software used. The voter must be able to confirm their vote. * No preferred status based on political party. The Republican and Democratic parties have it far easier than other parties. * More direct government accountability. Any politician with approval ratings as low as Bush's for as long as Bush has been there shouldn't still be in office. This applies to all levels of government, down to police use of tasers. * IP reform. The copyright and patent systems are totally screwed up. They need to be entirely thrown out and replaced. * Government waste. Every dollar should be accounted for. No more of this garbage where billions vanish into who knows where. * Electoral college. It's stupid and needed to go away decades ago.
That's at a bare minimum. Other things that I'd love to see happen would include scaling punishments to fit crimes, an understandable tax code, focus on infrastructure, elimination or reduction of certain classes of crimes, and voting using the Schulze Method.
These are not issues of party or ideology. They're hardly even political. These are issues of civics. Remember that word, civics? I know there are people who agree with me. I can't imagine well informed people that wouldn't agree with at least most of what I've laid out. But our opinions apparently have no weight, because none of this ever happens. None of it is even talked about at any significant level. There are groups for certain things, like the Open Voting Consortium and Open Debates. But is there any group whose nature is to support these ideas, at least in large part, without regard to party or politics?
If there's not, can I start one?
|
Jason Abbadon
Member # 882
|
posted
Dont forget to outlaw lobbiests- or at least criminalize "gifts" (read: bribes) from lobbiests. Nothng undermines our political system more than special intrest groups having more sway than elected representitives of the people.
I am fine with people having to pass a class/course on civics and ethics prior to being allowed to vote....definitely prior to being allowed to run for office.
Eliminate the concept of mandatory sentencing- each case is unique and deserves attention that cookie-cutter laws cant provide.
|
Daniel Butler
Member # 1689
|
posted
Hah! That won't work, the government doesn't want a free country Seriously though, I think it's far too much hope for...good luck, I guess.
|
B.J.
Member # 858
|
posted
I either agree or don't have much of an opinion on everything else, but I did have two issues: quote: Originally posted by Omega: * Government transparency. Everything the government does, excepting military actions, should be ultimately available for public review. No branch of government is above the law.
What about things that are labeled as classified, secret, or top secret? There's a thing called National Security that applies to a lot more than just military actions. Okay, a few have abused that label, but overall most things are labeled for a good reason. quote: * Electoral college. It's stupid and needed to go away decades ago.
I've waffled back and forth on this one many times, but in defense of the practice, eliminating it would tend to marginalize the effect of voters from low population states. So the only "loud" voice those states would have in the federal government would be their state Senators.
|
The Ginger Beacon
Member # 1585
|
posted
Regarding the electoral college - voting for somebody who may or may not decide they like the candidate you do?
Okey dokey.
Why not just have a directly elected president. If it is desirable, weight the votes according to population on a state basis, but even that I think is pushing it. I confess though, I don't get the point of a US President.
Now before everyone gets angry at the stupid British person, what I mean is, I don't understand why in the US, and most other dictatorships, so much exceutive power is held by one person, or small team of persons, with little to hold them in check.
It also seems that the US government is set up in such a layered beuracratic mess that it's a wonder any thing gets done.
(It exactly the same over here too, but for different reasons. I'm still holding out for proportional representaion in Westmister, but that would probably make the parliamenary system slow down even more)
|
Omega
Member # 91
|
posted
quote: Dont forget to outlaw lobbiests- or at least criminalize "gifts" (read: bribes) from lobbiests. Nothng undermines our political system more than special intrest groups having more sway than elected representitives of the people.
Agreed.
quote: Eliminate the concept of mandatory sentencing- each case is unique and deserves attention that cookie-cutter laws cant provide.
One I considered but left off was making punishments fit crimes. Sentencing guidelines are fine, but mandatory minima are typically not.
quote: What about things that are labeled as classified, secret, or top secret? There's a thing called National Security that applies to a lot more than just military actions. Okay, a few have abused that label, but overall most things are labeled for a good reason.
Agreed, but there need to be well-defined limits.
quote: I've waffled back and forth on this one many times, but in defense of the practice, eliminating it would tend to marginalize the effect of voters from low population states.
But the present system marginalizes far more people. If your preferred candidate is guaranteed to lose your state, your vote has zero effect. If he's guaranteed to win, almost zero effect. So the only votes that actually matter are those in swing states for major party candidates.
|
TSN
Member # 31
|
posted
"...eliminating it would tend to marginalize the effect of voters from low population states." How do you figure? If the votes were counted directly, every person's vote would be worth exactly the same as every other person's vote. What state you're from wouldn't even enter into it.
"I can't imagine well informed people that wouldn't agree with at least most of what I've laid out." See, there's your problem. Where are you going to find well-informed people?
|
Omega
Member # 91
|
posted
quote: "...eliminating it would tend to marginalize the effect of voters from low population states."
How do you figure? If the votes were counted directly, every person's vote would be worth exactly the same as every other person's vote. What state you're from wouldn't even enter into it.
I suppose the idea is that it wouldn't so much marginalize those votes as it would reduce their present weight as compared to an individual vote from another state. Except that their present weight is vastly overestimated in most cases.
As for where I'm going to find well-informed people, well, that's what this group I'm proposing is for. Well-informed people can identify with them and point at a common set of goals, regardless of political ideology. And then we can say that yes, there are more of us out there than we thought.
|
Kosh
Member # 167
|
posted
Throw away the parties, they suck.
Keep the college. I may not always like the results, but I'd hate to see what happens when it's gone.
|
TSN
Member # 31
|
posted
"I may not always like the results, but I'd hate to see what happens when it's gone." Well, George W. Bush never would have become president, for one thing. Also, the election of 1876 probably wouldn't have ended Reconstruction and set back race-based civil rights by the better part of a century.
|
Kosh
Member # 167
|
posted
Now those parts sucked,
|
Jason Abbadon
Member # 882
|
posted
At least make it law that the Elector has to vote based on the popular vote of his/her district- against the popular vote! Currently, an elector might vote against the will of their district. How is that democracy?
I'd establish an ten year term limit on Supreme Court appointments or at least allow for removal of a Justice if called to a popular (national)vote: currently there is an obvious political agenda on the court and regardless of the will of the people, their rulings are law....which is counter to democracy.
|
Omega
Member # 91
|
posted
Well, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a representative republic. Electors are another form of representative, and representatives are theoretically free to do what they please and face the consequences of not being reelected. But yes, the problem exists that our representative republic isn't terribly representative, due to the long lag time to remove someone from office. A senator could do something stupid and not have to deal with it for six years.
|
MinutiaeMan
Member # 444
|
posted
I watched the debates this evening with my roommate and a couple of his friends; a few comments that I posted to Twitter might prove enlightening:
- "A lot of us saw this train wreck coming." Does that make this crisis like the steamroller scene from "Austin Powers"? "NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"
- Major realization in foreign policy: Iran is Doctor Horrible, and the USA is Captain Hammer.
- I don't know what's sadder: the bitter politicking I see on the screen, or the two guys sleeping through the debate across the room from me.
You think this might help describe our problem?
|
Jason Abbadon
Member # 882
|
posted
Every day, McCain looks more like Casper the friendly ghost. Distrurbing as hell.
The Onion has the funniest Palin article to date.
|
Ritten
Member # 417
|
posted
With this election either party is going to make the people losers. This is worse than the 2000 election, and that was scary enough.
The electoral college was fine when people were far less informed, but now it as got to go.
Omega's right on the spot for the riders, which is where most of the pork is, I've been mentioning that for years. A bill for that would end up with so many riders creating loopholes that it would be useless.
Then the fact that the general population knows that what they want means squat to the politicos after they are voted in that they do not care.
There are two or three Supreme Court spots that may open from retirements, and if McCain gets in he will appoint people that will set back women's rights with the reversal of Roe vs. Wade. While I do not condone abortion I do condemn the government for getting into people's lives far far too much.
Palin is a lifetime member of the NRA, while Obama is anti 2nd Amendment.
I think McCain's choice of Palin was only to try for the women voters that want a woman in at least the VP spot. Most women I have talked to see through the ploy though, so all is not lost to narrow minded thinking.
A vote for anyone else is a vote against Obama and McCain. Nader may get my vote this year.
|
Sol System
Member # 30
|
posted
"Scandinavians."
|
Nim
Member # 205
|
posted
What about those people?
|
Mars Needs Women
Member # 1505
|
posted
LoL, my retard baby is sleeping.
|
Sol System
Member # 30
|
posted
I. . . what?
Anyway, just saying that Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland (to stretch the definition just a little I guess) are near the top of just about every list for non-corrupt governments and people's satisfaction in their leadership in general. Well, and New Zealand. And, uh, Singapore, but it has certain other qualities that might (or, heck, might not) weaken its appeal.
|
Jason Abbadon
Member # 882
|
posted
Mars was refering to that Onion piece I linked in.
I think smaller governments tend to be better run and less corrupt- for the obvious reasons of complexity and ease of oversight. Also, I find the English language corrupts the soul, discourages rational discourse and encourages all manner of sin: accept no substitutions.
|
Nim
Member # 205
|
posted
With what should I communicate with you then, moosebites?
After all our opposition against Stasi and KGB and the murdered journalists we have lost in the former Soviet union and the DDR, I get really angry when ignorant foreigners (from traditionally right-ish countries) call my country socialist, in a derogatory "Stalin"-sense.
The leading party in our country has never been Socialists, they are called social-democrats, and there's a world of difference when adding that word. But hey, guilt by association, for the win. We actually have a party called Left Party and they have never held the prime minister post, not once in the 90 years of their existence. And the Left Party don't easily ally themselves with the social-democrats, not even when the extreme Right-wing party, Christian party and the Centrists go into coalition (like four years ago, which has led them into power).
If anything, we got problems with hate crimes, "nationalism" and ultra-right grassroots parties that inofficially support neo-nazis. The largest of those parties actually got enough votes last election to grant them a damn seat in parliament. The global community don't know jack about these things.
The only thing a visiting outsider or foreigner would notice that in any way sets us swedes apart from other countries (except for all the little blonde hotties) is that when riding the escalators in subways and malls, we automatically stand on the right-hand side, so that people in a hurry can pass on the left side. Maybe we are not alone there, I've never been to SWITZERLAND. (!)
|
The Ginger Beacon
Member # 1585
|
posted
Don't, it's rubbish.
|
Jason Abbadon
Member # 882
|
posted
We, here in the States, have no shortage of neo-nazi/white supremacist nutjobs: many of which are in very well funded organizations.
Strangely, some of them voted for Obama, thinking that a bi-racial president will unite the oppressed white man and inspire them to rise up... Or some crazyland bullshit.
Of course, even though their numbers range in the thousands (by some estimates), they represent only a very timy fraction of any given state's population.
|
Nim
Member # 205
|
posted
Well, you only need one teaspoon of rotten machine mayonnaise to spoil the fresh water supply of your standard war galleon.
|
TSN
Member # 31
|
posted
Oh, not that old cliché...
|
|