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?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
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.
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
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.
Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
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)
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"...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?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"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?
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Seriously though, I think it's far too much hope for...good luck, I guess.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
