I Am Disgusted With Our Corrupt Government
Does the United States need a new government?
I don't mean a new form of government; keep the democracy. I only mean a restructuring of government and perhaps an influx of new blood.
I believe the nation has become too partisan, locking us in gridlock and polarizing us into opposing sides at war rather than fellow Americans with differences of opinion. It's a two-party system; these results are inevitable. But is there a way to change this situation? Is there a way to build a government that garners wider support of the people even if the elected officials are not an individual's first choice? I think there is.
First, yes, keep the decennial census, and draw apportioned district lines effective the following year based on that census. But perhaps alter the language governing the shaping of districts from "as compact as practicable" to "as square as practicable without regard to the political ideals within the district".
What would happen if we abolished political primaries for federal office? We need political parties to challenge each other's thoughts and ideas. This is where innovation comes from. Innovation prevents stagnation. But do we need the polarization and politicization that is gumming up government process? Also, what would happen if every member of Federal government was directly elected by the people without an electoral college? I want to see a general election with more than two choices. I want to see ballots that allow the voter a choice to vote for a single candidate OR a preferential list of any number of the several candidates. I want to see the votes counted by the Ranked Pairs method developed by Nicolaus Tideman. Would this be enough to elect officers that a greater number of We the People can find common ground with?
What if Congress was a unicameral legislative body? Vote on a bill ONCE, but count that vote twice, once for a total vote from the assembly, and again for a vote from the representatives from each state, so that only after passing a majority of BOTH counts can the bill pass. This would satisfy the reason for the Connecticut compromise, that being to prevent a few large states from steamrolling the more numerous but smaller states. It would also be more efficient as we wouldn't have this constant game of ping-pong between the houses.
What if these legislators were allowed to serve no more than five consecutive 2-yr terms, then sit out for two consecutive terms before being allowed to run again? What if at the beginning of each 2-yr term the legislative body had to renegotiate the rules by which it operates? What if every bill passed had to be renegotiated every ten years? What if riders were unconstitutional? Would these things be enough to keep the legislative assembly fresh and the body of legislation from becoming oppressive and antiquated?
What if not just the President but also Cabinet members and Justices were elected by the People, also with terms limited as with legislators?
I don't mean a new form of government; keep the democracy. I only mean a restructuring of government and perhaps an influx of new blood.
I believe the nation has become too partisan, locking us in gridlock and polarizing us into opposing sides at war rather than fellow Americans with differences of opinion. It's a two-party system; these results are inevitable. But is there a way to change this situation? Is there a way to build a government that garners wider support of the people even if the elected officials are not an individual's first choice? I think there is.
First, yes, keep the decennial census, and draw apportioned district lines effective the following year based on that census. But perhaps alter the language governing the shaping of districts from "as compact as practicable" to "as square as practicable without regard to the political ideals within the district".
What would happen if we abolished political primaries for federal office? We need political parties to challenge each other's thoughts and ideas. This is where innovation comes from. Innovation prevents stagnation. But do we need the polarization and politicization that is gumming up government process? Also, what would happen if every member of Federal government was directly elected by the people without an electoral college? I want to see a general election with more than two choices. I want to see ballots that allow the voter a choice to vote for a single candidate OR a preferential list of any number of the several candidates. I want to see the votes counted by the Ranked Pairs method developed by Nicolaus Tideman. Would this be enough to elect officers that a greater number of We the People can find common ground with?
What if Congress was a unicameral legislative body? Vote on a bill ONCE, but count that vote twice, once for a total vote from the assembly, and again for a vote from the representatives from each state, so that only after passing a majority of BOTH counts can the bill pass. This would satisfy the reason for the Connecticut compromise, that being to prevent a few large states from steamrolling the more numerous but smaller states. It would also be more efficient as we wouldn't have this constant game of ping-pong between the houses.
What if these legislators were allowed to serve no more than five consecutive 2-yr terms, then sit out for two consecutive terms before being allowed to run again? What if at the beginning of each 2-yr term the legislative body had to renegotiate the rules by which it operates? What if every bill passed had to be renegotiated every ten years? What if riders were unconstitutional? Would these things be enough to keep the legislative assembly fresh and the body of legislation from becoming oppressive and antiquated?
What if not just the President but also Cabinet members and Justices were elected by the People, also with terms limited as with legislators?
41-45, M
