Reform representative government

7 Responses to Reform representative government

  • totheroots says:

    This is worded to vaguely. Need to talk about campaign funding reform and changes which allow for third parties

  • ballardparent says:

    Clearly power corrupts. There is no question. Good people go into politics. Let them serve and get out before they have a chance to gain too much power. It is insane that one person can serve in the government for 30 years. That is not representative government.

  • b_FirF says:

    Money out of politics is a must. A “third” party system is all fine and dandy until you are part of the “fourth” party or the “fifth” etc, and then become a silenced minority. Surely we need a method for an infinite number of parties to participate in the political process, without it devolving into mass chaos.

    As far as term limitations, “corruption” is not isolated to the political process, it is simply how human interaction works. You are less likely to want to help someone out if you know they will harm you in the future, which equates to helping those who will help you. This evolves into “corruption” when this simple human dynamic is utilized as leverage.

    So, it is about what our representatives do, vs how long they do it, and there is a fine line between compromise/negotiation and the utilization of unfair leverage.

    The crux of the issue is that it is impossible to choose a direction that everyone will agree with or is in the best interest of all those involved. That said, there is a path of least resistance, and we need a method of determining that direction and removing representatives who do not follow it.

  • Retyku says:

    Voters in the United States do not have the right / ability to recall either a Congressman or a Senator. Changing the Constitution to allow this should refocus the attention of these Officials on the voters that they were actually elected to represent. The threshold for allowing a recall vote to be called should be kept low. A petition signed by 10% to 15% of the constitucency should allow maximum responsiveness. This should also cure the type of deadlocks that our legislators have been giving us lately. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that sizable crowds screaming in the streets across the nation demanding this right would have an immediate galvanizing effect all by itself.

  • nepharous says:

    I would argue that the Federalist system is no longer effiecient and should be scrapped. Reforms to a system that is utterly corrupt would only corrupt the reforms. Reforms are an evolutionary dead end at this point in world history. It is time to create a new system. Parlimentary systems and coalition governments are more agile and accountable to The People.

    • abe says:

      The current 435 members in the House of Representatives are too easily corralled by selfish interests that plague the capitol. We need to bring our Representatives back to our home districts (they can vote electronically) and we need to maximize apportionment.
      The current apportionment of the house is set to 435 members. At this nation’s founding there were approximately the maximum allowed* 1 congressman for every 30,000 citizens. If this ratio had not been abandoned today we would have a house of representatives with over 10,000 members.
      It currently requires well over a million dollars on average to get elected to the House. An increase in apportionment would allow a people without millions of dollars or flexible morals to campaign and get elected to a seat.
      How can they serve their communities if they don’t drive the same roads, send their kids to the same schools, and drink the same water as those living in their communities?
      Increases the difficulty of DC based lobbyists who meet with our representatives. (travel expenses , number of votes needed to corrupt a vote)
      Makes gerrymandering districts a thing of the past.
      Increases time available for representatives to meet with residents of their District.

      This can be acomplished with a very short bill with no amendments. A no vote would require representatives to explain why they want to spend time in DC instead of thier home district.

      *see article 1 section 2 clause 3 of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_3:_Apportionment_of_Representatives_and_taxes

  • dumbth says:

    Term limits is a waste of time. It just makes for a revolving door and does nothing to improve the system nor the qualtity of candidates nor does it encourage elected officials to do their job (represent the people not the moneyed interests) better. Taking the money out of politics (e.g. public funding) is a sensible idea and I support it. I see no evidence that a parliamentary system works better. That’s what they have in Greece, and Italy, for instance, and it hasn’t worked out well there. Besides finance reform what makes sense to me: (1) Direct election of the President. The Electoral College is a bad idea that should have been abolished a hundred years ago. It means that voters in “swing” states have a disproportianate effect on the result and many votes effectively don’t count. (2) The “two senators per state” rule gives too much power to small states and low population states. (3) The Senate “collegiality” rules (e.g. filibuster, unanamous consent, and others) encourage bad behavior. (This last item could be fixed by Senators any time they decide they want to. They just don’t want to so far.)