Design a more Perfect form of Government

[Nitack]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

I think we should have three different parties

Are there three specific parties written into law? Can those three parties not change? How do they change?

Originally Posted by Moontanman

each party would elect a Representative

How are they elected? Does each person get three votes, one for each party? If I were voting, I would vote for the candidate in each party closest to my ideals, which would in essence gradually pull parties in a particular direction. Are elections local, regional, statewide, or national? In some parliamentary systems the national party slates candidates and then their members are seated based on the proportion they receive of the national vote

Originally Posted by Moontanman

all three would be in power they would have to make decisions by agreeing among themselves.

What if they don't agree? Not all issues are polar, what happens when you have three different opinions on how to govern a particular issue?
A. Impose Sanctions on Russia for the invasion of Georgia
B. Let that part of the world deal with their own problems
C. Launch nukes and blow them to smithereens.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

It would take at least two of them to agree to make big decisions

Please define "big".

Originally Posted by Moontanman

The rest of the government should be similar to what we have today with sever restrictions on influence lobbying.

How would "the rest of the government" work in your three party system? Also, lobbying is not only people like me who are paid to talk on behalf of a population, any time you contact your representative you are lobbying. Also, what is wrong with lobbying? It is a person who is acting as the conduit for many other people to a legislator. Don't those people have the right to be heard?

Perhaps a more relevant question is this, what is your definition of lobbying?

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Line item veto power, less government is more, breaking the rules would mean immediate ouster instead of just a slap on the wrist like they have now. I'll think of some more later,

Line item veto was struck down as unconstitutional because it gives legislative power to the executive branch. Editing legislation is the domain of the legislature. Does that not slightly invalidate the legislative branch?

Who would enforce the "breaking of the rules and your gone" policy? Are there different severity levels in breaking the rules? If you speak out of turn in a committee meeting is that grounds for removal from the congress?

Also, does a federal body have the ability to overturn the will of the people that elected an official? Think about this one for a second... Each jurisdiction elects their own representative, if they feel that a legislator accused of accepting bribes best represents them don't they have the right to elect him/her?

Government is not so cut and dry is it?

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Nitack

Are there three specific parties written into law? Can those three parties not change? How do they change?

We have a two party system now, same thing only three.

How are they elected? Does each person get three votes, one for each party? If I were voting, I would vote for the candidate in each party closest to my ideals, which would in essence gradually pull parties in a particular direction. Are elections local, regional, statewide, or national? In some parliamentary systems the national party slates candidates and then their members are seated based on the proportion they receive of the national vote

Does each person get two votes Now? Each party would elect it's own representative for the tri-president along the lines of the way the two candidates for president are elected now but by popular vote, not an electoral college. The numbers of the rest of government would stay the same as now.

What if they don't agree? Not all issues are polar, what happens when you have three different opinions on how to govern a particular issue?
A. Impose Sanctions on Russia for the invasion of Georgia
B. Let that part of the world deal with their own problems
C. Launch nukes and blow them to smithereens.

To go to war would require the congress to support them, but decisions the president now makes would require at least two of them agree. If all three disagree then congress would choice.

Please define "big".

Any decision now made by the pres.

How would "the rest of the government" work in your three party system? Also, lobbying is not only people like me who are paid to talk on behalf of a population, any time you contact your representative you are lobbying. Also, what is wrong with lobbying? It is a person who is acting as the conduit for many other people to a legislator. Don't those people have the right to be heard?

I'm taking about influence peddling, big corporations influencing government officials. citizens can influence their own agendas as long as they aren't being paid or paying any one for influence.

Perhaps a more relevant question is this, what is your definition of lobbying?

See above

Line item veto was struck down as unconstitutional because it gives legislative power to the executive branch. Editing legislation is the domain of the legislature. Does that not slightly invalidate the legislative branch?

Yes and rightly so, the reason we need line item veto is because of pork barrel legislation piggy backing on other bills.

Who would enforce the "breaking of the rules and your gone" policy? Are there different severity levels in breaking the rules? If you speak out of turn in a committee meeting is that grounds for removal from the congress?

No I am talking about breaking laws, influences selling that sort of thing.

Also, does a federal body have the ability to overturn the will of the people that elected an official? Think about this one for a second... Each jurisdiction elects their own representative, if they feel that a legislator accused of accepting bribes best represents them don't they have the right to elect him/her?

If a person violates the law of the land (felonys) while in office in the course of his duties he should be fired.

Government is not so cut and dry is it?

Is to me.

[Nitack]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

We have a two party system now, same thing only three.

We don't have a two party system. Political parties have absolutely no establishment in the US constitution. They naturally developed due to people of like minded nature banding together. Our system is structured in such a way that only two parties are sustainable in the long term, but that was not the intent. The fact that we use winner take all districts promotes two opposing parties. This was intended though to give each smaller locality a voice, rather than cement a two party system.

Your comment lent itself to the idea of parties written into the structure of the government.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

1. Does each person get two votes Now? 2. Each party would elect it's own representative for the tri-president along the lines of the way the two candidates for president are elected now but by popular vote, not an electoral college. The numbers of the rest of government would stay the same as now.

1. In some states, yes. See Open Primary
2. The rest of this comment leads me to believe that you were actually referring to the executive branch in your three party system. Doesn't multiple executives defeat the purpose? The purpose of the executive was to have the ability to react to urgent situations immediately, such as war or invasion. Putting more than one person in that position and having the ability for that position to be hopelessly deadlocked (see Russia example) would defeat the main objective of the position, correct?

Originally Posted by Moontanman

To go to war would require the congress to support them, but decisions the president now makes would require at least two of them agree. If all three disagree then congress would choice.

Um... So if three people can not agree on a course of action you think 435 have a better chance? Also, war has always been an issue of contention between congress and the executive branch, War Powers Act. I don't think adding fuel to the fire will help.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

I'm taking about influence peddling, big corporations influencing government officials. citizens can influence their own agendas as long as they aren't being paid or paying any one for influence.

What is influence peddling? My boss was room mates with a senator, does he have undue influence on that senator? My co-worker (also a lobbyist) is married to the chief of staff for a US Representative, does she have undue influence? Like it or not, big corporations have rights too. Those corporations employ the majority of our citizens and if they hit hard times, their workers hit hard times. Being responsive to corporations is akin to being responsive to citizens. I'm not talking about being paid for votes, but legislators need to give corporations a seat at the table.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

See above

Seen

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Yes and rightly so, the reason we need line item veto is because of pork barrel legislation piggy backing on other bills.

But isn't it the legislatures job to determine what is appropriate spending and what is not? I personally hate government spending, but a line item veto invalidates the role of the legislature and places WAY too much power in the hands of one person. If you hate pork barrel legislation then contact your legislators and talk to your friends to do the same. I call my senators and rep weekly.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

No I am talking about breaking laws, influences selling that sort of thing.

Understood... who oversees that process? The executive can't, that would give the executive too much power over congress. If they did not vote his way then they are gone. Supreme Court... well it is outside their mandate unless you change it. Congress is supposed to police themselves, but we see how well that works. Term limits anyone? Ever wonder why the idea is so popular but never gets real consideration?

Originally Posted by Moontanman

If a person violates the law of the land (felonys) while in office in the course of his duties he should be fired.

Lets take Ted Stevens from Alaska. Recently brought up on charges for taking kickbacks. What if the people of Alaska still want to re-elect him? Letting the rest of the country dictate that Alaskans can not chose him invalidates their ability to chose their own leaders. It would violate the principles of representation when you disqualify the peoples choice. I think the only valid tactic would be to require a recall election if a legislator was convicted, but you would need to let that legislator be on the ballet if they met the requirements.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Is to me.

I have a very detailed knowledge of the US government and it is not clear to me...

[Moontanman]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Nitack

We don't have a two party system. Political parties have absolutely no establishment in the US constitution. They naturally developed due to people of like minded nature banding together. Our system is structured in such a way that only two parties are sustainable in the long term, but that was not the intent. The fact that we use winner take all districts promotes two opposing parties. This was intended though to give each smaller locality a voice, rather than cement a two party system.

Your comment lent itself to the idea of parties written into the structure of the government.

All intent aside a two party system is what we have.

1. In some states, yes. See Open Primary
2. The rest of this comment leads me to believe that you were actually referring to the executive branch in your three party system. Doesn't multiple executives defeat the purpose? The purpose of the executive was to have the ability to react to urgent situations immediately, such as war or invasion. Putting more than one person in that position and having the ability for that position to be hopelessly deadlocked (see Russia example) would defeat the main objective of the position, correct?

In my system only one vote, our system has worked real well hasn't it, especially in the last eight years. If not for bad decisions made for wrong reasons and influence of big oil we wouldn't have any government at all.

Um... So if three people can not agree on a course of action you think 435 have a better chance? Also, war has always been an issue of contention between congress and the executive branch, War Powers Act. I don't think adding fuel to the fire will help.

If it was a do or die decision i doubt that 435 people could be dead locked do you?

What is influence peddling? My boss was room mates with a senator, does he have undue influence on that senator? My co-worker (also a lobbyist) is married to the chief of staff for a US Representative, does she have undue influence? Like it or not, big corporations have rights too. Those corporations employ the majority of our citizens and if they hit hard times, their workers hit hard times. Being responsive to corporations is akin to being responsive to citizens. I'm not talking about being paid for votes, but legislators need to give corporations a seat at the table.

No big corporations and other special interest groups should not have a seat at the table. they have proved themselves incapable of doing anything but influencing the government for their own personal gain at the expense of good government and everyone else.

Seen



But isn't it the legislatures job to determine what is appropriate spending and what is not? I personally hate government spending, but a line item veto invalidates the role of the legislature and places WAY too much power in the hands of one person. If you hate pork barrel legislation then contact your legislators and talk to your friends to do the same. I call my senators and rep weekly.

yes but they need a check on themselves as well, far to often BS is pushed through attached to bills that need to be passed. this must stop. If you think contacting your legislators will stop or even have an affect on pork barrel politics then you are more naive than I am.

Understood... who oversees that process? The executive can't, that would give the executive too much power over congress. If they did not vote his way then they are gone. Supreme Court... well it is outside their mandate unless you change it. Congress is supposed to police themselves, but we see how well that works. Term limits anyone? Ever wonder why the idea is so popular but never gets real consideration?

Our government is obviously incapable of policing themselves. we need a system that allows some real feedback. Term limits would be a good start possibly but why take a man out of office that is doing a good job and let an amateur in?

Lets take Ted Stevens from Alaska. Recently brought up on charges for taking kickbacks. What if the people of Alaska still want to re-elect him? Letting the rest of the country dictate that Alaskans can not chose him invalidates their ability to chose their own leaders. It would violate the principles of representation when you disqualify the peoples choice. I think the only valid tactic would be to require a recall election if a legislator was convicted, but you would need to let that legislator be on the ballet if they met the requirements.

If the people of Alaska want to re-elect him, tough! If he took kick backs he cannot be in politics.

I have a very detailed knowledge of the US government and it is not clear to me...

I do not but i am smart enough to know much of the complexity is to allow things to happen that the average person would object to. Obfuscation is as bad in government as it is anywhere else.

[Nitack]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

In my system only one vote, our system has worked real well hasn't it, especially in the last eight years. If not for bad decisions made for wrong reasons and influence of big oil we wouldn't have any government at all.

It's not just big oil that has a hand in peddling influence my friend. Coal, corn, soy, beef, timber, manufacturing, environmentalists (they carry a lot of clout on the west coast), THE ELDERLY (hello AARP you thieving bastards), the poor (ever heard of medicaid? costs us $500 billion a year), ethnocentric groups (La Raza anyone?), religious groups, and even scientists.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

If it was a do or die decision i doubt that 435 people could be dead locked do you?

haha, you obviously are not familiar with how congress works. They could absolutely remain deadlocked no matter how dire. Looming financial crisis that we are facing with Medicare... by 2018 the US will be broke as a joke, and the politicians are ignoring it. Global warming... it is happening, and the politicians refuse to actually make any meaningful changes that could thwart the catastrophe awaiting. At best we get token legislation that does nothing to really solve the problem.

Your argument is also some what circular. If divisions in ideology caused three people representing the executive branch to deadlock why would those same divisions not cause the same problem with 435?

Originally Posted by Moontanman

No big corporations and other special interest groups should not have a seat at the table. they have proved themselves incapable of doing anything but influencing the government for their own personal gain at the expense of good government and everyone else.

They have proved themselves capable of maintaining their financial viability, which is very important if they are going to keep making money and employing people. Complain all you want about corporations, but what you seem to not realize is that the day that legislators stop listening to the concerns of corporations is the day that ALL skilled and professional jobs go overseas. You seem to want an environment that is hostile to business, and businesses will just leave a hostile environment, there is no profit in it.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

yes but they need a check on themselves as well, far to often BS is pushed through attached to bills that need to be passed. this must stop. If you think contacting your legislators will stop or even have an affect on pork barrel politics then you are more naive than I am.

I know it won't have an effect on pork, particularly because my districts are represented by "tax and spend" democrats. But at the end of the day I can say that I did my part. If enough people did, and voted against people who did not aggressively fight pork spending, then it would change politics. See my example below though. People hate pork spending, except when it is in their neighborhood.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Our government is obviously incapable of policing themselves. we need a system that allows some real feedback. Term limits would be a good start possibly but why take a man out of office that is doing a good job and let an amateur in?

We do have a system that allows real feedback, it is called elections. Mandated for every elected official every 2 years (Representatives), 4 years (president), or 6 years (Senators). That is our form of binding feedback. Define a good job? Because if you are in rural Iowa farm subsidies and ethanol tax credits mean you are doing an amazing job. If you are in any part of the country that does not produce corn they are called pork barrel spending. Personally I hate all earmarks and think they should be banned. However no elected official will seriously support that (except for maybe a couple, John McCain being one of them), because that is how they win re-election.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

If the people of Alaska want to re-elect him, tough! If he took kick backs he cannot be in politics.

Then we no longer have a democracy or a republic if we decline to let them elect who they choose. Is this a Moontocracy?

Originally Posted by Moontanman

I do not but i am smart enough to know much of the complexity is to allow things to happen that the average person would object to. Obfuscation is as bad in government as it is anywhere else.

I agree, our government is very screwed up... which is the whole point of this post... lets design something better.

[Donk]

Government started small, at the tribal level. A way for people to rub along together in a community - elders to give advice, headman to settle disputes, that sort of thing. Then it grew, and grew, and grew. Eventually we had kings, who decided that they owned the entire country including its people. That model has remained in force for thousands of years. The mind-set is still there in democracies. The individual is subservient to the state.

You don't believe me? Every law restricts the individual - something that was a free choice before becomes either forbidden or compulsory. Most laws are good, but they all say the same thing: you are NOT free. WE have the right to order your life. (Translation: we own you.)

I think the guys who wrote the US constitution saw the problem and wanted to cure it. Most of the Constitution is about things that the state is not allowed to do. My draft constitution would have a line saying "the state cannot engage in any activity that has not been expressly permitted by the will of the people in a free vote." Even that wouldn't be much protection, given that most people's opinions are easily swayed by demagogues.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Nitack

It's not just big oil that has a hand in peddling influence my friend. Coal, corn, soy, beef, timber, manufacturing, environmentalists (they carry a lot of clout on the west coast), THE ELDERLY (hello AARP you thieving bastards), the poor (ever heard of medicaid? costs us $500 billion a year), ethnocentric groups (La Raza anyone?), religious groups, and even scientists.



haha, you obviously are not familiar with how congress works. They could absolutely remain deadlocked no matter how dire. Looming financial crisis that we are facing with Medicare... by 2018 the US will be broke as a joke, and the politicians are ignoring it. Global warming... it is happening, and the politicians refuse to actually make any meaningful changes that could thwart the catastrophe awaiting. At best we get token legislation that does nothing to really solve the problem.

Your argument is also some what circular. If divisions in ideology caused three people representing the executive branch to deadlock why would those same divisions not cause the same problem with 435?



They have proved themselves capable of maintaining their financial viability, which is very important if they are going to keep making money and employing people. Complain all you want about corporations, but what you seem to not realize is that the day that legislators stop listening to the concerns of corporations is the day that ALL skilled and professional jobs go overseas. You seem to want an environment that is hostile to business, and businesses will just leave a hostile environment, there is no profit in it.



I know it won't have an effect on pork, particularly because my districts are represented by "tax and spend" democrats. But at the end of the day I can say that I did my part. If enough people did, and voted against people who did not aggressively fight pork spending, then it would change politics. See my example below though. People hate pork spending, except when it is in their neighborhood.



We do have a system that allows real feedback, it is called elections. Mandated for every elected official every 2 years (Representatives), 4 years (president), or 6 years (Senators). That is our form of binding feedback. Define a good job? Because if you are in rural Iowa farm subsidies and ethanol tax credits mean you are doing an amazing job. If you are in any part of the country that does not produce corn they are called pork barrel spending. Personally I hate all earmarks and think they should be banned. However no elected official will seriously support that (except for maybe a couple, John McCain being one of them), because that is how they win re-election.



Then we no longer have a democracy or a republic if we decline to let them elect who they choose. Is this a Moontocracy?



I agree, our government is very screwed up... which is the whole point of this post... lets design something better.

Looks to me like all you really want is a neocon paradise, You obviously have it in for Democrats and liberals. personally i don't trust either side, i don't worship at the alter of either side. both sides have good ideas but neither side is omnipotent. either extreme is bad, and yes I expect companies to make money but I do not expect the government to blow them either.

[Nitack]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Looks to me like all you really want is a neocon paradise, You obviously have it in for Democrats and liberals. personally i don't trust either side, i don't worship at the alter of either side. both sides have good ideas but neither side is omnipotent. either extreme is bad, and yes I expect companies to make money but I do not expect the government to blow them either.

I'm actually a libertarian. I believe that government needs to be as small as possible to accomplish only one goal, which is to ensure and protect my rights. Part of that protection is to keep the religious right from trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of the population.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Nitack

I'm actually a libertarian. I believe that government needs to be as small as possible to accomplish only one goal, which is to ensure and protect my rights. Part of that protection is to keep the religious right from trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of the population.

I used to be a libertarian, i was registered as one too but then I was injured on the job and put out of the game because I worked too hard for my company. I found out real quick how easy it is to be trash canned when you are no good to anyone any more. It has taken me ten years to get my self back together at a level even a fraction of what i was. Now I feel a little different about libertarians. I'm glad liberals put laws into place that allowed me to live with a little dignity instead of living under a bridge some where. It's sad the company didn't have to pay for my injury but now I'm too old to employ and I do not have enough education to compete with most people my age. My health is still to bad for me to dig ditches. So libertarianism isn't all that great either unless you are young and healthy or old and had a lucky youth. I have neither and i depend on my government check and the little my old employer gives me. I don't like it much but so far i haven't figured a away around the situation. So none of the three major schools of thought are really right.

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

I used to be a libertarian, i was registered as one too but then I was injured on the job and put out of the game because I worked too hard for my company. I found out real quick how easy it is to be trash canned when you are no good to anyone any more. It has taken me ten years to get my self back together at a level even a fraction of what i was. Now I feel a little different about libertarians. I'm glad liberals put laws into place that allowed me to live with a little dignity instead of living under a bridge some where. It's sad the company didn't have to pay for my injury but now I'm too old to employ and I do not have enough education to compete with most people my age. My health is still to bad for me to dig ditches. So libertarianism isn't all that great either unless you are young and healthy or old and had a lucky youth. I have neither and i depend on my government check and the little my old employer gives me. I don't like it much but so far i haven't figured a away around the situation. So none of the three major schools of thought are really right.

Not knowing the company you worked for or any of the particulars, this response in not directed at you but to the content which I have heard so many times....

Government didn't get you to the level of any success you enjoyed, was not responsible for you injury and not responsible for you getting back to some form of success. In fact the remedies in place and should have helped came from the private sector.

If injured on the job (said was), your employer by law had insurance, generally under Workman's comp, and they paid unemployment insurance on you, for whatever reason (short of quitting) you were terminated. In most cases this should have paid all cost to get you back to normal and a temporary wage near equal to what you had been receiving (different states, different limits). Disability is another issue and government is responsible for portion payments, through your SS contribution and can last a lifetime being added to when SS kicks in. You also had the recourse through the court system, even to an extent of lost income from no longer being viable in that one field.

Donk; Those 'guys' that wrote the constitution, represented what they perceived as sovereign Nations, all 13. Briefly; They intended the Federal Government to concern itself with issues that were in 'Common Interest' of the total and concern itself with nothing considered there (later) State rights.

I still believe, we 'own' the government and they under our States are restricted to the limits of those laws. In fact short of Taxes or laws involving multiple states, you would have a hard time giving an example of Federal Law in your life.

Nitack; 'The more perfect government' IMO has been an evolution of the original, as was intended. As in any government, when changes do occur and once accepted it becomes almost impossible to revert back. Short of some regional/ideological divide or the States inability to cope with existing problems these changes should allow natural transitions to suit the needs of the majority of States.

Those issues, which should be State problems and have become National problems (Illegal Immigration, Energy Policy, Environmental concerns, etc) can in some manner be placed on a National Referendum, if polls/elections not sufficient, allowing representatives, senators and the executives to be influenced, but should not dictate final actions.

I will be watching for you comments on 'reserved post'...