What structural changes would you like to see in the US national government?

[slayer420]

re federalism/states rights - I love this watching this debate (and hold no stake in it whatsoever.) Its like you expect states to begin succeeding right and left if just given the chance, and then there'll be this mass migration on ideological grounds and you'll end up with a sort of bad-fantasy-worldbuilding America. "And then they came to California, where everyone was turned into a homosexual by the socialized healthcare system, and the economy relied entirely on only the finest organic certified marijuana. It was very different indeed from Wyoming, the land of the hunter gatherer gun makers, where metal was scavenged apprentices from the corpses of the cities to be hand crafted by skilled artisans into elegant rifles...."

:rofl: tell us more of this wonderful land.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

AB,

An heir "succeds" to the throne of their Mother/Father. A political entity "seceeds" from another political entity.

[S John]

I would be in favor of a general de-centralization with most decisions being made at a State level. So I guess you could trhow me in with that lot. As long as whatever the State does is Constitutional, it should be fair game, imo. My reasoning basically boils down to accessibility. A centralized government trying to keep up with over 300 million people is a joke. Maybe some people feel represented. I don't, really.

Well, that and I like options. Personally I think it would be interesting to let the states be themselves, see what develops.

I would also favor a re-structuring of the military. A much, much smaller standing military - but a large reserve force. To that end I might even support a few years of compulsory reserve duty if the reserve force was strictly for home defense with no possibility of being deployed abroad. So the US would have a small but elite standing military, but also be capable of mobilizing a few million ground troops quickly in the event of invasion. This combined with the number of personal firearms and the general craziness my my countrymen should be a sufficient deterrent against foreign invasion / occupation - which I believe should be the only appropriate use of military force. Any use of the military would require congressional approval, including activating the reserve.

I'm an isolationist, but not a pacifist - so I think we should still retain the ability to be an intimidating customer when directly threatened, but kick this nation-building shit to the curb.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

AB,

An heir "succeds" to the throne of their Mother/Father. A political entity "seceeds" from another political entity.

Secedes.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FLOW,

Hey I can't spell but I was driving at the right word.

;)

[TerraPrime]

re: FLoW

Well, there's a couple of problems with that. The first is that incumbents have a huge advantage in terms of name-recognition, so if you banned campaign contributions, it would make it really tough for challengers.

You could get around that to some extent by public financing of campaigns, but that has its own set of problems. One is that some folks are going to object to paying for other people to spout opinions they find offensive/wrong. Another is that if the only permissible financing is public, you need some kind of mechanism to regulated who is eligible, and who is not. And I think that essentially would prevent anyone who is not a professional politician or other person with massive name recognition from getting involved and running for office, because they won't have threshhold support necessary to get government money for a campaign. It will make it very tought for "outsiders" to break in.

I wouldn't complete ban campaign contribution, either, but I would pool it to a public pool, and then distribute it evenly.

I also don't see why public funding of campaigns needs to be such a bugbear issue. I think it's all in the implementation. The more difficult issue is the philosophical one about freedom of speech via campaign donations. But let's talk about implementation for a second.

If we average the past 3 election cycles' participation and then take 5% of that number as the bar to meet, then we can say that any candidate who wants to run on a ballot needs to provide a minimum of that number of certified signatures. Candidates are welcome to raise as much money as they need, to get that 5% signature. But once they are on the official ballot, their fundraising will have to stop. The government will set aside a % of total income to fund campaigns. Say, 1.5% of state revenue and 3% for federal revenue. That money is then spread amongst all eligible candidates, as operating cost and as campaign cost. All candidates will be given equal air time, as well, so they will not have to purchase TV air time. We can even extend to print literature, that every candidate who submits a 2-page summary can have it printed by the government and then sent out to eligible voters, in a package that contains all the responses.

I don't think this method will create a barrier to entry that is worse than the current system. In fact I think it will level the playing field a lot more so that minor candidates will gain more traction.

Re: Nestor

Forgot to address your point about much of the gain for equal rights coming from the judiciary branch, and not the Congressional branches.

If we de-federalize, how will things like Lawrence v. Texas over-riding Bowers v. Hardwick happen? Or, for that matter, Brown v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade? The substance of the results can be argued, but the procedural mechanism of a federal ruling over-riding state ruling to ensure greater protection for minority relies on this federal structure, no?

[The Progressive]

Lol, here's one guaranteed to piss of the libertarians ................. tax cut and/or increase should be at the discretion of the Federal Reserve.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

re: FLoW

I wouldn't complete ban campaign contribution, either, but I would pool it to a public pool, and then distribute it evenly.

I suspect very few people would be willing to contribute their own money without knowing to whom it will be given.

The more difficult issue is the philosophical one about freedom of speech via campaign donations. But let's talk about implementation for a second.

Agreed. I kind of skipped that one because it is an issue of principle where there isn't much room for debate.

If we average the past 3 election cycles' participation and then take 5% of that number as the bar to meet, then we can say that any candidate who wants to run on a ballot needs to provide a minimum of that number of certified signatures. Candidates are welcome to raise as much money as they need, to get that 5% signature. But once they are on the official ballot, their fundraising will have to stop. The government will set aside a % of total income to fund campaigns. Say, 1.5% of state revenue and 3% for federal revenue. That money is then spread amongst all eligible candidates, as operating cost and as campaign cost. All candidates will be given equal air time, as well, so they will not have to purchase TV air time. We can even extend to print literature, that every candidate who submits a 2-page summary can have it printed by the government and then sent out to eligible voters, in a package that contains all the responses.

Well, they'll game it by raising buttloads of money before they actually qualify for the ballot (there's sort of the same thing now with the whole issue of matching funds), but I think the overall structure you came up with is decent. But as you said, it kind of goes back to the issue of free speech. The problem I have is that it limits all political speech to candidates themselves. Private citizens who want to speak out on issues or on candidates are essentially silenced, and I'm really uncomfortable with that.

[Arlingzen Bill]

FLOW,

Hey I can't spell but I was driving at the right word.

;)

Too late to change it... It looked wrong, but I didn't feel like grabbing my dictionary to get it right.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TP,

What corporate entity is the gatekeeper for publicly funded elections? What two entities are in complete contol of that corporate entity?

[Arlingzen Bill]

I must say I'm surprised. I would have thought most folks here would be against a Mississippi or South Carolina (or - God forbid - a union of the two) with global nuclear strike capability.

I'm not worried, but when you do the accounting, states share would not be as much as they think, and some states would get a huge surprise at what they have contributed.

Based on Mississippi's educational system they better use the nukes quick, or they'll be worthless. I'm not sure of SC's educational system, so they might be better off.

Edited for dumbassery spelling and grammer.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

My spelling is a product of SC public schools.

;)

[TerraPrime]

I suspect very few people would be willing to contribute their own money without knowing to whom it will be given.

I don't know. Do you have a number on how many people check off the box on their tax forms about giving $2 to election fund?

I suspect, of course, the number of people contributing to this type of campaign fund will be substantially smaller than the number of contributions going on right now.

Well, they'll game it by raising buttloads of money before they actually qualify for the ballot (there's sort of the same thing now with the whole issue of matching funds), but I think the overall structure you came up with is decent. But as you said, it kind of goes back to the issue of free speech. The problem I have is that it limits all political speech to candidates themselves. Private citizens who want to speak out on issues or on candidates are essentially silenced, and I'm really uncomfortable with that.

We can un-game it by limiting the window for raising the signature so that it is substantially smaller in comparison to the actual campaign season.

As for the last part, we can try to draw a line between, say, putting on your own Facebook page that candidate X gets your support, versus say someone paying to print 10,000 pamphlets to be distributed to potential voters on behalf of candidate Y. Basically, anything that is not paid for by the candidates, anything that has no significant monetary values, and anything that is not organized on behalf of a candidate.

The Sierra Club, for instance, is welcome to include in their regular newsletters to their members reminding them of the pertinent issues in this election cycle, e.g. fracking in central PA, arctic reserves opening up for drilling, etc., while the Heritage Foundation can send out emails detailing the financial health of the nation and explaining why raising the national debt ceiling is a bad idea.

But really, the more exceptions we make the weaker the benefits will be for using public funds for campaigns.

Re: Scot

TP,

What corporate entity is the gatekeeper for publicly funded elections? What two entities are in complete contol of that corporate entity?

Can you ask your leading questions in a more leading way? I'm not sure I actually get what you're going after here. Are you alluding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting? So if I guess correctly, you're saying that the Dem and GOP will not play fair and will use their influence to exclude other competing parties?

If so, then I don't think that's really a fair critique of what I proposed, because it goes without saying that any changes will be opposed by those 2 parties. I mean, or do you think they're going to just roll over on things like equal representation without districting, or hell, complete emasculation of federal power? The title is what changes we'd like to see, not what changes we think are likely to be implemented, no? Besides, if we can make these public-fund campaign rules part of the constitution, or at least federal law, then efforts to stymie the implementation can result in prosecution and penalties.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TP,

A fair point. That said you have offered criticism of proposed changes that I would support. My point is simply that making a goverment controled by the two major parties the sole gatekeeper for election funding, without other very significant structural changes, sounds to me like a recipe for making sure all candidates run with a R or a D after their names.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

As for the last part, we can try to draw a line between, say, putting on your own Facebook page that candidate X gets your support, versus say someone paying to print 10,000 pamphlets to be distributed to potential voters on behalf of candidate Y. Basically, anything that is not paid for by the candidates, anything that has no significant monetary values, and anything that is not organized on behalf of a candidate.

That latter point gets really squirrely, though. For example, one of the question asked at the Citizens United oral argument was whether the government's argument could result in the banning of a book or movie critical of a candidate. The government attorney initially said yes, then the government actually asked to redo the hearing because it wasn't comfortable with that. And the answer was still squirrely. As for "organized on behalf of a candidate", that seems to be pushing towards the PAC's that are independent of candidate control, but clearly lean one way. Then there is the whole thing about "issue advocacy", where you are technically not supporting one candidate, but only speaking out on an issue without identifying any candidates. Yet it is pretty obvious how such issue advocacy can very plainly be pro or anti a certain candidate without actually mentioning any names. So that's stuff is all permitted too?

The Sierra Club, for instance, is welcome to include in their regular newsletters to their members reminding them of the pertinent issues in this election cycle, e.g. fracking in central PA, arctic reserves opening up for drilling, etc., while the Heritage Foundation can send out emails detailing the financial health of the nation and explaining why raising the national debt ceiling is a bad idea. But really, the more exceptions we make the weaker the benefits will be for using public funds for campaigns.

Well, that's right. I lean towards mandatory disclosure as the best solution. I think the line drawing just makes things more complicated in the end. Unless you actually want to silence all political discussion unless it is financed by the government, it just starts getting really awkward.

And then there is the entire idea of the media itself. Theoretically, they're independent, but in practice, many major media outlets, including print, broadcast, and cable, have their own agenda or slant that can heavily impact races, probably more so than paid ads, and far more often.

What is FoxNews worth to a Republican, or a pro-Democrat outlet to a Democrat. The value of that kind of coverage/endorsement is pretty huge.

[Howdyphillip]

I would like to see the abolishment of the 17th amendment and have Senators apointed by State government instead of direct election.

A time limit for campaigning for office set at no more than one month.

Electronic and telephone voting to ensure more participation with bipartisan oversight.

All funding for political offices to come from a public fund

[Commodore]

outlaw all subsidies, bailouts, and guaranteed loans

[Howdyphillip]

outlaw all subsidies, bailouts, and guaranteed loans

Why? They have been proven to be effective. I just want more acountability in the future if we ever use them again.

[Jon Sprunk]

I would try to eliminate all money from politics. Public office holders should leave the job with pretty much exactly the same wealth as when they left. No campaign contributions. No lobbying with money (lobbying without gifts or contributions would be allowed). And no cushy board of director jobs when politicians leave office. In essence, remove all material motivation to seeking office and governing. And I have no idea how that would work in a free society.

Besides that, I wouldn't change anything. I don't want succession. I'm sorry, but I like the US of A. Hell, some days I even love it. I love that, although FLoW and I may argue like a pair of mental patients off their meds, I would fight to defend his right to speak his mind, and I'm sure he would fight for mine. Normally I'm not so kumbaya, but that damned Clint Eastwood commercial got me feeling all sentimental.

[Commodore]

Why? They have been proven to be effective. I just want more acountability in the future if we ever use them again.

It's immoral to give my money away to speciially selected parties, it distorts market activity, it is impossible to administer without waste and corruption.

I would also question their effectiveness. Obama bought Chrysler and sold it to the Italians at a massive loss, and they make cars in Canada and Mexico.