Fixing the Two Party System

[tzor]

Minor nit pick. Federalism is strong local goverments and a limited central government. You, sir, are a "Monarchist" who believed in a strong central government.

Personally I see the national government as the most corrupt. But that is besides the point. It's a hell of a lot easier to fix the local government than it is the state or federal government, you need far fewer people to agree with you. We manged to clear out the corruption in my town in the recent past. I can only hope for my state. I have no faith at the federal level.

[Juton]

It's interesting that the narrative of the PATRIOT Act vote paints it as a triumph of the Tea Party. If the Tea Party was sincere, and they where creating a narrative, wouldn't they be furious that so many of their members voted for one of the most repressive pieces of legislation ever?

In the system I was talking about in the OP, after a vote like this most or all of the Tea Party members who voted to extend the Patriot act would have their place in the Tea Party revoked. The voters need means to be able to hold their congressmen accountable, declaring some one disloyal to their ideals may have little effect in the short term but may have a significant one in an election year.

[Maj]

The voters need means to be able to hold their congressmen accountable, declaring some one disloyal to their ideals may have little effect in the short term but may have a significant one in an election year.

There is a lot of information that the average person isn't privy to that can make a legislator vote differently than their line might otherwise dictate. I think the idea of forcing a person to be unadaptable is a bad thing that will encourage more stupidity in the long run.

I mean, why even bother to debate bills and such if the congressmen vote based on overarching ideology?

[Juton]

The voters need means to be able to hold their congressmen accountable, declaring some one disloyal to their ideals may have little effect in the short term but may have a significant one in an election year.

There is a lot of information that the average person isn't privy to that can make a legislator vote differently than their line might otherwise dictate. I think the idea of forcing a person to be unadaptable is a bad thing that will encourage more stupidity in the long run.

I mean, why even bother to debate bills and such if the congressmen vote based on overarching ideology?

That's true but problematic. For instance the congress could have been present with information that the patriot act is actually essential and useful. But that information could be made up, administrations or even individual agencies have done so in the past. Worse, congress may have not had an argument made to them at all, some canny politician could just lie that they believe all the ideals of party and are just allying themselves because it seems the easiest way to go, so you're not getting what you voted for.

Right now the only time most voters get any voice is during an election, that's not enough. I don't think switching to a participatory system would really work, so for now we are going to need representatives. We need ways to keep them in line.

[sabs]

Minor nit pick. Federalism is strong local goverments and a limited central government. You, sir, are a "Monarchist" who believed in a strong central government.

Personally I see the national government as the most corrupt. But that is besides the point. It's a hell of a lot easier to fix the local government than it is the state or federal government, you need far fewer people to agree with you. We manged to clear out the corruption in my town in the recent past. I can only hope for my state. I have no faith at the federal level.

As a Frenchmen the idea you would call me a Monarchist is kinda insulting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism ... list_Party

Federalist Party
As soon as the first Federalist movement dissipated, a second one sprang up to take its place. This one was based on the policies of Alexander Hamilton and his allies for a stronger national government.

Federalism is for a small limited federal government?
Are you completely insane?

[Severian]

Repeal the 17th amendment

Voting for parties rather than candidates is a good idea - keeps the elections focused more on the issues

Increase the House's term to four years.

Term limits for every position is a great idea. 8-12 years, tops.

Here's a thought: in order to run for public office, you have to have worked in the private sector for 5-10 years. Interesting idea?

[cthulhu]

It's interesting that the narrative of the PATRIOT Act vote paints it as a triumph of the Tea Party. If the Tea Party was sincere, and they where creating a narrative, wouldn't they be furious that so many of their members voted for one of the most repressive pieces of legislation ever?

In the system I was talking about in the OP, after a vote like this most or all of the Tea Party members who voted to extend the Patriot act would have their place in the Tea Party revoked. The voters need means to be able to hold their congressmen accountable, declaring some one disloyal to their ideals may have little effect in the short term but may have a significant one in an election year.

Yeah, the fact that 80% of the tea party cacus voted for it just gets swept under the rug.

[cthulhu]

The voters need means to be able to hold their congressmen accountable, declaring some one disloyal to their ideals may have little effect in the short term but may have a significant one in an election year.

There is a lot of information that the average person isn't privy to that can make a legislator vote differently than their line might otherwise dictate. I think the idea of forcing a person to be unadaptable is a bad thing that will encourage more stupidity in the long run.

I mean, why even bother to debate bills and such if the congressmen vote based on overarching ideology?

This is why you want a bicameral parliment in which one house has proportional representation. Then it's almost certain the part(ies) will have to cooperate to some degree.

However, I'm fine with no proportional representation in the other house, because it's easier to run a government with a single party, and it gives you an axe to wack any minor party that gets to far out of line (for the consequences of not doing that, see Israel)

[RobbyPants]

Here's a thought: in order to run for public office, you have to have worked in the private sector for 5-10 years. Interesting idea?

Why?

[sabs]

Here's a thought: in order to run for public office, you have to have worked in the private sector for 5-10 years. Interesting idea?

Why?

I still do not understand the 'awesomeness of businessmen' falicy that the right has. Workign in the private Sector does not bestow some special 'i know what I'm doing' sticker. Having worked in the Private Sector is not a virtue.

Course, I still wish that in order to run for President, you had to have served in the Armed Forces (Reserves/National Guard do not count)

[angelfromanotherpin]

Course, I still wish that in order to run for President, you had to have served in the Armed Forces (Reserves/National Guard do not count)

Why? The best wartime president the Republicans have ever had was Lincoln, who never served in the armed forces. The best wartime president the Democrats have ever had was FDR, who never served in the armed forces.

[sabs]

Course, I still wish that in order to run for President, you had to have served in the Armed Forces (Reserves/National Guard do not count)

Why? The best wartime president the Republicans have ever had was Lincoln, who never served in the armed forces. The best wartime president the Democrats have ever had was FDR, who never served in the armed forces.

That's a good question. Mostly, it's because I feel that if you're going to be in the position to send our young men and women into harms way, you should have a personal understanding of what that means.

I believe that there are people who have not been in the armed forces, who still understand the weight of that responsibility, but I have found that most 'civilians' just don't get it. I want a President who did not "have better things to do" like Cheney did. Or who did not use his connections to get out of serving like Bush did. And yes, I dissapproved of Clinton's draft dodging too.

I also think that a compulsory 1 year civil service for all young people (men and women) either right after high school, or right after college would actually be a good thing. Like I said, I'm kind of a Federalist.

PS:
For full disclosure, I did not serve in any armed forces, and so that would rule myself out too. Though to be fair, since I'm not a natural born american citizen (I'm Naturalized) I couldn't run anyways.

[cthulhu]

1 year civil service is the worst fucking idea ever. It's better to stuff them into the employment market so they can pay taxes, ESPECIALLY if they are university graduates.

1 year isn't enough time to skill someone up enough to do anything in a specialist economy, so what the fuck are you going to do with them?

I hate people who suggest that shit as much as I hate people who suggest the draft.

[sabs]

Infrastructure improvement projects, housing projects for the poor. Outreach programs, Aid programs. There's literally a ton of stuff you could do with them.

And I'm not sure that 1 year's worth of McDonalds employment taxes is really going to make a huge difference on the National Budget.

1 Year is actually plenty of time to train someone to do a whole slew of job specialties. And, for College Graduates, they would actually have learned skills from college that would be useful in certain areas.

It would require some big changes in the way the Fed Gov works, so that is an issue. But saying it can never work is wrong.

PS
I hate the draft too, only time I would approve the draft is in a wartime situation where the US is being invaded.

[RobbyPants]

Infrastructure improvement projects, housing projects for the poor. Outreach programs, Aid programs. There's literally a ton of stuff you could do with them.

You can do that with Keynesian economics, all without making people do things they don't like.

[Starmaker]

Voting for parties rather than candidates is a good idea - keeps the elections focused more on the issues

Wouldn't parties openly rent out places in the lists? In Russia, the only party that pretends to not do this is the commies (not actual Communists, but close enough to scoop up the left and the extreme right votes) - to get a place, one has to pretend to care about Soviet values. Every other party has a most comprehensive list of issues with "everything is going to be awesome!!!" as proposed resolution as their election pitch. Which does not happen. Mandatory party lists was the second worst thing that happened to the Russian local election system - the worst ever thing being, of course, its abolition. (Also, the "no minimum voter turnout + no none of the above option" power combo sucks balls).

[Count Arioch the 28th]

It's interesting that the narrative of the PATRIOT Act vote paints it as a triumph of the Tea Party. If the Tea Party was sincere, and they where creating a narrative, wouldn't they be furious that so many of their members voted for one of the most repressive pieces of legislation ever?

In the system I was talking about in the OP, after a vote like this most or all of the Tea Party members who voted to extend the Patriot act would have their place in the Tea Party revoked. The voters need means to be able to hold their congressmen accountable, declaring some one disloyal to their ideals may have little effect in the short term but may have a significant one in an election year.

I've never met a tea partier that didn't support an autocratic government based on christian mythology. Most will repeat the "no big government" buzzwords they were taught but don't know the meaning to, but will vote for anyone that bans islam in a heartbeat.

[Blasted]

Infrastructure improvement projects, housing projects for the poor. Outreach programs, Aid programs. There's literally a ton of stuff you could do with them.
...
It would require some big changes in the way the Fed Gov works, so that is an issue. But saying it can never work is wrong.

Why would you draft at minimum wage (or no wage) instead of paying a company to do these things? You actively take skilled labour away from the labour pool, while removing jobs from the market that require no/low skill sets. Because these are low/no skill jobs, you're not training them - it's just low cost labour. It's insane, utterly insane.

[cthulhu]

Infrastructure improvement projects, housing projects for the poor. Outreach programs, Aid programs. There's literally a ton of stuff you could do with them.

And I'm not sure that 1 year's worth of McDonalds employment taxes is really going to make a huge difference on the National Budget.

1 Year is actually plenty of time to train someone to do a whole slew of job specialties. And, for College Graduates, they would actually have learned skills from college that would be useful in certain areas.

It would require some big changes in the way the Fed Gov works, so that is an issue. But saying it can never work is wrong.

PS
I hate the draft too, only time I would approve the draft is in a wartime situation where the US is being invaded.

It would be more effective to get people to do regular jobs and use taxes to pay for that. Also, delaying people from getting their trade certification by a year so they can do an outreach program when we have a crippling shortage of electricians is dumb.

[tzor]

Minor nit pick. Federalism is strong local goverments and a limited central government. You, sir, are a "Monarchist" who believed in a strong central government.

As a Frenchmen the idea you would call me a Monarchist is kinda insulting.

It's a coloquial 18th century United States term for those who wanted an strong federal government. Not federalism is not the same as the federalist party. John Adams was generally consiered a Monarchist and the most extreeme example of a strong central government within the "Federalist" party which was in opposition to Thomas Jefferson's Democratic Republican party of major distrust for the federal government and a strong reliance on the sovereign states.

United States politics can be very confusing at times because in many cases an X doesn't always believe in Xism.

Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). Federalism is a system in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments, creating what is often called a federation.

[tzor]

I've never met a tea partier that didn't support an autocratic government based on christian mythology.

Bullshit count, you know we met on several Gen Con's.

In fact, by definition the tea party and autocratic government are on the exact opposites. Tea partiers oppose Obama for his autocratic (alleged) use of Presidental power.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I've never met a tea partier that didn't support an autocratic government based on christian mythology.

Bullshit count, you know we met on several Gen Con's.

In fact, by definition the tea party and autocratic government are on the exact opposites. Tea partiers oppose Obama for his autocratic (alleged) use of Presidental power.

Honestly, now, is it because of his use of presidential power or is it because of his use of presidential power?

[Severian]

Here's a thought: in order to run for public office, you have to have worked in the private sector for 5-10 years. Interesting idea?

Why?

I still do not understand the 'awesomeness of businessmen' falicy that the right has. Workign in the private Sector does not bestow some special 'i know what I'm doing' sticker. Having worked in the Private Sector is not a virtue.

Along with strict term limits for every elected position, such a requirment would help prevent an insular political subculture from forming among the elite. Elected officials will now have to come from a greater variety of backgrounds, have a better understanding of the lives of working citizens and the challenges they face, and there will be less opportunity for prospective candidates to build political clout and spin a web of favors.

Think of it as the equivalent of having to sit on a jury every so often

[Blasted]

Along with strict term limits for every elected position, such a requirment would help prevent an insular political subculture from forming among the elite. Elected officials will now have to come from a greater variety of backgrounds, have a better understanding of the lives of working citizens and the challenges they face, and there will be less opportunity for prospective candidates to build political clout.

I doubt it.
In reality, the political scions will be entered into couched positions in companies owned by friends and supporters, to sit out their required pre-political careers. Much in the same way that the younger Bush went to Harvard and Yale.

[Neeeek]

All term limits actually do is put the staff in charge instead of the elected officials. People in favor of them are just plain ignorant.