Reforms to our democracy that you'd like to see

[Fozzz 152]

Just now, G650 said:

 

 

 

That has nothing to do with direct election, it has to do with who was picking the Senate. Politics as a whole was significantly more corrupt in the 19th century, from top to bottom.

With the stronger institutions we have have now, removing direct Senate election would be a boon.

You don't think the reforms made in the progressive era might have had something to do with curbing some of the rampant corruption of the gilded age?  A major motivation of passing the 17th amendment was to neutralize the power of state party bosses which had developed under the old system.  

[G650 14263]

7 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

A major motivation of passing the 17th amendment was to neutralize the power of state party bosses which had developed under the old system.  

Right, which is not nearly a concern now.

Democracy needs to be more direct at it's lowest levels, and progressively gets more representative based as it goes up the food chain. We've inverted the system to our detriment. Our state level politics have been reformed in most states to where it's by far our most effective level of governance. The federal level is basically completely broken. There's fucked up states as well, but there always will be.

 

There aren't smokey back rooms with nefarious party bosses taking cash payments, and empirically, the establishment candidates across the land for the GOP were so far superior to the insanity we currently deal with it's laughable.

[Bama Chick 28596]

What was the logic behind only having the senate confirm presidential appointees and federal judges and Supreme Court justices?

Why isn’t the house involved?

There may be a good reason why and I just don’t know.

Split some of those duties up. I feel like the senate has too much power and quid pro quo with the executive branch because they’re involved in all those appointments.

Plus, I feel like those appointments are less likely to sail through with a rubber stamp in the house as opposed to the senate.

[G650 14263]

Just now, Bama Chick said:

Why isn’t the house involved?

 

 

Because the populace is entirely too stupid and capricious to even be that close to these decisions. 

[sidis 9832]

to do away with it entirely and everyone realize that i am the ultimate manifestation of plato's philosopher king concept and install me into such a lifetime position.  then, perhaps, i can begin to lead you people out of the cave...

[sheeeit 129]

Good thread.  Some great ideas.  Too many reactionary ideas to the current situation with potus and too many suggestions that have virtually no chance of ever getting done but good thread.

The biggest thing we could do that would eliminate almost all of the gripes is to implement 2 things and both have to be implemented for it to work.

1) Strict term limits on congress.  8 years for Senate, 5 years for House.  No ability to run for reelection at all.  None.  No sitting member of congress would ever run for reelection.

2) Triple the salary for members of congress.

Virtually everyone agrees/thinks that money has too much of an influence in politics and I agree.  But the reality is that there is no set of laws that could be enacted that would effectively restrain it.  So rather than try and control something that is uncontrollable, we should limit the effect it actually has.  Every politician will admit that getting reelected is their primary concern and that virtually every single decision they make is affected by how it will impact their reelection chances.  If you eliminate that you eliminate the effect of money in politics dramatically.

Most everyone will admit that a large % of state politicians are unqualified.  The reason is that no qualified person wants the job.  The pay is terrible, the time requirements are pretty high, the mud slinging is despicable and no single person can really have that much of an affect.  It is similar on a national level.  We need our best and brightest to run for office.  

On the EC, getting rid of it is not a good solution imo.  making arguments that the popular vote was different is simply a stupid argument.  It is an Aggy argument.  There was not a contest held to see who could get the most votes, it was to get the most electoral votes.  As a result, candidates campaign based on that set of rules.  

What would make sense, imo, is to do away with winner take all in the EC.  Allocate state EC votes in accordance with the % of people that voted for the candidate.  We would probably have to change some laws on required %'s to win but we could just adopt the person who gets the most is the winner even if it is not a majority.  

 

[G650 14263]

 

This is discombobulated.

Edited November 13, 2018 by G650

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

 

 

1. If you are an American citizen not under any kind of legal ban -- probation or parole or actually imprisoned -- you are eligible to be served with a notice to serve in the House of Representatives. It would be like jury duty -- when you get that letter in the mail, you need to get up to DC.

2. Anyone caught attempting to sway your vote with emoluments is to be shot in the head publicly. 

 

Haven't worked out the details for the Senate yet. 

 

I like @BrazilHorn's idea for national service too, and there is nothing Fascist or Commie about it. It is just an idea we have abandoned and not reject out of hand. 

Edited November 13, 2018 by MaybeACoordinator

[pepper brooks 580]

term limits, and reset eligibility age to run to a minimum of 55.  

[Fudge Nuggets 19206]

4 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

reset eligibility age to run to a minimum of 55.  

Fuck.  That.

We need fewer olds in government, not more.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33875]

18 hours ago, Lurch said:

 

good start. now fucking follow through

[sheeeit 129]

I am not sure the dems really understand what Citizens United did.  

[FondrenRoad 4378]

8 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

I am not sure the dems really understand what Citizens United did.  

What's not to understand?  It allowed dark money Super PACs to take over the election marketing process.  Its the only way that pieces of shit like Ted Cruz can get elected over a man of the people like Beto.  And racist robocalls can be funded in Georgia and Florida too.

All things you are a huge fan of, I know.

And of course the Dems are using Super PACs now too.  They have to play dirty because you are always going to play dirty.  

Edited November 13, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Longhorn_Fan68 33875]

20 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

I am not sure the dems really understand what Citizens United did.  

oh the ironing

[sheeeit 129]

24 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

All things you are a huge fan of, I know.

You just can not help your demented self can you.  Considering I openly supported and voted for Beto, your comments seem retarded.

What the court found in CU, was exactly what I have been saying on here.  No matter what tactic/law/regulation we try to put on campaign finance, the money folks will find a way around it.  Dark money has existed in politics forever.  CU tried to bring that money to light.  I may not like dark money in politics but I realize that it will always be there as did Scalia.  Overturning CU (which just is not going to happen) will not actually change anything.  At least with the current law, we can track the money.

[Stilicho 1397]

3 hours ago, G650 said:

Right, which is not nearly a concern now.

Democracy needs to be more direct at it's lowest levels, and progressively gets more representative based as it goes up the food chain. We've inverted the system to our detriment. Our state level politics have been reformed in most states to where it's by far our most effective level of governance. The federal level is basically completely broken. There's fucked up states as well, but there always will be.

 

There aren't smokey back rooms with nefarious party bosses taking cash payments, and empirically, the establishment candidates across the land for the GOP were so far superior to the insanity we currently deal with it's laughable.

Give me a rundown on the mechanic’s of state governments selecting senators. 

I’m curious because, in my estimation, it doesn’t really change anything. Some state governments  seem to operate smoothly, while others are little more than party machines in themselves. 

The Jim Inhofe’s of the world would still be senators. But so would the Danny Goebs and the Roy Moores. 

[G650 14263]

1 minute ago, Stilicho said:

Give me a rundown on the mechanic’s of state governments selecting senators. 

I’m curious because, in my estimation, it doesn’t really change anything. Some state governments  seem to operate smoothly, while others are little more than party machines in themselves. 

The Jim Inhofe’s of the world would still be senators. But so would the Danny Goebs and the Roy Moores. 

A rundown of how I'd like it to be, or how it was 50-100 years ago?

[bolverk 29692]

Can we also get a lifetime ban on lobbying for former reps and senators upon leaving office?

[Stilicho 1397]

1 minute ago, G650 said:

A rundown of how I'd like it to be, or how it was 50-100 years ago?

The former. 

[G650 14263]

7 minutes ago, Stilicho said:

The former. 

I feel like the whole country is moving towards the way of independent commissions with redistricting and such. With the Senate, it's still needs to be driven off of the popular will to an extent though, so it can't be just unelected officials, but I would put in place a structure similar to the committee system in the House and Senate. I worry about being too prescriptive from a top down level as each state has unique characteristics, but you could even propose Senate Elector as an elected position from a pool of State Reps/Senators.

There's human error in all this, but you eliminate the race to the extreme this way. And specifically to your examples, it would indeed eliminate the Roy Moores of the world. He was hated by the Republican establishment in Alabama as much as anyone.

[sheeeit 129]

16 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Can we also get a lifetime ban on lobbying for former reps and senators upon leaving office?

What will that do?  The same person will just facilitate a meeting and leave the room when they start talking shop.  The do not have to register as a lobbyist and the same thing happens.

There is nothing wrong with lobbying.  It is greatly needed.  Pols can not possibly have an exhaustive understanding of every issue they face.  Lobbyist are there to argue the merits of what they want.  The actual issue/problem is lobbyists donating/directing money to campaigns.  If the pol is not running for reelection then the lobbyist has little or no power over him except for the merit of his case.  And, more importantly, he can not influence other pols that his legislation does not effect.

[Incredulity 11675]

1 hour ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

 

 

1. If you are an American citizen not under any kind of legal ban -- probation or parole or actually imprisoned -- you are eligible to be served with a notice to serve in the House of Representatives. It would be like jury duty -- when you get that letter in the mail, you need to get up to DC.

2. Anyone caught attempting to sway your vote with emoluments is to be shot in the head publicly. 

 

Haven't worked out the details for the Senate yet. 

 

I like @BrazilHorn's idea for national service too, and there is nothing Fascist or Commie about it. It is just an idea we have abandoned and not reject out of hand. 

#1 based on a random lottery?  That would be interesting to say the least.  

 

I fully support national service.  I think it should be 2 year military right after high school.  No deferments/no questions(severe physical or mental handicaps aside).  Would probably do wonders for the obesity epidemic too.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

39 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

#1 based on a random lottery?  That would be interesting to say the least.  

 

I fully support national service.  I think it should be 2 year military right after high school.  No deferments/no questions(severe physical or mental handicaps aside).  Would probably do wonders for the obesity epidemic too.

Doesn't have to be military, but it shouldn't be easy, either.  Agreed about the obesity, and kids today need to know what a callus is. (Truth be told, I only know about them from hard time in the batting cage. And trying to play guitar.)

[pepper brooks 580]

3 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Fuck.  That.

We need fewer olds in government, not more.

what we need is to get rid of career politicians.  Badly.  By resetting the age to 55 you would get people who have likely been very successful somewhere in the private sector who can then transition into public service as a way of giving back.  That is how these jobs were supposed to be, not career jobs leeching off the taxpayer and being bought by the highest bidders.  Making the age 55 ensures some level of experience, wisdom, and success, and also to some degree gives us "term limits" by the simple fact that most will quite after a few terms not wanting to spend their elderly years in the shithole that is Washington.  We do not need fewer old, we need fewer career politicians, and relics who have been there for 30-40 years playing the game.  

[bolverk 29692]

2 hours ago, sheeeit said:

What will that do?  The same person will just facilitate a meeting and leave the room when they start talking shop.  The do not have to register as a lobbyist and the same thing happens.

There is nothing wrong with lobbying.  It is greatly needed.  Pols can not possibly have an exhaustive understanding of every issue they face.  Lobbyist are there to argue the merits of what they want.  The actual issue/problem is lobbyists donating/directing money to campaigns.  If the pol is not running for reelection then the lobbyist has little or no power over him except for the merit of his case.  And, more importantly, he can not influence other pols that his legislation does not effect.

The point is that if we have strict limits (five years in your suggestion; two years in others) on the amount of time a representative can serve, they have less time to become an expert in a field and/or understand the legislative process (how to get a bill passed, build a coalition, etc.).

If they have less time to become that "expert", they are bound to be more reliant on others - in many cases lobbyists. If a former representative is a lobbyist for an industry/issue/whatever, they have gained both the expertise in the process and the issue (and they make money from that experience/knowledge). This leaves the sitting representative at a terrible disadvantage in asserting their own will (or the will of their constituents) in making an independent decision.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

What's not to understand?  It allowed dark money Super PACs to take over the election marketing process.  Its the only way that pieces of shit like Ted Cruz can get elected over a man of the people like Beto.  And racist robocalls can be funded in Georgia and Florida too.

All things you are a huge fan of, I know.

And of course the Dems are using Super PACs now too.  They have to play dirty because you are always going to play dirty.  

Hahahahahahahahahahahahah those poor, poor, poor, innocent as the driven snow democrats. Even Hillary is laughing with me at you.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahah those poor, poor, poor, innocent as the driven snow democrats. Even Hillary is laughing with me at you.

Hillary should probably get a restraining order against you.

[bolverk 29692]

Can we keep this thread civil, guys, or am I going to have to put a [SERIOUS] tag on this gotdammed thing?

[sheeeit 129]

2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

The point is that if we have strict limits (five years in your suggestion; two years in others) on the amount of time a representative can serve, they have less time to become an expert in a field and/or understand the legislative process (how to get a bill passed, build a coalition, etc.).

If they have less time to become that "expert", they are bound to be more reliant on others - in many cases lobbyists. If a former representative is a lobbyist for an industry/issue/whatever, they have gained both the expertise in the process and the issue (and they make money from that experience/knowledge). This leaves the sitting representative at a terrible disadvantage in asserting their own will (or the will of their constituents) in making an independent decision.

How so?  It seems you are arguing that a pol getting advice or knowledge on an issue from an expert is a bad deal?  You also act as if there are issues where the lobbying only occurs for one side of the issue.  How it is supposed to work is that proponents from both sides of an issue come and make their case for the piece of legislation or whatever it is.   A smart person listens to both cases, asks questions and then makes a decision based on the information provided.  Shockingly, they might even make a few phone calls to people in their district potentially impacted.  

Understanding the "legislative process" takes about 2 days for any smart person to understand.  And if you have genuinely capable people in office then they know full well how to build coalitions and get things done.  The problem which you unintentionally exposed is that we are electing people that do not have those basic management/life skills.  People in congress are not splitting atoms.  It is not technically difficult.  

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

6 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Can we keep this thread civil, guys, or am I going to have to put a [SERIOUS] tag on this gotdammed thing?

Serious this honky.........

[bolverk 29692]

35 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

How so?  It seems you are arguing that a pol getting advice or knowledge on an issue from an expert is a bad deal?  You also act as if there are issues where the lobbying only occurs for one side of the issue.  How it is supposed to work is that proponents from both sides of an issue come and make their case for the piece of legislation or whatever it is.   A smart person listens to both cases, asks questions and then makes a decision based on the information provided.  Shockingly, they might even make a few phone calls to people in their district potentially impacted.  

Understanding the "legislative process" takes about 2 days for any smart person to understand.  And if you have genuinely capable people in office then they know full well how to build coalitions and get things done.  The problem which you unintentionally exposed is that we are electing people that do not have those basic management/life skills.  People in congress are not splitting atoms.  It is not technically difficult.  

I hear what you're saying and understand your perspective, but I  respectfully disagree about the wisdom of putting so much power (knowledge being that power) in the hands of folks who have a vested financial interest in influencing legislation for special interest groups - especially if those folks are also former legislators.

[Guest]

Pretty much the most important thing would be implementing a 16 team playoff for college football and giving the state of Oklahoma back to whomever wants it.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Daylight saving time needs to be obliterated with  extreme prejudice.

[bolverk 29692]

[sheeeit 129]

2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I hear what you're saying and understand your perspective, but I  respectfully disagree about the wisdom of putting so much power (knowledge being that power) in the hands of folks who have a vested financial interest in influencing legislation for special interest groups - especially if those folks are also former legislators.

I still do not follow.  My first point was that making it "illegal" for former congress people to be lobbyists is just silly because they can still provide the same influence even if they are not registered lobbyists.  Unless you make some law (that would no doubt be unconstitutional and unenforceable) that former congress people can have literally no contact with sitting members, then they are going to have access and people are going to pay them for that access.  If I am a former pol and you make a law that says I cant lobby, then I will just set up a consulting company and hire a hot shot attorney to do the actual lobbying.  You simply can not prevent it.

So if you can not prevent then you need to control it or, at least, minimize the impact.  You can only do this by taking reelection/campaign money off the table.

And virtually everyone that goes to congress for something is getting paid to do it.  It is best if it is transparent.  

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 hours ago, bolverk said:

Fuck THAT shit.

[fattyflattie 4639]

23 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Won't the Senate tell them to eat a dick?

Hopefully. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

On a serious note:

1) much shorter term limits, across the board. TBD on SC

2) 45-60 age limit on day you take office.   The youth are just as bad as the elderly. 

3) protections for the rural vote. Cities are full of intelligent people, but also full of the dregs. No reason for them to be any more important than anyone else. Population center? WGAF.  

[GSU&UT 1798]

5 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Daylight saving time needs to be obliterated with  extreme prejudice.

Christ, I'll make my only post in this thread and say whatever happens it just needs to be done at least at a national level. California's ballot measure means all of us who get to write code get to add more edge cases (if we're dealing with timezones and scheduling) to our codebase. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19206]

1 hour ago, GSU&UT said:

Christ, I'll make my only post in this thread and say whatever happens it just needs to be done at least at a national level. California's ballot measure means all of us who get to write code get to add more edge cases (if we're dealing with timezones and scheduling) to our codebase. 

Christ, I assume you already have an edge case for AZ. Copy and paste that shit.

[Buzzrock 14926]

Daylight savings time has nothing to do with reforms to our Democracy. Or are we opening this up to policy changes in general? That could be a long thread.

[Bookman 4639]

What's the logic behind term limits? That after a certain amount of time one just becomes too corrupt?

[Buzzrock 14926]

When your number one goal is getting re-elected then you can’t really focus on being a public servant.

[Macanudo 12989]

14 minutes ago, Bookman said:

What's the logic behind term limits? That after a certain amount of time one just becomes too corrupt?

Because serving your country as an elected official shouldn't be a career.   Maybe as a sheriff or county judge but not at a national level

Go look up the Dingell family from Ohio.    Three members (father then son and then son's wife) have held a House seat since  1933.   John jr held it for 60 years on his own.   

Why the fuck does anyone need to be a Representative for 60 years?  Don young is the current Dean of the House with 45 years in office.   Patrick Leahy's been in the Senate since 1975 and Orrin Hatch since 1977. 

WTF?

As for district gerrymandering, we need to join 2018 and stop thinking of districts in racial ways.   I live in Kingwood NE of Houston.   My congressional district is carved up in such a way that we are joined along State Highway 99 to Cypress to the northwest and the IH-10 corridor in west Houston and then down towards the Med Center.   But people right across US 59 from me are in a different district.   Why?   Because they are the same color as I am.   If I live in a district drawn on population lines and not some gerrymandered crap I care about my district regardless of whether white, black or brown people make up the majority.   And my Representatives skin color means diddly squat.   The only thing I don't want is some idiot like Sheila Jackson Lee.   And if we drew lines on population and not skin color, we probably see a huge shift in the House, both in color, gender and quality of candidates.   How is that bad?  T

[bad_teammate 13218]

16 hours ago, pepper brooks said:

what we need is to get rid of career politicians.  Badly.  By resetting the age to 55 you would get people who have likely been very successful somewhere in the private sector who can then transition into public service as a way of giving back.  That is how these jobs were supposed to be, not career jobs leeching off the taxpayer and being bought by the highest bidders.  Making the age 55 ensures some level of experience, wisdom, and success, and also to some degree gives us "term limits" by the simple fact that most will quite after a few terms not wanting to spend their elderly years in the shithole that is Washington.  We do not need fewer old, we need fewer career politicians, and relics who have been there for 30-40 years playing the game.  

Congratulations on having the most consistently terrible take.

As for the bolded section... the average age of the Senate is over 60. At the beginning of the 115th Congress, there were 9 Senators over 80. Nearly 1/5th of the US Senate is of an age where it is a demonstrable scientific fact that their mental faculties are rapidly depleting. Brains start shrinking in a human's 60s.

31 of our 100 Senators are below 60.

69% of the US Senate is in the wheelhouse of normal human diminishing of cognitive function

31 of our 100 Senators are 70 or older

 

[CooterBrown 18015]

term limits, and reset eligibility age to run to a minimum of 55.  

Steady your walker, pee paw, and turn off cable news.

[GSU&UT 1798]

9 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Christ, I assume you already have an edge case for AZ. Copy and paste that shit.

Not a simple copy and paste job, but you know that.

[sheeeit 129]

2 hours ago, Bookman said:

What's the logic behind term limits? That after a certain amount of time one just becomes too corrupt?

No.  We have created a system that puts our elected officials in contrast with human nature.  In theory, members of congress are to do what is best for their constituents and the country but we constantly put them in position that forces them to decide whether something is better for the country or better for them personally to get reelected.  Human nature says self preservation is going to win out.  Ask any honest former congress person what their #1 goal was and the answer is getting reelected.

The pervasiveness of money in politics has its roots in funding reelection campaigns which have become increasingly expensive.  Example (this is just an example and I do not really care one or the other on the issue), Vegas (who everyone loves) has spent literally $100sM on trying to keep online gambling illegal.  It is obviously in their interest to do that.  But why does virtually every republican continue to support the current law?  In theory, if online gambling were legal and taxable locally, then lots of other states would get revenue.  They keep the status quo only because they want a chunk of those $$$ for their own reelection campaigns.  It is the same thing with unions, NRA, energy etc.  They have influence over pols that have nothing to do with their actual issues but they can influence them through money.  If no one in congress was running for reelection ever, then the power that those groups have would be drastically diminished.  Pols would vote on things based on merit and not on how it affects them personally.  And i fully realize that they should be doing that already which is why I talk about human nature.  

[Texas Jeff 1945]

I would like to see some reform to the Supreme Court, so that each president shall more or less be able to appoint two judges during each four year term.  Perhaps if the Supreme Court reaches the end of its term in an odd year and the president shall not yet have appointed and confirmed two justices to the bench, then the longest serving justice shall be removed from office.

I think this would cause the Supreme Court to roll over about every 18 years with 9 justices, and each president should be able to get two on the bench, but maybe more if there is a rash of deaths or retirements.  You would not have judges staying until they keel over in the hope that their party would one day control the White House and thus their replacement.

[bolverk 29692]

Bumping this thread, because I listened to a really convincing podcast this morning during a 300-mile drive back to Austin. A podcast that I likely wouldn't have taken the time to listen to except for the fact that my radio pleasures were mostly limited to "bro" and "red dirt" country.

Prior to listening to it, I was a bit skeptical of the argument for ranked voter preference elections. Now, I'm convinced that if widely implemented, it could solve a significant amount of our electoral problems in the US.

I realize that it's a lot to ask casual political posters to take an hour out of their time to listen to a podcast, but I urge any of you, right or left, to scrape that time together.

https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/tweak-vote

Edited November 25, 2018 by bolverk
It's Radiolab, so not some weird partisan polemic.