Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

If you could, what changes to the American Political System would you make?

My top 3 are:

1) No lobbyists.
2) Realistic and enforced campaign contribution and spending limits. No PACs and Corporations do NOT have
the same rights as individual people.
3) Restrict campaign time limit. Many countries only allow campaigns 30 days before elections. I'd like to see a
set time here as well. Maybe not 30 days but 45 or 60 should be adequate IMO.
4) No partisan politics below state office level. Local community offices will be individuals not political party
affiliated.


Thoughts?

Change to a Parliamentarian form of government.

VictorG wrote:If you could, what changes to the American Political System would you make?

My top 3 are:

1) No lobbyists.
2) Realistic and enforced campaign contribution and spending limits. No PACs and Corporations do NOT have
the same rights as individual people.
3) Restrict campaign time limit. Many countries only allow campaigns 30 days before elections. I'd like to see a
set time here as well. Maybe not 30 days but 45 or 60 should be adequate IMO.
4) No partisan politics below state office level. Local community offices will be individuals not political party
affiliated.


Thoughts?

Totally agree with all of these.

We need a constitutional amendment regarding personhood.

1. Mandatory open primaries so dyed-in-the-wool, yellow-dog partisans aren't choosing nominees.
2. Stop pushing the stupid mantra that the more people we have voting the better and that simply voting is a fulfillment of civic duties. People should be at least minimally informed, even if they get a lot of information from common dreams or Glenn Beck.
3. Get big money special interests out. Don't know if there is a good way to do it that wouldn't help solidify the two-party monopoly over the government, though.

And most importantly...

4. Congressional. Term. Limits.

5) Term limits (6-8 years is enough)
6) Eliminate cushy pensions
7) Congressmen/Senators subject to same laws they foist on us
8) Require citizens to pass a civics test to be able to vote
9) Eliminate Electoral College system

AZGrizFan wrote:5) Term limits (6-8 years is enough)
6) Eliminate cushy pensions
7) Congressmen/Senators subject to same laws they foist on us
8) Require citizens to pass a civics test to be able to vote
9) Eliminate Electoral College system

Term Limits is interesting. For it to be successful, the entire culture of Government and Washington would have to change which I'm sure would not be a bad thing. Whenever I hear serious discussions about term limits, the biggest problems brought up are that it takes time for new legislators to figure out how "the system" works. Estimates given are up to a year or more......that's a pretty large chunk of wasted time to have to repeat every few years.......

VictorG wrote:If you could, what changes to the American Political System would you make?

My top 3 are:

1) No lobbyists.
2) Realistic and enforced campaign contribution and spending limits. No PACs and Corporations do NOT have
the same rights as individual people.
3) Restrict campaign time limit. Many countries only allow campaigns 30 days before elections. I'd like to see a
set time here as well. Maybe not 30 days but 45 or 60 should be adequate IMO.
4) No partisan politics below state office level. Local community offices will be individuals not political party
affiliated.


Thoughts?

I agree 1000%, but i would put a #5. Term Limits 8 years max.

VictorG wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:5) Term limits (6-8 years is enough)
6) Eliminate cushy pensions
7) Congressmen/Senators subject to same laws they foist on us
8) Require citizens to pass a civics test to be able to vote
9) Eliminate Electoral College system

Term Limits is interesting. For it to be successful, the entire culture of Government and Washington would have to change which I'm sure would not be a bad thing. Whenever I hear serious discussions about term limits, the biggest problems brought up are that it takes time for new legislators to figure out how "the system" works. Estimates given are up to a year or more......that's a pretty large chunk of wasted time to have to repeat every few years.......

Precisely. And the more time wasted, the less time spent making assinine laws like Obamacare the law of the land. If we REALLY wanted to limit government, let's send new representatives EVERY year.

VictorG wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:5) Term limits (6-8 years is enough)
6) Eliminate cushy pensions
7) Congressmen/Senators subject to same laws they foist on us
8) Require citizens to pass a civics test to be able to vote
9) Eliminate Electoral College system

Term Limits is interesting. For it to be successful, the entire culture of Government and Washington would have to change which I'm sure would not be a bad thing. Whenever I hear serious discussions about term limits, the biggest problems brought up are that it takes time for new legislators to figure out how "the system" works. Estimates given are up to a year or more......that's a pretty large chunk of wasted time to have to repeat every few years.......

They spend on average. 5 hours day fundraising. I'll bet the learning would doped up tremendously without that.

I don't want them learning how the system works.

I would add that senators and house reps must have served in the military before they can be elected.

If somebody you are related to has been in congress, you cannot run until16 years after they have been out of office.

No black caucus without a 50% white representation

No lobbyists as mentioned above.

No political parties.
Term limits.

Revamp the US political system you say.

Removing every politician/elected official currently in Washington would be a good start

Term limits

Lifetime ban on lobbying congress if you have served in Congress. Ban would also apply to family members.

President serves one term only. Change it to 6 years if you think 4 years isn't enough time to screw things up.

Line item veto for the president.

Require all laws creating a govt program to sunset after 10 years. Law must be renewed every 10 years or the program ends.

VictorG wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:5) Term limits (6-8 years is enough)
6) Eliminate cushy pensions
7) Congressmen/Senators subject to same laws they foist on us
8) Require citizens to pass a civics test to be able to vote
9) Eliminate Electoral College system

Term Limits is interesting. For it to be successful, the entire culture of Government and Washington would have to change which I'm sure would not be a bad thing. Whenever I hear serious discussions about term limits, the biggest problems brought up are that it takes time for new legislators to figure out how "the system" works. Estimates given are up to a year or more......that's a pretty large chunk of wasted time to have to repeat every few years.......

The flip side of term limits is that it shifts even more power to the bureaucracy. Congressional and agency staffers are the ones who have been there and understand how things work so elected officials will rely on them even more.

The positives might outweigh the negatives but there are still negatives.

UNI88 wrote:

VictorG wrote:
Term Limits is interesting. For it to be successful, the entire culture of Government and Washington would have to change which I'm sure would not be a bad thing. Whenever I hear serious discussions about term limits, the biggest problems brought up are that it takes time for new legislators to figure out how "the system" works. Estimates given are up to a year or more......that's a pretty large chunk of wasted time to have to repeat every few years.......

The flip side of term limits is that it shifts even more power to the bureaucracy. Congressional and agency staffers are the ones who have been there and understand how things work so elected officials will rely on them even more.

The positives might outweigh the negatives but there are still negatives.

Maybe they could pass laws that are more tightly written so that the bureaucracy does not write thousands of pages of rules and regulations based on nebulous law. I like the term limits idea as a vehicle to force these "lawmakers" to have to go back from whence they came and live under the laws they create.

HI54UNI wrote:Term limits

Lifetime ban on lobbying congress if you have served in Congress. Ban would also apply to family members.

President serves one term only. Change it to 6 years if you think 4 years isn't enough time to screw things up.

Line item veto for the president.

Require all laws creating a govt program to sunset after 10 years. Law must be renewed every 10 years or the program ends.

AZGrizFan wrote:5) Term limits (6-8 years is enough)
6) Eliminate cushy pensions
7) Congressmen/Senators subject to same laws they foist on us
8) Require citizens to pass a civics test to be able to vote
9) Eliminate Electoral College system

5) term limits can be a good thing. However we have way too many career politicians that just get in the way. The problem with term limits is that you lose the good people and the institutional knowledge. I'm all for revamping this system, perhaps we can force them to spend more time at home, less time at junkets and such.

9) that will disenfranchise small states like Delaware. The EC is good.

All that's been said on campaign finance I agree with. There is way too much money. Also, the campaigns last way too long. We don't need a year or more. I'm all for shortening to it. In my mind, if they were shitty in 2015, then they'll still be shitty in 2016. Lets the campaigns start in August, have some televised debates, etc... In September, everyone votes in the same week. After that, the top candidates can go around a shake babies, whatever. October there are 4 debates (1 each week). First Tuesday of November we vote.

It's rough, I know, but it's sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much better than listening to sound bites and letting these fucks spend millions just to lose.

Ibanez wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:9) Eliminate Electoral College system

9) that will disenfranchise small states like Delaware. The EC is good.

Why? The EC disenfranchises minority party voters in solid blue or red states. Every conservative in California, New York, Washington, or the Northeast knows their vote is a waste of time. Similarly for liberals in Texas, Montana, or the deep south. Our presidential elections have come down to the likes of Ohio, Virgina, Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin and a few others. Is that REALLY the group you want electing our presidents?

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:

9) that will disenfranchise small states like Delaware. The EC is good.

Why? The EC disenfranchises minority party voters in solid blue or red states. Every conservative in California, New York, Washington, or the Northeast knows their vote is a waste of time. Similarly for liberals in Texas, Montana, or the deep south. Our presidential elections have come down to the likes of Ohio, Virgina, Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin and a few others. Is that REALLY the group you want electing our presidents?

I don't know. It seems with a popular vote, candidates can just bypass smaller populations. I know Mitt lost the popular vote by 4.98 million votes..roughly the size of a small state. (SC, for instance has 4.7 million residents.) That's pretty close (roughly he lost by less than 4%.)

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:

9) that will disenfranchise small states like Delaware. The EC is good.

Why? The EC disenfranchises minority party voters in solid blue or red states. Every conservative in California, New York, Washington, or the Northeast knows their vote is a waste of time. Similarly for liberals in Texas, Montana, or the deep south. Our presidential elections have come down to the likes of Ohio, Virgina, Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin and a few others. Is that REALLY the group you want electing our presidents?

They should look at changing the EC to a system like Maine and Nebraska have. In Nebraska and Maine the statewide popular vote for President only determines two Presidential electors, the two representing the states’ Senators. The remaining votes are allocated according to the popular vote in each House district.

This still makes the candidates focus on all areas instead of the most populous state. But it also potentially gives minority party voters a say.

AZGrizFan wrote:The EC disenfranchises minority party voters in solid blue or red states.

Only when the state rules provide for winner-take-all. There are still states that proportion out the electors based on popular vote. That was the original EC concept, and I for one think we should return to it.

Ibanez wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Why? The EC disenfranchises minority party voters in solid blue or red states. Every conservative in California, New York, Washington, or the Northeast knows their vote is a waste of time. Similarly for liberals in Texas, Montana, or the deep south. Our presidential elections have come down to the likes of Ohio, Virgina, Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin and a few others. Is that REALLY the group you want electing our presidents?

I don't know. It seems with a popular vote, candidates can just bypass smaller populations. I know Mitt lost the popular vote by 4.98 million votes..roughly the size of a small state. (SC, for instance has 4.7 million residents.) That's pretty close (roughly he lost by less than 4%.)

Really? How many times did Obama or Romney visit states with small populations or the guaranteed win states during the runup to the 2012 election? Versus how many times they visited the battleground states.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
I don't know. It seems with a popular vote, candidates can just bypass smaller populations. I know Mitt lost the popular vote by 4.98 million votes..roughly the size of a small state. (SC, for instance has 4.7 million residents.) That's pretty close (roughly he lost by less than 4%.)

Really? How many times did Obama or Romney visit states with small populations or the guaranteed win states during the runup to the 2012 election? Versus how many times they visited the battleground states.

SC was a lock for the GOP each year but Obama came many times. Biden is here often. Hell, he even mentions Charleston in his speech when he won the 2008 election.

Our 9 votes are solid Red.

VictorG wrote: 3) Restrict campaign time limit. Many countries only allow campaigns 30 days before elections. I'd like to see a
set time here as well. Maybe not 30 days but 45 or 60 should be adequate IMO.

This would just exacerbate one of the current problems, imo.

It would make it all but impossible for an unknown, non-career politician to get elected. He/she would have no name recognition and would never be able to establish a campaign against a more well-known candidate.

And, if political ads annoy you now...

...imagine if they were all concentrated in a 45-60 day time frame.

Ibanez wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Really? How many times did Obama or Romney visit states with small populations or the guaranteed win states during the runup to the 2012 election? Versus how many times they visited the battleground states.

SC was a lock for the GOP each year but Obama came many times. Biden is here often. Hell, he even mentions Charleston in his speech when he won the 2008 election.

Our 9 votes are solid Red.

Well, there's 4.5 million people in California and 2.3 million in New York who disagree with you. And over 2 million in Illinois and 4 million in Florida....I could go on and on.