What flaws in the American system of Politics would You like see changed?

ynotdu

This is meant as a serious thread and one i would like to be educational.

It assumes that You love Your Country ,or if not Native born have lived there long enough to have a good understanding of the nuances.

It is frustrating to Me that i am interested but have to rely on 24/7 News Channels that never go into any depth and are Partisan,The same is true of almost Every website about America.

So i am asking that You leave Your party allegiance aside,or even if You are a floating voter and just be rational.

From here the system seems very cumbersome and appears to harm America.
First the declaration of intention to run.
Then the primaries that lead to the final candidates,then the actual campaign culminating in election Night leaving a candidate becoming President elect for a further two months before he is Sworn in
.
If he is lucky his[still no Woman yet America,it's a long time since 1776!] he carries either the house or senate,if he is very lucky he carries both,if he is unlucky he carries neither.

Within a Year he has to totally focus on the mid-terms and a two term president is a lame duck for at least a year before the end.

by contrast European elections are 4-6 weeks[of course the final year is spent by the Govt bribing the electorate usually]
Bills becoming law by cross party agreement is usually a non starter though.
Coalition Govts are usually the Norm though under any variety of Proportional representation,but a coalition party signs up to the 'party whip' which means they support the largest party or walk,bringing a Govt down.

So if You had a clean slate what would You like to change about America's electoral system and the Constitution that Governs it?

one final thought would You like to see the no more than two term limit abolished?

also please bring up anything i have missed to add to the debate,but use the grey matter,not the emotion.

Cheers.

metrovelvet

I like the two term limit. I also like the primaries.

I think the house of rep term of two years is a bit pointless.By the time you're elected you have to think about the next campaign.

I'm also not sure I like the executive power to include appointment of Supreme Court Judges or that the seat is a life term.

Also- as a citizen, between municipal, gubernatorial, state senate seats, congress, the mayor, there is a lot of voting to do and I would say when I go into a voting booth I have no idea who 80% of the candidates.

I also like that I can still vote in US elections even though I am not a resident there.

I also think they should bring back School House Rocks on saturday mornings.

Manic Moran

Single transferrable vote.

California has just made two notable changes I hope will show effect by 2012. Firstly, the gerrymandering of State districts is over. Secondly, we've moved to an open ballot with runoff instead of the primary system, which is about as close to the STV as we're going to get.

I'm fine with the term limits as they are. I can also understand the need for high-level judges being appointed, and for life, but would rather it was done by other judges as opposed to politicians.

NTM

kev9100

I would like to see change 1. The abolition of two year congresses. If there was 4 year congresses it would mean that people wouldn't be in a almost constant election mod

2. The reform of the fillibuster. I understand the need to protect the minority, but when the minority has the power to stop almost all legislation we have gone too far.

3. The ridiculously partisan nature of US politics. Both the far-right and the far-left have corrupted politics and made it into an a constant battle where people compete to shout the loudest.

Nodin

A 4 year congress that still had its term due halfway through a Presidential term, I presume ?

ynotdu

Nodin wrote: »

A 4 year congress that still had its term due halfway through a Presidential term, I presume ?

again excuse my uncertainty about such things but is it not the case only about half face Election,and the other half two Years later?

Nodin

ynotdu wrote: »

again excuse my uncertainty about such things but is it not the case only about half face Election,and the other half two Years later?

Hmmmm. I was thinking just of the house of representatives and including not the senate(being a foreigner, I always make the mistake of thinking of congress as just that 1 house).

metrovelvet

Nodin wrote: »

Hmmmm. I was thinking just of the house of representatives and including not the senate(being a foreigner, I always make the mistake of thinking of congress as just that 1 house).

Congress is the House of Rep and the Senate.

Overheal

Term limits for House Representatives and Senators. This one is iffy ground. Even needs likely to be on a State-by-State basis to mandate. But career politicians do no good.

metrovelvet

Overheal wrote: »

Term limits for House Representatives and Senators. This one is iffy ground. Even needs likely to be on a State-by-State basis to mandate. But career politicians do no good.

Seriously. Ted Kennedy was like a monument.

Amerika

As long as news media organizations continue to be biased, as long as judges continue to parse the law to fit their ideological agenda, as long as any party controlled Congress favors policy that helps their base and constituents over the general good, and as long as the American people continue to vote based on sound bites and singular issues, we have the best system to handle the overload of political information and enormity of problems and complexities that face the nation.

But if there were one thing I would like changed, it would be for a more fairer political playing field. Good luck with that!

Black Swan

• Flat tax
• 4-year term US House
• 2 term limits both US House and Senate
• No borrowing from Social Security
• Amend the constitution to where the office of president and vice president is based upon popular vote; i.e., one-person, one-vote, and no Electoral College.
• Campaign finance reform that only allows individual registered voter contributions with a $2,000 limit per person per election (no donations by unions, corporations, businesses, NGOs, special interest lobbies, PACs)
• No capital punishment
• Prisons for profit outlawed (no private sector prisons)
• No secret prisons, or financial support for such prisons outside USA
• No torture by USA or its proxies
• No foreign aid for war proxies (including Israel)
• Right to an attorney, due process, fast and speedy trial, and equal protection under the law for captured foreign war combatants
• Repeal of the PATRIOT ACT
• US Supreme Court Justice nominees must have a minimum of 10 years experience as a judge
• No government subsidies for oil exploration and development
• All private vehicles driven in the USA manufactured after 31 December 2015 must be 100% hydrogen fuel cell powered; with the same regulation applied to all commercial vehicles 4 years later (applies to all imports too)
• 20% per gallon increase in diesel oil and gasoline taxation for all vehicles effective 1 January 2016, with these funds 100% allocated to public mass transit, with priority given to high speed bullet trains that run from border to border and coast to coast.
• Normalization of foreign relations with Cuba, and the lifting of all trade and tourist limitations
• Complete withdrawal of all US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan by 1 November 2012
• US Congress to officially end the war in Korea, followed by the lifting of trade embargoes, and the provision of direct foreign investments to North Korea for peaceful manufacturing enterprises. The gradual withdrawal of US military from Korea as normalization of relations occurs between North Korea and the USA. Incentives to US corporations and businesses to open divisions in North Korea.
• Native American gambling establishments and machines to be subject to the same state and federal taxation as non-Native American businesses and corporations
• No government subsidies for tobacco growers
• Marijuana to be legalized, taxed, and regulated similar to laws that pertain to alcohol

**Blue_Lagoon for President 2016** Oops, probably not old enough even then, plus need amendment to allow Irish born to run for US President.

Manic Moran

Egads.

Flat tax What?! You'd tax the poor!? Or reduce the taxes for rich people!? Fascist! Or Beholden to Oil Money. Or something.

Amend the constitution to where the office of president and vice president is based upon popular vote; i.e., one-person, one-vote, and no Electoral College. Yes, well, guess who your running opponent would be on that one.

Campaign finance reform that only allows individual registered voter contributions with a $2,000 limit per person per election (no donations by unions, corporations, businesses, NGOs, special interest lobbies, PACs)
OK. I can see that

No capital punishmentWell, we'll meet each other on the debating field, so

Prisons for profit outlawed (no private sector prisons)If correctly administered by the government, I'm not sure I see the problem. Oversight is going to be an issue regardless of if it's the State Prison Service or the private sector.

No secret prisons, or financial support for such prisons outside USA OK, I'll accept that at first glance.

No torture by USA or its proxies Also accepted, as long as the definition of torture is that as used by international treaty, not some domestic invention.

No foreign aid for war proxies (including Israel) So we should get involved in the wars ourselves then?

Right to an attorney, due process, fast and speedy trial, and equal protection under the law for captured foreign war combatants I presume you mean those who are not legitimate war combatants, there are already rules in place for those who act within the guidelines. I submit that the correct course of action to deal with those who do not fit into that category is not a unilateral decision by the US, but instead an expansion of the international laws of war to fill in the gap.

Repeal of the PATRIOT ACT Well, at least some of it. Not all of it is bad

US Supreme Court Justice nominees must have a minimum of 10 years experience as a judge What sort of judge?

No government subsidies for oil exploration and development That could very well be disagreed with an issue of national strategy, and also hits some definition snags. It is argued (by Europeans) that the US subsidises companies such as Boeing through its government contracts. What stops the same happening when the government buys oil from the oil companies?

All private vehicles driven in the USA manufactured after 31 December 2015 must be 100% hydrogen fuel cell powered; with the same regulation applied to all commercial vehicles 4 years later (applies to all imports too)
What if I want to drive to Canada on my summer holidays? I would prefer to let the market, even if aided by incentives, drive that one

20% per gallon increase in diesel oil and gasoline taxation for all vehicles effective 1 January 2016, with these funds 100% allocated to public mass transit, with priority given to high speed bullet trains that run from border to border and coast to coast.
The tax increase is fair enough, but I strongly question your priority on long-haul rail. Put the money to something that people will use every day, not once or twice a year, if that.

Normalization of foreign relations with Cuba, and the lifting of all trade and tourist limitations. Appropriate recompense for the assets of Americans seized by the Cuban government is, I think, a fair price for this.

Complete withdrawal of all US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan by 1 November 2012 Yes, well...

US Congress to officially end the war in Korea I believe you'll find that that is beyond the power of the US Congress

The gradual withdrawal of US military from Korea as normalization of relations occurs between North Korea and the USA. Presuming that the two Koreas don't agree to end the war (and after 57 years, there's no sign of this happening yet) would you plan on asking the South their opinion before withdrawing the tripwire?

Native American gambling establishments and machines to be subject to the same state and federal taxation as non-Native American businesses and corporations You realise that will require a Constitutional ammendment which strips the indians of their sovereignty?

No government subsidies for tobacco growersI'd like to see the fine print on what subsidies are being spent on right now. Disincentive taxes may be the better route.

Marijuana to be legalized, taxed, and regulated similar to laws that pertain to alcoholI'm on the fence on this one. Got another two months to make up my mind.

NTM

ynotdu

Amerika wrote: »

But if there were one thing I would like changed, it would be for a more fairer political playing field.

Amerika You genuinely have Me stumpfed there,
What do You mean.?
Some would say a fair political playing field could only happen if any candidate regardless of personal wealth could run.
This could only happen if Candidates were funded through tax.

demonspawn

Electoral college, get rid of it.

And get rid of the Federal Reserve while you're at it.

Also, bring back paper ballots. I just like punching holes in stuff.

Manic Moran

demonspawn wrote: »

Also, bring back paper ballots. I just like punching holes in stuff.

Better yet... Use a rifle to punch the holes in the paper. What could be more American than that?

Voting would be a hell of a lot more fun. Plus, it would encourage people to learn to shoot accurately, if they want to have their vote count.

NTM

demonspawn

Manic Moran wrote: »

Better yet... Use a rifle to punch the holes in the paper. What could be more American than that?

Voting would be a hell of a lot more fun. Plus, it would encourage people to learn to shoot accurately, if they want to have their vote count.

NTM

+1 You'd see the electorate quadruple overnight!!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

demonspawn

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Such wonderful inventions like radio, television, and the internet have made the electoral college pretty much pointless.

When the idea of the electoral college first came about, it was very difficult for candidates to travel to every state and cover very much ground. Things have changed quite considerably since then. These days candidates just have to hold a press conference and they can speak to millions of people at a time.

The electoral college is outdated and unnecessary. It leaves the U.S. political process open to corruption and gives way too much power to swing states like Florida.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

demonspawn

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I imagine it's because if they were seen kissing the same baby over and over certain questions would be raised.

But your question raises a good point. Why do they continue to campaign state to state? Surely those millions of dollars could be spent in more productive ways. Maybe it's one of those cases where "we've always done it this way, why change now?". Maybe Obama would have done well to follow his own campaign slogan.

Manic Moran

demonspawn wrote: »

Such wonderful inventions like radio, television, and the internet have made the electoral college pretty much pointless.

When the idea of the electoral college first came about, it was very difficult for candidates to travel to every state and cover very much ground. Things have changed quite considerably since then. These days candidates just have to hold a press conference and they can speak to millions of people at a time.

That only addresses one of the several reasons that EC came into play, but even at that, there is debate as to the accuracy of the theory. Indeed, in the late 1700s the people who were eligible to vote tended to be very well informed as to the candidates. There was nothing approximating suffrage at the time, most States had property requirements before being allowed to vote, for example. The elite, well-versed and well-travelled were the eligible voters.

The electoral college is outdated and unnecessary. It leaves the U.S. political process open to corruption and gives way too much power to swing states like Florida.

At least with a swing State that means that by definition there's a chance that a candidate from either political inclination has a fair chance of winning. You cannot say the same for a case where the urban areas, which tend to be dominated by one mode of thought, holds the power.

What's the problem with the latter?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055999003
This guy seems to have spotted the elephant, as it applies to Ireland.

Most importantly, though, there's the small issue of just who the President is. He is the President of the United States, not the President of the Populations of the United States Combined. The EC is a direct reflection of the Connecticut Compromise, which recognises the fact that there are fifty equal States whilst still allowing the larger States to have a reflection of their greater populations. EC votes are directly tied to the number of seats a State has in Congress.

NTM

ynotdu

This is just one of many articles on the Web about the current situation in American Politics.it is from a respected source i.e the Financial times and gives a good insight into how Europe is perceiving America.


There was a second one i spotted a few days ago from an American Journal saying there will be 15 days available after the Summer recess to take votes before another recess for the midterms,and that most of FY2011 Budget still has not been passed,i could not post it at the time and now i cannot find it
Obviously after the election Congress will have a diffrient shape and what looked like having support to pass may well not.
Just in case anybody thinks i am being an upstart that knows nothing about America or is criticising it please see post one,tis a quagmire i am trying to understand:)

but for those who said the system was not broke and bad for America's best interest all i can say is it sure looks like it from here!

Hmmmmm that link brought up gobblydygook i will try paste the article

---

Party paralysis in Washington
Published: August 15 2010 19:18 | Last updated: August 15 2010 19:18

The US House of Representatives interrupted its summer recess last week to pass, with a bogus sense of drama, an inconsequential spending bill. The measure, already passed by the Senate, gave money to the states to maintain teacher and public-service payrolls, which was good, but covered the cost with savings elsewhere and corporate tax increases, making its stimulus value minimal. That such a timid initiative should have divided and paralysed Congress for weeks is the most disappointing thing of all.

The gridlock over the jobs bill was not unusual – except that in this case a bill did pass in the end. In domestic policy Congress has rendered itself incapable, and voters know it. Approval ratings for Congress as an institution, and for each party taken separately, are close to historic lows. Lately, with the economy still weak, and other policy questions pressing for solution, Capitol Hill has had nothing to offer but a furious, thrashing impotence. Elected officials, returning to their constituencies and embarking on their campaigns for November’s mid-term elections, will receive a clear message: you are doing a pitiful job.

EDITOR’S CHOICE
Opinion: Obama’s brave remarks reveal a true patriot - Aug-15.Editorial: Government-sponsored mess - Aug-16..Yet, for the next few months, their elected representatives will be intent on ignoring them. Looking to November, each party sees greater advantage in blaming the other. What do policy and the standing of the institution matter, if tactical advantage can be gained over the other party? Candidates judge that exciting core supporters counts most. It does not matter if we Democrats (we Republicans) are widely held in contempt, so long as those Republicans (those Democrats) are disliked even more.

Positions are so entrenched that neither side risks backing down, and compromises that would appeal to much of the electorate – not just on the economy but on immigration and other vital matters – are set aside. The enmity expressed by each party for the other is not synthetic. It is real.

Mutual loathing of the parties matters more in the US than it would in other countries, because the constitution requires compromise if anything is to be done. Checks and balances figure so prominently in the constitutional design that without some give and take, the system freezes. In the past, such give and take has been common. Often, as well, inaction is not bad policy. But when conditions demand action, and politicians reject compromise, you have a formula for a failing government. At the moment, the US government is failing.

During this recess, US politicians should open their ears to what voters at large are telling them. Both sides should move. President Barack Obama was elected to end this gridlock and broker compromise; he should stop blaming George W. Bush for everything that ails the country. Republicans should stop reflexively blocking everything the Democrats propose, and start discussing policy as though it mattered. Most likely, it will not happen. The short-term political logic is remorseless, and the US will pay the price

Denerick

If I was dictator of America I would do the following:

• Increase the tax burden on everyone and concentrate on development of infrastructure and reducing the debt.
• Double petrol taxes and introduce a national VAT tax.
• Build a camp out in the Arizona desert for Rush Limbaugh.
• MOAR TAXES

metrovelvet

Denerick wrote: »

If I was dictator of America I would do the following:

• Increase the tax burden on everyone and concentrate on development of infrastructure and reducing the debt.
• Double petrol taxes and introduce a national VAT tax.
• Build a camp out in the Arizona desert for Rush Limbaugh.
• MOAR TAXES

Jesus Christ. Thank god you're not.

demonspawn

Denerick wrote: »

• Double petrol taxes

Petrol isn't taxed in the U.S., it's subsidized by the government.
Hopefully the current dictator of the U.S. knows a bit more about the country.

Denerick

demonspawn wrote: »

Petrol isn't taxed in the U.S., it's subsidized by the government.
Hopefully the current dictator of the U.S. knows a bit more about the country.

Gas tax?

demonspawn

Denerick wrote: »

Gas tax?

What do you mean? Yes, petrol in the U.S. is called gas. It's still subsidized by the U.S. government. That's why you can buy a gallon of petrol over there for the price of a liter here.

Denerick

demonspawn wrote: »

What do you mean? Yes, petrol in the U.S. is called gas. It's still subsidized by the U.S. government. That's why you can buy a gallon of petrol over there for the price of a liter here.

What are you on about? Gas/petrol/whatever is taxed at 18.4 cent per gallon by the federal government and then higher in most states.

I'd love to say something along the lines of 'hopefully our current non dictator president knows something about the country blah blah blah'...

demonspawn

Denerick wrote: »

What are you on about? Gas/petrol/whatever is taxed at 18.4 cent per gallon by the federal government and then higher in most states.

I'd love to say something along the lines of 'hopefully our current non dictator president knows something about the country blah blah blah'...

So they subsidize it to artificially lower the price then tax you for it at the pumps? O.o

Denerick

demonspawn wrote: »

So they subsidize it to artificially lower the price then tax you for it at the pumps? O.o

Believe whatever it is that you want to believe. You claimed the US has no petrol taxes whatsoever.

demonspawn

Denerick wrote: »

Believe whatever it is that you want to believe. You claimed the US has no petrol taxes whatsoever.

I may have been mistaken. The last time I was in the States, if I had $5 in my pocket that meant I could get $5 worth of gas. As tax is added up separately over there, I assumed that gas was not taxed. Is that still the case or would $5 of gas cost $5 plus tax?

Edit: I know states charge their own taxes so it may just be different from where I lived, Texas.

metrovelvet

demonspawn wrote: »

I may have been mistaken. The last time I was in the States, if I had $5 in my pocket that meant I could get $5 worth of gas. As tax is added up separately over there, I assumed that gas was not taxed. Is that still the case or would $5 of gas cost $5 plus tax?

Edit: I know states charge their own taxes so it may just be different from where I lived, Texas.

Tax at the pump will depend on the state.

Your post makes no sense btw. Read it again.

Once gas goes up, the price of everything goes up. So no. Not in a recession. Not a good idea.

southsiderosie

demonspawn wrote: »

I may have been mistaken. The last time I was in the States, if I had $5 in my pocket that meant I could get $5 worth of gas. As tax is added up separately over there, I assumed that gas was not taxed. Is that still the case or would $5 of gas cost $5 plus tax?

Edit: I know states charge their own taxes so it may just be different from where I lived, Texas.

Tax is included in the price of gas as you see it. The pump will tell you the exact federal and local rates. Most European countries tax gasoline much more heavily than they do in the US, which accounts for much of the price difference.

Mjollnir

If I were the Leader Maximum Utmost, all social conservatives would have to wear those really big clown shoes in public.

Killer Wench

No more elections for district/state judges.