I'm willing to bet if I picked a group that you strongly disliked and stated they should be given the reins of government and be allowed to enact their program you may feel a bit differently

What do you mean by counts as much? Surely if you mean influence on government then the KKK counts for literally nothing while Martin Luther King still has immense influence even today. He's even got a federal holiday.

If you mean "counts as much" in the sense that they both have the exact same right to express their beliefs, then I think that's one of the best things about America.

@strat:

Fair enough, it IS easier to criticize than to come up with one's own idea...

I honestly think that we need a marriage between the systems Plato (JUST the government bit, no eugenics here) Hobbes, and Mill suggest in their ideals.

A dictatorship is out of the question, obviously--post-1945 I think most rational people in the West see that in this day and age, that's just not the answer.

A monarchy requires a sort of devotion to God or some sort of bloodline that we just don't have and to start one would be absurd, not to mention the fact they've gone by the wayside and are only a tad better than a dictatorship.

We need a republic, but a much TIGHETER republic than we have had thus far.

I honestly think that the answer to a better government is less elected leaders with more power, but with the checks and balances still in place.

Leave the Judicial Branch alone, that's the one branch I think was set up PERFECTLY--or about as good as one can set up a Branch--by the Founders.

I'd merge the House and Senate, just have the Senate; the reason for the divide before was the discrepancy between Big and Small states; with a huge country now and 300 million people, we've putgrown that, I think, we have enough people in each state so we don't need a special House for "Small" states.

So we have the Senate, and NOW here is my idea:

Since we are so tied to political parties, for better and for worse--certainly there's a bit of both--I would suggest that each State have 1 Senator from each party.

TRUE equality of ideas, the majority and minority.

1 Democrat and 1 Republican Representative in California.
1 Democrat and 1 Republican Representative in Texas.

Further, I'd stipulate that those who belong to a political party may change at any time their affiliation, but just as only Democrats can vote in a Democratic Primary and only GOP members for Republican Primaries, you may only vote for either your Democrat (if that) or Republican (if that) Senator.

HOWEVER, if you are undeclared, you may vote for either and both (and we'll see THEN how long parties stand.)

Slo we'll have a natural deadlock kin the Senate of 50-50 for each party, and they'll HAVE to work with each other.

Further, to add pressure--I'd keep the 6-year term limits, but stipulate that at the 2-year mark if those members of a certain State's Senator (ie, those who voted for the Republican Senator from New York) then they may vote for a recall of that Senator; if recalled the new candidate may serve out the rest of his predecessor's terma dn then run on his own accord once that term is up.

One recall per State Party Senator per 6 years--if your state's party is dumb enough to vote someone in that can't get it done TWICE they do NOT deserve to have their voice heard.



For the Executive Branch I'd keep most of the qualifications the same, witht the following changes:

-Strip the power to send in "limited troops" for a "limited time;" we ahven't had a DECLARED war since WWII and, surprise surprise, that was the last war we really entered pretty much unified and that's so often lauded as our "Greatest Generation" (and besides all that pomb and fanfare, it's just an imbalance of power, if we're going to send American boys to die, let's take the time and be sure that our SENATE votes on it, that we have a 2/3 majority and are REALLY sure, across party lines since now we have a 50-50 split in the Senate, that we want to do this...and then we'll see how long America remains militant.)

-Likewise, keep the 4-year term, but, also likewise, make a recall at the 2-year makr a possibility, but this may ONLY be invoked if the President is either impeached OR if there is a 2/3 "Vote of No Confidence" by the Senate followed by a 3/4 majority vote by the People

With so many opportunities to LOSE office and lose it FAST without action or cooperation, we'll see how long Reds and Blues, Demmies and the GOP decide to play Cat and Mouse and not work with each other.

No system of government is perfect. It's a simple truth. What makes or breaks a government is the quality of the men who run it. In all honesty, I would prefer a dictatorship provided I had a garuantee that the dictator would always make decisions that were good for the people and not for himself. Because if a good man is ruling and has supreme power, huge amounts of good can be accomplished. However, the fact is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, so we will never have the ideal nation that I have described. That is why we have democracy. By dividing all the power between a larger pool of people (not talking about voters, because in the end voters have absolutely no real power [the electoral colleges have it all]). Because of this, it takes longer for everything to happen and everything is also much more diluted, for better or worse.

Democracy is not the problem facing the US. There are plenty of democracies that work really, really well. The problem, to put it in corporate terms, is that our business model is obsolete. We got where we are by moving in to places where other people lived, taking their stuff, and making useful things (or sometimes useless but cool things) out of that stuff. Eventually we ran out of people to take stuff from, and since then we've been having a lot of trouble.

Or, to put it more technically, the US never actually recovered from the recession of the early 80s. We masked the problem for 25 years by living on debt, but that won't work anymore. We're maxed out. And since what we call "the economy" is built on the assumption that consumption equals prosperity, we have a critical problem that's only going to be fixed by a major rethinking of our priorities and values. And that's exceedingly difficult, especially for a country that still has so much power.

Our democracy is definitely stretched at the moment, but that's because people are terrified, not because democracy is a bad idea. But, obiwan, as more people come to think like you, the end of democracy comes nearer and nearer.

"Our democracy is definitely stretched at the moment, but that's because people are terrified, not because democracy is a bad idea. But, obiwan, as more people come to think like you, the end of democracy comes nearer and nearer."

1. I'm tired and enraged, not terrified.
2. That's supposed to deter me, more folks think like me and that's the end of democracy? Since I just said how much of a mistake THIS system of democracy is...
3. I'm not advocating for a dictatorship, just a much tighter republic

obiwanobiwan, your "Tighter Republic" is monstrous. Despite your tendency to write huge, banal essays of posts I really expected a more intelligent system from you then the one you set up.

For one thing the court system is far from perfect, with crooked plea deals and overcrowded dockets hindering the administration of justice. Your claim that it was perfectly set up by the Founders is also false, in that apart from mandating the creation of a Supreme Court the Constitution leaves the rest of organizing the judiciary to Congress.

Your idea for merging the House and Senate (or rather abolishing the House) is patently ludicrous.

"I'd merge the House and Senate, just have the Senate; the reason for the divide before was the discrepancy between Big and Small states; with a huge country now and 300 million people, we've putgrown that, I think, we have enough people in each state so we don't need a special House for "Small" states."

I really can't follow your logic there. Why does the fact that we have 300 million people mean that there's no need to have a house representing the people directly rather than representing them through state-wide constituencies, as the current Senate does? I really don't understand you.


More ridiculous is your plan on how the new Senate will be arranged. Why would you institutionalize the two party system by reserving one seat per state to each party? Why would you effectively give the party of the ruling president the control of the Senate since the VP breaks ties? Even assuming you abolish the VP's sole role, how would you then break the perpetual tie? Why would you force a Democratic Senator on Utah and a Republican one on Rhode Island? Why do you limit the franchise to something like 17th century English standards by legally preventing people from even voting for the people who will represent them if they're not of the same party? Your recall plan is retarded. Who votes in the recall election? If there's only one recall per term, does that mean that the new guy keeps his office regardless or, as you imply, that the party loses its representation from that state?


Presidential war powers is a grotesquely complicated issue which neither I nor you know enough about to start arguing about the specifics of it. I do know, however, that your plan is incredibly unrealistic in how it tries to tie the hands of the president. While I'm all for declarations of war and the Congress being assertive of its authority in foreign policy, at the end of the day there shouldn't have to be a 2/3 majority to authorize a first strike on Russia if there was Six-Day-War-style intelligence that an attack from them was imminent. There's a difference between preventing another Iraq (or Korea, a much more illegal war), and putting the country in material danger by preventing possible action from being taken.

Your 2 year impeachment/recall plan is one of the more absurd points, in that it seems to imply that the President can't be impeached before the first 2 years and makes it mandatory for one to happen at the 2 year mark. This might just be a case of unclear writing, however. Also, how could impeachment work in a unicameral system? Our current process makes a great deal of use of the two houses.

A motion of confidence makes no sense in a presidential system. Even assuming this easy-style impeachment (since impeachment now requires 2/3 of the Senate too) gets through, you will never get a 3/4 majority. Even Nixon at his lowest had a 27% approval rating. What you'd be doing is making it harder to impeach a president, sine there will never be a majority in Congress for one party to make it so and there probably will always be enough die-hard supporters in the public to save him in the referendum.

Your plan is stupid. I don't know why it makes me as angry as it does, but it makes me angry that you could ever think that system could work, let alone be better. I'm not a fan of a lot of how things are set up and have some fairly radical constitutional revision dreams myself (like expanding the number of Representatives dramatically and weakening the Senate in specific circumstances) , but your ideas are just plain dumb. Like I said, I don't know why I'm mad since in addition to being ridiculous the Tighter Republic is also impossible to impose. Basically I ask that you just think things out before you start writing and pontificating, but judging by the banal threads which you usually start my hopes aren't too high. I know you know better deep down.

Far too long. Nobody's gonna read that.

Obiwan have you ever considered a Democracy of only those who have served? Only the those who have served in a way that puts their own life and limb on the line (not necessary military or combat) may; vote, work in the civil service, or hold office. No one of sound mind can be prevented from serving regardless of age, sex, race, creed, etc. The above rights must be earned by each person and not inherited. Those who do not serve have all other rights (except those named above). Only those who have invested blood, sweet, and tears would serve in the goverment office.

@ obiwan Your ideal goverment demonstrates why philosophers should never design anything.

Wrong Invictus--I'll read it.

After my 49ers game goes to commerical. ;)

But I gave just a quick overview, so if you REALLY want me to go, I'll go...

I quite like our representative republic. That being said, I wouldn't mind bowing down to a king, as long as he was a complete badass. Imagine King Chuck or Clint the first. Then again, I think we passed up our most glorious chance at monarchy when we let Ike Firebreath leave office.

Ok... the first of many posts on this, since I'm not making a mega one on the subject, as that has already proven to be a bad idea.

I'll begin with a defense of my Senate.

First, in regards to your questioning how it makes more sense that with more people we should have less representation, I would resond that the House was a product of compromises, as was much of the Constitution. 13 colonies, and half of them rather small, yes, it makes sense to have a House to be sure that the smaller states do not get overlooked. However, I find it important to point out everyone came in expecting ONE house, ie, a Senate, and the House ONLY came about as a patchwork solution to the issue of population--the Senate where all would be treated equally regardless of population, and the House where population mattered.

In the 21st century, and with ALL our states now large enough to be considered "large states" population-wise by those 18th-century standards which led to the House, it is but another roadblock to legislation.

Hence my reason for wishing it not to exist in my ideal republic--it is overkill, it is uneeded, the Senate is enough--the point of the Legistlative Branch is to make legislature.

Regardless of how you feel about the bills, how much time did the senate and House waste trying to reconcile their ideas on just this last Health Care Bill? And how many compromises had to be made? THIS is what clinches it for me--I cannot STAND a government that simply SETTLES. It is necessary, else we end up with a dictatorship, but we DO NOT NEED all of these roadblocks to legislation, and the House is the ultimate roadblock, it has so many members and, despite being the "lower" of the two houses, seems to give the Senate quite a bit of grief.

Absurd.

An increased emphasis on Senators is what was intended by the framers of the Constitution, hence Article I being so long.

The SENATE should be the powerhouse of the land--and the House is but a House of Compromises.

And a government that has all of its legislature built upon compromises is itself compromised, THAT'S where we get the Machiavellian earmarks and doing what's best for oneself first, ie, "I'll vote for your bill if you put X benefit in it for me."

Fionally, how many VOTE for their Congressmen? We already have low voter turnout, we already have less voters...

We REALLY need TWO houses for a populace that clearly has shunned its repreentation, or else shirked the responsibilites that come with it?

America does not need two houses divided, but One United--The Sentate, where, properly set up (and I'll discuss this next post) we have both equality AND strength in this one house (though a quick preview on one issue I DID overlook and forgot to add in that is pertinent--on the VP issue of tiebreakers...no such thing, that is not part of my system, but I'll discuss that more in depth next post.)

You digging the hole deeper. That still is an awful plan and shows little understanding of government. The fact we're in the shape we are might have quite as much to do with people like you who think cockamamie schemes like this would be an improvement as with the idiots who currently run the show.

Instead of merely insulting my idea and not giving your own (ANOTHER contributing factor yo our mess, I might add, folks who do that, at least I'm TRYING to giove an idea, let's see you do better) why not...well, why not give a better diea, or at least constructive criticism.

And THAT is one of my key points--if you can't come up with your own ideas in a republic or democracy then you do not deserve to have those ideas, or lack thereof, represented.

A strong Senate is what we need.

Not a powerful President.
Not 500 Congressmen and all their attachments.
Not 9 Judges.

We need the 50 liberals who have the best ideas and are the best of their crop (again, as determined by their peers in their party) and the same for the conservatives, their 50 best, and have them meet and decide matters, VP-free, until they can vote and make a decision.

No "No Republicans vote for this bill!" standoffs like this summer.

THAT was one of the most shameful displays of partisan politics I've ever seen.

You can call the bill garbage, that's all well and good--but the moment you FORBID someone in your own party to voice their own opinion, the moment you say "vote the way you wish to and you lose your job" it ceases to be a democracy and becomes a CIRCUS...with NO ringleader.

But even MORE that 50 liberals and 50 conservatives...

We need 100 AMERICANS voting on what is best for AMERICA--anything less, 500 Congressmen or an overpowered-President or anything else, and we wind up...

Where we are now.

Obiwan, the philosopher and 49er lover, gives his part of debate again. Well done

It was a solution to the issue of large verse small state but hardly patch work. You want to institutionalize the 2 party system into the Constitution? Talk about a way to create stagnation and an oppressive system.

@warpsite:

No, I do NOT want to institutionalize that.

But we cannot now escape the fact that we DO have partisan politics.

So I wouldn't institutionalize "Democrat" or "Republican," again, I want 100 Americans.

But if we DO allow for this to adapted into the existing America, I would then ask for the 50-50 split.

If we're going "Plato's Republic" and making a government from scratch?

I'd BAN parties and make sure it was 100 Obiwanians (sure, why not...the great new nation of Obiwania!)

So before I go any further, which shall we go with, fixing America's system or setting up the ideal Republic of Obiwania? ;)

(And ALEX SMITH, I HAVE OFFICIALLY HAD IT WITH YOU!!!!!!!!!!! I remember Steve Young, Hall of Fame QB! I remember Jeff Garcia, Pro-Bowler and just a good, rolling, gutsy QB who produced! I waited six years, these last, terrible, six years! I defended you--and I AM DONE! RELEASE ALEX SMITH AND DRAFT A NEW COLLEGE QB! FOR THE LOVE OF FRANKIE ALBERT, JOHN BRODIE, JOE MONTANA, STEVE YOUNG, AND JEFF GARCIA, FOR ALL OUR GREAT 49ER QBS, OUR LEGACY...........GET RID OF ALEX SMITH!!!)

Obi:

with regards to your bigass list of reformers:

You seem to think they have not had any effect. I disagree.

The general population of the globe is today much more educated and level headed than it ever was, and gets more so all the time, thanks in large part to many of those names you listed.

But if everyone "loses faith" as you say you have, there will be no more reformers, humanity will cease to march out of its ignorance as it has for millennia, and we will begin to regress.

In short: it is only because people "have faith" that we have got anywhere at all.

Anyway I agree that partisan politics is fucked, I have often daydreamed of forming a viable "Centrist Party" that basically runs on a platform of wrecking the two-party partisanship of today.

I have also daydreamed of getting myself elected under some party banner only to break ranks the second I'm elected and make my entire spiel all about how parties are basically the devil. Propose endless legislation to outlaw partisanship until the end of my term at which time I will sink into oblivion.

But I would *hopefully* (there's that word hope...) inspire other anti-partisans to take up the cause.

Anyway those are dreams but what I can do is support moderates and centrists and aisle-reachers etc. And I can also go to rallies and burn extremists in effigy and hold up signs that say "Extremism is the Devil" or "Bring back the Whigs" or "Washington hated political parties"

or whatever.

The point is that because this is a *democracy* you can do all that. Anything else, you would be rounded up and silenced.

So hate all day but we are more advanced morally and politically than ever.

The Constitution as written is almost perfect. The founding fathers failed to take into account greed and the lust for power. They assumed that public service was just that, service, they didn't invision career politicians - otherwise they would have included term limits.

Where the nation started down the path to our current problems was back when the government decided to build the trans-continental railroad with federal money. Prior to that most major infrastructure was paid for by bond issues or public companies, the early railroads where built by individual investment. Once the government started spending money enter the "special interests".

The founding fathers knew that people would lean toward voting for those that could give them something, that's why the Senate was chosen by state legislatures and not by popular vote. The Senate's job is to move slowly, think things through and protect the interest of their state. If not for the 17th Amendment, where Senators are elected by popular vote, Obama care would not have been passed - why would Senators vote for a bill that provides special deals for Nebraska?

All men are created equal but trying to keep them equal can never work, Utopia will never exist. Government's job should be to make sure all players have the same opportunities and stop picking winners and loser. People should be held responsibile for their actions and stop blaming others for their own mistakes.

But that is exactly what you asked for. You will allways have ugly politics even if you have the best minds running the show. Infact it might even become worse as smarter people will come up with even more devious ways of triping up their opponents. I hate the current politics as much as most, but what you are preposing is not thought out on a realistic level. Personally I rather have a republic more like that in "Star Ship Troopers" (The book, and ignore the reviews and read the book if you have not). See my post above.

Man-O-War:

I totally agree, they thought the Legislative Branch would be the focus, hence the length of Article I, and really didn't account for what we have today.

@Thucy:

I agree as well.



The thing is, in writing we have a democracy; in practice we have an oligarchial aristocracy, and that just cannot work, ijt must eiother be a tightly controlled and cohesive republic with enough supports built in to balance the ambitions and wallets of big business and Machiavellian political machines (which, again the Founders never anticipated) or a dictatorship to just totally take choice away, because really, weh have a penchance for making bad ones.

A dictatorship is not an option.

So we must reform our democracy and make it a republic that is more in line with what Hobbes, Plato, and even Locke and the Founders envisioned--a decent number of elected representatives (100 is a good number) holding the greatest amount of sway and power in peacetime, while the Commander in Chief President is more of a war-time figure, and the Supreme Court...really, I like the way it's set up today. wouldn;t change much.



The best presidents were those who realized this.

Washington worked with his Congress, and so did Jefferson; Lincoln was a war-time, crisis-man, and the perfect one for the job, and TR took hold and realized a century ago that if business was allowed to run Congress America would be ruined; FDR ran the gamut from being poor to fair to good and finally great at the end, doing a bit of everything in twelve years, and then if you're liberal you generally like FDR and hate Reagan and vice versa for conservatives, but both did their share of good and bad, and were pretty good overall.

Those Seven...

I would like more of THEM and less of the GOP Nutjobs (See: Palin, Cheney, Christine O'Donnell, the nuttier Tea Partiers) and the Liberal Weaklings (John Kerry, Harry Reid, and, yes, sadly Obama, drifiting dangerously close, he's a nice guy but just not effective, a better orator than a leader, an improved in-office version of Jimmy Carter, but Carter-esque nonetheless.)



I'm sorry, strat, Invictus, but I do not see it--why should the votes of bums count as much as the Einsteins and Lennons and Hemmingways?

I'm not saying screw the average, hard-working American, but I'm sick and tired of jobs that I SHOULD have, that I'm more qualified for, goig to "CAL Works" folks who get it because they're needy and do half as well.

I'm all of helping the needy, but we shouldn't help the lower at the expense of the MIDDLE!

And ugliness and self-serving attitudes are fine--and not to mention unchangeable, their being a part of human nature--for politicians, SO LONG AS THEY ARE ADEQUATELY CONTROLLED.

Our current system does not allow for that and, what's worse, it doesn't even allow for action anymore.

All the Democrats and Republicans do anymore is wait for four years, not cooperating, so the other side can screw tbhings up so they can get a turn, and vice versa.



THAT is NOT a democracy, by ANY stretch of the imagination...and CERTAINLY not working governemnt...

whoa... obi... are you advocating some people get more votes than others?

in the same breath you are complaining about oligarchical aristocracy?

come on man.....

one man one vote. Universalism is the only way to go. retreat from it and you lose all credibility; you no longer have a democracy you have... well...

an oligarchy.

call it a meritocracy if you want but.... that's just an oligarchy where the oligarchs can flaunt their self-proclaimed "merits"

reminds me of the pharaohs, and their merits. you know "i'm a god therefore i should be your king".... stuff like that.

those are some pretty kick ass credentials you have to admit.

@obiwan First how can you control such a nature. Second "THAT is NOT a democracy, by ANY stretch of the imagination" Than you have a very short imagination and a very narrow definition of democracy. It is no less a working goverment than Plato's. It would be no less a democracy, and in some ways, more so than the city states of Greece, or the Roman Republic as well. It would be more democratic than Plato's Republic since your rights to particapate are limited by only your willingness to earn them first. Recall ANYONE can serve any time. Just because you would need to earn your rights does not mean it's not a democracy. If you care not to ever vote or be involved in politics (as a large percent of Americans do now) you do not need to serve. Some might say it would be better than todays systems, and more practial than your ideals.

oh and one more point.

you seem to have taken issue with 'all men are equal."

you say they aren't.

I say, you can't say if they are or aren't. You don't know, because you don't know every single person's potential, and you alone do not have the magically correct definition of equality.

As such, although people may not all be equal, you are in no position to claim that.

It is better to assume they equal so as not to do the injustice of denying someone their rightful say.

@Thucy:

"whoa... obi... are you advocating some people get more votes than others?

in the same breath you are complaining about oligarchical aristocracy?"



Not at all.

They don't get MORE votes--they get THE votes.

I'm not saying anyone's votes should count for more, but I AM that WHO gets to vote should perhaps not extend to everyone--is this unfair? Depends on who gets the vote.

I don't discriminate here on race, and I don't do so on gender. Not on religion,. ethnicity, background, culture, education level, lifestyle, or any of that.

I discriminate only agaisnt two things--namely, ignorance and stupidity.

If you are so ignorant of your own history that you couldn't pass an entrance citizenship test if you had one?
No vote.
If you are stupid as to honestly ask why a government needs any taxes at all whatsoever to run and field an army and the like?
No vote.



I do take issue with "all men are equal," but, importantly, I do not do so with "all men are CREATED equal."

THAT I'm relatively fine with, for the most part everyone (barring the severely handicapped and, at the other end, the Einsteins and Newtons and Mozarts that are "born" geniuses to a certain extent) IS created equal.

But do we all grow up equally, develop equally?

No--so why, again, should I allow someone who doesn't know what they're doing, who if I asked them who John F. Kennedy was would most likely answer "I dunno...wasn't he that guy from the movie about that president who got shot and the lawyer has to make a speech about it?" or can't tell me what the capital of their own state is or doesn't know that we HAVE a three-brach government...

Why should I allow or want such a person to vote?

I'm not aying you have to be BRILLIANT to vote.
You don't even have to be "intelligent," as far as I'm concerned.

But you DO have to know who and what you are voting for and what the history of the nation you are voting and thus deciding the future of is and has been!

Again, you can vote any which way you want; I am pro-gay marriage, but if you want to vote anti, that's your democratic vote, and that's fine:

But if I ask you why and you tell me it's because the BIBLE says it's wrong and America was founded on the principles of the Bible and is a Christian state...

Sorry--you need to actually LEARN about the Founders (mostly deist, Ben Franklin famously atheistic, and George Washington himself was rather agnostic or lighty-deist) before you get to vote on an issue that impacts MILLIONS of lives and is a huge civil liberties issue.

That's all I'm saying and asking for--not that voters agree with me, or disagree, or that everyone carry a copy of "Beyond Good and Evil" in one hand and "Hamlet" in the other...just that they are INFORMED voters making INFORMED and WELL THOUGHT OUT decisions based off a history that they actually DO know and understand.

(And as a totally irrelevant side-note: I am SO SICK of Meg Whitman ads preceding every YouTube clip I want to watch! GAH!) ;)