Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-8081-

Necessary electoral reforms for the USA

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-17 19:47

The U.S. needs the following electoral reforms:

Unicameral legislatures (abolish the senates) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicameralism

Party-list proportional representation for legislative elections - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party-list_proportional_representation

Instant runoff voting for executive elections (mayor, governor, president) -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Election of the president solely by the popular vote (abolish the Electoral College).


That is all.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-17 19:50

The Green party's platform actually includes all four of those: http://www.gp.org/issue/voting.pdf

Too bad it will never happen.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-17 21:06

Unicameral legislatures (abolish the senates)
Or return the Senate to the politicking of State-elected representatives (by their legislatures; you know, no 17th amendment) so that we look more like a Republic again.  I never understood the point of having two houses directly elected by the same source, even if it is the citizens of the said state.

Instant runoff voting for executive elections
We'll talk about this after we work on the current implementations of voting fraud and ambiguity.  Forget hanging chads, imagine the nightmare that could occur when multiple votes for the same position come into play.

Election of the President solely by the popular vote (abolish the Electoral College).
I would merely rebalance the electoral college thus that it represented State votes for the federal Executive position and was somehow factored into the popular vote so as to remain competitive but not overbearing.  Tied back to restoring the Senate to its roots.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-18 5:36

>>3

Faggot detected

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-18 8:33

Don't forget vote by mail! Currently done only in Washington and Oregon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absentee_ballot#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Early_voting_US_states.svg

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-18 13:11

I don't think voting is the issue right now... why don't you talk about gay rights instead?

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-18 14:53

I agree with the OP, but if I had to rank those reforms in order of most effectiveness, I would say it is:

1) proportional representation (party-list)
2) unicameralism
3) IRV
4) abolishing the Electoral College

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-18 18:55

reapealing the 17th would work better IMO than unicameralism, because unicameralism is a rubberstamp for the whims of the moment. 

not a good thing when the two dominant whims are:
1.  I wantz my welfarz an all kinds of other shit
2.  I payz too much in teh taxes.

Basicly we want to live off of national credit which is completely unsustainable.  By having the senate chosen indirectly, it seems that the Senate would be less prone to do stupid things just because they are popular. 

My other reform would be that anyone getting welfare loses thier vote until 6 months after they get off welfare.  That way, there's not so many people jumping up and down because they're welfare has new retrictions.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-18 19:47

I agree with bicameral legislature.

People need opportunity for declaration of intent though government couldn't change easy.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-18 20:05

Oops, "government couldn't be changed easy."

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-19 11:34

How about some national initiatives or referendums? The EU has them with their new Lisbon Treaty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Citizens%27_Initiative

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-19 13:36

I agree OP.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-19 16:05

;_;

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-19 17:10

>>11

No and double no.  That's simply going to make a bad situation worse.  We're already spending ourselves broke, why make it easier to do so?  Direct democracy has never worked -- that's why we're a republic. 

What we need are grownups in chrage who will have the guts to say no to a popular idea that also happens to be a really really bad idea.  Direct democracy prevents such a thing from happening.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-19 17:19

>>14
Agreed.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-20 11:34

>>1
The day the U.S. gets proportional representation will be the day they convert to metric.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-20 12:11

>>14
Likewise we shouldn't restrict intelligent educated citizens from saying no to incompetent or amoral politicians, direct democracy is a way to do this and as a society becomes more conscious there should be a trend in this direction.

What we need is limited direct democracy which prevents abuse by ignorant trailer/ghetto trash while allowing the nation's business leaders and scientists to pitch in should they feel the need.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-20 15:14

>>16
Soon then?

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-20 16:31

>>18
LOL

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-20 18:24

>>17

Maybe they should give people with an IQ over 110 two votes ... or prevent people scoring on an IQ test less than 90 from voting.  But the second one iz rasizt.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-20 20:05

OP should just move to any country in the EU (except for the UK). Problem solved.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-22 2:03

>>20

That sounds good, but maybe it should just be an amount of influence based on your intelligence, Id suggest something like your iq/100 cubed for exponential difference.

an iq of 130 would give 1.3x1.3x1.3 = 2.19
an iq of 80 would give 0.8x0.8x0.8 = 0.512

approx four times the influence for a difference in IQ like this.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-22 7:52

>>22

I like it.  But maybe people on welfare shouldn't be voting either.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-22 10:50

>>4
Why is >>3 a faggot? Because he has a better idea? The douchebags from the progressive era really fucked us over by passing the Seventeenth Amendment, you know. There's a very good reason why state legislatures chose Senators instead of citizens.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-22 21:57

I "like" how the conversation turned Social Darwinian with little provocation.  Perhaps we should start counting certain groups of individuals as 3/5s of a person again? that worked so well the first time.

I mean no disrespect to those people who had to resign themselves to accepting the 3/5s compromise for sake of forming a country during the Continental Congress.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-22 22:30

>>25
I personally believe that the US should have did what the British Empire had done and bought all the slaves from the confederate states, it would have cost less and wouldn't result in such a bloody massacre that tore the nation apart for five years.

Though we still probably would have had a war anyway, as Lincoln was quite the Federalist and had no intention of the breakup of the Union whatsoever.

At least the Continental Congress at the same time put in the Constitution that importation of slaves from outside the country would be prohibited effective in 1808, so it was a step forward.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-23 1:20

Proportional representation would be the biggest game changer.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-23 16:20

[spoiler]indeed[spoiler/]

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-23 18:07

>>1
Everybody knows this. The question is how will you get it implemented?

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-25 15:35

>>29
By posting on 4chan of course.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-25 15:52

>>30
I'd rather not. I'm happy here @ world4ch.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-26 4:04

Would these reforms really change anything?

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-26 13:59

>>32
Hell yes.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-26 21:41

>>32
Yes. They'd make things much worse, because then government would cater to the whims of the majority every time some flu virus scare was happening or a moral panic was going on.

I also agree with the other gentlemen on repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-26 21:53

>>34
Seriously what is with you fucking faggots who think an unelected senate is better? The whole idea behind the senate is to give the smaller (in terms of population) states more say. If we had a unicameral legislature, the 5 most populous states could pass whatever the hell they wanted.

That's what the Senate is for: balancing the power between the big and small states. Wyoming (pop. 550,000) has 2 senators and so does California (pop. 37,000,000). That's the senate's purpose.

Having an elected senate at least gives accountability to the voters. You can have a senator like Obama or someone like John McFuckhead from Arizona, but at least the voters get to choose. As bad as the senate is, an unelected senate is even worse.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-26 21:57

>>35
>If we had a unicameral legislature, the 5 most populous states could pass whatever the hell they wanted.

How is this wrong? If 80% of voters vote for something it should happen. It shouldn't matter if those voters all live in one state or even a small section of one state. Elections and voting is done according to population, not to land area. Fuck the senate.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-26 22:22

>>35
Seriously what is with you fucking faggots who think an unelected senate is better?
What is with you faggots who think having an elected Senate is good? Who cater to the whims of the people that elected them (which is actually suppose to be the intention of the House, not the Senate), special interests, and whatnot.
The whole idea behind the senate is to give the smaller (in terms of population) states more say.
Exactly, however the Seventeen weakened that power by (wait for it), not having the Senators chosen by STATE legislators!
If we had a unicameral legislature, the 5 most populous states could pass whatever the hell they wanted.
Exactly why there was a compromise between the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan, the latter which purposed a unicameral legislature, and if that passed instead, I'm sure we'd all be cursing William Patterson right now.
Having an elected senate at least gives accountability to the voters.
Having a popularly elected Senate has the government cater to the whims of short-term public scare bullshit like the latest flu nonsense or something like that. The House is suppose to be directly accountable to their voters, by taking away the ability of the individual state legislatures (who are even held more accountable to the voters in their states respectively) to appoint Senators, you just took away Senators being completely accountable to the states they're suppose to represent. Good job shooting the voter in the foot without them even realizing it.

Besides, why should I have a doucebag Senator from my state vote on some bullshit bill that'll benefit another from 1,000 miles away? Good luck trying to get a hold of him. At least in the pre-Seventeenth days I could have bitched at my state legislature to have him get his act together in the Senate, since he's directly accountable to them and thus me, via proxy.

Not to mention they don't have to campaign and ass kiss using millions of dollars of wasted money, which could be better spent toward something of real value. Plus, it's already bad enough that they're the red carpet crowd and completely disconnected from the common person, it'll probably give them less of a feeling that being a Senator is prestigious.

I also see it as another check of balance of power, as it's easy enough to corrupt the Senate and most of the House, I imagine it would take much more power and influence to do that fifty more times over to corrupt all the state legislatures.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-26 22:34

>>35
Very well, then we'll swap rules for the House of Representatives and Senate, just because you're unhappy with it: the House is elected to by the state legislatures instead.

I am not arguing for it on a structure of "betterness" because you can't.  Politics can't make arguments in terms of "betterness" and even "equity" escapes its precision.  As soon as you start taking such abstract concepts such as that into account, you've already lost.  I make the argument for one of the perception of balance.  Democracy on its own doesn't work effectively; there are too many whimful voices and far too many demagogues.  A Republic on its own doesn't work effectively; the voice of the people does not remain as timely or as audible.  That's the reason they were assembled into a bicameral governing body in the first place, where one house of the Congress represented the people of the Union and the other the States of Union, meanwhile states can internally handle their own affairs.  In this way, the health and direction of the political geography and the demography visceral to the whole requires compromise between those who legislate and those who allow themselves to be legislated on three interconnected levels - the people to the states, the people to the federal, and the states to the federal.  There is discourse between all important factions.

When Senators and Congress(wo)men get up on a podium, who do they refer to as the target of their duty?  Their "constituents."  They're talking about the people.  Between the Congress(wo)man and the Senator of the same State, they mean the same people; but what about the State itself, it's own well-being independent of the people at times? its voice of decision in the government has been diluted.

>>36
You have failed United States politics completely, possibly forever.  We have no consolation prize for you but thank you for playing.
I'll assume somehow that you've never had a civics class and, therefore, never heard phrases "tyranny of the majority" and "tyranny of the minority?"

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-26 22:44

>>37
>>38
hurp derp

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-27 1:36

>>38
>"tyranny of the majority" and "tyranny of the minority?"

The judiciary branch of government (courts) are supposed to handle this, not the legislative.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-27 11:42

>>40
Explicitly, yes; implicitly, this was intended to be the basis of all aspects of US politics: that the many couldn't bully the few, and the few couldn't bully the many, and that what was made law applied equivalently for everyone.  Moreover, when a good portion of the judiciary vocally or quietly would wish to "legislate from the bench," I think all bets on classical definitions being accurate are off (rather, we should restore the classical definition first).

By "legislate from the bench," in this case, I borrow a definition of judicial activism from Simon Dodd: "if it uses the judicial power to strike down a law that is not unconstitutional, or to uphold a law which is unconstitutional ... [T]he conflation of 'action' with 'activism' is false; the court cannot be activist simply by adhering to the constitution.  By contrast, it cannot be anything other than activist if it defers to the legislature by creating legislative authority where none existed.  One can be activist not only by taking action where none is required, but by refusing to take action when it IS required."

Dodd, Simon, simon@simondodd.org.  "Less nebulous than you'd think."  22 August 2005.  http://simondodd.org/noise2signal/useruploads/docs/sjd0802.pdf

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-27 13:51

>Instant runoff voting for executive elections (mayor, governor, president)

What about senate elections? Are you saying party-list proportional representation is going to work for every senate election? I don't think so. Senate elections need IRV too.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-27 23:16

I'd vote for it.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-28 5:07

>>38
Very much agreed.

>>39
http://boards.4chan.org/b/

>>40
Thanks for the link, I'll check that out.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-28 5:10

>>44
Whoops, meant >>41 not >>40

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-29 2:06

Bumping an interesting thread

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-29 15:49

the real problem isn't the electoral format, but the fact that the media is the number one influence in who people vote for. We need to create a system that does away with charismatic influence and one dimensional bullshit that is beyond just "Democrat" and "Republican". We need a voting populace that isn't retarded and brainwashed and can do some critical thinking as to what the nation needs and how it would help the citizens as a whole rather than individually.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-30 5:08

>>47
Electoral reform is a big issue. No other country has such a dominant two party system.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-30 12:10

>>47

so maybe a multiparty system?  3 is better than 2, and 10-12 would break up the monopoly.  And as I said earlier, repeal the 17th amendment.  And a good balanced budget amendment.  Then maybe America won't be so fail.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-30 17:20

>>49
Repealing the Sixteen would also be a good idea. Also, abolishing the IRS too. Especially when they hound individuals over four measly cents! http://www.sacbee.com/2010/03/13/2604016/irs-suits-pay-visit-to-car-wash.html I definitely agree with the balanced budget amendment, some individual states have one within their constitutions (mine included), it should only be right that the Federal government has one as well.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-30 18:18

http://i49.tinypic.com/1f73ox.jpg I'll let this image express how I think of these so-called proposed "reforms".

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-30 23:51

>>51
Problem being that we're already on the foreground tree (read some of the "apples" and ask what way we're being directed by a really vocal minority).  Having said that though, I am not interested in having a go at monarchy (it'd be silly at this point); I do like Law and Religion, though, and Justice, when it's warranted.

I like "Liberty," too, and don't think it belongs on the foreground tree.  Also, a number of things on the foreground tree should be allowed to exist but should be no more artifically dominant or pushy than their antitheses.

This is the Irish Rebellion of 1798 the cartoon is referring to?

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-01 4:03

These reforms would be the right thing to do. That's why they're never going to happen. Keep dreaming OP.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-01 4:50

>>52
This is the Irish Rebellion of 1798 the cartoon is referring to?
I believe so, yes. Though I posted it since these so-called "reforms" are in reality rotten apples that sound good on paper, but once eaten is going to hurt later.

>>53
These "reforms" would finally destory what little checks and balances this shit US government has left. NO THANK YOU
That's why they're never going to happen.
Thank goodness!

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-01 11:42

>>54
Could you elaborate on the deterioration of checks and balances that currently exist were these reforms (whichever ones you were looking at) enacted?

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-02 0:43

>>55
He's a fucking troll. These reforms would only strengthen our system.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-02 5:43

>>55
Could you elaborate on the deterioration of checks and balances that currently exist were these reforms (whichever ones you were looking at) enacted?
Certainly. If a Unicameral legislature were enacted, it would cater to the whims of the majority, and whatever crazy public scare was going on at the time. For example, let's say some nutcase went on a shooting rampage, the public (through things like the National initiative, even though I respect Mike Gravel, it's a bad idea) could push to have the Second Amendment repealed, a blow to the freedoms and rights those law abiding individuals who responsibly and properly take care of their firearms.
No form of government is safe from insidious forces; institutions, corporations, tax-exempt foundations, corrupt universities, etc. I fear these so-called "reforms" would make it easier for those to push through legislation that could have the potential to really cause a lot of damage to the already fragile economy, and whatever individual personal freedoms the people have left.

Proportional representation sounds like a good idea, but I would have to really give it a good read to understand it all, so I cannot give a real opinion on that at this time.

I like the idea of instant-runoff voting, and it would be a great thing, and we have plenty of third parties, though the laws and biases against them would have to be eliminated, and the propaganda machine--*ahem*, I mean mass media would also have to give them equal time along with the "major" candidates.

Abolishing the Electoral College is not a new idea. Andrew Jackson wanted to abolish it himself, and I'm sure he had some good reasons, though it was probably more because he was still pissed off from the aftermath of the 1824 election.

>>56
He's a fucking troll.
Hurr durr, calling people who disagree with you a troll. Grow up, or head back to /b/, please.
These reforms would only strengthen our system.
I've explained my position, now explain yours.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-02 23:30

>>57
>I fear these so-called "reforms" would make it easier for those to push through legislation that could have the potential to really cause a lot of damage to the already fragile economy, and whatever individual personal freedoms the people have left.

The only possible negative reform here is a unicameral FEDERAL legislature. Unicameral state legislatures wouldn't really even change anything because the US Supreme Court already ruled in 1964 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims) that state legislature districts (House of Reps AND Senates) had to be roughly equal in population because "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests."

Aside from that IRV, proportional representation, and abolishing the EC are ELECTORAL reforms, not LEGISLATIVE reforms. Even if we didn't get a unicameral federal legislature, the other 3 reforms would be a fuck ton better than the shit we have now.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-03 17:42

Never going to happen.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-04 6:04

>>59
y u so mad though?

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-05 0:42

>>59
Not with that attitude.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-06 15:43

>>61
How would you go about getting it implemented then?

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-08 1:28

>>62
The first thing is implementing these reforms in the 50 states. There's no way the federal government is going to implement something before the states. Just look at renewable portfolio standards (RPS). By the end of 2010, over 35 states will have an RPS and the federal government is STILL considering it.

Getting these reforms done in the states first is the first step. The Democrats and Republicans will probably be against these reforms on the state level too, but many states have citizen initiatives and referendums: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives_and_referendums_in_the_United_States#Types_of_initiatives_and_referendums

I imagine it will take decades for these reforms to happen at the federal level, but slow progress is still progress.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-08 18:13

>>63
Are there any federal initiatives/referendums?

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-08 18:15

>>64
There's the National initiative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_initiative

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-09 17:05

>>11
>>65
EU trumps the US once again. You mad yankies?

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-10 0:11

>>66
Eurofaggot detected

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-10 3:25

>>66
Actually China trumps both the US and EU nations, being that they manufacture all the cheap crap we consume. But I see an eventual breakup of all three. If the US Federal government actually had these "reforms" implemented, it would probably hasten its downfall. Heh, maybe that would actually be a good thing now that I think about it. Then the individual states can secede and begin anew.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-11 2:16

>>68
>Then the individual states can secede and begin anew.

FREE CASCADIA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_%28independence_movement%29

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-11 20:21

>>68
FREE NEW ENGLAND

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-12 3:12

>>70

Prefer Cascadia.

England is shit at the moment, wussy shits compared to a couple of centuries ago dominating the world and shit.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-12 5:29

>>71
What makes you think we'd have to choose between Cascadia or New England? We can do both.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-13 3:00

>>69
Also don't forget:

Second Vermont Republic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vermont_Republic

The various Texas nationalist movements

http://texas.freecountries.org/
http://www.texassecede.com/
http://texasnationalist.com/

And league of the South

http://dixienet.org/New%20Site/index.shtml

New Hampshire also has a secessionist movement as well, plus the Free State Project.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-14 2:16

>>73
>And league of the South

We can finally be rid of them! FUCK YEAH

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-14 15:47

>>74
wwwwwww

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-16 0:48

>>74
I fap to this

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-16 20:57

>>74
I endorse this message as a Canadian.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-16 21:14

>>77
You have Americans confederates all the way up in Canada? lol wtf.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-18 18:23

>>78
has never been to rural Alberta or Yukon.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-19 18:15

>>78
Canadians are Americans too!

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-20 0:15

You know our electoral system is fucked when people are 4chan are talking about how bad it is.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-20 19:04

>>79
I've never been to Canada, so I wouldn't know.

>>80
WRONG.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-20 19:09

>>81
The idea that the electoral college should be abolished goes back to the days of Andrew Jackson's administration and probably further back than that. Not sure about proportional representation or IRV, but I'm sure they're not new ideas either.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-22 13:22

I agree with 1, 3, and 4, but I do not agree with proportional representation because I believe it does not represent the will of the people as well in a federal system.

In a unitary government, where the legislative assembly does not represent certain districts of the country, I would agree with a proportional rep, but in America, legislators have to represent their district, so their district and their district only should determine who gets elected.

If you allow proportional rep in a federal government, you'll end up getting districts that are predominately for one candidate and are represented by another, pretty much nullifying the entire purpose of a federal system.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-23 0:30

>>84
Proportional representation would never work on the federal level, but it would be fucking awesome on the state level.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-23 3:20

>>85
Maybe, considering state governments effectively have unlimited powers according to the constitution, meaning law is universal.

However, it still compromises the fact that if people in a certain county elect a republican, they probably want a republican representing them.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-23 4:28

>>87
That's the whole point of proportional representation. If there are 100 seats in a lawmaking body and there is an election it will go like this:

Party A gets 30% of the votes and 30% of the seats
Party B gets 25% of the votes and 25% of the seats
Party C gets 20% of the votes and 20% of the seats
Party D gets 15% of the votes and 15% of the seats
Party E gets 10% of the votes and 10% of the seats

It's beautiful.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-23 12:24

>>88
Yes, I understand how proportional representation works.  What I'm saying is that in a FEDERAL system, if you did something like that, you would almost always end up having a delegate from Party B representing a district that primarily voted for Party A, which they won't be too happy about.

Ergo, I would only accept a proportional system under a unitary government, where the legislators do not represent voting districts.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-23 20:14

>>89
That makes sense. There is no way we are going to a get a unicameral federal legislature so proportional rep. is not going to work for the U.S. Congress. But that doesn't mean we can't have it at the state level! Let's do it!

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-23 20:22

>>90
The problem is that most state legislators in the U.S. work under a federal system as well, because governments are then divided into counties.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-23 21:16

>>91
You have to draw the line somewhere. Counties are essentially federations of cities/town and yet they are all unicameral. Why aren't there members to represent each city in the county? Because they decided it would be too cumbersome and a unicameral body would work better. We can do the same for the states.

The Canadian provinces above us are all unicameral and we have one state (Nebraska) that is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Legislature

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-24 5:30

Doesn't seem like this will do anything to improve on shit, since governments that have these "reforms" already are still corrupt as shit.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-24 5:36

>>93
Hurp durp I'm apathetic and don't give a shit.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-24 5:39

>>94
Go back to /b/. I follow stuff and do care, but with these reforms or not a corrupt government is still a corrupt government.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-24 14:22

>>93
is right.  The single largest problem with American politics today is the influence of money.

How will going to unicameral legislatures change this?  There will merely be fewer politicians for Wall Street to buy.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-24 15:18

>>96
Not to mention unicameralism will actually help shove dangerous legislation through faster since there's no longer two chambers of Congress for it to pass first.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-24 21:17

>>97
Are you fucking kidding me? If there is any one institution that is completely owned by Wall Street/Corps it's the fucking Senate. We get comprehensive energy/environment/healthcare/etc bills passed in 2009 and then the Senate takes 12 fucking months to pass WEAKER version of them and in some cases not even pass (see the recent Senate energy bill that is WEAKER than the one the house passed in 2009 being dropped because there is no support from the small red state senators).

Do you know how easy it is to buy the Senators from the small population states (1m or less)? Abolishing the Senate would actually reduce the influence of money on Congress.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-24 21:35

>>98
This

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-25 13:09

>>98
Oh boo hoo. You abolish the Senate, they'll buy off the House, then you're back to square one. Also, those bills you mentioned were all big wins for the corporations, lobbying against it was little more than political theater.

>>99
Same person.

Also 100 GET!!!

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-26 21:18

>>97
>>100
Same fag

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 1:38

>>98
So what you're saying is that all individuals shouldn't have the right to have an opinion regarding bills put forth in a given country's government or the right to assert influence on elected individuals regarding those bills?  If the Congress is supposed to be the "people's house" then the Senate may as well be the "business house."  They're certainly not the "states' house" like they were intended to be, and having another "people's house" is clearly redundant if all it is to do is blindly agree with the Congress.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 15:13

>>101
Duh. Back to /b/, internet detective.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 16:18

>>102
I agree with everything you've said, but when people mention "Congress", they mean both the House of Representatives, and the Senate, the whole of the bicameral Federal legislature. You're right, the House was always suppose to be the people's house, and the Senate, the states' house. The Seventeenth Amendment has really twisted the whole process into a pretzel and needs to be repealed.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 20:26

>>104
>The Seventeenth Amendment has really twisted the whole process into a pretzel and needs to be repealed.

BS. Election of senators hasn't changed anything. Wyoming (560,000 people) still gets the same voice as California (37,000,000 people) in the Senate. That's REPRESENTING the state. You 17th amendment abolitionists are pathetic.

Just look at all the problems Canada and the UK have with their unelected Senate.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 21:16

>>105
Canada's Senate and UK's House of Lords also haven't been bought off and paid for like the US Senate has. You Seventeenth Amendment supporters are pathetic.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 22:09

>>105
There are many reason's why repealing the 17th is a good thing, and it has little to do with individual state populations, which are better represented and proper in the House of Representatives, so the population argument is moot.

Excepts from Federalist Paper #62 by James Madison:

It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

Here, it is suggested that by giving the state legislatures the power to elect Senators, they are not only responsible to the legislatures of the states they represent (who they themselves are elected by the people), but also in an indirect way to the people. It was also because the states banded together with delegates from the original thirteen states to form the current Federal government in the first place, so it would be wise for them to also have a house in control of their legislatures.

So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.

Exactly what has happened with the state legislatures no longer holding a check on separation of powers, one could even argue that state legislatures electing Senators for their states were an additional check of power along with the rest of the Federal legislature, the Executive, and Judicial branches. Is it then any wonder why such awful legislation like the Patriot Act and such were passed? I think not.

Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar dangerBut as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation.

States clearly while it may have a harmful effect on passing "good" legislation, it will also be shown to be able to thwart bad legislation as well.

Second. The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. Examples on this subject might be cited without number; and from proceedings within the United States, as well as from the history of other nations. But a position that will not be contradicted, need not be proved. All that need be remarked is, that a body which is to correct this infirmity ought itself to be free from it, and consequently ought to be less numerous. It ought, moreover, to possess great firmness, and consequently ought to hold its authority by a tenure of considerable duration.

Shows the fallacy of a unicameral Federal legislature that could push potentially dangerous legislation (we see this in countries like Finland that change their constitution more than they change their underwear) through without a second house to hold a check on power of the other, further able to hold a check on power through the state legislatures that elected its members.

I would highlight more excerpts from this excellent, wonderfully worded paper, but you get the idea.
_____________________
References:
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa62.htm

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 22:14

>>105
Since you bring that up, when was the last time there was physical violence or, at least, an incomprehensible and unruly mob-ish session between representatives on the the floor of Congress?  the last (and only) historical event I can think of is the caning of Charles Sumner in the 1850s.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-27 22:28

>>108
the last (and only) historical event I can think of is the caning of Charles Sumner in the 1850s.
For being against the institution of slavery in the southern states, I can certainly see why the atmosphere could turn violent.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-03 15:59

I endorse these changes.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-04 0:27

>>110
Terrible! Except for electoral college.
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -