How to Fix Congress

[marharth]

Congress knows exactly whom they are working for. The people that provide the campaign funds that get them elected. (hint: That ISN'T 'joe average', or any other working class hombre)

 

Sure, the things suggested in A's post are legitimate gripes, but, they don't address the base problem. How they are elected in the first place, and who has the most control in congress. We need to get the big money players OUT of the game. Political campaigns need to be limited in timing, scope, and funding. The presidential campaigning began almost two years before the election. Some organizations are projecting that BILLIONS of dollars will be spent this election cycle. Who makes the most money off that? Media corporations. A significant percentage of those billions will go for TV, and print advertising. I can see why the media moguls would be upset about campaign finance reform......

 

PAID lobbyists should be banned.

 

Campaign funds should come from direct, INDIVIDUAL donations, limited to 1000.00 dollars from a Registered Voter. Corporations are NOT people too. That's it. No other financing allowed. Get caught cooking the books? You are in-eligible to run again. Ever.

 

Political campaigns should start no earlier than three months prior to the election. In todays world of mass media, you can learn all about any contender you care to, without even leaving the comfort of your office chair.

This. I read through his post and didn't notice the main issue, while doing a lot of what he said would help some it doesn't address the real problem.

[draconix]

In the case of paid lobbyists and corporate donations being illegal, most of the repercussions target the puppet, and not the puppeteers, who should also have severe consequences for trying to manipulate the government. Otherwise corporation X could easily just back candidate A until the candidate is found out. After that Corporation X could just start on candidates B C and so on indefinitely. Punishment after a trial should include disbandment of said corporation, liquidation of all assets, including brother and sister organizations, and all of that money going straight to the American people over the age of 18 in a check for their fair share. It needs to send a strong message to the American people.

 

There also needs to be a "no bulls***" clause that basically states that any loopholes based on technicalities are BS, and punishment will still apply. Not sure if there's legal jargon for that or not.

[bben46]

As Buddah said - get out and vote. If you don't like the way things are going, vote the bums out. If you do like the way things are, go ahead and vote for the incumbent and the status quo. Yes when we throw the bums out, we get a new batch of bums. But the new batch might actually do something as they will know they can be voted out next time.

 

Instead of a shopping list of proposed reforms, find the one that will make a difference, and is actually possible. Then get out and push for that ONE. Don't water it down by adding other reforms or conditions as that will make it much more difficult to pass.

 

My own suggestion for the One reform that will make the biggest difference, and is actually possible, is Term Limits.

[hoofhearted4]

just find a politician who follows the Constitution. Ones that feel the need to change it, are worthless.

 

Look at their records. if they seem to be changing their votes all the time, Yes on something in 2002, No in 2004, Yes again in 2006 and so on, then they are only doing what they think is going to get them votes and in that case are also worthless. someone who sticks by their beliefs is someone you vote for, even if they dont agree with everything you do.

 

Ron/Rand Paul. nuff said

[marharth]

As Buddah said - get out and vote. If you don't like the way things are going, vote the bums out. If you do like the way things are, go ahead and vote for the incumbent and the status quo. Yes when we throw the bums out, we get a new batch of bums. But the new batch might actually do something as they will know they can be voted out next time.

 

Instead of a shopping list of proposed reforms, find the one that will make a difference, and is actually possible. Then get out and push for that ONE. Don't water it down by adding other reforms or conditions as that will make it much more difficult to pass.

 

My own suggestion for the One reform that will make the biggest difference, and is actually possible, is Term Limits.

The people discussing the issues already know the problems. The issue is the voters who don't know a thing about politics or they are not aware that everyone is corrupted. That is the majority. So a few people going out to vote will not help when the majority of the voters don't have any idea what the problem is.

Edited November 2, 2011 by marharth

[HeyYou]

Voting is simply government/corporations giving the people an illusion of some "say" in the matter. There is so little difference between the two main parties at this point, that they are pretty much indistinguishable from each other. You get a choice of the lesser of two evils to vote for, and sometimes, not even that. Have a look at the process put forth for simply coming up with candidates for us to vote for. Big money decides who gets to run, who gets support, and for the most part, who gets elected. Voter turnout is generally less than 30%..... and the folks that ARE voting are, by and large, uninformed, and simply voting for "their party" on a straight ticket. All that does is ensure that nothing changes.

 

The issue, as I see it is, there will be no change, because the very people that you are trying to rein in, are the ones that would have to VOTE FOR the changes you are trying to make. As it would deprive them of several gravy trains, I really don't see ANY of it passing in my lifetime. The american people are running out of options. The soap box didn't cut it, the ballot box is basically a waste of effort, and that leaves us, the cartridge box.... ( no, I am not advocating violent overthrow of the government.) Trouble there is, the american people just don't have the gumption to do anything about it. So, we will continue on our downhill course, until the whole house of cards falls in on us. Then we will see whom is left to pick up the pieces, or, if there are any pieces left to be picked up........

 

Have a look at Greece, THAT is the direction we are headed.

[juderodney]

Cripple the undemocratic Senate.

 

Looks like I'm going to have to use the "R" word, here... Republic. That's because the Senate was never intended to be democratic! The purpose of the Senate was to give the less-populated states equal voice in making the laws. That way, the more populated states won't be able to dominate the writing of federal laws. The Senate is a very necessary part of this govenment.

[Marxist ßastard]

The purpose of the Senate was to give the less-populated states equal voice in making the laws.

Why do the states need to have any say in laws which don't affect states' rights? Besides, senators represent the interests of a state's citizens, not its legislature.

 

The end effect is a Bizarro-world version of the House, where everyone from Wyoming gets 75 times the voting power as everyone from California. And in the electoral college, each vote from Wyoming gets counted 4 times to a Californian vote's 1. And, like I said before, potentially as little as 10% of the population can veto any law, provided they live in the right state.

 

The UK has already enacted major reforms to neutralize its House of Lords, since it expressed an obsolete political philosophy: that power should lie with the churches and hereditary aristocracy. The Senate expresses an obsolete political philosophy, too: that the US is composed of economically self-sufficient states which can raise their own armies, go to war with one another, and rely on the federal government for few other things than delivering mail. And it has not aged well at all. So why do we still need it?

[Aurielius]

@Mao Tse-tung

Though your avowed political persuasion is is evident, just for the record the formula for the make up of congress is designed to balance the power of the larger states in relation to the the smaller states. The founders quite wisely did not trust direct representative governments which they referred to as the 'tyranny of the majority', this system is designed to protect the little states and does quite well at that. I have no issue with the base system but rather the current chair holders who seem to have forgotten the function that was originally intended for them, you on the other hand want to take apart the system not fix it. I will use the power that was won for me two centuries ago and use my vote to express my displeasure or satisfaction with those that are within my pervue to deal with.

[ginnyfizz]

The UK has already enacted major reforms to neutralize its House of Lords, since it expressed an obsolete political philosophy: that power should lie with the churches and hereditary aristocracy.

 

I'm really glad that you think there being no check now on the power of the executive, allowing leaders-who-think-they-are-the-Chosen like Phoney Blair and Call Me Dave who hold Parliament and the will of the electorate in utter contempt, is a good thing. (That was my British sarcasm showing again...)

 

The House Of Lords in fact acted as a brake on the executive for many years. The Parliament Act of 1911 stopped them vetoing budgets but was used totally improperly by Bliar (and I use that spelling quite deliberately), whenever he was throwing his toys out of the pram because he didn't get his own way immediately. The most ludicrous example was when his Government used the Parliament Act to railroad their unworkable Hunting Act through. Hardly in the same league as a Finance Bill or a national emergency.

 

And the last I heard, the Church of England bishops were still there...

 

Bad example to use MB, and not a good one for the USA to consider following. As Aurelius suggests, the issue is with individuals not being up to the standards of high office, not necessarily the system per se.