I figure with all the various political ramblings we've had recently, this would at least make for an interesting topic, as long as everyone is civil about it.
Pretend the US government had a, "hard reset" (I'm keeping the "why" vague pupose), what changes would you propose? Your reasoning behind it is appreciated, but not required.
I'd propose increasing the total number of congresspeople to at least three thousand. Having 535 people legislating for ~300 million is a bit oligarchical. This would provide more representation per person (especially in states like Texas and California) and reduce the effect of gerrymandering. The issues of space in the age of the internet should be almost moot.
--
There never was a post. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and refracted the light from Venus.
get money out do away with upper house create some system to assign congressmen to committees based on their credentials and knowledge, rather than seniority reform elections (IRV, some other alternative)
--
I'm "kind of a big deal". http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png
OmarsComin posted... make it an actual democracy, rest would sort itself out
This. I'd suggest that each person's vote be counted as one vote - no more Electoral College. I'd suggest that more control be shifted to the state and local level, and encourage active and fervent participation in the drafting and enacting of laws at the local level, possibly with tax breaks for people who participate more. I'd suggest that corporate personhood be abolished and that lobbying be declared illegal. I'd suggest that the corporations that got bailed out return the money to the people who gave it to them, and their executives get charged with defrauding the people of the United States. I'd suggest that we get the hell out of every conflict we're involved in that doesn't explicitly pertain to our national interests (as voted on by the people). I'd suggest that there be a four year term limit on elected officials, and that they wouldn't be able to run for office at the state or federal level if they've already served at either the state or federal level - they can still, like, become mayor or town treasurer or something, but nothing with wide-reaching impact. I'd suggest that the citizens of this country should be treated like the hard-working people we are, rather than terrorists and thieves. I'd suggest that we finally join the rest of the first world countries in providing free high-quality health care for our citizens. I'd suggest an increase in taxes to pay for all of this, although I'd think that with the drastically reduced military spending we might be able to get by without more taxes.
--
"SMOKEDOG42O taught me how to feel love, but fetus taught me how to make love." - Pablo Escobar
I mean that we should have a government that reflects the will of the people. That requires you to set up some rules about campaign contributions and limit corporate power in government wherever possible. US policy is far to the right of public opinion on most issues, and neither political party puts forth candidates who would be elected if we lived in any real kind of democracy. Our presidents for the last 40 years have mostly been pretty unpopular, and congress's approval rating is disastrous. It's clear that people don't feel that the government represents them in any meaningful way.
Now as far as using the exact definition of democracy and having each citizen have an equal voice, I think that's fine. It probably requires that most decisions be made at local levels and not at the state and national level but local governments are more responsive to democratic forces and can more easily reflect the needs of the people there anyway, so that's positive.
Canada gets one too and the two countries merge into one - provinces become states, territories become, erm, territories. free period to negotiate mergers with each other in a logical fashion - I expect a lot would end up glued together and we'd have about 35 provistates, but whatever, if the little guys want to be near-meaningless they can go for it.
only a House and a President (and a Supreme Court), no Senate. basically exists for his veto pen and statesmanship; it's up to party leadership to work together to form coalitions/agreements in the house. all elections are proportional representation by state, minimum benchmark of 10% (to keep parties at least somewhat grounded in mainstream influence, not one-note issues.) all division of power between the states is proportional - it'll be a massive House because we need at least 10 per state so places like New York will have a ton of them, but as pointed out above, this doesn't mean much in the internet era.
i'd expect that in the first election we'd get about 2% of representatives from other parties (Libertarians could get to 10% in a couple states, I'm sure,) and this would slowly rise over time, though I'd still expect to see 'majority house' about a third of the time or so.
oh, and no more midterm elections - vote for President and House once every four years, same day. House cannot collapse from loss of confidence, only be stalled, so no 'extra' big elections - individuals could face recall elections in their districts, though.
--
Leafs / Raptors / Blue Jays / TFC / Argos / Tottenham [NO BARKLEY NO PEACE]