How do we fix the politicans?

[o1pickleboy]

Lately I have been thinking that the form of run off election that is used by my local would help solve the problem. Unlike the instant runoff the Mike is promoting. The one we use is simple. First election all the candiate are on the ballot. Second Election the top two voter getters are on the ballot.


The reasons I think this is a good idea.

1) Equal voting for everyone. One vote per election.(unlike instant run off)

2) It allows people more freedom in voting. Now the first time around voter can vote for "who they feel is the best choice" Then they can go with the lesser evil on the second ballot.

The downside is that it may change nothing and it would double the cost of the elections.

But I feel it would change alot. First in many solid states. Voters could and would feel comfortible voting for option. Not spliting the vote and getting the "enemy" in office. I could see the Greens replacing the Dems in Calfornia and the Libertarians replacing the Republicans in Idaho, Nevada, and possibly Utah.

This would help empower the independants because strength in parties come from incumbents. As the voter would then have a major reference on how the party or at least that member of that party is like in office. It would also help gather the 5% needed for matching funds. Giving the indies money to spead their message.

I believe what we could do with this is. Move the first election back to lets say October 15. Then have the run off on the regular voting day.



I was considering posting this on the Instant Runoff Thread, but I think it fits here.

[Cephus]

The problem isn't really the politicians, it's the political system. So long as the system is fundamentally corrupt, you're going to get corrupt politicians because the system breeds and rewards them.

The problem is that the only way to change the system is to rely on the politicians and the politicians are the ones who benefit by keeping the system the way it is. We're basically screwed until we have some sort of revolution and forcibly replace the system and everyone involved in it.

[SOGG]

The problem isn't really the politicians, it's the political system. So long as the system is fundamentally corrupt, you're going to get corrupt politicians because the system breeds and rewards them.

The problem is that the only way to change the system is to rely on the politicians and the politicians are the ones who benefit by keeping the system the way it is. We're basically screwed until we have some sort of revolution and forcibly replace the system and everyone involved in it.

I can't really snip anything from there without killing it, so I will just add that political power is always granted by the people. Unless we're willing to do something about our leaders, nothing will happen. The system isn't the problem, our leaders aren't the problem.

We are.

[Shellhead]

The problem isn't really the politicians, it's the political system. So long as the system is fundamentally corrupt, you're going to get corrupt politicians because the system breeds and rewards them.

The problem is that the only way to change the system is to rely on the politicians and the politicians are the ones who benefit by keeping the system the way it is. We're basically screwed until we have some sort of revolution and forcibly replace the system and everyone involved in it.

That's the history of the human race. No political system is ever going to be immune to corruption, because power tends to corrupt people. Also, the kind of people who want to become leaders tend to have the kinds of flaws that make them more vulnerable to corruption.

[Paradox]

priestvyrce is one of those spendthrifts:

This is my answer,too. Just take them to the local vet and have them neutered or spayed.

Pfft, I'm not paying for that!

Linoleum knife + turpentine = problem solved. ;)

[SOGG]

Hey! 'dox is back! Welcome back, dox!
</thread drift>

[Cephus]

I can't really snip anything from there without killing it, so I will just add that political power is always granted by the people. Unless we're willing to do something about our leaders, nothing will happen. The system isn't the problem, our leaders aren't the problem.

We are.

Ideally, yes. In practice, no. People can't elect who doesn't run. It really doesn't matter who we vote for anymore, they're all corrupt, or if they aren't before they get into office, the system corrupts them. You simply cannot work in Washington without getting tainted. It's not about representing the interests of the people who put you in office, it's about backroom deals, porkbarrel projects and political asskissing, both for your own re-election campaign and for your party.

Yes, you can blame the people for putting crooks into office, but it's the system that dictates that only crooks run because only crooks can survive in office.

[SOGG]

I was thinking more along the lines of... "if the system is flawed, we the people who made the system change the system."

Maybe that means revolution. Maybe that means Satyagrahah 2. I dunno. But we've got to do something about it because our leaders won't. And why would they? They're comfy.

Plus, they still have a bunch of people who support them unquestioningly.

[Phrozen]

Historically, the great leaders of humanity are people who most normal people wouldn't want in power. Sure, there are a few exceptions (Alfred the Great, Augustus, Washington) but most great leaders are ruthless and not exactly liked in their time. It takes a strong personality and a fair amount of cunning for people to follow you.

[SOGG]

And that's exactly why we need to get rid of this 'leader' paradigm.

[Cephus]

I was thinking more along the lines of... "if the system is flawed, we the people who made the system change the system."

The problem is that changing the system is virtually impossible. We've let the lunatics out and given them the only keys to the madhouse. We have a system that requires corruption and anyone who refuses to be corrupted doesn't survive. Is that the fault of the voters? To a good extent, yes, but I think a lot of it is also that decades of dirty politics has made for stupid voters that really aren't equipped to understand the issues at hand.

It's not a problem that can be fixed at the polls. We need to strip the entire political system down and start again, what we have now is busted.

[Mike Smash!]

For my own reconmendations:

1) Term limits. The more a person is able to stay in office the further they become entrenched in the system. Since McCain-Feingold, it has become almost impossible to unseat an incumbent. So, we need to limit the time someone can stay in office.

2) Proportional representation for the Presidential Election: The electoral college votes need to be split based on percentage. This helps third parties, and helps make votes count for more in the so called "solid" states.

Both are excellent suggestions, but I'd amend the second to abolish the EC altogether. Many small states have the same EC votes, but radically different populations. Montana and Wyoming for instance, have difference in population of 400,000. Under the EC, their surplus votes are effectively tossed out.

[Loren]

Both are excellent suggestions, but I'd amend the second to abolish the EC altogether. Many small states have the same EC votes, but radically different populations. Montana and Wyoming for instance, have difference in population of 400,000. Under the EC, their surplus votes are effectively tossed out.

More than half of Americans live in ten states: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. However, those 50%+ of Americans only have a voice equal to 20% of the U.S. Senate.

That's the same representation in the Senate that's granted to the ten states with the smallest populations, which *combined* roughly equal the population of the smallest of the ten states named above.

So if the existence of radically different populations is reason to scrap the Electoral College, then why shouldn't we make the Senate proportional too? You made the point about Montana and Wyoming, but how about California and Wyoming? They have a population difference of 33 million, yet have equal representation in the Senate. Are those surplus votes in California being tossed out?

[Mike Smash!]

More than half of Americans live in ten states: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. However, those 50%+ of Americans only have a voice equal to 20% of the U.S. Senate.

That's the same representation in the Senate that's granted to the ten states with the smallest populations, which *combined* roughly equal the population of the smallest of the ten states named above.

So if the existence of radically different populations is reason to scrap the Electoral College, then why shouldn't we make the Senate proportional too? You made the point about Montana and Wyoming, but how about California and Wyoming? They have a population difference of 33 million, yet have equal representation in the Senate. Are those surplus votes in California being tossed out?

I wouldn't be opposed to a unicameral legislature. It's not a priority, but I'd like to see Congress merged into one body with four term offices elected proportionally in their states.

I think the backroom ability to kill something in committee is enough of a check. The Senate was originally intended to be an aristocrat's club elected by state legislatures and the governor as being loyal to the party above all, not the voters.

But as far as the EC is concerned, most of those small states are ignored anyways, since none of them -- save New Hampshire recently -- are battleground states and I've never seen a tight election all come down to anything but the votes in one of the bigger states like Ohio or Florida anyways.

Not to mention that we don't even vote for president, we vote for electors.

[The Batman]

I think that maybe the only way to really fix politicians is to change human nature. Political corruption is about as old as politics, if not older. People are always going to be weak and greedy and politicians are just people. Change the system and corruption will just creep into the new one sooner or later.

Aside from greater transparency in the political process, I think the most effective way to fix politicians is to try and counter voter apathy. I think that a more informed and involved electorate might be less likely to reward graft and corruption or to overlook ineffective politicians. The only other thought I have on this is to perhaps make it easier to run for political office without having to sell your soul to interests in order to gain the captial necessary to run an effective campaign. Is it possible that the reason there are so many corrupt politicians is because they're usually the only ones who can afford to run for office?