posted on August 21, 2002 07:00:43 PM new
I think we need to rethink our style of democracy. We elect our officials hoping they will make good decisions on our behalf. It's a crap shoot imho. To get more people involved in how the country is run, I think every big decision should be voted upon by its people. We pay the taxes, why shouldn't we have a say in what's decided? Or do you think it's too late?
posted on August 21, 2002 08:01:07 PM new
Well, they are not spending my withholding taxes with my approval, that's for sure. Nobody asked me about the open-ended contract to supply the army with Cheney's old company, etc.
posted on August 21, 2002 09:38:46 PM new
I'd like to see the Congressional districts reduced from 500,000 to 50,000 or even less.
Imagine if you lived in a city of 500,000 people and only one person represented everyone in the city. It would be like having a mayor and no other elected officials, no school board, no city council, no referendums, every political decision for that city would be handled by one person. That's what we have in Congress with one Representitive per 500,000 people.
Having less people per Rep would also allow more minority views to be represented and compromised with in Congress.
It would also make it much more expensive and harder to buy Congressmen. Buying Congress would be like trying to herd cats. There would be 10 times as many as there are now, and the politician wouldn't be as dependant on corporate money because he/she wouldn't need as much money to reach 90% less electorate.
It would also be much easier for the Representitive to be in contact with constituents and vice versa.
I think people would be more apt to donate money for campaigns and even participate more if they were 1 of 50,000 instead of one in 500,000.
I think it would even function better if we could reduce it to one Rep per 25,000.
posted on August 22, 2002 01:25:32 AM new
And still have the same retirement and bennies as now supported by 25k people for each congressman? It would bankrupt us.
posted on August 22, 2002 04:49:49 AM new
I agree with your concept, RAEMOND, but gravid has pointed out the problem. Congressmen and women have far better perks than the average citizen they represent. How do you force them to take a reduction in benefits? I suppose the same way you would force them to take a reduction in district size.
posted on August 22, 2002 08:39:26 AM new
I think that REAMOND's idea is a good one. We need not allow our representatives to set up a caste system or monarchy. Paying them is a pittance compared to just one pork-project.
Democracy, real Democracy, is a pain in the arse. Switzerland once had full Democracy. Every citizen voted upon every bill brought forth to the government. This was gladly accepted at first. But eventually, it became a pain to everyone to go vote on every single issue and bill. Too much participation in the government poisons the soul. Eventually, they switched to a representative form of government and now citizens only vote on the big issues.
Here in America, we've never had anywhere near that sort of participation in our government. It has been suggested by the likes of Ralph Nader and others to have a national Referendum system, whereby citizens would vote on issues to force Congress to pass the appropriate legislation. These efforts were shot down and likely would have been shot down by the Supreme Court in any case, as it is not the business of the people to force Congress to make laws.
Another effort in that direction has been the non-binding national referendum, whereby Congress could ignore the Will of the People at their own political peril. But Congress and lifetime politicians shot that down as well. Ladies and Gentlemen - we have the Vote and nothing else!
With only this avenue of participation and control of what our government does, voting is essential. However, when both parties conspire to really be one party and to take every measure possible to deny the entry of a third party, our votes are effectively negated. Go ahead and vote out the Scum in office this year and by next year, the replacement you put in there will be revealed as even greater Scum. And simply voting them in or out has no effect whatsoever on the process, as all candidates are bought and sold by the multi-Billionaire and $Trillionaire$ Corporations and so, all are corrupted well before they even get into office.
Efforts to clean up the mess has been voted down by Republicans consistently. In the past, some Democrats have done so as well. Now almost all Democrats are against election reform, because Republicans and Democrats are two different sides of the same political party.
The problem with any real solution is that any or all of the three main branches of our government can easily water down or delete any solution that we come up with. It would take the creation of a Constitutional Amendment to even slow them down, as we all have seen how they abuse the current Constitution and the Bill of Rights even now. It will take a complete overhaul of political personnel in all three branches of government at one time and a tribunal process to bring justice and Democracy back to us. Short of that - forget it!
posted on August 22, 2002 11:57:18 AM new
The wages and benefits of Congress for an expanded democracy would be a drop in the bucket. At the 50,000 level it would cost less than $3 each for wages.
I think that a smaller district would open things up greatly. What are now considered unviable positions or party affliations would become viable in smaller districts. A candidate would be held to their record rather than party affliation or corporate sponsership.
A candidate would need far less money to campaign in these reduced districts. In fact, a door to door campaign would be possible.
I think the argument against this would be that the Congress would now have over 2000 Reps and become "impossible to manage". But this is exactly the result I want. It would require well thought out legislation in order to get through Congress, because no one could use money to bribe that many people. Party affliations would lose cache as there may very well be no majority. The "seniority" system would also die if Congress were expanded. The turnover rate with smaller districts would be greater as voters become more in control of outcomes. People would actually feel their votes counted. Ideas might actually triumph.
We would also see at least 3 to 6 more "parties" in Congress.
The presidential electoral college would also change dramatically if the electoral votes increased with the smaller districts as it should. At first there may be an advantage to the two major parties for winner-take-all states, but this would rapidly fade after a few mid-term elections. But this type of expanded representation may allow for the change to a strictly popular vote for president.
Imagine how much more responsive a Rep would have to be to constituents with these smaller districts. He/she could actually communicate with a significant amount of constituents about pending legislation instead of getting all input from lobbyists. There could actually be meetings with the Rep to have meaningful discussion of the issues.
If the constituents wanted to, they could even have a sub-Rep for every 1000 people for a total of 50, which could be in regular communication with their Rep in Congress. You and your neighbors on the block all of a sudden become important members of the electorate instead of disinterested faces in the crowd every 2 years. If you banded together, you could actually make a difference in the outcome of the elections.
With these smaller districts, smaller numbers of voters become important. Voters would actually start communicating with and interacting with groups in other districts to flesh out problems and solutions towards a united front in Congress.
I think that 50000 people could work together more efficiently than 500000. 50000 is a small to mid size football stadium- but not all of the 50000 are of voting age, so it would actually be less than 50000.
posted on August 22, 2002 05:41:44 PM new
REAMOND, you tend to see the positive side when it comes to great cheange ideas. I see that the mor things change, the more they stay the same way. Without going into details, although at first your idea woulkd level the playing field for Democracy, the field never stays level for long. The key is getting people involved in the process. The only way to even incorporate such a great uidea as yours is a Constitutional Amendment. Do you have any idea what it takes to create a Constittuional Amendment? I forget the number of states that have to ratify it, but its a clear majority. You're talking about making a tremendous change, and current politicians from our one-party system won't stand for it.
posted on August 22, 2002 07:52:49 PM new
Bor- it would take a constitutional amendment.
Amendments come through either a drawn out political process such as prohibition, which took decades to bring about, or it takes a crisis, such as a civil war.
After the last presidential election debacle, and the growing disdain of the majority of the electorate, change may be easier than expected and unstoppable.
The current reform trend towards campaign finance is a dead horse, not politically, but constitutionally. I can not see a constitutional avenue for campaign finance reform.
Reducing congressional districts would gain support from nearly every marginalized sub group out there, which, if voter turn out is any indication, the majority of those eligible to vote are marginalized and don't even bother to vote.
Certainly corporate and the two main political parties will fight against it. Every current congressman would see their power being diluted and will fight vigoriously.
But when you have less than half of the electorate voting, the situation is ripe.
posted on August 22, 2002 09:16:13 PM new
It's a lot less than half now. Our single, one-party system is no longer cleverly disguised as the old two-party system that we used to have because after the last Presidential election, nearly everyone figured it out.
I am not overly informed on the Amendment process, other than what I've already stated. I don't think that it would fly, becuase the large corporations that own our one-party system can put on such a media blitz that would make your idea look like the very coming of Satan on Earth! They would squash your idea like a bug, but go ahead and find out for yourself. If you can come up with a non-media, grass-roots way to promote your idea, I'd be all for it. I'm looking for any alternative to the French Revolution/Guillotine solution to our massiviely corrupt political system.
posted on August 24, 2002 08:58:59 AM new
The Guillotine works way too slow. If one of the Axis of Evil nuked Washington with Congress in session it might backfire on them and do more to benefit the country in the long run than they could ever imaigine.
