Rhetorical, I know. Maybe pointless. But what do you change? Within reason or outlandish. Or somewhere in between. Here are mine:
1.) No more bipartisan strangle hold on politics. Get rid of it and replace it with a multiple party system, all with legit access to government. As an independent, I don’t feel any particular affinity to the R or D parties. Although one I view as a clear and present danger to the country and the other merely sucks.
2.) Term limits and expansion of the Supreme Court (and all other courts, many of which all ready have something in place to control for it). Each federal circuit gets 2 justices drawn from the ranks of federal judges within the circuit. 2-3 term limit and mandatory retirement age (65 seams like a reasonable age). Stagger the term limit so that justices are rotating in and out every 1-2 years.
3.) No more electoral college. I view it as an archaic vestige that was a crap compromise 200 years ago that serves no legit purpose today. In my view, geography should have no import or impact on electing the president. An R vote in CA should have equal power as a D vote in WY.
Those are my three. I don’t see any of these happening in my lifetime. But a boy can dream.
1.) Term Limits at all levels of government. No individual can serve more than 12 years for any elected or appointed office. Current presidential term limits to remain. This does not include those hired into the government bureaucracy.
2.) Age limits - this would be changed every 10 years with the census and the average life span of US citizens. The requirement would be 8 - 10 years under the average when running for office. If this were in place, right now the max age for someone entering any federal office would be between 67 & 69 years of age.
3.)No secret holds on any bills and if you wish to filibuster a bill, you must stand and speak against the bill, no filibustering without any requirements.
Get rid of it and replace it with a multiple party system,
It is already a multiple party system. I think what you mean is that you want more than two parties to have significant power.
So how do you do that? The general concensus is that the winner-take-all elections leads to binary power distribution - it starves out minor players. Game theory. But it also (in theory) forces moderation among the two parties in order to attempt to appeal to a majority of voters.
I’m not opposed to multiparty power sharing, but there are also downsides. When you give power and voices to smaller parties that don’t feel any need to moderate, you can end up with some scary-ass parties that can act as king-makers. It is not automatically “better,” IMO.
1.) Term Limits at all levels of government. No individual can serve more than 12 years for any elected or appointed office. Current presidential term limits to remain. This does not include those hired into the government bureaucracy.
Why do you want lobbyists and those unelected to be more powerful? Because that is what term limits result in for legislators.
Being a legislator is a complicated job. You are dealing with a complicated system and complicated problems. You just don’t become an expert in quickly. So if you have term limits, nobody elected becomes skilled at the job, so they need to rely outside, non-elected experts that know how to do the job. Those are going to be lobbyists.
This is a a very well studied thing and would only increase corporations power.
Get rid of it and replace it with a multiple party system,
It is already a multiple party system. I think what you mean is that you want more than two parties to have significant power.
So how do you do that? The general concensus is that the winner-take-all elections leads to binary power distribution - it starves out minor players. Game theory. But it also (in theory) forces moderation among the two parties in order to attempt to appeal to a majority of voters.
I’m not opposed to multiparty power sharing, but there are also downsides. When you give power and voices to smaller parties that don’t feel any need to moderate, you can end up with some scary-ass parties that can act as king-makers. It is not automatically “better,” IMO.
Of course we have a multi-party system, in theory. In practice, not so much. I want to see an actual multi-party system where parties interact within one another in a positive manner, make compromises for the common good, don’t view other parties as enemies, evil, etc. I think multi-party systems encourage moderation and compromise. Our current system has led to anything but moderation; quite the opposite. I have no idea how to do it in practice. This or that has proven to be a shitty binary.
Our current system has led to anything but moderation; quite the opposite.
You might want to brush up on some of the minority parties overseas. While our GOP plays footsie with white nationalism, there are full-up proudly racist parties overseas. The MAGA GOP is still at least forced to pretend it likes black people.
where parties interact within one another in a positive manner
I hear you. But any system is going to be about winning. The only way parties interact “positively,” I think, is one where, we, the electorate, punish them when they don’t. But we’ve become conditioned to celebrate combativity. I think on this isn’t not a change to the system that’s needed. We need to change. We’re the problem.
Might come up with other ideas if I took time to study and put serious thought, but some ideas that might make the list:
Age limit for President, Vice President, Congressman, SCOTUS Justice. We have a minimum age for POTUS; I don’t see any reason we couldn’t have a maximum as well. The older you get, the more prone you are to mental issues, physical issues, difficulty with the demands of the job, and more out of touch with the electorate, plus you no longer have as much at stake as younger generations who still have to live for decades under the laws you make.
A much more slimmed down electoral cycle and machinery. Corporate and big investor money out. Election cycle much shortened with prohibitions on fund raising, ads, political speeches aimed at elections, etc. so that the government can be expected to govern instead of just run for the next election cycle.
Expansion of SCOTUS so that the rulings aren’t quite so politically bifurcated. The size of the court has been set at 9 justices since 1869. It’s ridiculous to think that number is still sufficient, given the massive increase in population, complexity of issues, increase in government size and bureaucracy, etc. We have one of the smallest national supreme courts in the world. It’s not helping. Add some things like the aforementioned age limit and some ethics rules, etc.
Electoral districts drawn by non-partisan commissions
I think along the same lines as you. Specific changes that I think will have a positive influence:
Popular Vote for president, eliminate the electoral college
kill off gerrymandering by having non-partisan commission(s) set them every ten years
complete overhaul of federal judges - term limits (no lifetime appointments), actual ethics standard for all levels (including Supreme Court)
I like to think that 1&2 open up the potential for more moderate/centrist candidates to be able to win. #3 just makes the courts a bit more in touch with reality as there will be some turnover and the theory of potential consequences of bad behavior.
Electoral districts drawn by non-partisan commissions
I think along the same lines as you. Specific changes that I think will have a positive influence:
Popular Vote for president, eliminate the electoral college
kill off gerrymandering by having non-partisan commission(s) set them every ten years
complete overhaul of federal judges - term limits (no lifetime appointments), actual ethics standard for all levels (including Supreme Court)
I like to think that 1&2 open up the potential for more moderate/centrist candidates to be able to win. #3 just makes the courts a bit more in touch with reality as there will be some turnover and the theory of potential consequences of bad behavior.
Our current system has led to anything but moderation; quite the opposite.
You might want to brush up on some of the minority parties overseas. While our GOP plays footsie with white nationalism, there are full-up proudly racist parties overseas. The MAGA GOP is still at least forced to pretend it likes black people.
Yes, well aware. I’m actually ok with that. Not that I support the open fascists and nationalists. But better to have them siloed in one place.
where parties interact within one another in a positive manner
I hear you. But any system is going to be about winning. The only way parties interact “positively,” I think, is one where, we, the electorate, punish them when they don’t. But we’ve become conditioned to celebrate combativity. I think on this isn’t not a change to the system that’s needed. We need to change. We’re the problem.
Naive, perhaps, on my part, but “winning” shouldn’t be part of the equation.
Electoral districts drawn by non-partisan commissions
I think along the same lines as you. Specific changes that I think will have a positive influence:
Popular Vote for president, eliminate the electoral college
kill off gerrymandering by having non-partisan commission(s) set them every ten years
complete overhaul of federal judges - term limits (no lifetime appointments), actual ethics standard for all levels (including Supreme Court)
I like to think that 1&2 open up the potential for more moderate/centrist candidates to be able to win. #3 just makes the courts a bit more in touch with reality as there will be some turnover and the theory of potential consequences of bad behavior.
Judicial term limits have other benefits, including:
a) No incentive to appoint very young judges. Judge Cannon was in her 30s when she got life tenure.
b) Far less incentive to time your retirement to coincide with when your party controls the White House.
c) No/less ability to pull a Mitch by keeping Garland off the Court.
Electoral districts drawn by non-partisan commissions
I think along the same lines as you. Specific changes that I think will have a positive influence:
Popular Vote for president, eliminate the electoral college
kill off gerrymandering by having non-partisan commission(s) set them every ten years
complete overhaul of federal judges - term limits (no lifetime appointments), actual ethics standard for all levels (including Supreme Court)
I like to think that 1&2 open up the potential for more moderate/centrist candidates to be able to win. #3 just makes the courts a bit more in touch with reality as there will be some turnover and the theory of potential consequences of bad behavior.
Judicial term limits have other benefits, including:
a) No incentive to appoint very young judges. Judge Cannon was in her 30s when she got life tenure.
b) Far less incentive to time your retirement to coincide with when your party controls the White House.
c) No/less ability to pull a Mitch by keeping Garland off the Court.
Along with the Canon appointment, there should be a certain amount of legal experience, as well.
Rhetorical, I know. Maybe pointless. But what do you change? Within reason or outlandish. Or somewhere in between. Here are mine:
1.) No more bipartisan strangle hold on politics. Get rid of it and replace it with a multiple party system, all with legit access to government. As an independent, I don’t feel any particular affinity to the R or D parties. Although one I view as a clear and present danger to the country and the other merely sucks.
2.) Term limits and expansion of the Supreme Court (and all other courts, many of which all ready have something in place to control for it). Each federal circuit gets 2 justices drawn from the ranks of federal judges within the circuit. 2-3 term limit and mandatory retirement age (65 seams like a reasonable age). Stagger the term limit so that justices are rotating in and out every 1-2 years.
3.) No more electoral college. I view it as an archaic vestige that was a crap compromise 200 years ago that serves no legit purpose today. In my view, geography should have no import or impact on electing the president. An R vote in CA should have equal power as a D vote in WY.
Those are my three. I don’t see any of these happening in my lifetime. But a boy can dream.