PDA

View Full Version : A Radical Solution to the U.S. government



mikesilvia
11-28-2011, 05:21 PM
I'll put up a few radical ideas, but I think would be an effective way to fix the U.S. for good.

1. A random, jury selection type system for our congress. Both the House and Senate would be put together by a jury-type selection system. To qualify as a candidate you could not have a felony, must have at least a high school education, etc. You would earn better chances by 1) serving the military/peace Corp 2) graduating college 3) volunteering, etc. So someone that graduated college, served the military/peace copr, volunteered 100s of community hours, etc would have a better chance to get selected than someone that didn't contribute to society or serve their country.

Obviously, there would have to be more qualifiers/dis-qualifiers, but wouldn't a random selection of qualified citizens be better than bought and/or rich politicians?

2. Have a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. If at the end of the year the budget is NOT balanced the jury system for the house and senate kick in (idea #1). ALL members are kicked out of congress and new members are put back in.

This would be a start for me!

duane1969
11-28-2011, 07:14 PM
3. Limit when politicians can start campaigning, how much they can spend and make sure that all candidates have the same funding so that elections can not be "bought" with hundreds of millions spent in advertising by one candidate that other candidates can not compete with.

TheGrapher
11-28-2011, 07:17 PM
3. Limit when politicians can start campaigning, how much they can spend and make sure that all candidates have the same funding so that elections can not be "bought" with hundreds of millions spent in advertising by one candidate that other candidates can not compete with.

This I like.

duane1969
11-28-2011, 07:29 PM
It has long been my contention that elections are a "He with the most money wins" situation. By limiting spending and making all politicians adhere to the same restrictions then the candidates could be evaluated moreso on the pertinent subjects and less on the amount of propaganda that they can generate.

Also if all funding was regulated and dispersed by the government then it would allow candidates that are not already millionaires with connections to be a contender.

habsheaven
11-28-2011, 07:33 PM
And how do you address all the spending (arguably more than the candidates spend) on negative campaign ads by people not officially connected to the candidates?

andrewhoya
11-28-2011, 08:11 PM
Remove the useless two-party system. Make people actually vote for who has the best ideas instead of voting for the person linked to their party.

Hilfiger1975
11-28-2011, 08:13 PM
remove the useless two-party system. Make people actually vote for who has the best ideas instead of voting for the person linked to their party.
+1!

duane1969
11-28-2011, 10:24 PM
And how do you address all the spending (arguably more than the candidates spend) on negative campaign ads by people not officially connected to the candidates?

I wouldn't. That would be restriction of free speech. However, I would require "truth in advertising" and hold PACs and special interest groups accountable for what they say. Spewing half-truths and being intentionally misleading is something that needs to be dealt with now.

gatorboymike
11-29-2011, 02:56 AM
Limit all elected officials, executive and legislative, to a single term. No reelection. Increase the length of all terms by two years.

habsheaven
11-29-2011, 07:47 AM
I wouldn't. That would be restriction of free speech. However, I would require "truth in advertising" and hold PACs and special interest groups accountable for what they say. Spewing half-truths and being intentionally misleading is something that needs to be dealt with now.

If you wouldn't restrict PACs then what would be the point of limiting the candidates spending. We both know that the campaigns would just funnel money into the various PACs that are aligned with them.

duane1969
11-29-2011, 07:54 AM
If you wouldn't restrict PACs then what would be the point of limiting the candidates spending. We both know that the campaigns would just funnel money into the various PACs that are aligned with them.

That would certainly have to be addressed. The obvious answer would be to not let them advertise but that is a limitation on free speech. You can't limit PACs from making ads anymore than you can limit a guy from standing on the street corner handing out flyers.

Campaigns wouldn't be able to funnel money into them because donations would go directly to the government entity that controls campaign funding and it is then evenly distributed to all candidates. For a candidate to funnel money into a PAC they would have to send their portion of what they recieved which would be public knowledge and illegal.

mrveggieman
11-29-2011, 09:29 AM
Remove the useless two-party system. Make people actually vote for who has the best ideas instead of voting for the person linked to their party.


+1

Also instead of the intrusive year in tax return switch over to a fair tax system. Not the bogus 9-9-9 tax plan by herman cain that is designed to keep the rich richer and make the poor even poorer but a real honest tax fair tax system where you are taxed on consumption and gives the tax payer more opportunities for savings and investment.

sanfran22
11-29-2011, 10:37 AM
+1

Also instead of the intrusive year in tax return switch over to a fair tax system. Not the bogus 9-9-9 tax plan by herman cain that is designed to keep the rich richer and make the poor even poorer but a real honest tax fair tax system where you are taxed on consumption and gives the tax payer more opportunities for savings and investment.

Won't a fair tax raise the taxes on the poor?

mrveggieman
11-29-2011, 10:46 AM
Won't a fair tax raise the taxes on the poor?


One of the fair tax plans that I was reading up on only taxed on items that went over the min amount to live off. Everyone would get a $4500 refund for life's essential items. After that most items that you bought new retail would be taxed. The poor would not feel as much of a pinch because they have less disposable income and naturally do less spending. The more you spend the more tax you pay. If you dont want to pay a lot of tax do not buy uneccessary items. We all know that wont happen. The gov't will still collect their taxes and people who are wise with their money will come out ahead.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer