Korean Job Discussion Forums

[TheFonz]

As the title says if you could change anything about the U.S. government what would it be?

My two cents,

-Have a question time for the President similar to the Prime Minister question time in the UK.

-Have more regulations on donations and funding to political parties. For example not allowing corporations to support politicians finacially. It just makes politicians bias on issues. Lobbyists have too much influence in our current system.

I know its a broad topic but just interested in hearing your opinions.

[canuckistan]

Appointing a military guy like Hayden to replace Goss as CIA head raises some pretty big questions about the military/Pentagon influencing a civilian agency which, amongst other things, points to the limits set down by the Posse Comitatus Act: http://www.dojgov.net/posse_comitatus_act.htm

.... although the White House assures us this won't happen.

I guess we'll just have to take their word for it hey

[matthews_world]

Pay back the debt! This is ridiculous.

Why do people call it a debt in the first place. Isn't it funny how large free market economies can't even make it in the red.

America's role in international politics and our indoctrinated need to spread peace and democracy around the globe needs to be scaled down a bit. We can't be off spending money fighting wars we can't win. With terrorism and natural disasters brought on by global warming, we need to be taking care of our own.

[Gopher]

[desultude]

The real change would have to be an alteration of the electoral system to allow for a multi-party government.

All the little cosmetic changes will not help so long as we are faced with the tweedle-dee tweedle-dum (guess which one is the dum ) choices of Democrats and Republicans, both of which are now owned by the highest bidders.

The system was put in place as a means to protect government from the people (no, this is not a conspiracy theory, just read the Federalist Papers, Madison et al were very clear about keeping the government out of the hands of the great unwashed masses). If you want true checks and balances, let the people have a role by having a broad choice of parties and ideas coming to the fore.

Get rid of the electoral college, and the way the Senate seats are allocated, and the U.S. itself may start making steps towards democracy.

[canuckistan]

[Ya-ta Boy]

The most important reforms that I see a need for are:

a) campaign finance reform

b) take the drawing of electoral district boundaries out of the hands of state legislatures and give it to (???) a federal court. In my state, Iowa, it is done by computers, which works very well. This alone would go a long way to opening up Congress to being competitive.

c) do not allow Congress to pass unfunded mandates (force the states to find money for a Congressional idea)

d) lengthen the term in the House and then stagger the elections

[Don Gately]

If I could change one thing about the US government I would change the president.

[ilovebdt]

[Wangja]

[Nowhere Man]

1) Get rid of the electoral college.

Why? Because it supports the 2-party system. There is nothing in the Constitution about how many parties there should be. It's the electoral system that makes it very hard for third parties to sussceed and survive.

Arguments I've heard in the past: I'm from Wyoming. This would rob me of representation.

Candidates would only focus on more-populace states in campaigning.

My rebuttal: While states with small populations would technically "lose" representation, you're only really being represented if you agree with the majority of your state. I'm from a larger state and my vote in the presidential election has never counted for dookie. In fact, it's really isn't worth it to vote. Minus the electoral college, everyone's vote counts.

With things as they are, candidates spend most of their time and money campaigning in battleground states. In other words, it was Florida who chose the president in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. Here's a concept: How about everyone chooses the president? And I don't really care, in the age of the internet, where candidates spend time campaigning. Either way, how much time did they spend in Wyoming?

Plus, the Senate is there to guarantee representation of small states.

The electoral college was more intended to keep the early early US from fracturing. That's not a very realistic concern now.

2) Unfreeze the size of the House of Representatives.

What we are taught throughout school is that the House of Representatives was designed to grow in proportion to the population.

This is in the Constitution.

What no one taught us is that the House of Representatives hasn't grown at all since 1911.
Note: The US population has grown exponentially since then.

Mind you, it wasn't frozen via amendment. It was frozen by a congressional order. Why? To curb the influence of immigrants.

Arguments I've heard: More representatives would result in more corruption. The Capitol Building is too small to accomodate more reps.

RE Corruption. More reps would mean the money spent would be more spread out. It would cost more to bribe politicians. Also, more reps would increase the chances of third parties gaining a foothold in government. It would be a chance for them to develop a record of what they stand for and allow voters more information about who to vote for.

In other words, centralization=more corruption. Decentralization=less corruption.

Having more third party reps would likewise increase the chance of campaign finance reform.

RE the size of the building. That's just silly that we would curtail our government according to the size of a buiding.

In the short term, what I'd change is the money spent on education, as the above points will make it through if we have well-informed constituents to prod both parties to make changes that neither party will otherwise consider.

[Tiger Beer]

i read that in the Canadian system.. if say 5% of the green party got votes in the general election.. then those 5% were represented somewhere.

can anyone clarify that for me?

anyways.. i wish the US system had better representation for the various parties. This democrat-republican thing seriously sucks. neither one comes even remotely close to representing me.. and i'm definetely not a radical person politically by any means.

[desultude]

There is no law against multiple parties, but it is a winner take all electoral system. A system of proportional representation would allow for multiple parties. In a winner take all system, you really do have to make your least worst choice. I didn't like Clinton or Gore, I didn't like Bush (needless to say!!!), but those are the choices. To vote for a third party is a waste of a vote, except to make a negative statement about the two majority candidates.

The Constitution is structured in a way that insures 2 parties, even though I don't think a 2 party system was necessarily the intent of the founders. A system of rules structures possible outcomes. If the U.S. government ever is to change, it would have to start with changing the structure.

Progress towards democracy was made with the election rather than appointment of senators (a structural change vis a vis a Constitutional amendment). But the senate, being the stronger house and, by virtue of having 2 elected per state, works against democratic rule. The states of Wyoming and Alaska, with miniscule populations totally out of touch with the needs of the populous states, have the same senatorial representation as the largely populated states. That is not proportional, so it is not democratic. It is not consistent with the principle of one person, one vote.

[On the other hand]

[Ya-ta Boy]