Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Here's how to fix America's political system

leon.marro
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 5:35:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
America's political system is broken: here's how to fix it. Amending the Constitution is the only way in which this can achieved. Here are the proposals:

1) Increase House terms to 4 years to coincide with Presidential elections. Conduct House elections first, and then the political party that wins the majority of seats in the House shall be the ONLY party that can contest the Presidential elections. E.g. if Republicans win the House then only Republican candidates shall be allowed to contest the Presidential elections.

2) Reform election to the Senate so that one-half of the Senate is renewed every third-year; reinstate the original mode of election in which State Legislatures elected senators - this way all States will elect one senator every third year, thereby simplifying the process.

3) Congress should not have the power to either amend or pass appropriations bills and/or tax bills, except by a concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses. Any appropriations requested and estimated by the executive government may neither be amended by Congress (except by a two-thirds vote) but the Congress shall the power to either approve or reject the bill without the two-thirds requirement.

4) Set a mandatory deadline for the Annual/General Appropriations Bills so that on a specific date (15 September) the bill shall automatically become law.

5) Remove the filibuster in the Senate: all resolution and bills require only a simple majority to pass the Senate.

6) Fix a mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court (and inferior courts) Justice at no older than 70 years.

7) Reduce the veto override requirement so that two-thirds of the Senate ONLY is required and not both Houses.

8) Introduce a compulsory retirement age for congressmen and senators, so that no person who is sixty-five years of age or older shall be eligible to be elected to Congress.

I welcome any comments on these matters. Please feel free to discuss any or all of the proposals I have suggested.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 4:36:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 5:35:11 AM, leon.marro wrote:
America's political system is broken: here's how to fix it. Amending the Constitution is the only way in which this can achieved. Here are the proposals:

1) Increase House terms to 4 years to coincide with Presidential elections. Conduct House elections first, and then the political party that wins the majority of seats in the House shall be the ONLY party that can contest the Presidential elections. E.g. if Republicans win the House then only Republican candidates shall be allowed to contest the Presidential elections.

2) Reform election to the Senate so that one-half of the Senate is renewed every third-year; reinstate the original mode of election in which State Legislatures elected senators - this way all States will elect one senator every third year, thereby simplifying the process.

3) Congress should not have the power to either amend or pass appropriations bills and/or tax bills, except by a concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses. Any appropriations requested and estimated by the executive government may neither be amended by Congress (except by a two-thirds vote) but the Congress shall the power to either approve or reject the bill without the two-thirds requirement.

4) Set a mandatory deadline for the Annual/General Appropriations Bills so that on a specific date (15 September) the bill shall automatically become law.

5) Remove the filibuster in the Senate: all resolution and bills require only a simple majority to pass the Senate.

6) Fix a mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court (and inferior courts) Justice at no older than 70 years.

7) Reduce the veto override requirement so that two-thirds of the Senate ONLY is required and not both Houses.

8) Introduce a compulsory retirement age for congressmen and senators, so that no person who is sixty-five years of age or older shall be eligible to be elected to Congress.

I welcome any comments on these matters. Please feel free to discuss any or all of the proposals I have suggested.

Yea. Virtually all of these suck. Age limits? Pseudo parliament? Yea, not one of these is very good.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 5:25:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 5:35:11 AM, leon.marro wrote:
America's political system is broken: here's how to fix it. Amending the Constitution is the only way in which this can achieved. Here are the proposals:

1) Increase House terms to 4 years to coincide with Presidential elections. Conduct House elections first, and then the political party that wins the majority of seats in the House shall be the ONLY party that can contest the Presidential elections. E.g. if Republicans win the House then only Republican candidates shall be allowed to contest the Presidential elections.

2) Reform election to the Senate so that one-half of the Senate is renewed every third-year; reinstate the original mode of election in which State Legislatures elected senators - this way all States will elect one senator every third year, thereby simplifying the process.

3) Congress should not have the power to either amend or pass appropriations bills and/or tax bills, except by a concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses. Any appropriations requested and estimated by the executive government may neither be amended by Congress (except by a two-thirds vote) but the Congress shall the power to either approve or reject the bill without the two-thirds requirement.

4) Set a mandatory deadline for the Annual/General Appropriations Bills so that on a specific date (15 September) the bill shall automatically become law.

5) Remove the filibuster in the Senate: all resolution and bills require only a simple majority to pass the Senate.

6) Fix a mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court (and inferior courts) Justice at no older than 70 years.

7) Reduce the veto override requirement so that two-thirds of the Senate ONLY is required and not both Houses.

8) Introduce a compulsory retirement age for congressmen and senators, so that no person who is sixty-five years of age or older shall be eligible to be elected to Congress.

I welcome any comments on these matters. Please feel free to discuss any or all of the proposals I have suggested.

Your proposals eliminate too many checks and balances.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 6:29:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am really wondering about the strange age limit. So, I put a 30yo on the SCOTUS, and he serves 40 years? Add the strange coalition government idea, and well...

I have little reason to take any of this very seriously. "Gridlock" is not a bad thing in government. The balance we have been able to achieve should be celebrated. I have no idea if the guy is left/right, but I think I can assume he is right. It floors me how dismissive the right it to the very beauty of our system of governance, while still claiming the perceived high-ground on patriotism.

There is a thread around here with the results of 47% of the GOP supporting a military coup. That should say how unpatriotic, how un american the right really is.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 7:05:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 6:47:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
eh, you could do much better with a single change, no consecutive terms.

If it's just "consecutive" then you have congressmen 2 years on, 2 years lobbing, 2 years on cycle.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 8:21:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 7:05:18 PM, TBR wrote:
At 9/26/2015 6:47:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
eh, you could do much better with a single change, no consecutive terms.

If it's just "consecutive" then you have congressmen 2 years on, 2 years lobbing, 2 years on cycle.

That's fine. Politicians won't be able to stay bought and they won't be long term investments.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 10:49:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 5:35:11 AM, leon.marro wrote:

2) Reform election to the Senate so that one-half of the Senate is renewed every third-year; reinstate the original mode of election in which State Legislatures elected senators - this way all States will elect one senator every third year, thereby simplifying the process.


This is really the only good idea here...

7) Reduce the veto override requirement so that two-thirds of the Senate ONLY is required and not both Houses.

Oh god, I threw up a little in my mouth after reading this...
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 11:37:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 11:00:42 PM, Romanii wrote:
None of these even address the reason why American's political system is broken...

It's broken because Thett isn't president.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 11:37:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 11:37:02 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 9/26/2015 11:00:42 PM, Romanii wrote:
None of these even address the reason why American's political system is broken...

It's broken because Thett isn't president.

That is precisely the "reason" I had in mind.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 11:40:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 11:37:49 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 9/26/2015 11:37:02 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 9/26/2015 11:00:42 PM, Romanii wrote:
None of these even address the reason why American's political system is broken...

It's broken because Thett isn't president.

That is precisely the "reason" I had in mind.

I'm so glad you agree. Now you don't have to be burned at the crucifix.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 12:03:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 8:47:50 PM, TBR wrote:
How so? Two years is a sabbatical. Same boouggt problem

Ok, then just think of it as removing barriers to competitive entries, destroying the near certainty of political monopolies as the system stands.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 12:05:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 12:03:30 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/26/2015 8:47:50 PM, TBR wrote:
How so? Two years is a sabbatical. Same boouggt problem

Ok, then just think of it as removing barriers to competitive entries, destroying the near certainty of political monopolies as the system stands.

Just put a reasonable cap on terms. Remove a large part of corporate financing, and bang.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 12:07:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 12:05:08 AM, TBR wrote:
At 9/27/2015 12:03:30 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/26/2015 8:47:50 PM, TBR wrote:
How so? Two years is a sabbatical. Same boouggt problem

Ok, then just think of it as removing barriers to competitive entries, destroying the near certainty of political monopolies as the system stands.

Just put a reasonable cap on terms. Remove a large part of corporate financing, and bang.

Or you could remove the prostitute monopolizing a seat for 35 years, that could work, taking him off the street every other term.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 12:08:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 12:07:15 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/27/2015 12:05:08 AM, TBR wrote:
At 9/27/2015 12:03:30 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/26/2015 8:47:50 PM, TBR wrote:
How so? Two years is a sabbatical. Same boouggt problem

Ok, then just think of it as removing barriers to competitive entries, destroying the near certainty of political monopolies as the system stands.

Just put a reasonable cap on terms. Remove a large part of corporate financing, and bang.

Or you could remove the prostitute monopolizing a seat for 35 years, that could work, taking him off the street every other term.

I am OK with term limits. Just not by age.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 12:11:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 12:08:19 AM, TBR wrote:
At 9/27/2015 12:07:15 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/27/2015 12:05:08 AM, TBR wrote:
At 9/27/2015 12:03:30 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/26/2015 8:47:50 PM, TBR wrote:
How so? Two years is a sabbatical. Same boouggt problem

Ok, then just think of it as removing barriers to competitive entries, destroying the near certainty of political monopolies as the system stands.

Just put a reasonable cap on terms. Remove a large part of corporate financing, and bang.

Or you could remove the prostitute monopolizing a seat for 35 years, that could work, taking him off the street every other term.

I am OK with term limits. Just not by age.

I mean you know how it gets when a prostitute stakes a claim on a corner, there is just way more more bribery over the years as word of mouth gets out that he is there to stay and the man to pay if you want something done. Just take away the monopoly, that will solve alot of problems.
leon.marro
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 3:52:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 4:36:05 PM, TBR wrote:
At 9/26/2015 5:35:11 AM, leon.marro wrote:
America's political system is broken: here's how to fix it. Amending the Constitution is the only way in which this can achieved. Here are the proposals:

1) Increase House terms to 4 years to coincide with Presidential elections. Conduct House elections first, and then the political party that wins the majority of seats in the House shall be the ONLY party that can contest the Presidential elections. E.g. if Republicans win the House then only Republican candidates shall be allowed to contest the Presidential elections.

2) Reform election to the Senate so that one-half of the Senate is renewed every third-year; reinstate the original mode of election in which State Legislatures elected senators - this way all States will elect one senator every third year, thereby simplifying the process.

3) Congress should not have the power to either amend or pass appropriations bills and/or tax bills, except by a concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses. Any appropriations requested and estimated by the executive government may neither be amended by Congress (except by a two-thirds vote) but the Congress shall the power to either approve or reject the bill without the two-thirds requirement.

4) Set a mandatory deadline for the Annual/General Appropriations Bills so that on a specific date (15 September) the bill shall automatically become law.

5) Remove the filibuster in the Senate: all resolution and bills require only a simple majority to pass the Senate.

6) Fix a mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court (and inferior courts) Justice at no older than 70 years.

7) Reduce the veto override requirement so that two-thirds of the Senate ONLY is required and not both Houses.

8) Introduce a compulsory retirement age for congressmen and senators, so that no person who is sixty-five years of age or older shall be eligible to be elected to Congress.

I welcome any comments on these matters. Please feel free to discuss any or all of the proposals I have suggested.

Yea. Virtually all of these suck. Age limits? Pseudo parliament? Yea, not one of these is very good.

Hello, thank you for your comments. Would you mind explaining why you think they are all bad ideas?
leon.marro
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 3:59:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 5:25:24 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 9/26/2015 5:35:11 AM, leon.marro wrote:
America's political system is broken: here's how to fix it. Amending the Constitution is the only way in which this can achieved. Here are the proposals:

1) Increase House terms to 4 years to coincide with Presidential elections. Conduct House elections first, and then the political party that wins the majority of seats in the House shall be the ONLY party that can contest the Presidential elections. E.g. if Republicans win the House then only Republican candidates shall be allowed to contest the Presidential elections.

2) Reform election to the Senate so that one-half of the Senate is renewed every third-year; reinstate the original mode of election in which State Legislatures elected senators - this way all States will elect one senator every third year, thereby simplifying the process.

3) Congress should not have the power to either amend or pass appropriations bills and/or tax bills, except by a concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses. Any appropriations requested and estimated by the executive government may neither be amended by Congress (except by a two-thirds vote) but the Congress shall the power to either approve or reject the bill without the two-thirds requirement.

4) Set a mandatory deadline for the Annual/General Appropriations Bills so that on a specific date (15 September) the bill shall automatically become law.

5) Remove the filibuster in the Senate: all resolution and bills require only a simple majority to pass the Senate.

6) Fix a mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court (and inferior courts) Justice at no older than 70 years.

7) Reduce the veto override requirement so that two-thirds of the Senate ONLY is required and not both Houses.

8) Introduce a compulsory retirement age for congressmen and senators, so that no person who is sixty-five years of age or older shall be eligible to be elected to Congress.

I welcome any comments on these matters. Please feel free to discuss any or all of the proposals I have suggested.

Your proposals eliminate too many checks and balances.

Hello, thank you for your feedback.

I appreciate you concern about the checks and balances that are inherent in America's political system.

The question one needs to ask themselves is this? Are there too many checks and balances in a system that it makes it almost unworkable? For e.g. let's take the veto power as an example. The veto power was not designed to be arbitrarily or for political purposes; instead it was designed to protect the interest of the nation. However, the veto power is too disruptive: it's difficult enough as it is getting legislation through the Congress, let alone having to have the approval of the executive. The Congress may as well have a third House of Congress in that case.

Secondly, many of the rights enshrined in the Constitution prevent tyrannical abuses from both the Federal and State governments, so this also renders the veto power not necessary.

Third, you mentioned that it reduces checks and balances: what about the two-thirds majority requirement for the appropriation of moneys or for the imposition of taxes? Isn't this a check on the legislature that is actually more effective than the veto power?

Cheers
leon.marro
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 4:14:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 6:29:24 PM, TBR wrote:
I am really wondering about the strange age limit. So, I put a 30yo on the SCOTUS, and he serves 40 years? Add the strange coalition government idea, and well...

I have little reason to take any of this very seriously. "Gridlock" is not a bad thing in government. The balance we have been able to achieve should be celebrated. I have no idea if the guy is left/right, but I think I can assume he is right. It floors me how dismissive the right it to the very beauty of our system of governance, while still claiming the perceived high-ground on patriotism.

There is a thread around here with the results of 47% of the GOP supporting a military coup. That should say how unpatriotic, how un american the right really is.

Hello, thank you for your comments.

Regarding the Supreme Court, no person who is 30 years of age would be appointed to the Supreme Court because he or she would simply be too young. Secondly, nearly every other developed nation of the plant has compulsory retirement ages for judges: Australia 70 years; Singapore 65 years; Switzerland 15 year terms, etc. The reason why mandatory retirement for judges is important is because it prevents a situation as we see in the United States where Justices of the Supreme Court actively remain on the bench because they want to make sure that status quo is preserved. If the US had mandatory retirement age of seventy-years, 5 of the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court would have already retired. Mandatory retirement make the Court system less political and more neutral.

In response to the question of deadlock: it's one thing to say that deadlock is good when a lower House (controlled by one party) and an upper House (controlled by several parties) cannot agree on policy; it's another thing to say that deadlock is good because both Houses are controlled by one party but the President is of another party; in the case of the latter they are clearly ideological and polarised oppositions to each other. Many other countries have upper Houses that less powerful that its lower House but the upper House as a House of 'review' scrutinising legislation and offering suggestions. This slows down the political process but doesn't impede it on ideological or political grounds. This is the difference.

Regarding patriotism and the political system: I understand that Americans really value their political system and its traditions. One thing to keep in mind, however, is that when the framers of the Constitution created this system, it was completely new - it had never been done before; so the whole thing was a great experiment. I think that many aspects of the US constitution are great, such as the Bill of rights, an elected Head of State, etc. but at some point, Americans must come to the realisation the current system is not responsive for today's issues. I mean, the Government shutdown? That just doesn't happen in other countries. Also, other governments are able to effectively respond to the needs of society. An classic example is the British Parliament: the Parliament can do whatever it wants; there are no restrictions to its power and it can undo anything passed by previous Parliaments. In essence, the British Parliament is dictatorial in nature but in practice it isn't. Why? Because the most important check on the British Parliament are the elected representatives of the Parliament, not to mention the modern day media and the increased scrutiny on Government activity. Whilst the American system was designed to prevent tyranny it has actually become less responsive to the people than the British Parliament which is actually more dictatorial in nature? Isn't it interesting how things turn out the complete opposite to what we intend?

Cheers.
leon.marro
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 4:15:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 6:47:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
eh, you could do much better with a single change, no consecutive terms.

Hello,

Thank you for your feedback.

I'm certainly open to that change. It seems like something that could be good for the political process. I wonder though, if that restriction would simply create a system in which the same people are rotating alternatively, so that one person can continue to be Parliament?
leon.marro
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 4:17:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 7:05:18 PM, TBR wrote:
At 9/26/2015 6:47:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
eh, you could do much better with a single change, no consecutive terms.

If it's just "consecutive" then you have congressmen 2 years on, 2 years lobbing, 2 years on cycle.

Hi there,

I notice that in California there are term restrictions of 12 years for both Assemblymen and Senators. That is an idea that could also be considered. I also understand that the California State Constitution expressly prohibits the receipt of any wages or commissions from lobby organisations. This sounds like a good thing to me. Perhaps we could implement this at Federal level?
leon.marro
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 4:22:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 10:49:41 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/26/2015 5:35:11 AM, leon.marro wrote:

2) Reform election to the Senate so that one-half of the Senate is renewed every third-year; reinstate the original mode of election in which State Legislatures elected senators - this way all States will elect one senator every third year, thereby simplifying the process.


This is really the only good idea here...

7) Reduce the veto override requirement so that two-thirds of the Senate ONLY is required and not both Houses.

Oh god, I threw up a little in my mouth after reading this...

Hello, thank you for your feedback. I hope that you were able to run to the toilet in time after viewing this list.

When was the last time the Congress overrode a veto? I believe it was during Reconstruction when the Radical Republicans overrode President Andrew Johnson's vetoes in order to enforce Radical Reconstruction. That was over 150 years ago. And the only reason why the Republicans such a large majority in Congress was because the Southern States were allowed representation in the Congress, many of whom would have voted Democrat. Also, do you think that any Bill that a President has vetoed over the last 20 years would have still been able to have been overridden if one the Senate was required?

The reason why the Senate should be the only House of Congress to override a veto is because it is where all States are equally represented and therefore would be fairer to all States of the US.

Another option might be to actually get each State to vote as one and then cast their vote either for or against the veto. If 26 of 50 States voted to override the veto then the bill would become law.

Cheers
leon.marro
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 4:26:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 11:00:42 PM, Romanii wrote:
None of these even address the reason why American's political system is broken...

Hello, thank you for your feedback.

There are many people who don't think that there is anything wrong with America's political system, as this is the case with many countries across the world. The question you need to ask yourself is: what do other countries do that America doesn't do and vice-versa. Why does New Zealand have a higher standard of living that the US? Why can the British Government so easily implement its agenda, whilst the President Obama struggles to implement university healthcare in the US, or fails to prevent a Government Shutdown?

The problem is the 'system.' The system doesn't work. These proposals I have made would clearly enhance the political process in the United States and make it fairer for all parties concerned. You may not believe it, but study each proposal carefully and think about the actual impact of each amendment on the political process?

Cheers.
leon.marro
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 4:31:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 4:22:23 AM, leon.marro wrote:
At 9/26/2015 10:49:41 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/26/2015 5:35:11 AM, leon.marro wrote:

2) Reform election to the Senate so that one-half of the Senate is renewed every third-year; reinstate the original mode of election in which State Legislatures elected senators - this way all States will elect one senator every third year, thereby simplifying the process.


This is really the only good idea here...

7) Reduce the veto override requirement so that two-thirds of the Senate ONLY is required and not both Houses.

Oh god, I threw up a little in my mouth after reading this...

Hello, thank you for your feedback. I hope that you were able to run to the toilet in time after viewing this list.

When was the last time the Congress overrode a veto? I believe it was during Reconstruction when the Radical Republicans overrode President Andrew Johnson's vetoes in order to enforce Radical Reconstruction. That was over 150 years ago. And the only reason why the Republicans such a large majority in Congress was because the Southern States were allowed representation in the Congress, many of whom would have voted Democrat. Also, do you think that any Bill that a President has vetoed over the last 20 years would have still been able to have been overridden if one the Senate was required?

The reason why the Senate should be the only House of Congress to override a veto is because it is where all States are equally represented and therefore would be fairer to all States of the US.

Another option might be to actually get each State to vote as one and then cast their vote either for or against the veto. If 26 of 50 States voted to override the veto then the bill would become law.

Cheers

P.S. Sorry I meant to say that the South States 'were not' represented in the Congress.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 4:43:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 4:22:23 AM, leon.marro wrote:
At 9/26/2015 10:49:41 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/26/2015 5:35:11 AM, leon.marro wrote:

2) Reform election to the Senate so that one-half of the Senate is renewed every third-year; reinstate the original mode of election in which State Legislatures elected senators - this way all States will elect one senator every third year, thereby simplifying the process.


This is really the only good idea here...

7) Reduce the veto override requirement so that two-thirds of the Senate ONLY is required and not both Houses.

Oh god, I threw up a little in my mouth after reading this...

Hello, thank you for your feedback. I hope that you were able to run to the toilet in time after viewing this list.

When was the last time the Congress overrode a veto? I believe it was during Reconstruction when the Radical Republicans overrode President Andrew Johnson's vetoes in order to enforce Radical Reconstruction. That was over 150 years ago. And the only reason why the Republicans such a large majority in Congress was because the Southern States were allowed representation in the Congress, many of whom would have voted Democrat. Also, do you think that any Bill that a President has vetoed over the last 20 years would have still been able to have been overridden if one the Senate was required?

The reason why the Senate should be the only House of Congress to override a veto is because it is where all States are equally represented and therefore would be fairer to all States of the US.

Another option might be to actually get each State to vote as one and then cast their vote either for or against the veto. If 26 of 50 States voted to override the veto then the bill would become law.

Cheers

What's fair is irrelevant; the question is what balances power between the branches. And I'm not sure what you're on about; vetoes are overridden all of the time, well into modern times, most recently during the presidency of Bush II.

The fact that more bills would pass if just the Senate could override them is not a benefit at all. It's actually the crux of why this is a problem: it neuters the one of the most potent checks of the presidency against the legislature.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 4:57:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 4:15:33 AM, leon.marro wrote:
At 9/26/2015 6:47:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
eh, you could do much better with a single change, no consecutive terms.

Hello,

Thank you for your feedback.

I'm certainly open to that change. It seems like something that could be good for the political process. I wonder though, if that restriction would simply create a system in which the same people are rotating alternatively, so that one person can continue to be Parliament?

That's fine. I am only proposing an end to political campaign monopolies with the incumbent system. Competition and less barriers to entry works in the free market, so why not politics?
leon.marro
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 5:04:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 4:43:56 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/27/2015 4:22:23 AM, leon.marro wrote:
At 9/26/2015 10:49:41 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/26/2015 5:35:11 AM, leon.marro wrote:

2) Reform election to the Senate so that one-half of the Senate is renewed every third-year; reinstate the original mode of election in which State Legislatures elected senators - this way all States will elect one senator every third year, thereby simplifying the process.


This is really the only good idea here...

7) Reduce the veto override requirement so that two-thirds of the Senate ONLY is required and not both Houses.

Oh god, I threw up a little in my mouth after reading this...

Hello, thank you for your feedback. I hope that you were able to run to the toilet in time after viewing this list.

When was the last time the Congress overrode a veto? I believe it was during Reconstruction when the Radical Republicans overrode President Andrew Johnson's vetoes in order to enforce Radical Reconstruction. That was over 150 years ago. And the only reason why the Republicans such a large majority in Congress was because the Southern States were allowed representation in the Congress, many of whom would have voted Democrat. Also, do you think that any Bill that a President has vetoed over the last 20 years would have still been able to have been overridden if one the Senate was required?

The reason why the Senate should be the only House of Congress to override a veto is because it is where all States are equally represented and therefore would be fairer to all States of the US.

Another option might be to actually get each State to vote as one and then cast their vote either for or against the veto. If 26 of 50 States voted to override the veto then the bill would become law.

Cheers

What's fair is irrelevant; the question is what balances power between the branches. And I'm not sure what you're on about; vetoes are overridden all of the time, well into modern times, most recently during the presidency of Bush II.

The fact that more bills would pass if just the Senate could override them is not a benefit at all. It's actually the crux of why this is a problem: it neuters the one of the most potent checks of the presidency against the legislature.

In the recent case of Bush II, it was clear that the policy passed by the Congress had broad support: in that case, it wouldn't have matter if the President had veto power, because clearly it didn't do anything. Regarding checks and balances, Congress may as well have a third House then: surely this would be a far more adequate check on the Legislature than the Presidential veto.

Second, it appears that a lot of the vetoes are political, rather than pragmatic. Policy making today is such a long and drawn out process that in absence of the veto, the Congress still wouldn't exercise its power perversely.