3 step plan to fix the US political system

Our political system is badly broken, there is no argument against that. I propose a few fixes to help steer things back on track.

1: Eliminate political parties entirely. Our system has become one of voting against a candidate, rather then for the one we really want. Even now whom our options will be in 2016 is being decided for us while we watch. There is no effort being made to hide the fact that 90 percent of America's vote is being chosen for us a year before elections even begin. In congress voting is decided along party lines, not real issues for fear of it blocking re-election. It has reached the point that the standard is now to include a (D or R) after a politician's name. The answer is to no longer allow elected officials or candidates to identify with a particular party and force them to be elected on their own merits alone.

2: End For-Profit news media. Fox News exists to have respectable looking white men, and pretty women tell conservatives that they are right. MSNBC fills the same roll for liberals. Neither does it because they actually believe the spin that is put on their news, they do it because it is the easiest way to focus advertising and maximize profits. As long as we continue to receive our news from organizations who are only interested in telling us that we are right and the other faction is wrong we will continue to drift further apart as a nation.

3: Ban political advertising. Advertising does very little to actually inform the public about a candidate or their political platform. The only real outcome of campaign advertising is forcing candidates to spend time, often time in office, on the tax payer dime, to fund raise with wealthy contributors. The correct way to stage campaigns is through news reports, interviews, and open debates, letting voters inform themselves.

With partisan politics removed, media no longer lying for profit, and 3rd party attack ads eliminated democracy might begin to be an effective form of government again. Of course, I have no idea how to make this happen.

 

I don't agree with you 100 percent but one thing is for sure electoral system needs a change.

 

In Italy we are discussing how to improve our parliamentary system too [and it's years and years]. So far we have reached a result: with the last reform of the electoral system we will have [finally!] the certainty that the party who will win the election will govern [I know that this to an American can sound odd, but in a proportional system it's not that sure that the party getting more votes governs ... usually it needs a coalition ...].

The point about the coalition makes me think that instead of abolish parties you could open the system to more parties [with only two parties the American political system is really curious .... think to which is the difference between a right Dem and a left Dem ... the same among Reps].

Anyway, at least in Italy our constitution says that elected representatives have got no duty of mandate [once elected in Italy they can vote without hearing the party, but usually, you know ...].

2. Medias

Eh, in Italy also public medias are politically lined up, so don't hope to avoid the problem ... follow two different and opposite medias and reason a bit ... this is the best way not to fall into this trap.

3. Political advertising

Other sensitive point. In a two parties system it's pivotal. In Italy it's even prohibited on TV. You should start from this: TV is a tremendous mass media [Mussolini knew this already very well when he used cinema news ... the power of image ...].

 

Nice ideas...in a fantasy world.

Only one has a possible chance with a practical solution. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine. It would have to be carefully reworked, since the original terms of the doctrine were when there was only broadcast television, cable has changed those dynamics.

The biggest challenge you aren't considering here is that you are asking politicians to legislate against their own self-interest. So how the hell are they going to actually do any of this? They'll pay you the lip service, that's without a doubt, but real legislation that changes the current status quo? Not likely.

 

Gah, never in hell would I agree to any of that. Horrible proposals each one of them.

 

We could just ban Democrats. Then we wouldn't need any more steps.

Seriously, you cannot restrict a Free Press w/o having a dictatorship.

 

However you can restrict advertising, which is commerce.

If you are paying for your airtime, that's commerce.

Otherwise, you can pen your op-ed and take your chances with the publishing just like everyone else. Or go publish it yourself on your favorite blog or whatever.

But if you're paying for the privilege of speaking, that's commerce.

 

Interesting ideas. I would suggest having round voting to get rid of Gerrymandering. Then we could have a TV station funded by the US government to promote the truth (Think PBS or NPR but fully funded by the US government). In terms of political advertising, why not limit the number of ads that could be played at any time of day? Instead of the TV being full of political ads right after another, have the candidates only allowed to have x number of ads in an hour. I don't know enough about how ads work to say that's a good idea but its a start.

 

1. Significantly increase the role of the Federal Election Commission. Make it the manager and responsible agency for conducting all elections in the United States. Set it's board of directors up in the same way that the Federal Reserve is governed in order to make sure that one (or in this case two) political parties cannot control it. Use that agency to conduct all elections using the same procedures, machines,and counting methods. (no more hanging chads) Move elections to Saturday in order to increase voter turnout

2. Pass the Disclose Act to close the disasterous loopholes created by Citizen's United. This is a first step to full federal election financing. You will never take money or influence out of politics. But, today, politicians have to be for sale, because the price of simply running for public office has skyrocketed in teh last two decades, and the pace is accellerating.

3. Use the agency to create a universal voter ID, which will be issued to EVERY citizen who is eligible to vote. (one need not register). That is the ONLY way that you can have a voter ID law that is non discriminatory/

 

Our system is just fine.

1) James Madison warned us that factions would develop in our political system and he specifically warned that trying to prevent them would be far worse than letting them happen. Besides that, you cannot prevent like minded individuals from coming together to support similar ideas. Not only is it impossible but it is wrong.

2) News media is a business plain and simple. They exist to make a profit and if a person is too lazy to look past their "product" and find out information on their own then that is the individuals fault. Blaming a business or eliminating them because of ignorant people is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

3) Do you ever wonder why we see so many negative ads? It is because research shows us that they work. And what exactly do you consider negative? Is pointing out bad policies or comments from a competitor being negative or is it showing that persons history in politics which everyone should know? Are you advocating that no bad things can ever be pointed out about candidates and that every ad should have fluffy bunnies and unicorns singing Disney songs while all the candidates hold hands and skip down the street?

Another dumb point.

 

That's why I said I have no idea how to make it happen. I should have clarified that to read I have no idea how to make this happen short of trampling all over the Constitution. I freely acknowledge that these changes cannot be made, the damage has been done and is not immediately reversible. Partisan division, for profit news, and privately funded ad campaigns might be the death of democracy, but they are allowed by it as well.

 

I hope you realize that none of these suggestions can even remotely, legally be instituted.

 

You enjoy living in a country that has a Bill of Rights? Where did you move to?

The press doesn't seem to care that we're searched without warrants. In fact, the press constantly cheers for the police state. So I really don't care if there's any restrictions placed on the press. Maybe they'll learn they should stand up for every freedom if they want to keep theirs.

Do you really think we have a free press in the United States? Just because it was seized by someone other than the government doesn't mean it hasn't been seized and taken away from us. People need to get over the thinking that only a government can install tyranny.

People need to wake up and realize you are not protected by any Bill of Rights.

 

lets discuss point 2... for-profit news... and non-profit as a solution? seriously?

can you show me an example of non-profit news that is not biased or leaning towards either political party... my favorite non-profit biased news agency is PBS... the public broadcasting system... which itself we can all agree is a non-profit, yet they have taken political stances that not only benefit them (when laws came up that would affect them), but certain candidates and political parties throughout their history of non-profit status have received glowing or damning reviews...

so since we can confirm being non-profit does not make them non-biased... I press the plunger to blow up the dynamite on this thread... KAPOWWWW

P.S. how do you feel about all those "non-profit" news organizations run by universities... the tv shows they produce, the newspapers they printed, the radio talk shows, all run by university officials in order to train students in those fields... and all the biased news that comes out of them...

http://features.journalism.org/nonprofit-news-outlets/

P.S.S. feel free to thumb through that listing and show me which ones have NOT done partisan news over the years... probably a shorter list than those that have... assuming you can even find one that hasn't... I mean seriously, I doubt you will be able to find one that hasn't had bias in their news...

 

I have a simpler solution people find out about all the political parties major and minor, decide on one they like and then participate in that one and let see how about try this - VOTE!

 

how are you removing the money and influence from congress if legislators from the state are elected and appoint the people... all you're doing is shifting where that money is spent because now one election will have rippling effects that go much higher... so now more money will be spent on those elections because of the increased importance... all you'd do is create hyper-political races in order to control the federal government... you'd compound the problem...

while I kinda agree with your statement on smaller government... thats not always better either... much like smaller banks don't actually make things better, sometimes they have disadvantages... (like what small bank could now loan say 500 million to a company to build a sports stadium, none)... what you need is the right application of government... instead of the federal government making state decisions, and coming up with 1 solution for 50 potential problems... have 50 states come up with possibly 50 solutions that change and adapt to fit the needs of their people, rather than forcing broad change that interrupts or destroys all markets... some will do better than others, but we'll all do far less well if we have no power to meet our specific needs... bring power back to the states where it should be...

 

Making a politician accountable for all campaign promises would be a start.

 

Glad liberals have come around to the idea of identifying citizens who can vote. No one ever suggested discriminating against US Citizens for voting. We just want to keep out those who are in the country, but shouldn't vote: Think: Green cards, etc. Some have said 'It's not a problem'. Doesn't have to be. Do you see your firewall breaking down and saying to youirself "Well, I don't have a virus so I shouldn't bother updating it yet?".

To be a citizen of the US is a privilege, citizenship confers rights and privileges to US Citizens. While we want to talk about the disenfranchisement of a certain sect or group of our country, our entire citizenry as a PLURAL has been undermined.

 

There is a reason that the old system of selecting Senators was changed. The State Legislatures were bribed by the big corporations and trusts to send their choices to the Senate. Between the Civil War and the 17th Amendment the Senate was a very corrupt institution as a result.

 

Your claim that noone has evder suggested discriminating against US citizens for voting is patently false and totally ridiculous.

Laws spectifically intended to disenfranchise US citizens were on the books for a century before the Voting Rights Act was passed, and have been making a comeback as the GOP uses fake claims of voter fraud to pass laws that make it harder for people to both register and to vote.

Given the history of the GOP's voter supression campaigns (hiding behind voter ID laws), and the numerous voter caging operations that the party has run since 2000, it's actually stunning that you would post such a preposterous claim. It's also why these GOP and ALEC led initiatives include measured to sharply curtail or eliminate early voting, reducing the number of polling places, and make it both harder to get a voter ID, and limit the types of acceptable ID.

Moreover, I have made my suggestion regading univsal Federally issued voter ID's before. And have been attacked by conservatives for suggesting it.

Of course, the GOP will never support a universal national voter ID, and it certainly won't support automatic voter registration for any eligible citizen (as is the case in most modern countries).

And the reason they won't support it is that it will make it easier for people to vote, which is exactly what the DON'T want!

- - - Updated - - -

It was a club for railroad presidents (Chauncey DePew of the New York Central, Tom Scott of the Pennsylvania, Gifford Pinchot (also of the PRR). Just to name a few!

 

this is absolutely flawed logic... the senate can't pass laws alone... you would need the house as well as the president... so there would be no reform or accountability simply because the senate doesn't directly accept money... or because the house doesn't directly accept money... or because a president wouldn't accept money... you know why, because they would be appointed by those who ARE accepting money... do you think they will appoint people who won't do EXACTLY what the political party wants??? they won't get appointed if they aren't yes men... that will further compound the problem because now money and political parties will have more power over the election process and laws passed...

in what scenario would local legislators who are elected, not appoint people who are extremely biased and favor their political party... you see how much we all fight over the supreme court and its appointees screaming bias and control by either political party... do you not recognize that EXACT same concept would now apply to the entire federal government... and now the PEOPLE would be POWERLESS to change any of that directly, and will have to hope the next person they elect to office will pick the right person? you would open the flood gates to horrifically left or right wing extremists who don't have to be held accountable to voters... this would be AWFUL!!!

 

heh I like how you said the other persons "fact" was patently false and totally ridiculous, and then you stated a "fact" that was patently false and totally ridiculous... I just love the irony... you dismiss the examples, albeit they are limited, but they are in fact actual events occurring to support the claim... so its totally ridiculous for you to dismiss the evidence simply because you don't think its bad enough to warrant being a big deal or something... yet fraud occurred... its real... its not imaginary... fact...

perhaps next time instead of saying "fake claims of voter fraud" you should say something like there is no data to suggest substantial voter fraud... thats a statement you could hide behind without saying it doesn't exist... because its already been proven and people have been charged, convicted, and sentenced... so its real... now all you can do is diminish the impact... but you can't deny it exists simply because you don't like it or don't think its big enough to matter... its real...