Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Azzuro]

To me, the crux of the problems facing America have to do with free speech. America values freedom and liberty above all else, but this also means allowing the crazies to speak out and affect the vote. The reason why I mention the Falun Gong is because they are almost the same as the Church of Scientology, except not having such a large base. In America, you value freedom of religion so much that the government allows such religions to exist, because shutting them down would mean "the end of freedom" or some crap like that because of the slippery slope fallacy. The same also applies to politicians like Sarah Palin who take up the airwaves without doing much, because shutting her up would be a step on the path to full censorship of political messages. The Constitution also places an emphasis on protecting minority groups from being persecuted and having their voices drowned out by the majority, but in the process, don't you think that this affects the vote by not making it truly representative of the population as a whole?

And on another tangent, corporate America. Back when the country was founded, such things as multinational corporations with production, refining and marketing all in different countries didn't exist yet, and thus the Constitution does not have much regarding them. Multinational corporations are essential to the global economy, insofar as they facilitate international trade. But on a countrywide scale, such corporation have an undue effect on the political scene. In America, this is prevalent beyond simple corruption, because commercial sources are allowed to donate money to running a campaign, and of course MNCs have a lot more spare money than local citizens' groups. I think it is safe to say that all political candidates have to take the backing of corporations to even have their chance at winning, because their opponents also do the same. Once a candidate reaches office, he has a debt to repay his corporate backers, in the form of tax cuts, unfair legislation, etc. In effect, America as a whole has little say on their ruling classes, because their corporations drown their voices out with money.

And on yet another tangent, the American military. The American military as it stands now is unsurpassed in technological effectiveness by any other in the world, which makes America thinks it has an obligation to 'keep the peace', by inserting troops into unstable areas. I'm not going to talk about the effectiveness of such tactics, because I don't know much about that. Instead, I'll talk about the wisdom of stationing soldiers in faraway places without immediate benefit. To the American public, it seems like the army is stuck fighting an unwinnable war overseas that has no end in sight. While American soldiers overseas are providing tangible benefit to the stability of the region, to the populace it feels America always has a war to fight somewhere. By now, American forces are so essential to world stability that pulling out would likely cause a war, especially in the Middle East and on the Korean Peninsula. In short, America has irrevocably locked itself into a spiral of ever-increasing troop deployments and defence budget increases without end.

[AntiAntiMatter]

Too true, far too true. Scary true.

[Aqizzar]

We should give the states back their Senate seats.

What in the world is that line supposed to mean?  How do the states not have Senate seats?  You mean putting the office-appointment back in the hands of state electorates instead of by popular vote?  I really have no idea.

Yes, the 17th Amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Advocacy_for_repeal

Okay, well, start talking then.  Why do you want the appointment of the Senate to be a choice of the state's government instead of the populace at large?  I'm as aware of the foibles of popular votes as much as anybody, but the Senate is already an Aristocracy of Hillbillies as is.  Why would want to remove even the slightest check of transparency and open representation?

[Andir]

We should give the states back their Senate seats.

What in the world is that line supposed to mean?  How do the states not have Senate seats?  You mean putting the office-appointment back in the hands of state electorates instead of by popular vote?  I really have no idea.

Yes, the 17th Amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Advocacy_for_repeal

Okay, well, start talking then.  Why do you want the appointment of the Senate to be a choice of the state's government instead of the populace at large?  I'm as aware of the foibles of popular votes as much as anybody, but the Senate is already an Aristocracy of Hillbillies as is.  Why would want to remove even the slightest check of transparency and open representation?

Selected by the State means that state interests are heard and check the Congress that currently is elected by campaign funds more-so than popular vote as it is.  When some Representative from Minnesota wants to push in an earmark for some MN specific benefit, it will likely be struck down because it doesn't benefit the country as a whole.  It means that if all the states determine that a specific law needs to be carried up the chain, they can initiate said law in the Senate and pass it over to the House for "public approval."  The whole system was setup as a set of checks and balances, and while I agree that it means less government action (more failed bills,) it also means more "quality" legislation that benefits the State and the Citizen.  It means that local government has more of a say and you might actually have a better chance of getting a third party in the Senate by ensuring that your local state elects more third parties.  People can (nay, should) start paying attention to who they elect locally.  You don't have "direct" control over the selected official, but you have better control over your local state government.  (At least, the way I worked it out in my head it sounds good...)

Also, what's the point of having two branches of Congress, elected in the same manner(popular vote/campaign funded,) consisting of pretty much the same people, checking each other in creating laws?  On top of that, electing another official from the same two parties to be the final approver of said laws... It grants power to the party in power and you get what we discussed earlier.  Go Team! Rah!  Destroy the other team!

I also think it should go along with HofR term limits and while I don't think it will remove all corruption, I believe it to be a good step and check to the voting public selections by putting State selected and officials in the Senate.  That's probably the biggest reason of all.

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[Renault]

You do realize they are elected by the state, right? Not the legislature, but the people of the state. I dont actually see how changing that makes any difference except putting one more layer between the voter and influence in Washington. Sure, it would remove them from public opinion largely, but I dont think thats a good thing.
I'm not sure if you really understand the way laws are actually made, especially regarding earmarks. Or for that matter, federal law at all. If the "States"--again, I'm assuming you mean the legislatures--want to "carry a law up the chain?" (What?) Federal laws? Why would the Legislatures be wanted in making Federal law? Thats the job for the, you know, federal government. You speak of separation of powers, but it sort of sounds like you want to give state legislatures undue influence in Congress at the expense of open democracy.
The third party bit is a joke, right? You think one of the two major parties would allow a third party senator? What, because he can land 4 seats in a legislature they'll give him half their Senate seats? That just doesn't ring true at all. Unless a third party gets a large number of seats, they'll never get in, and if they can do that, it'd probably have been easier just to elect their own Congressmen and Senators via the current system.
It just doesn't seem like a good idea, changing the 17th.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

That's... a very incoherent theory you have there. Not surprising when you consider where you apparently got it from, but still.

We should give the states back their Senate seats.

What in the world is that line supposed to mean?  How do the states not have Senate seats?  You mean putting the office-appointment back in the hands of state electorates instead of by popular vote?  I really have no idea.

Yes, the 17th Amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Advocacy_for_repeal

Okay, well, start talking then.  Why do you want the appointment of the Senate to be a choice of the state's government instead of the populace at large?  I'm as aware of the foibles of popular votes as much as anybody, but the Senate is already an Aristocracy of Hillbillies as is.  Why would want to remove even the slightest check of transparency and open representation?

Selected by the State means that state interests are heard and check the Congress that currently is elected by campaign funds more-so than popular vote as it is.  When some Representative from Minnesota wants to push in an earmark for some MN specific benefit, it will likely be struck down because it doesn't benefit the country as a whole.

Being chosen by elected state officials will make them not try to earmark funds for their state as much? What? How the hell is that supposed to make sense?

It means that if all the states determine that a specific law needs to be carried up the chain, they can initiate said law in the Senate and pass it over to the House for "public approval."

Again, what? What difference is that supposed to make, and why would that be better?

The whole system was setup as a set of checks and balances, and while I agree that it means less government action (more failed bills,) it also means more "quality" legislation that benefits the State and the Citizen.

How does making a senator beholden to other politicians, instead of the (people of the) state he's supposed to represent improve quality?

It means that local government has more of a say and you might actually have a better chance of getting a third party in the Senate by ensuring that your local state elects more third parties.

How the hell is that any more likely than getting a third party elected to the house?

People can (nay, should) start paying attention to who they elect locally.  You don't have "direct" control over the selected official, but you have better control over your local state government.  (At least, the way I worked it out in my head it sounds good...)

A lot of people do pay attention, and tend to go for people who actually take action to benefit their state, while the federal congress is more of a dick wagging contest of ideology.

Also, what's the point of having two branches of Congress, elected in the same manner(popular vote/campaign funded,) consisting of pretty much the same people, checking each other in creating laws?  On top of that, electing another official from the same two parties to be the final approver of said laws... It grants power to the party in power and you get what we discussed earlier.  Go Team! Rah!  Destroy the other team!

That's... really not true. At all. Not unlike everything else you're saying...

The senate, specifically, is meant to be a geographic balance: people in less populous areas still get a say in things. The house, on the other hand, is intended to represent the majority better, and avoid giving small populations undue power over them.

Aside from that, in the majority of cases, the presidency and congress have been controlled by different parties, and in almost all cases, whichever party controls the presidency loses seats in congress at the midterms, and generally after the president's two terms are up too.

I also think it should go along with HofR term limits and while I don't think it will remove all corruption, I believe it to be a good step and check to the voting public selections by putting State selected and officials in the Senate.  That's probably the biggest reason of all.

So, keep down the people who represent the population as a whole, and give more power to the incumbent politicians of the states... What? How the hell is that supposed to anything but increase corruption?

[Lord Shonus]

And on another tangent, corporate America. Back when the country was founded, such things as multinational corporations with production, refining and marketing all in different countries didn't exist yet, and thus the Constitution does not have much regarding them. Multinational corporations are essential to the global economy, insofar as they facilitate international trade. But on a countrywide scale, such corporation have an undue effect on the political scene. In America, this is prevalent beyond simple corruption, because commercial sources are allowed to donate money to running a campaign, and of course MNCs have a lot more spare money than local citizens' groups. I think it is safe to say that all political candidates have to take the backing of corporations to even have their chance at winning, because their opponents also do the same. Once a candidate reaches office, he has a debt to repay his corporate backers, in the form of tax cuts, unfair legislation, etc. In effect, America as a whole has little say on their ruling classes, because their corporations drown their voices out with money.

Ever hear of the East India Tea company? The corporate concept was well understood in the 18th century.

[Azzuro]

And on another tangent, corporate America. Back when the country was founded, such things as multinational corporations with production, refining and marketing all in different countries didn't exist yet, and thus the Constitution does not have much regarding them. Multinational corporations are essential to the global economy, insofar as they facilitate international trade. But on a countrywide scale, such corporation have an undue effect on the political scene. In America, this is prevalent beyond simple corruption, because commercial sources are allowed to donate money to running a campaign, and of course MNCs have a lot more spare money than local citizens' groups. I think it is safe to say that all political candidates have to take the backing of corporations to even have their chance at winning, because their opponents also do the same. Once a candidate reaches office, he has a debt to repay his corporate backers, in the form of tax cuts, unfair legislation, etc. In effect, America as a whole has little say on their ruling classes, because their corporations drown their voices out with money.

Ever hear of the East India Tea company? The corporate concept was well understood in the 18th century.

The East India Company was not a true multi-national corporation because the company was predominantly English, with just about every official being British. In addition, the company was irrevocably tied to England, and while it primarily operated overseas, at no point did the leadership ever shift their headquarters to another country to try and evade English law. In effect, the East India Company acted as a privatized section of British colonial rule, but they were always under the control of the Crown. The difference is that today, multinational corporations are not tied to any specific country - hence the 'multinational' - and so no country ever has jurisdiction over them.

[de5me7]

To me, the crux of the problems facing America have to do with free speech. America values freedom and liberty above all else, but this also means allowing the crazies to speak out and affect the vote.

And on yet another tangent, the American military. The American military as it stands now is unsurpassed in technological effectiveness by any other in the world, which makes America thinks it has an obligation to 'keep the peace', by inserting troops into unstable areas.

im not sure i agree with these statements
1st quote
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11917256 I cant say that the Wiki leaks feasco really promotes this freedom and speech and liberty etc.
2nd quote
With the author of this quote, i would question the technological effectiveness, with emphasis on effectivness. But i would also question the peace keeping part. All peace keeping missions in aware of have been un lead. the only two i can think of with major US involvement were the Horn of Africa, and Bosnia. Both of these were during the 1990s. Im not sure how much world policing the US has done in the past decade. Its invaded countries, not as world police, but as witch hunters and oil seekers. And it doesnt seem to have any intention of invading North Korea, because they might actually use some nukes.

As for multinationals. Im not sure they are as powerful as we sometimes think. BP was nearly sunk by the US government (although admitadly not quite, but if they really wanted is suspect BP could be destroyed by them, just not via legislative means). If google ever upset congress, i suspect they could maim the company (some one might be able to blow me out on this one). The main reason in europe, and i suspect the us, why the government has not dealt with the banking institutions harshly, is that they are convinced they are necessary for the economy.

[Leafsnail]

The East India Company was not a true multi-national corporation because the company was predominantly English, with just about every official being British. In addition, the company was irrevocably tied to England, and while it primarily operated overseas, at no point did the leadership ever shift their headquarters to another country to try and evade English law. In effect, the East India Company acted as a privatized section of British colonial rule, but they were always under the control of the Crown. The difference is that today, multinational corporations are not tied to any specific country - hence the 'multinational' - and so no country ever has jurisdiction over them.

Hmm... Victorian England as a whole was basically a corporatocracy.  Mainly due to no labour rights of any kind, the huge number of exploitable people left unemployed by the industrial revolution and the MPs being in the pockets of businessmen, but still...

[Zrk2]

Never allow your senate to be appointed. That happened in Canada and now we have a collection of $100k plus a year 'sober second thinkers' that only ever make the news when:

1. Someone calls for them to be abolished.
2. Someone appoints another (Invariably followed by 1)
3. One actually shows up when they have to do something.
4. They actually reject something passed by the House of Commons, at which point people rage about them infringing on our freedom-in Canada.
5. The list ends here because that is all they do.

[Leafsnail]

It's strange, because the House of Lords here, in spite of being undemocratic to the point of ridiculous, has actually been quite useful in blocking stupid legislation (like the whole "60 days without trial" thing).

[Andir]

Well, it doesn't make any sense to me to vote three people to represent you no matter what way you slice it.  Especially having two of those three doing basically the same job.

House - represents small group
Senate - represents bigger group, but smaller than State (and now the State has no real say in laws the Federal government passes... eg: previous federal speed laws, healthcare, abortion, gay rights, etc.)
President - represents all

My personal feeling on it is that it defies the whole idea of "United States" and may as well call ourselves as close to pure federal democracy as there has ever been... and everything I've read about that breeds corruption and eventually turns oligarchic (currently Democratic and Republican.)

I did read up on some history about why the 17th was created and from what I gather it was because people didn't show up to do their jobs, some states didn't even appoint someone, and other things... but really, that's a State's choice and they should have put together something individually to represent their viewpoint.  I guess they got what they put in (taken away) and they deserve to have no representation, but still.

The logic behind the idea of giving the States a representative has been debated and there are historical documents to state the premise... but I feel as though the 17th was kind of like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Aqizzar]

You consider preventing states from not even appointing a Senator if they don't want to, to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

I'm just going to say it - your vision of America as an alliance of states is so outmoded and provably unworkable as to be hilarious.  Why did we adopt the 17th Amendment?  Because prior system didn't work.  Not for build a unified nation with a functioning government, which is why I found your proposition so baffling.  But it actually makes a lot more sense now.  To you, the goal isn't a unified nation with a functioning government, it's the "states" having authority first and foremost.  Which I guess is a position you can stand on if you want to, so kudos for making that clear.

I still don't understand how can you possibly see the House and Senate and President as having the same job.  They don't because voting a straight party ticket doesn't mean you're going to get that.  Your Representative will differ from other Representatives from your state, the Senators might disagree (though probably not), and the President is always a separate issue.  They all check against each other, and you will almost never have the guy you want in all three positions (four really, with the two Senators).

As for that somehow meaning that the states have no say in federal law... well, I suppose you're right.  It doesn't.  And my response to that is, basically, too bad.  Because I honestly can't think of any reason for why that would be a good thing, compared to the present system.  Not least because, that since the Senators are elected by the same people who elect a state's government, how much different are they going to be from each other in viewpoint anyway?