You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
I think a less radical solution is simple proportional representation. We have a lengthy set of checks and balances in place. The only problem right now is that democratic and republics are both the same general party - corporatists. There's nobody really left to check corporate influence. In our current election system if a state is even broken up as 30% democratic, 25% republican, 20% libertarian, and so on and has 100 districts then every single one of their representatives end up being a democrat. How? District 1 = 30% democrat, 25% republican, etc so the democrat wins. Repeat for every district. They only get 30% of the vote but end up with 100% of the representation so there's no real voice to counter them in congress or even in state level politics. With proportional representation you'd end up with 30 democrats, 25 republicans, 20 libertarians, etc. and you'd actually be able to start getting people into office who can utilize these checks and balances to start taking back control of congress from special interests, corporations, and more generally big dollar donors.
A number of other countries with far more functioning governments have also been using proportional representation for many years. No system can completely prevent people from putting idiots, liars, and sociopaths into office. However, we ought strive for a system where our representatives are at least proportional to the population that puts them into office. In the US nearly 100% of political seats at all levels are occupied by republicans or democrats even though fewer people than ever identify as republican or democrat. That's exclusively a result of our archaic voting system.
Yes, and it won't happen. Already been tried, back in the 1990s. In congress, "If we recalled every candidate who misspoke during his campaign, none of us would be here." (Emphasis mine.) The bill never made it to a vote.
I would like to see legal ramifications for candidates who get elected on certain promises and then, once elected, make no effort to carry them out or otherwise do the complete opposite.
[+]luckyguy0 points1 point1 point
ago
(edited ago)
[–]luckyguy0 points
1 point
1 point
(+1|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
I'm not sure how it could work but you could adopt the concept of feduciary responsibility used to keep CEOs accountable to boards of supervisors. This would allow for failiur but make them accoutable for making effort. That sounds like a blurry thing to enforce but that's why I'm saying adopt another system. Some of the subject's difficulty has already been thought about a lot and has had court procedings work out the fine lines of what exactly would be enforced.
But I think in general the analogy of them being interviewees in a job hunt is limited and they are closer to salesmen. They pitch, they get you in a limited term contract that is a bitch to renig. The relationship really is closest to sales. You can sue a salesman for fraud can't you?
Sort: Top
[–] rwbj 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
I think a less radical solution is simple proportional representation. We have a lengthy set of checks and balances in place. The only problem right now is that democratic and republics are both the same general party - corporatists. There's nobody really left to check corporate influence. In our current election system if a state is even broken up as 30% democratic, 25% republican, 20% libertarian, and so on and has 100 districts then every single one of their representatives end up being a democrat. How? District 1 = 30% democrat, 25% republican, etc so the democrat wins. Repeat for every district. They only get 30% of the vote but end up with 100% of the representation so there's no real voice to counter them in congress or even in state level politics. With proportional representation you'd end up with 30 democrats, 25 republicans, 20 libertarians, etc. and you'd actually be able to start getting people into office who can utilize these checks and balances to start taking back control of congress from special interests, corporations, and more generally big dollar donors.
[–] alalzia [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Italy had proportional representation for years, i recommend checking their recent political history out
[–] rwbj 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
A number of other countries with far more functioning governments have also been using proportional representation for many years. No system can completely prevent people from putting idiots, liars, and sociopaths into office. However, we ought strive for a system where our representatives are at least proportional to the population that puts them into office. In the US nearly 100% of political seats at all levels are occupied by republicans or democrats even though fewer people than ever identify as republican or democrat. That's exclusively a result of our archaic voting system.
[–] LoftyGoat 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Yes, and it won't happen. Already been tried, back in the 1990s. In congress, "If we recalled every candidate who misspoke during his campaign, none of us would be here." (Emphasis mine.) The bill never made it to a vote.
[–] Kleyno 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I would like to see legal ramifications for candidates who get elected on certain promises and then, once elected, make no effort to carry them out or otherwise do the complete opposite.
[–] luckyguy 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
I'm not sure how it could work but you could adopt the concept of feduciary responsibility used to keep CEOs accountable to boards of supervisors. This would allow for failiur but make them accoutable for making effort. That sounds like a blurry thing to enforce but that's why I'm saying adopt another system. Some of the subject's difficulty has already been thought about a lot and has had court procedings work out the fine lines of what exactly would be enforced.
But I think in general the analogy of them being interviewees in a job hunt is limited and they are closer to salesmen. They pitch, they get you in a limited term contract that is a bitch to renig. The relationship really is closest to sales. You can sue a salesman for fraud can't you?