• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

American Democracy Needs Reform

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
40,438
30,202
Pacific Northwest
✟864,720.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
What has been true for some time has become more and more abundantly clear.

America is in desperate need for major reform in how it does democracy.

To that end, I can think of a number of serious reforms that ought to be carried out.

1) We must eliminate First-Past-the-Post. A concern very early on in American history was the problem of American politics degenerating into a two-party system. Which happened almost immediately. The United States has endured a two-party system almost since the beginning, while the identities of the parties have changed, the fundamental problem has not. There are systems of voting in which we can eliminate this. I am not, necessarily, arguing against the formation of political parties themselves--but there are certainly ways to defeat this long-standing bogeyman of a two-party system. A ranked voting system in which voters, rather than voting only for a single candidate in an election, are given the ability to rank their preferences on a ballot. This would also address the much lamented "choosing the lesser of two evils" approach that many take, where rather than choosing who you want, voters choose on the basis of who they don't want. Ranked voting would allow voters to rank their preferences, so while a person may prefer Candidate X as their first choice, they may choose Candidate Y as their second, as such while perhaps Candidate X may not receive the highest number of votes, the ability to choose Candidate Y as a secondary choice, who may still win, results in an outcome that is closer to the will of the electorate. In such a system the will of the electorate becomes a priority. This, arguably, would allow voters to choose and rank from a plurality of parties, and even independents.

2) End gerrymandering. It is abundantly clear that a bicameral system in which Congress consists of both senators and representatives requires representatives of districts, that some sort of districting is necessary. The problem, of course, is that gerrymandering has become a tool of partisan redistricting that can, quite often, disenfranchise voters. This may require a deep reform and restructuring of how the States have members elected to the Congress. I do not have an immediate answer of address to this problem, though I wonder if a ranked voting system as proposed above, may serve in some way to mitigate this issue.

3) Supreme Justices ought to have term limits.

4) Members of Congress, ought to have limits on number of terms they may serve.

5) No person in the United States, without exception, ought to be beyond the scope of the law. Even a sitting president ought to be liable and culpable. The law must stand above each and all persons, regardless of position or station or status.

These are the 5 I can, off the top of my head, think of.
 

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
40,438
30,202
Pacific Northwest
✟864,720.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Addendum:

6) Overturning/repealing Citizens United AND any system in which wealth or prestige or privilege can be used as leverage in political maneuvering, especially in favor of the privileged and against the under-privileged is inherently unjust, corrupt, and is contrary to equity, equality, and justice. While candidates with means may be able to fund their own campaigns without contributions, it remains that those of lesser means require some means by which to compete on a level playing field--as such monetary contributions of some kind are perhaps unavoidable, and may be necessary in order to provide a field of competition that is fair; this must always be mitigated in some way so as to avoid, and indeed prohibit, the over-abundance of means for those already with means: The goal must be equity, in order that not only the less-privileged may participate in American democracy in a meaningful way; but so as to produce in its outcome a society which does not degenerate nor persist in the oppression of the under-privileged. Wealth ought never be a means of attaining political influence. And the wealthy ought never be favored. For liberty and justice demands equity of all persons in a republic.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,945
7,690
✟376,120.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Expand your Congress (and possibly Senate as well).

The US has roughly 1 legislative representative per 600,000 head of population and about 1 per 300,000 voters. Those are among the lowest levels of representation in the world (I think only India is worse).

If you want people to feel more engaged in their democracy, reduce the scale that democratic representation takes place by expanding the legislature.

If you tripled the number of Representatives and doubled the number of Senators, you drop the number of legislative representatives per capita down to about 1 per 210,000 head of population and 1 per 105,000 voters. That's still on the high side, but much more in line with what most other Western representative democracies manage to achieve.

Positive impacts are likely to be:

Lower average costs to run for a district
Increased minority party & independent representation
Reduce distortions between districts (particularly around population and the rural/urban power imbalance)
Diffuse gerrymandering benefits
Better proportional representation across states

Negative impacts are likely to be:

Higher overall political spending (and thus more space for corruption)
Need to form minority/multi-party governments
Reduction in the voting/decision power of individual representatives
Increased numbers of crazies in the legislature
HUGE fight over initial redistricting
 
  • Like
Reactions: ViaCrucis
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
40,438
30,202
Pacific Northwest
✟864,720.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I like the idea of smaller districts.

I am unsure how smaller districts eliminates gerrymandering itself--I think that's a harder nut to crack.
I think a bicameral system for Congress works, in theory.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Under the Southern Cross I stand...
Aug 19, 2018
25,605
17,811
73
Bondi
✟436,527.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
1) We must eliminate First-Past-the-Post. A concern very early on in American history was the problem of American politics degenerating into a two-party system. Which happened almost immediately. The United States has endured a two-party system almost since the beginning, while the identities of the parties have changed, the fundamental problem has not. There are systems of voting in which we can eliminate this. I am not, necessarily, arguing against the formation of political parties themselves--but there are certainly ways to defeat this long-standing bogeyman of a two-party system. A ranked voting system in which voters, rather than voting only for a single candidate in an election, are given the ability to rank their preferences on a ballot. This would also address the much lamented "choosing the lesser of two evils" approach that many take, where rather than choosing who you want, voters choose on the basis of who they don't want.
Excellent idea. Similar to the Australian system. If there are 4 candidates (as per below) then you number them in your preferential order. So that it can occur that Rachel, who gets a slightly smaller primary vote than Tom can still get elected.

voting.png
 

Attachments

  • voting.png
    voting.png
    354.9 KB · Views: 12
Upvote 0

Matt5

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2019
1,155
477
Zürich
✟213,401.00
Country
Switzerland
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Letting everybody vote is a mistake. Too many people don't know what's going on and have no skin in the game.

At a minimum, if you receive money or benefits from the government, then you don't get to vote.

Should people with an incestuous relationship with the government get to vote? We'll vote for you if you increase our pension benefits, said the teacher's union. This is a popular game that many unions successfully play. Or let's game the pension by basing everything on the last year's earnings. Meanwhile, in the last year that person does tons of overtime.

Ultimately, democracies only last up to about 250 years based on history. The corruption gets to be too much and is not fixable.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Under the Southern Cross I stand...
Aug 19, 2018
25,605
17,811
73
Bondi
✟436,527.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
At a minimum, if you receive money or benefits from the government, then you don't get to vote.
Everyone benefits from the government. Schools, hospitals, roads, defence, police...the list goes on.
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2012
31,664
31,263
Baltimore
✟970,101.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I like the idea of smaller districts.

I am unsure how smaller districts eliminates gerrymandering itself--I think that's a harder nut to crack.
I think a bicameral system for Congress works, in theory.

A bigger House doesn't eliminate gerrymandering; it just dampens the effect of it. If you have one district with a million people that consistently votes 55-45 for one party, that's 50,000 people you'd have to convince in order to flip that seat. If you split it into ten 100k districts, it's going to be pretty hard to parcel it out in a way that delivers that same reliabile one-party dominance. But even if you did manage to distribute the voters evenly among the ten subdistricts such that they all voted 55-45 right out of the gate, you'd only need a shift of 5,000 in a district to flip one of those seats.


Letting everybody vote is a mistake. Too many people don't know what's going on and have no skin in the game.

At a minimum, if you receive money or benefits from the government, then you don't get to vote.

Should people with an incestuous relationship with the government get to vote? We'll vote for you if you increase our pension benefits, said the teacher's union. This is a popular game that many unions successfully play. Or let's game the pension by basing everything on the last year's earnings. Meanwhile, in the last year that person does tons of overtime.

Ultimately, democracies only last up to about 250 years based on history. The corruption gets to be too much and is not fixable.

Yes, no votes for the welfare recipients, but the owners of various businesses who live to fulfill government contracts - they can keep voting.
 
Upvote 0

Nithavela

you're in charge you can do it just get louis
Apr 14, 2007
32,108
23,751
Comb. Pizza Hut and Taco Bell/Jamaica Avenue.
✟646,783.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
You are making a lot of good points, but sadly the only people who can change something about it are the same that profit from the status quo. Your country is hopelessly broken and only when it comes to an end and another country rises on the same land can it have better governance.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Reconstruction 3 will come
Mar 11, 2017
26,003
18,745
56
USA
✟487,998.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I'm going to preface this by saying I find your attitude about democracy disturbing and antithetical to American culture and history.
Letting everybody vote is a mistake. Too many people don't know what's going on and have no skin in the game.
It is their responsibility to know, not our power to deny votes to people for arbitrary reasons. Further, you've given no examples of who these uninformed or "no-skin" people are. Your example that follows is exactly who *does* have "skin in the game" -- people who benefit from the action of government. Your undisclosed agenda is not consistent with what you have disclosed.
At a minimum, if you receive money or benefits from the government, then you don't get to vote.
Does that mean no one who works for a defense contractor can vote? No one in the military can vote? No veteran receiving GI bill education benefits or VA health benefits can vote?

What about retirees on Social Security? Are they not allowed to vote?

Should people with an incestuous relationship with the government get to vote?
We *are* the government, Matt. That's how democracy works.
We'll vote for you if you increase our pension benefits, said the teacher's union. This is a popular game that many unions successfully play.
Which elections will these teachers be prohibited in voting in? School board elections? local elections? State elections? They all fund our schools.
Or let's game the pension by basing everything on the last year's earnings. Meanwhile, in the last year that person does tons of overtime.
Teachers are paid flat monthly salaries, no overtime.
Ultimately, democracies only last up to about 250 years based on history. The corruption gets to be too much and is not fixable.
You've given no reason to think democracy has an expiration date.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Reconstruction 3 will come
Mar 11, 2017
26,003
18,745
56
USA
✟487,998.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
What has been true for some time has become more and more abundantly clear.

America is in desperate need for major reform in how it does democracy.

To that end, I can think of a number of serious reforms that ought to be carried out.
I agree with much of what you wrote, with one major exception.
1) We must eliminate First-Past-the-Post. A concern very early on in American history was the problem of American politics degenerating into a two-party system. Which happened almost immediately. The United States has endured a two-party system almost since the beginning, while the identities of the parties have changed, the fundamental problem has not. There are systems of voting in which we can eliminate this. I am not, necessarily, arguing against the formation of political parties themselves--but there are certainly ways to defeat this long-standing bogeyman of a two-party system. A ranked voting system in which voters, rather than voting only for a single candidate in an election, are given the ability to rank their preferences on a ballot. This would also address the much lamented "choosing the lesser of two evils" approach that many take, where rather than choosing who you want, voters choose on the basis of who they don't want. Ranked voting would allow voters to rank their preferences, so while a person may prefer Candidate X as their first choice, they may choose Candidate Y as their second, as such while perhaps Candidate X may not receive the highest number of votes, the ability to choose Candidate Y as a secondary choice, who may still win, results in an outcome that is closer to the will of the electorate. In such a system the will of the electorate becomes a priority. This, arguably, would allow voters to choose and rank from a plurality of parties, and even independents.
I have become somewhat partial to the Alaskan system:

Blanket primary, top 4 advance to general.
Ranked choice voting among top 4 in general.

California's "top 2" blanket primary is the worst solution to this perceived problem (and probably dead).

I also like NY continued use of "party fusion" where candidates can be endorsed by more than one party. Even if an Alaska primary obviates the need for such as two factions of the same party can make the general, even the existence of the labels from secondary parties helps to show, and maintain, the diversity within the two major parties.
2) End gerrymandering. It is abundantly clear that a bicameral system in which Congress consists of both senators and representatives requires representatives of districts, that some sort of districting is necessary. The problem, of course, is that gerrymandering has become a tool of partisan redistricting that can, quite often, disenfranchise voters. This may require a deep reform and restructuring of how the States have members elected to the Congress. I do not have an immediate answer of address to this problem, though I wonder if a ranked voting system as proposed above, may serve in some way to mitigate this issue.
Even simple geographic limits can reduce the chicanery.
3) Supreme Justices ought to have term limits.
Or at least mandatory retirement ages.
4) Members of Congress, ought to have limits on number of terms they may serve.
Here's where my major disagreement comes in. Most proposals of this kind use 12 years as their limit. Legislative bodies are complex and it takes people who have developed leadership skills in that area and institutional memory is an important thing. Limiting terms means less experience and weakens the legislature relative to the executive (when in reality it needs to be stronger). We already know what a rubber stamp legislature looks like. Much of the problems that "MAGA Mike" Johnson has is inexperience and lack of seasoning in House leadership. His margin is not smaller than that Pelosi had 4 years ago and his caucus is only slightly more unruly, yet their relative level of accomplishment and organizational strength is stark.

A maximum age for election (like 75) would be a fair change to reduce the geriatric amongst them.
5) No person in the United States, without exception, ought to be beyond the scope of the law. Even a sitting president ought to be liable and culpable. The law must stand above each and all persons, regardless of position or station or status.
Some sort of "special counsel" system managed by the judges for the prosecution of administration crimes seems to be a must.
These are the 5 I can, off the top of my head, think of.
That was a good set for discussion. Thanks.
 
Upvote 0

Matt5

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2019
1,155
477
Zürich
✟213,401.00
Country
Switzerland
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Everyone benefits from the government. Schools, hospitals, roads, defence, police...the list goes on.

This sounds like the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution. Turns out, everything is related to interstate commerce. So Congress can do anything it wants.

Getting back to your statement, so nobody gets to vote? I'm talking about direct benefits, not indirect ones.
 
Upvote 0

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN

My dad died 1/12/2023. I'm still devastated.
Jul 1, 2007
18,474
5,805
Native Land
✟435,430.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Letting everybody vote is a mistake. Too many people don't know what's going on and have no skin in the game.

At a minimum, if you receive money or benefits from the government, then you don't get to vote.
I not sure why people, that receives money from the government shouldn't vote. Even though a lot of people vote against their needs. I vote for their needs. I noticed older people vote to get rid of rights, that they used.
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

Future History Slab Carver
Sep 13, 2008
25,224
15,350
Earth
✟303,423.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Letting everybody vote is a mistake. Too many people don't know what's going on and have no skin in the game.
The great thing about democracy is that politicians have to keep the stupid in mind when standing for office.
The terrible thing about democracy is that politicians have to keep the stupid in mind when standing for office.

At a minimum, if you receive money or benefits from the government, then you don't get to vote.
Will this include tax breaks and/or subsidies on business owners?

Should people with an incestuous relationship with the government get to vote? We'll vote for you if you increase our pension benefits, said the teacher's union. This is a popular game that many unions successfully play. Or let's game the pension by basing everything on the last year's earnings. Meanwhile, in the last year that person does tons of overtime.

Ultimately, democracies only last up to about 250 years based on history. The corruption gets to be too much and is not fixable.
Churchill addressed the flaws of democracy quite nicely, yes.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: mark46
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
21,278
5,165
✟1,106,572.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The US system has many flaws, but it is the best the world has developed. It won't be changed because of a populist attack on its foundations.

The US shares values. I listened to speeches today extolling the shared values of the 4 presidents present plus a couple of their opponents (McCain and Romney). And yes, I would include those immediately before them: Bush Sr, Reagan and Carter). That's 50 years of shared values facing many hardships and challenges.

We don't need a new system. What we need to do is to live up to the ideals and principles of our democracy. I would be happy to have as our leader anyone with the principles of these presidents or Romney or McCain. They espoused and espoused our shared heritage and would lead us forward.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: iHarken
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
30,433
17,290
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟504,282.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Letting everybody vote is a mistake. Too many people don't know what's going on and have no skin in the game.

At a minimum, if you receive money or benefits from the government, then you don't get to vote.
I agree. I think seniors should lose their ability to vote at 75.

They no longer have a vested interest in the future of their country.


I will be curious to see if anyone has a problem with women voting because that seems to be a new things in some Republican circles; disenfranchising women.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
21,278
5,165
✟1,106,572.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The US system has many flaws, but it is the best the world has developed. It won't be changed because of a populist attack on its foundations.

The US shares values. I listened to speeches today extolling the shared values of the 4 presidents present plus a couple of their opponents (McCain and Romney). And yes, I would include those immediately before them: Bush Sr, Reagan and Carter). That's 50 years of shared values facing many hardships and challenges.

We don't need a new system. What we need to do is to live up to the ideals and principles of our democracy. I would be happy to have as our leader anyone with the principles of these presidents or Romney or McCain. They espoused and espoused our shared heritage and would lead us forward.
Of course, we could have the great improvement of 18-year term limits for senators, house members and court judges.

In addition, no one should be allowed to start an elected term at age 80 or older (perhaps 75 is a better choice). This is NOT discrimination. We have low age limits.

These are relatively minor changes that I think would help a great deal.

And, sure, DC and Puerto Rico should be states if their citizens want that.
 
Upvote 0

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
5,701
6,767
New Jersey
✟441,680.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I agree. I think seniors should lose their ability to vote at 75.

They no longer have a vested interest in the future of their country.

I see the point. At the same time, as I approach my own retirement years, I have a strong interest in making the country a good place for my children and grandchildren to live in. I have all kinds of younger people in my life -- my students, my fellow parishioners, nieces and nephews -- and I want to do what I can in these last years to make the country better than how I found it, for them.

If my mental abilities deteriorate at 80, of course, I hope my young relatives gently but firmly "forget" to take me to the voting place and "forget" where they put my smartphone.
 
Upvote 0

Hentenza

I will fear no evil for You are with me
Site Supporter
Mar 27, 2007
40,310
7,288
On the bus to Heaven
✟327,999.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What has been true for some time has become more and more abundantly clear.

America is in desperate need for major reform in how it does democracy.

To that end, I can think of a number of serious reforms that ought to be carried out.

1) We must eliminate First-Past-the-Post. A concern very early on in American history was the problem of American politics degenerating into a two-party system. Which happened almost immediately. The United States has endured a two-party system almost since the beginning, while the identities of the parties have changed, the fundamental problem has not. There are systems of voting in which we can eliminate this. I am not, necessarily, arguing against the formation of political parties themselves--but there are certainly ways to defeat this long-standing bogeyman of a two-party system. A ranked voting system in which voters, rather than voting only for a single candidate in an election, are given the ability to rank their preferences on a ballot. This would also address the much lamented "choosing the lesser of two evils" approach that many take, where rather than choosing who you want, voters choose on the basis of who they don't want. Ranked voting would allow voters to rank their preferences, so while a person may prefer Candidate X as their first choice, they may choose Candidate Y as their second, as such while perhaps Candidate X may not receive the highest number of votes, the ability to choose Candidate Y as a secondary choice, who may still win, results in an outcome that is closer to the will of the electorate. In such a system the will of the electorate becomes a priority. This, arguably, would allow voters to choose and rank from a plurality of parties, and even independents.

2) End gerrymandering. It is abundantly clear that a bicameral system in which Congress consists of both senators and representatives requires representatives of districts, that some sort of districting is necessary. The problem, of course, is that gerrymandering has become a tool of partisan redistricting that can, quite often, disenfranchise voters. This may require a deep reform and restructuring of how the States have members elected to the Congress. I do not have an immediate answer of address to this problem, though I wonder if a ranked voting system as proposed above, may serve in some way to mitigate this issue.

3) Supreme Justices ought to have term limits.

4) Members of Congress, ought to have limits on number of terms they may serve.

5) No person in the United States, without exception, ought to be beyond the scope of the law. Even a sitting president ought to be liable and culpable. The law must stand above each and all persons, regardless of position or station or status.

These are the 5 I can, off the top of my head, think of.
Well, for a change I happen to agree with you on the five points that you brought up here. The only one that I have problems with is the term limits for members of congress for the same reason as @Hans Blaster expressed in his post. Good job.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hentenza

I will fear no evil for You are with me
Site Supporter
Mar 27, 2007
40,310
7,288
On the bus to Heaven
✟327,999.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I agree. I think seniors should lose their ability to vote at 75.

They no longer have a vested interest in the future of their country.
I would not agree with this. I simply have a problem disenfranchising any particular group of people and would open the door to others being disenfranchised for some arbitrary reason. Secondly seniors are very much involved in the future of this country, not just for themselves, but also for their families.

This reminds me of the 1970’s movie “Soylent Green” where IIRC they were made into crackers at a certain age.
 
Upvote 0