KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Unlike Jay, I think the political failures are more a result of the people involved (and the general political process during the 'formative' years (ie. 1860 or so to 1945) than the actual system as devised by the original political players. I have no delusion of being able to create a perfect political system when there are so many moving parts, but I disagree that the US political system itself is lousy.
Cool, so there's been more than 13 years between amendments. My point wasn't that we change our constitution every 13 years (note I said average), it's that it DOES change. Whether through amendments or legal doctrine, the constitution itself is not some infallible document.
Yes, some people on the right and left view the constitution as an infallible document. That doesn't contradict my claim that they are fringe elements. Christian fundamentalists (evangelicals, mostly) are a powerful and vocal minority. Most sane people don't give them the light of day, and they were nothing as a voting block until Reagan. There was a pretty good write up I read recently that goes into how the religious right came to power and what it means. I'll try to find it if you're interested.
There's nothing wrong with criticizing the US government or the system itself. But know what you are talking about if you want to be taken seriously. That's my beef. I don't go and comment on Australian or Euro political processes or governmental systems here because I'm not going to pretend to know the intricacies or become a wiki warrior just to debate. In my opinion it just makes you look stupid. Arguments from ignorance can make points otherwise not being considered, but offering up blanket criticisms without understanding the entire process is a bit silly.
Regarding your proposals-
I am not a fan at all of first past the post for any federal office. I am in favor of proportional representation in general and the coalition governments popular in parliamentary systems. I think the President has too much power (specifically regarding the use of executive orders) and I think Congressional committees serve as lobby and job farms more than the informed decision-making teams they were intended to - which echoes my feelings that the people themselves sully the system. I don't agree with you regarding shrinking down the senate seats by region or population - that's defeating one of the main points of the bicameral system we have and the formation of a "United States". We already have one section of Congress elected according to population. Yes, your example is a shitty reality of American politics - no doubt. Your alternative negates the idea of a United States though. Might as well dissolve borders for States in those regions then too, right?
In my opinion, the most basic way to adjust the American political system is to put term limits on Congress and further explicitly enumerate the powers of the legislative and executive branch, decentralize federal power regarding internal issues, and remove any ability for the consolidation of power by any branch. All lofty goals without any concrete and granular proposals on how to achieve it, but identifying key critical problems with the system itself is the first step. And it's better than blindly saying "the system is broken1!!1" without offering any recommendations to change it. One thing I've learned in business is that if you don't agree with something, you clearly state why and offer alternative recommendations.
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me. No sarcasm, they do.
I actually have no issue with someone staying 50 years in congress. I understand how it is possible for someone to eventually become out of touch with the issues facing the average American when you are neck deep in Washington for 50 years but out of touch people are usually the ones making it on the party tickets anyway. If you are trying to limit corruption in congress, I don't think term limits will have a positive effect. The problem I see is someone getting into congress on a term limit and trying to maximize their earning potential in the private sector after congress because they are only going to be in the senate for 10 years and need to make a living once it is all said and done. So they pass and sneak in whatever they can into bills without regard to the effects because xyz corporate interest is going to give them a lobbying job afterward. If someone has the ability to hold a position until death, they theoretically have the incentive to not fuck things up. Of course that goes back to your point of "okay system, bad people join it". As for an actual positive of the current term system, there are often long-term projects especially in defense and infrastructure that are helped by having an actual good person in congress to help it along over the 20, 30 year course it needs to take. Rotating a new person into the position every 10ish years might not be the best.
I am not too worried about executive power creep. From what I understand about you, you want to prevent a president's ability to create wars more so than you want to stop a president from doing something like forcing through prison reform. The president's ability to guide foreign policy is the one thing that I never want to see constrained by congress or the courts. A unified military responsible to one man is how it should be.
