What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

How to fix our political system? (1 Viewer)

I think most people, like 70% - 90% of us are not happy with the current candidates with either party.  Sure we might like our candidate better than the other sides candidate but really at this point it is more like eating a $hit sandwich with crust on or crust off. What are some ways we can break this system and maybe have start to get better candidates and less corrupt politicians? 

Example: What would it take to get a constitutional amendment to limit campaign contributions? 

How can we break the two party system? 

 
1) get rid of superdelegates

2) get rid of super pacs

3) set maximum contribution amount for donors

Pretty straightforward fixes here...if the people demand it, it will come.

 
A lot of things are extremely out-dated, but are basically impossible to change. The electoral college is so useless, it's an embarrassment that we still have it.

Basically, nothing will be fixed. Too much apathy. 

 
How would limiting campaign contributions have stopped Donald Trump? Isn't he evidence that money in campaigns isn't decisive? All of his main opponents had way more money than he did. 

I'm not opposed to some reasonable restrictions on money, but if we try to get rid of it to the extent that the Bernie fans seem to want, I believe we'll end up with more Trumps rather than less: populists who attempt to appeal to the lowest level of emotion. 

 
How would limiting campaign contributions have stopped Donald Trump? Isn't he evidence that money in campaigns isn't decisive? All of his main opponents had way more money than he did. 

I'm not opposed to some reasonable restrictions on money, but if we try to get rid of it to the extent that the Bernie fans seem to want, I believe we'll end up with more Trumps rather than less: populists who attempt to appeal to the lowest level of emotion. 
why do you hate Democracy?

 
why do you hate Democracy?
A famous historian once noted that a society of cannibals would elect a cannibal. The closer we get to true democracy, the more chaotic the result. The Founding Fathers knew this which is why they established a constitutional republic. 

 
You can probably get great bipartisan ideas here, that everyone agrees on.

But the people have to demand it.

They won't. People are getting dumber. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
How would limiting campaign contributions have stopped Donald Trump? Isn't he evidence that money in campaigns isn't decisive? All of his main opponents had way more money than he did. 

I'm not opposed to some reasonable restrictions on money, but if we try to get rid of it to the extent that the Bernie fans seem to want, I believe we'll end up with more Trumps rather than less: populists who attempt to appeal to the lowest level of emotion. 
And not all Trumps are the same compare Trump to Roosevelt and Kennedy? 

 
A famous historian once noted that a society of cannibals would elect a cannibal. The closer we get to true democracy, the more chaotic the result. The Founding Fathers knew this which is why they established a constitutional republic. 
How would a society of cannibals not elect a cannibal?  Elect someone outside their society?

 
There is literally no way to fix a system that has millions of people voting for a lunatic like Trump. People are willing to leap into a dumpster to support a completely ignorant bigot and a charlatan with a god complex just because they hate Obama and/or Hillary. It's shocking how it got this far. 

 
There is literally no way to fix a system that has millions of people voting for a lunatic like Trump. People are willing to leap into a dumpster to support a completely ignorant bigot and a charlatan with a god complex just because they hate Obama and/or Hillary. It's shocking how it got this far. 
There does seem to be some merit to this argument.  

 
1) Once leaving office, an ex-politician cannot accept a job paying an annual salary of more than 80% of what they earned while in office. No more Congressmen selling their votes then taking jobs in the private sector for millions from companies that bought them off.

2) Eliminate Public Employee Unions. Public employees do not need unions. The money cycle is harmful to politics: taxpayers pay taxes, politicians use the money to pay public employees, the unions get a cut, the unions give part of the money back to politicians, the politicians agree to raise the cut the union gets... repeat endlessly. There's no reason for a public employee to need a union. What kind of protection and legal recourse against harmful state actions can a union really provide when the state is the State? Are they going to sue in the State's courts operated by the State they have the issue with? It makes no sense. Public Employees have a method of recourse available to them already: elections. They don't need a union to exercise the right or grant them any protections.

3) Eliminate geographic congressional districts. No one lives their life within just one district. People may live in one, work in another, have property or investments in others, send kids to college in others, etc. Instead, allot 1000 House seats to be filled by petition. Anyone who can get enough signatures to finish in the top 1000 gets a seat. Allow them to go over by 10%, so if you have to collect 100,000 signatures to get a seat, allow up to 110,000 people to sign on to their campaign. Allow them to suggest other candidates they align with for any additional signers, so if a Bernie Sanders-like Representative gets a million signers, he can tell the 890,000 who don't go to his petition to support other "Bros" he aligns with. Allow petition signers to withdraw support from their candidate at any time. If a candidate drops below 100,000 supporters, they are kicked out of office immediately and replaced by the next guy who meets the support threshold. Every citizen gets to support one candidate at a time only. 

4) Eliminate state referendums. The People are not knowledgeable enough to figure out is a suggestion is good enough to warrant spending money on, since the People do not have a good enough grasp on the complex state budget. See: California.

5) Allow state governors to back out of pension deals in case of financial emergency. California teacher's unions (which should already be disbanded under #2 anyway) got the government to promise 10% returns on their pensions, when the historical average is 8%, and got it guaranteed--any shortfall on the returns to be made up by taking money from taxpayers. That's a load of BS that only went through because the politicians were bought off by union donations. Let the state out of the deal.

I'm sure in 5 more minutes I'll have a dozen more.
Very interesting ideas. 

I do have a questions without Public Unions how to you think public workers like teachers should negotiate their wages - not have any negotiations and they just get what the state wants to pay them.  

 
1) Once leaving office, an ex-politician cannot accept a job paying an annual salary of more than 80% of what they earned while in office. No more Congressmen selling their votes then taking jobs in the private sector for millions from companies that bought them off.

2) Eliminate Public Employee Unions. Public employees do not need unions. The money cycle is harmful to politics: taxpayers pay taxes, politicians use the money to pay public employees, the unions get a cut, the unions give part of the money back to politicians, the politicians agree to raise the cut the union gets... repeat endlessly. There's no reason for a public employee to need a union. What kind of protection and legal recourse against harmful state actions can a union really provide when the state is the State? Are they going to sue in the State's courts operated by the State they have the issue with? States have Sovereign Immunity anyway, so what can a union really do? It makes no sense. Public Employees have a method of recourse available to them already: elections. They don't need a union to exercise the right or grant them any protections.

3) Eliminate geographic congressional districts. No one lives their life within just one district. People may live in one, work in another, have property or investments in others, send kids to college in others, etc. Instead, allot 1000 House seats to be filled by petition. Anyone who can get enough signatures to finish in the top 1000 gets a seat. Allow them to go over by 10%, so if you have to collect 100,000 signatures to get a seat, allow up to 110,000 people to sign on to their campaign. Allow them to suggest other candidates they align with for any additional signers, so if a Bernie Sanders-like Representative gets a million signers, he can tell the 890,000 who don't go to his petition to support other "Bros" he aligns with. Allow petition signers to withdraw support from their candidate at any time. If a candidate drops below 100,000 supporters, they are kicked out of office immediately and replaced by the next guy who meets the support threshold. Every citizen gets to support one candidate at a time only. 

4) Eliminate state referendums. The People are not knowledgeable enough to figure out is a suggestion is good enough to warrant spending money on, since the People do not have a good enough grasp on the complex state budget. See: California.

5) Allow state governors to back out of pension deals in case of financial emergency. California teacher's unions (which should already be disbanded under #2 anyway) got the government to promise 10% returns on their pensions, when the historical average is 8%, and got it guaranteed--any shortfall on the returns to be made up by taking money from taxpayers. That's a load of BS that only went through because the politicians were bought off by union donations. Let the state out of the deal.

I'm sure in 5 more minutes I'll have a dozen more.
You lost me with #4.  Seems like the people know a lot more than our politicians when it comes to weed.

 
1) Once leaving office, an ex-politician cannot accept a job paying an annual salary of more than 80% of what they earned while in office. No more Congressmen selling their votes then taking jobs in the private sector for millions from companies that bought them off.

2) Eliminate Public Employee Unions. Public employees do not need unions. The money cycle is harmful to politics: taxpayers pay taxes, politicians use the money to pay public employees, the unions get a cut, the unions give part of the money back to politicians, the politicians agree to raise the cut the union gets... repeat endlessly. There's no reason for a public employee to need a union. What kind of protection and legal recourse against harmful state actions can a union really provide when the state is the State? Are they going to sue in the State's courts operated by the State they have the issue with? States have Sovereign Immunity anyway, so what can a union really do? It makes no sense. Public Employees have a method of recourse available to them already: elections. They don't need a union to exercise the right or grant them any protections.

3) Eliminate geographic congressional districts. No one lives their life within just one district. People may live in one, work in another, have property or investments in others, send kids to college in others, etc. Instead, allot 1000 House seats to be filled by petition. Anyone who can get enough signatures to finish in the top 1000 gets a seat. Allow them to go over by 10%, so if you have to collect 100,000 signatures to get a seat, allow up to 110,000 people to sign on to their campaign. Allow them to suggest other candidates they align with for any additional signers, so if a Bernie Sanders-like Representative gets a million signers, he can tell the 890,000 who don't go to his petition to support other "Bros" he aligns with. Allow petition signers to withdraw support from their candidate at any time. If a candidate drops below 100,000 supporters, they are kicked out of office immediately and replaced by the next guy who meets the support threshold. Every citizen gets to support one candidate at a time only. 

4) Eliminate state referendums. The People are not knowledgeable enough to figure out is a suggestion is good enough to warrant spending money on, since the People do not have a good enough grasp on the complex state budget. See: California.

5) Allow state governors to back out of pension deals in case of financial emergency. California teacher's unions (which should already be disbanded under #2 anyway) got the government to promise 10% returns on their pensions, when the historical average is 8%, and got it guaranteed--any shortfall on the returns to be made up by taking money from taxpayers. That's a load of BS that only went through because the politicians were bought off by union donations. Let the state out of the deal.

I'm sure in 5 more minutes I'll have a dozen more.
I disagree on #2, #4, and $5.  First, 4/5 have nothing to do with corruption in our political system.  And regarding #2, public employee unions contribute little to politicians.  Their method of recourse is no different than any other private union member.

 
I would amend Article 1 to do away with Congressional districts and apportion Congressmen according to popular vote within a State. If your State is allotted 10 representatives, the top 10 vote-getters go to the House. I would also add that a single voter could vote for no more than two House candidates.

Then we need to change Article 2 Section 1. I would have the House elect the President by majority vote.

This would begin to approach the Parliamentary system and give minority parties representation.

 
Let's just cut out all the middle men.  Just have the DNC and RNC announce who will be representing their parties.  The primaries waste a lot of time and money and the DNC showed us that the decisions are already made.  And even though the RNC allowed a democracy to happen this time, they are so pissed off at the result, they will be going with the DNC playbook next-time around. 

 
I'd hire some guy from google to write a program that maximizes the balance between dem and republican in each congressional district.   I want moderates coming out of these districts.

 
Let's just cut out all the middle men.  Just have the DNC and RNC announce who will be representing their parties.  The primaries waste a lot of time and money and the DNC showed us that the decisions are already made.  And even though the RNC allowed a democracy to happen this time, they are so pissed off at the result, they will be going with the DNC playbook next-time around. 
So Barack would be running this year?

 
Voting will be so cliche here in a few years at most.  Who has the best voting program will determine the winner.  Not only did I grab the entire Smith family, I triple protected it so that vote can't be overturned by the other party's algo.

 
There is literally no way to fix a system that has millions of people voting for a lunatic like Trump. People are willing to leap into a dumpster to support a completely ignorant bigot and a charlatan with a god complex just because they hate Obama and/or Hillary. It's shocking how it got this far. 
Why is Trump a lunatic?   He wasn't my top choice but much better than Hillary

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd allow for referendums on non-budgetary matters.

California's referendums are a mess on the budget side. People voted $30mil for a "children's hospital and related infrastructures" because who doesn't want to support kids? Only thing was that they had voted for the same thing 4 years before, and no children's hospital was built. All the money went to a land developer who was friends with his state congressman, who gave him the cash to build blockbuster video outlets and dry cleaning outlets in strip malls next to where the proposed hospital would be built. The reasoning was that this was "related infrastructure" because nurses would need uniforms cleaned and would like to rent movies to watch at home when not at work. Another $10 million in Los Angeles went to "battered women's shelters and related uses" because who doesn't want to support battered women? The money all went to renovating the streets around the Staples Center with brick walkways and fancy streetlights, which passed because 'battered women who need to go to a shelter at night need to be able to see where they're going'. The center itself was never built. Another $30 Billion (with a B) was allocated on a "Constitutional Amendment to Legalize Stem Cell Research, and, build a stem-cell research facility in California". They were not separate issues. If you supported legalizing Stem Cell Research, it was married to a $30Bil boondoggle research center. Is that reasonable for a state in debt? Didn't matter, people passed it because they sided with legalizing stem cells. If you voted against it, you were voting for more Alzheimer's and Parkinsons disease. So of course it passed. For $30 billion we could have built the 10 best medical schools in the country. Instead? We just got debt.

The people cannot be trusted to know what the budget allows for. It's far too complex.
I was in California during the stem cell referendum, thought it was absolute insanity. If stem cell research has merit, it will get research money - and it did.

The other two referendums you cite are more concerning because the referendum is not the issue - corrupt government is the issue. It was like New Orleans using money to maintain levees to build bike paths.

 
Shtick? I'm honestly not sure he is mentally competent at all. 
He has issues but let's not make him out to be incompetent.  He's a super successful businessman.  You can label him a lot of things but incompetent doesn't seem to apply.

 
Shtick? I'm honestly not sure he is mentally competent at all. 
Trump's the ultimate self promoter and right up there with Vince McMahon as one of the nation's TOP carnival barkers.  He's a true believer in the idea that "any press is good press".  

He's not crazy or mentally incompetent either.  He just targeted and picked up on a void that the American public wanted filled and he's filling it.  What's so funny about it is that he's barely going to do any of the stuff that he's promising.

 
The two parties should devise a qualification system. It starts 30 months before Election Day. You have to enroll or you won't be eligible for the nomination. Make the criteria whatever you want -- previous elective office, IQ, questionnaire, background checks, mock debates on policy, whatever you want. After 20 months you graduate, or you don't, and then cue the debates and the primaries with your 2-4 candidates who've been challenged and can bring some thoughtful arguments to the national discussion. The parasites, con artists and fascists who'd like to watch us all implode in a cloud of chaos and distrust, you're always welcome to start new parties and/or run as independents.
It would be Unconstitutional. The only requirements is natural-born U.S. citizen and 35 years of age or older.

 
Also, every person that turns 18 is automatically registered to vote. We need more people voting instead of restricting voters

 
Yes. Tim's point is we shouldn't get what we want. He also believes we shouldn't enforce laws we create.
No my point (actually Robertson Davies' point) is that democracy is morally neutral. The most obvious example is what the Germans did with Hitler, but there are plenty of other examples as well. We tried to force a democracy in Iraq and what happened? The Sunnis voted for Sunnis and the Shias voted for Shias. Obviously that was not the result we were hoping for. 

 
Doing away with public unions will never happen, because they along with trial lawyers are the biggest contributors to the Democrats. 

 
I would amend Article 1 to do away with Congressional districts and apportion Congressmen according to popular vote within a State. If your State is allotted 10 representatives, the top 10 vote-getters go to the House. I would also add that a single voter could vote for no more than two House candidates.

Then we need to change Article 2 Section 1. I would have the House elect the President by majority vote.

This would begin to approach the Parliamentary system and give minority parties representation.
I'm not sure about your path here but it's an interesting one and I fully support the end goal. I'm for an American Parliament because (a) we'll get things done without porking up the bills and (b) we'll know who to hold accountable for whether those things work or not. I think this makes me a closet Fabian ("wheah Gidget at?").

I also agree with Dodds that primaries are a terrible mess. If the parties have to nominate candidates on their own, they'll be highly motivated to nominate electable and competent ones (who will toe the party platform). This is already an option that I wish had more support.

And we need to find a way to destroy the election industry, which is motivated to do the exact opposite of what we need to do to hold reasonable elections.

 
My one idea which I've offered before: every 4 years, change the order of primary states on a random basis. It won't always be Iowa and New Hampshire. One year California might be first, another time Rhode Island. Completely random. 

 
No my point (actually Robertson Davies' point) is that democracy is morally neutral. The most obvious example is what the Germans did with Hitler, but there are plenty of other examples as well. We tried to force a democracy in Iraq and what happened? The Sunnis voted for Sunnis and the Shias voted for Shias. Obviously that was not the result we were hoping for. 
You just confirmed what I said about you. If we wanted something other than what the people of Iraq want, then we shouldn't have implemented democracy there. And you are borderline insinuating that we shouldn't have democracy here either. Which would of course justify what the DNC did nominating Hillary, at least in your mind.

 
The parties can include or exclude whomever they wish. Being 35 and a citizen doesn't guarantee you a dem or GOP finalist slot and you're still free to run as an independent.
Parties can, until the law forces them to do otherwise - then there are Constitutional issues.

 
He has issues but let's not make him out to be incompetent.  He's a super successful businessman.  You can label him a lot of things but incompetent doesn't seem to apply.
Howard Hughes was successful before he went nuts too. :shrug:

 
We do need to fix the voting process.

Each voter should be given a receipt after voting. That receipt should show who was voted for. The voter should be able to look up their vote online after the election to confirm it was counted correctly.

This way disputes, recounts, and fraud can be handled accurately after an election. As it is now, known fraudulent elections are allowed to stand because there's no recourse other than the knowingly incorrect count. We've had elections in this country that have decided presidential and senatorial races that have changed policy in this country for decades afterwards, in which the winner was elected thanks to more votes being cast for him than eligible voters that existed on the rolls. Since re-votes are not permitted, there is no recourse to known fraud. That cannot be allowed.
How do you ensure the vote is counted correctly online? Political entities and government agencies can tinker with any system a million different ways, even more so over the internet.

 
You just confirmed what I said about you. If we wanted something other than what the people of Iraq want, then we shouldn't have implemented democracy there. And you are borderline insinuating that we shouldn't have democracy here either. Which would of course justify what the DNC did nominating Hillary, at least in your mind.
Hillary was democratically chosen; the DNC didn't affect that result. 

And as for what I want, I want reasonable republican and constitutional limitations on democracy, which is what our FF intended. 

 
Actually, ,I wouldn't mind seeing a voter eligibility test similar to a citizenship test.
I sympathize with this point of view- more than I ever have before actually given the success of Donald Trump- but it will be seen as a means to bring back Jim Crow in the south. It will never happen. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top