Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
How do you fix America's broken political system? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter bosoxs45
- Start date
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
Publicly funded elections and an end to gerrymandering would be the first big ones I'd go to.
It has zero to do with campaign contributions or gerrymandering. Politics sucks because people are pricks. Always mischaracterizing the other side, projecting false motives, personal attacks. Neither side wants to acknowledge points from the other side. A bunch of damn children. The constant demonization of others to score some cheap political points does not accomplish anything but the division we see today. There needs to be emphathy and respect given to others. Trump does not help the cause because he is the epitome of what is wrong. But damn, the Trump haters are the same breed of tools. Congrats. You have become what you profess to hate.
Last edited by a moderator:
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
Viable third party is a start. I think it happens in 2020.
Hastur
Footballguy
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Meh, if you pay any attention at all, it comes down to campaign contributions. Guys like Paul Ryan will smile and lie right in your face to make drug and prisons more money. It's a motivation problem. They are motivated more by money than by any semblance of civic duty. Eliminate the money. And guys like Paul Ryan will go private sector and screw much fewer people over.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
More people need to be aware of what it is their government is for. A similar thing is happening where my mom lives with her condo association. For the last ~4 years the BoD has been corrupt and have been doing things against the bylaws and rules. People complain but don't get involved. Recently there were three people that wanted to be on the board and the corrupt people refused to vote them on. There is more but people in America need to be involved.
-OZ-
Footballguy
More people need to be informed and care. But I don't know how to accomplish those goals.
In a way Trump might spark the solution, as people respond to his behavior. Our response to him might be what makes America great again. But it will take work and people seeking information beyond infotainment.
In a way Trump might spark the solution, as people respond to his behavior. Our response to him might be what makes America great again. But it will take work and people seeking information beyond infotainment.
rockaction
Footballguy
Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution was a right-wing talking point for a while, but it was a good one. It would put the election of Senators in the hands of localities, and would therefore be:
a) representative of local elections
and...
b) would place more emphasis on local issues, thereby causing a greater interest and less of a reliability on federal funding or issues
While it would provide more distance and a check on the people's will, these two concerns would have a net positive effect, in my opinion.
a) representative of local elections
and...
b) would place more emphasis on local issues, thereby causing a greater interest and less of a reliability on federal funding or issues
While it would provide more distance and a check on the people's will, these two concerns would have a net positive effect, in my opinion.
Boston
Footballguy
Term Limits-We haven't had one politician in recent history we could not live without...if these guys aren't in office forever than the big money won't get invested in them and they won't be beholden to outside influences...
Public hate crimes-Any crime committed while in office (that is related to the job) gets something like triple the sentence if convicted...these guys need to held to a higher standard and need to feel the full extent of the law if not...
Accounting of every dollar-Every public dollar needs to be accounted for...whether it is pork, welfare fraud, the military spending $200 on a hammer or whatever it is every single dollar needs to be accounted for...any project that goes over-budget should result in a job loss for someone unless there is a very legit reason why it happened...
Elect Judges-I know there are solid reasons against this but theses guys need to be held more accountable...
There will always be ideological divides but stuff like this should be pretty cut and dry and be supported by all...neither side gains a thing over the other side from stuff like this and this would hopefully make your "average Joe" feel our government is not designed to screw them...
Public hate crimes-Any crime committed while in office (that is related to the job) gets something like triple the sentence if convicted...these guys need to held to a higher standard and need to feel the full extent of the law if not...
Accounting of every dollar-Every public dollar needs to be accounted for...whether it is pork, welfare fraud, the military spending $200 on a hammer or whatever it is every single dollar needs to be accounted for...any project that goes over-budget should result in a job loss for someone unless there is a very legit reason why it happened...
Elect Judges-I know there are solid reasons against this but theses guys need to be held more accountable...
There will always be ideological divides but stuff like this should be pretty cut and dry and be supported by all...neither side gains a thing over the other side from stuff like this and this would hopefully make your "average Joe" feel our government is not designed to screw them...
Buddy Ball 2K3
Footballguy
How do you vote someone out that is going to give you "free stuff"? How do you get elected without a great deal of $$$ and how do you get it?
Instant run-off voting, which would in turn make third-parties viable.
On the other hand, I find some of the suggestions above unhelpful. For example, "an end to gerrymandering" isn't particularly helpful without the how. How do you want to put an end to gerrymandering? Without that detail, it's entirely possible the cure could be worse than the disease. Ditto for "get money out of politics". How?
On the other hand, I find some of the suggestions above unhelpful. For example, "an end to gerrymandering" isn't particularly helpful without the how. How do you want to put an end to gerrymandering? Without that detail, it's entirely possible the cure could be worse than the disease. Ditto for "get money out of politics". How?
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
I am okay with corporate money going away as long as union money is treated the same. Level playing field.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Bring back Dueling. I bet the Democrats turn their stance on gun control around real quick.
I'd love to see Mitch McConnell face off against Nancy Pelosi. Any luck, they are both accurate AF and hit each other right in the forehead.
I'd love to see Mitch McConnell face off against Nancy Pelosi. Any luck, they are both accurate AF and hit each other right in the forehead.
Last edited by a moderator:
Boston
Footballguy
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Either:
a) Partial lobotomies for 90% of the electorate.
Or
b) eliminate universal suffrage
a) Partial lobotomies for 90% of the electorate.
Or
b) eliminate universal suffrage
James Daulton
Footballguy
Haven't each political party been at each other's throats since there have been political parties?
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
If you asked this question in 1750, the answer would be to petition the King for a people's chamber that could address political issues;
If you asked this question in 1760, the answer would be to begin nullifying the King's laws and setting up our own political systems;
If you asked this question in 1770, the answer would be revolution;
If you asked this question in 1778, the answer would be Articles of Confederation;
If you asked this question in 1787, the answer would be to throw away the Articles and write the Constitution;
If you asked this question in 1790, the answer was the Bill of Rights;
If you asked this question in 1799, the answer was the Alien and Sedition Acts;
If you asked this question in 1811, the answer was ultimately the War of 1812;
If you asked this question in 1824, the answer was to join the new Democratic Party to do away with the aristocracy of America;
If you asked this question in 1830, the answer was to kill the Bank of the United States;
If you asked this question in 1850, the answer was the Compromise of 1850;
If you asked this question in 1858, the answer was Civil War;
If you asked this question in the 1870's, the answer was corruption and the lack of a civil service system;
If you asked this question in the 1890's, the answer was more democratic systems to give people more power in the system;
If you asked this question in 1913, the answer was to remove the Constitutional structure of the Senate and make is a democratic body;
If you asked this question a few months earlier, the answer was to create a federal income tax;
If you asked this question in the 1920's, the answer was better labor laws and breaking monopolies and trusts;
If you asked this question in 1930, the answer was a New Deal;
If you asked this question in the 1960's, the answer was more civil rights, less taxes, and ending war;
If you asked this question in the 1970's, the answer was more civil rights, ending war, and equal pay for women;
If you asked this question in the 1980's, the answer was campaign finance reform, opposing trickle down economics, and more civil rights;
If you asked this question in the 1990's, the answer was campaign finance reform, gerrymandering, term limits, and line item veto's;
If you asked this question in the early 2000's, the answer was campaign finance reform, banking reform, getting money out of politics and pulling back on the power of the state;
If you asked this question in the late 2000's, the answer was campaign finance reform, banking reform, making the rich and powerful pay for their crimes and mistakes and getting money out of politics;
If you asked this question 5 years ago, the answer was campaign finance reform, banking reform, making the rich and powerful pay for their crimes and mistake, getting money out of politics, and doing something about the entertainment media that doesn't report news anymore;
If you asked this question last year, the answer was campaign finance reform, banking reform, making the rich and powerful pay for their crimes and mistakes, getting money out of politics, doing something about the entertainment media that doesn't report news anymore, and trying to regroup the American people to not see each other as enemies when they disagree about policy or politics and trying to once again have a serious national conversation like we did in the 1970's, 1960's, 1930, 1920's, 1913, 1890's, 1870's, 1859 (although not that serious, too much blood) 1850, 1830's, 1820's, 1810, and the late 1700's;
Now asking this question today you are going to get an answer of campaign finance reform, banking reform, making the rich and powerful pay for their crimes and mistakes, getting money out of politics, doing something about the entertainment media that doesn't report news anymore, trying to regroup the American people to not see each other as enemies, unless they really believe what they are saying in which case they might be a lost cause, on both sides and we have to move past them and drown them out, we should probably amend the Constitution once or twice for good measure, get money out of politics - did I say that already - maybe wall off the south because rednecks, probably close off the west coast because hippies, do something with Texas either to keep people out or in depending on your particular persuasion, get rid of the guy in the White House for good measure, and get money out of politics. A third time. Just to be safe.
What's broken? The "people" wanted more power from 1750-1797 and we got it. The "people" wanted more power in the face of elites in the early 1800's and we got it. The "people" simply couldn't co-exist very well in the 1850's-1860's and we paid a price for that. The "people" wanted less political favors and more fair hiring practices in the 1880s and we got it. The people wanted more democratic power in 1913 and got it. The "people" wanted better labor laws and rules on the books to fight powerful companies in the 1920's and we got it. The "people" wanted social change in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's and we got it. The "people" wanted more campaign finance laws in the 1980's and 1990's and we got it. The "people" wanted even more campaign finance changes and banking regulations in the 1990's and 2000's and we got it. The "people" wanted to blowback the changes of the last 10 years and/or against the political party they don't like from either side and they got Donald Trump as a result whether they wanted him or not.
And now, once again we sit here and ask, how do we fix what is broken? Nothing is broken. This is government of the people, by the people and for the people. Claiming it's broke is arguing that something fundamental is wrong. Fundamentally, the system is working the exact way it was supposed to - laws and practices change over time. There will never be 100% consensus on anything in this country, there never has been. The great founders were probably only representing 30% at best of the entire population of the country at the time. For all the changes that the democrats made once Andrew Jackson was in power, they never represented more than 50% of the entire population. The civil war showed clear line of demarcation. The unrest and reconstruction of the country for the next 50 years wasn't a team effort at all. We basically lived in a class warfare system leading up World War II, there was massive social unrest for 30 plus years after that, and since Reagan was President it's not like we all sing kumbaya together every day before going to bed.
America is messy. And that's fine. You aren't going to always win, get your guy or gal elected, get that policy or law you wanted etc etc., but you are never totally and completely barred from ever trying again. In fact, you are allowed to try again every day, week, month, year, 2 years, 4 years, and beyond. We should embrace the bloodiness of American politics a little more. Great men and women have risen from it. And a great country has as well.
tl;dr - my vote is we all collectively need a better sense of humor and ability to take a punch. It would make all of this a lot more entertaining.
If you asked this question in 1760, the answer would be to begin nullifying the King's laws and setting up our own political systems;
If you asked this question in 1770, the answer would be revolution;
If you asked this question in 1778, the answer would be Articles of Confederation;
If you asked this question in 1787, the answer would be to throw away the Articles and write the Constitution;
If you asked this question in 1790, the answer was the Bill of Rights;
If you asked this question in 1799, the answer was the Alien and Sedition Acts;
If you asked this question in 1811, the answer was ultimately the War of 1812;
If you asked this question in 1824, the answer was to join the new Democratic Party to do away with the aristocracy of America;
If you asked this question in 1830, the answer was to kill the Bank of the United States;
If you asked this question in 1850, the answer was the Compromise of 1850;
If you asked this question in 1858, the answer was Civil War;
If you asked this question in the 1870's, the answer was corruption and the lack of a civil service system;
If you asked this question in the 1890's, the answer was more democratic systems to give people more power in the system;
If you asked this question in 1913, the answer was to remove the Constitutional structure of the Senate and make is a democratic body;
If you asked this question a few months earlier, the answer was to create a federal income tax;
If you asked this question in the 1920's, the answer was better labor laws and breaking monopolies and trusts;
If you asked this question in 1930, the answer was a New Deal;
If you asked this question in the 1960's, the answer was more civil rights, less taxes, and ending war;
If you asked this question in the 1970's, the answer was more civil rights, ending war, and equal pay for women;
If you asked this question in the 1980's, the answer was campaign finance reform, opposing trickle down economics, and more civil rights;
If you asked this question in the 1990's, the answer was campaign finance reform, gerrymandering, term limits, and line item veto's;
If you asked this question in the early 2000's, the answer was campaign finance reform, banking reform, getting money out of politics and pulling back on the power of the state;
If you asked this question in the late 2000's, the answer was campaign finance reform, banking reform, making the rich and powerful pay for their crimes and mistakes and getting money out of politics;
If you asked this question 5 years ago, the answer was campaign finance reform, banking reform, making the rich and powerful pay for their crimes and mistake, getting money out of politics, and doing something about the entertainment media that doesn't report news anymore;
If you asked this question last year, the answer was campaign finance reform, banking reform, making the rich and powerful pay for their crimes and mistakes, getting money out of politics, doing something about the entertainment media that doesn't report news anymore, and trying to regroup the American people to not see each other as enemies when they disagree about policy or politics and trying to once again have a serious national conversation like we did in the 1970's, 1960's, 1930, 1920's, 1913, 1890's, 1870's, 1859 (although not that serious, too much blood) 1850, 1830's, 1820's, 1810, and the late 1700's;
Now asking this question today you are going to get an answer of campaign finance reform, banking reform, making the rich and powerful pay for their crimes and mistakes, getting money out of politics, doing something about the entertainment media that doesn't report news anymore, trying to regroup the American people to not see each other as enemies, unless they really believe what they are saying in which case they might be a lost cause, on both sides and we have to move past them and drown them out, we should probably amend the Constitution once or twice for good measure, get money out of politics - did I say that already - maybe wall off the south because rednecks, probably close off the west coast because hippies, do something with Texas either to keep people out or in depending on your particular persuasion, get rid of the guy in the White House for good measure, and get money out of politics. A third time. Just to be safe.
What's broken? The "people" wanted more power from 1750-1797 and we got it. The "people" wanted more power in the face of elites in the early 1800's and we got it. The "people" simply couldn't co-exist very well in the 1850's-1860's and we paid a price for that. The "people" wanted less political favors and more fair hiring practices in the 1880s and we got it. The people wanted more democratic power in 1913 and got it. The "people" wanted better labor laws and rules on the books to fight powerful companies in the 1920's and we got it. The "people" wanted social change in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's and we got it. The "people" wanted more campaign finance laws in the 1980's and 1990's and we got it. The "people" wanted even more campaign finance changes and banking regulations in the 1990's and 2000's and we got it. The "people" wanted to blowback the changes of the last 10 years and/or against the political party they don't like from either side and they got Donald Trump as a result whether they wanted him or not.
And now, once again we sit here and ask, how do we fix what is broken? Nothing is broken. This is government of the people, by the people and for the people. Claiming it's broke is arguing that something fundamental is wrong. Fundamentally, the system is working the exact way it was supposed to - laws and practices change over time. There will never be 100% consensus on anything in this country, there never has been. The great founders were probably only representing 30% at best of the entire population of the country at the time. For all the changes that the democrats made once Andrew Jackson was in power, they never represented more than 50% of the entire population. The civil war showed clear line of demarcation. The unrest and reconstruction of the country for the next 50 years wasn't a team effort at all. We basically lived in a class warfare system leading up World War II, there was massive social unrest for 30 plus years after that, and since Reagan was President it's not like we all sing kumbaya together every day before going to bed.
America is messy. And that's fine. You aren't going to always win, get your guy or gal elected, get that policy or law you wanted etc etc., but you are never totally and completely barred from ever trying again. In fact, you are allowed to try again every day, week, month, year, 2 years, 4 years, and beyond. We should embrace the bloodiness of American politics a little more. Great men and women have risen from it. And a great country has as well.
tl;dr - my vote is we all collectively need a better sense of humor and ability to take a punch. It would make all of this a lot more entertaining.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Yup. Frankly I should erase my diatribe - your sentence says what I said in about a billionty less words.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
Please don't, it's an absolutely fantastic post. It should be required reading before posting in the politiks threads.
Absolutely. But the degree changes. We are not at the degree of divisiveness as say the Civil War, but we are peaking for modern times. It will probably take a common enemy to unite us.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Doubtful - we should all be able to get behind the Predators winning the Stanley Cup and making Sidney Crosby cry, but alas, not happening.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Private prisons and higher-than-necessary drug prices aren't the problem. Or more specifically, our system isn't fundamentally broken if those are our biggest problems. Prisons in particular don't crack most people's Top 100.
On the other hand, Trump would appreciate it if Citizens United was overturned, so we can finally get that free press brought to heel.
Last edited by a moderator:
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
Independent commissions to draw up Congressional districts to accurately reflect demographics and encourage competitiveness.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Wrong solution to a different problem. The districts are a mess, true - but there is a madness to the method that we want because the reason we deal with it is ensure some minority representation. At least, that is a pro-side argument.
The real problem underlying the creation of House districts is the unconstitutional limit we placed on the amount of members of the House. Capping the House, which is supposed to be a democratic body reflective of the people on 2-year cycles, at 435 people in a country or over 300 million is a joke and is one of the main reasons that people hate the House of Representatives but don't know it.
We need to return to a Constitutional House structure. The assumption at the beginning was 1 House member per roughly 30,000 people. Right now, we have 1 House member per roughly 750,000 people. We need 10 times the amount of Representatives in the House. Yes, that's right, we need 4000 more members of the House.
Ok, logistically, the building probably can't hold 4,000 more. But we need to at least double, if not triple the amount of House members. None of them should represent much more than 100,000 people at most. But no one will ever give this idea any weight because it means more politicians and it isn't pretty and frankly it's a rather boring topic to talk about. Which ends up being the problem with all of our policy and politics debates. The boring and hard is usually the right way. We like the exciting and immediate. Adams Jefferson since the dawn of time.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
The problem IMO isn't people not being informed or not caring, it's that they're misinformed and care about the wrong things. Unfortunately I think the culprit is cable news and talk radio and other sources of information. People don't want to read the news before they get to the opinion page, and then read divergent opinions once they get there. They want to watch or listen to someone validate their existing opinion.
I honestly don't know how to fix it. When you have a Constitutionally protected cash cow, there's no going back.
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
That would be up to the states, but I'd go with some sort of selection committee from the judiciary.
If you set parameters like I mentioned above (with more specifics, obvs) any shenanigans can be settled via lawsuits.
-OZ-
Footballguy
This would pretty much ensure nothing gets done. Which might be okay, depending on your view of government.
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Did you become a political savant after getting off the sauce? Is this like George becoming smart after he stopped thinking about sex?
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
rockaction
Footballguy
Hey, Homer J, that was tried in CT in the seventies. They wound up with Robert Bork as a nominee for judicial line drawing. It's anecdotal, sure, but to what primacy do we elevate the Third Branch and what sacrifices are we willing to make? He was nominated in the '70s, I think, so it wasn't partisan. It was "let's take this Yale law professor..." IIRC.
Needless to say, like Bork's judicial career, this never got off the ground.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
If I could enforce a law that says my parents aren't allowed to vote or express their opinion, I would do so with glee.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
It was also tried in the Tilden Hayes election. The commission wasn't so independent.
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
Well I think if the parameters are set out correctly, it wouldn't matter too much who is drawing the districts. If they stray too far one way, the other party can immediately sue for remediation.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I agree completely with increasing the House membership. But I want the nation to be districted by age instead of geography.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Start voting in candidates based on character and ethics first.
