How to fix our political system? (1 Viewer)

[Thorpe]

First of all, I am not in favor of any drastic changes because I am convinced any change will make things worse.  The best thing we have going right now is gridlock in Washington, because nothing getting done is better than bad things being done.

Second, we need to stop saying "that isn't what the Founding Fathers wanted".  They did a great job 240 years but times have changed so much that their ideas don't necessarily mean anything today.  For instance, in 1776 almost everybody was a farmer, and they couldn't be away from their land for long.  Nowadays, almost no one has a job where they couldn't be away from it for 2 months a year to discuss and vote on issues.  And for that matter, there is no reason people need to be in the same room any more to discuss issues.

That being said, if I could make a change, I would change the way people are being represented.  Right now, you have homeless people living basically next door to millionaires in big cities.  Why should they be represented by the same congressman? Their interests could not be more different.  I would divvy up the country into groups of people basically along occupation or lack thereof.   Homeless, unemployed, retired, millionaire, teacher, military,  retail, farmer, office worker, engineer, etc.  Each group elects a representative to congress.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I could probably think of a few things.

 

[Phil Elliott]

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. 

And the degree the constitution/laws are enforced have some impact.

 

[RCon]

So when we've suggested taking the choices away from politicians and using a computer, that's shorthand for "using non-partisan criteria that can only have one outcome."  That's the change we're seeking.  And the way it would be done is by using a computer.

Upon further reflection, I have a better answer to this.  When my answer to "take the choices away from politicians and use a computer" is "a computer isn't a magic bullet", that's really shorthand for "coming up with non-partisan criteria that have only one possible outcome is a lot easier said than done."

To illustrate that point, I offer four criteria that all sound non-partisan but could easily arrive at different outcomes.

1. Create the geographic districts using the smallest cumulative total of borders, that equalize the number of people living in each district.
   
2. Create the geographic districts using the smallest cumulative total of borders, that equalize the number of citizens living in each district.
   
3. Create the geographic districts using the smallest cumulative total of borders, that equalize the number of eligible voters living in each district.
   
4. Create the geographic districts using the smallest cumulative total of borders, that equalize the number of registered voters living in each district.
   

Which is the most partisan?  Which is the least?  And that's before we consider other factors such as "do college students count as living at their college address or their home address".

Anyway, I imagine we're on the same page regarding the goal; I just think it's a lot harder to get there than it sounds.

 

[bueno]

I like the concept of focused comities in our political system; I just don't think they are structured or administered effectively. I've never understood why we can have, say an agricultural/farming committee, made up of reps/senators form a limited number of states that are definitely partisan and may or may not have any experience in agriculture.

Let's say we didn't have a House of representatives; just a Senate with two Senators from each state to represent that State's interest at a procedural and administrative level. Then we create a set of ~50 focused issue committees. These committees would be made up roughly 8-10 subject matter experts from industry, law and education, who would be non-partisan and dictate the laws impacting that sector of government. These individuals would be selected by the people (across the entire population) and confirmed by the Senate.

Why would people with no expertise in a subject matter be qualified to chose the experts?

 

[roadkill1292]

Upon further reflection, I have a better answer to this.  When my answer to "take the choices away from politicians and use a computer" is "a computer isn't a magic bullet", that's really shorthand for "coming up with non-partisan criteria that have only one possible outcome is a lot easier said than done."

To illustrate that point, I offer four criteria that all sound non-partisan but could easily arrive at different outcomes.

1. Create the geographic districts using the smallest cumulative total of borders, that equalize the number of people living in each district.
   
2. Create the geographic districts using the smallest cumulative total of borders, that equalize the number of citizens living in each district.
   
3. Create the geographic districts using the smallest cumulative total of borders, that equalize the number of eligible voters living in each district.
   
4. Create the geographic districts using the smallest cumulative total of borders, that equalize the number of registered voters living in each district.
   

Which is the most partisan?  Which is the least?  And that's before we consider other factors such as "do college students count as living at their college address or their home address".

Anyway, I imagine we're on the same page regarding the goal; I just think it's a lot harder to get there than it sounds.

I think you're overcomplicating things. The basic criteria has already been decided. How we implement it now is affected by partisanship. Deciding between your four criteria isn't very difficult nor do I think different choices would result in great differences.

 

[bueno]

First of all, I am not in favor of any drastic changes because I am convinced any change will make things worse.  The best thing we have going right now is gridlock in Washington, because nothing getting done is better than bad things being done.

Second, we need to stop saying "that isn't what the Founding Fathers wanted".  They did a great job 240 years but times have changed so much that their ideas don't necessarily mean anything today.  For instance, in 1776 almost everybody was a farmer, and they couldn't be away from their land for long.  Nowadays, almost no one has a job where they couldn't be away from it for 2 months a year to discuss and vote on issues.  And for that matter, there is no reason people need to be in the same room any more to discuss issues.

That being said, if I could make a change, I would change the way people are being represented.  Right now, you have homeless people living basically next door to millionaires in big cities.  Why should they be represented by the same congressman? Their interests could not be more different.  I would divvy up the country into groups of people basically along occupation or lack thereof.   Homeless, unemployed, retired, millionaire, teacher, military,  retail, farmer, office worker, engineer, etc.  Each group elects a representative to congress.

People change jobs and economic status though - what a nightmare it would be to keep up and keep fraud out of that system.

 

[bueno]

I can tell you how redistricting for the House works in Idaho. Idaho has only two Representatives, and Boise is by far the largest population center. So all precincts north of Boise are in one District, all precincts south of Boise are in another and then Boise precincts are allocated to one district or another until each District has roughly he same population.

How could we redistrict the 53 Representatives California has? We could subdivide it and then do the same thing Idaho does with the subunits. I think there are techniques that could do this, even without fancy computer programs.

 

[roadkill1292]

A thread at another board raised an interesting question about the length of our campaigns -- how many people actually like the duration because of its entertainment value? I'm not one but it seems like there are lots of folks who really like the horse race nature of the event, which allows them to parse every development from the perspective of "how does this affect the race," and who would be disappointed with Canadian-style elections which last only 3-6 weeks.

 

[NutterButter]

I'd love to see a capturing of each politicians stance on the various issues by an objective source.   I'm a democrat and I'd more than willing to allow the Economist to be that source.   Hand a list of issues to each politician and have them submit their stance on each issue before the election starts.   No more of this having one stance in the primaries and then taking a more moderate position in the general.  For elections besides the presidency such as the house and senate, now I'll be more knowledgeable as well.

 

[NutterButter]

A thread at another board raised an interesting question about the length of our campaigns -- how many people actually like the duration because of its entertainment value? I'm not one but it seems like there are lots of folks who really like the horse race nature of the event, which allows them to parse every development from the perspective of "how does this affect the race," and who would be disappointed with Canadian-style elections which last only 3-6 weeks.

Way, way too long.  A couple of months for the primaries and a couple of months for the general.  That's more than enough political entertainment before I'm burnt out.   And for the primary, why doesn't ever state vote on the same day again?

 

[32 Counter Pass]

While I despise Trump and the embarrassment he is bringing to our country, these stances do not make him incompetent.  Rather, the fact that someone who has publicly taken these positions has a damn good chance of being the most powerful person in the world says more about the country than it does about Trump's competency or lack thereof.

In the case of POTUS competency means abiding by the oath "...to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.". It is patently obvious Trump does not understand the principles of the Constitution, thus making him incompetent for the office.  

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

A thread at another board raised an interesting question about the length of our campaigns -- how many people actually like the duration because of its entertainment value? I'm not one but it seems like there are lots of folks who really like the horse race nature of the event, which allows them to parse every development from the perspective of "how does this affect the race," and who would be disappointed with Canadian-style elections which last only 3-6 weeks.

There are pros and cons. On one hand the longer campaigns allow for these candidates to be looked at under the microscope and plenty of time to find bad things out about them. Now this did not work from trump but the opportunity was there. 

Shorter campaigns mean less money to spend on them but also more time to spend doing what we elected them to do, and not fund raise all the time.

 

[worrierking]

Let's take drug safety as an example of where the government has "power".  Do you suggest that this role be performed by a private organization or no organization at all or is this a power that the government should have?

I guess that depends on what you mean by "drug safety."  I am guessing you mean the power to determine which drugs are "safe" and which are not, through FDA approval.  If the government did not perform this function private organizations would step in (they already do now.  just google it)).  Of course they too would be susceptible to corruption, so consumers would need to would need to gather information from a variety of sources.  Lawsuits, or the threat of them, would prevent most fraud and safety issues.  The market would determine which ones worked and which ones didn't.  It wouldn't always work perfectly but it would have benefits.

Without the regulatory regimes in place, drugs would be cheaper and would get to the market faster.  People and doctors would have greater freedom to choose what works best for them. 

As an example, right now, birth control pills require a doctor's prescription in the United States.  In many countries around the world, the pill is an over-the-counter medication. It remains a prescription-only pill here because of the money spent lobbying by pharmaceutical companies and physicians organizations that want it to remain as it is for their own monetary benefit. 

 

[NutterButter]

I guess that depends on what you mean by "drug safety."  I am guessing you mean the power to determine which drugs are "safe" and which are not, through FDA approval.  If the government did not perform this function private organizations would step in (they already do now.  just google it)).  Of course they too would be susceptible to corruption, so consumers would need to would need to gather information from a variety of sources.  Lawsuits, or the threat of them, would prevent most fraud and safety issues.  The market would determine which ones worked and which ones didn't.  It wouldn't always work perfectly but it would have benefits.

Without the regulatory regimes in place, drugs would be cheaper and would get to the market faster.  People and doctors would have greater freedom to choose what works best for them. 

As an example, right now, birth control pills require a doctor's prescription in the United States.  In many countries around the world, the pill is an over-the-counter medication. It remains a prescription-only pill here because of the money spent lobbying by pharmaceutical companies and physicians organizations that want it to remain as it is for their own monetary benefit. 

No thank you.  I'd rather not have to be the one scouring the internet to determine if a drug is safe or if the food I'm feeding my kids is safe or if the plane we're boarding is safe.   Suing some company after someone I love has died gives me little consolidation.  I'll stick with the regulatory agencies we currently have in place.

 

[Thorpe]

People change jobs and economic status though - what a nightmare it would be to keep up and keep fraud out of that system.

It wouldn't just be changing jobs.  It would be changing careers.  That probably happens less often than moving out of a congressional district. 

And fraud isn't really an issue anyways, because the congressman represents your occupation, which is narrowly defined, so it isn't like you have two diametrically opposed people trying to be your congressman where you gain something by fraud.

Also, this system would just be for economic issues.  Social issues like gun control, abortion, etc would have to be sorted out another way.  I would prefer all that to be voted on more locally anyways.  The social issues are what divides people more than anything...

 

[bueno]

It wouldn't just be changing jobs.  It would be changing careers.  That probably happens less often than moving out of a congressional district. 

And fraud isn't really an issue anyways, because the congressman represents your occupation, which is narrowly defined, so it isn't like you have two diametrically opposed people trying to be your congressman where you gain something by fraud.

Also, this system would just be for economic issues.  Social issues like gun control, abortion, etc would have to be sorted out another way.  I would prefer all that to be voted on more locally anyways.  The social issues are what divides people more than anything...

I don't think you can pigeonhole people like that.