Troper Think Tank: What is the best way to fix the USA Congress?

Actually, the states are supreme. Secession, nullification, just about anything they want - they can get if they would only act. That's how the states gave their powers to the federal government, too, by ratification of the current constitution.

Made a new thread: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13241552620A99034600&page=1#1

IMO amendment could provide further provisions that allow the Congress to regulate the identity of corporations. It should have an enforcement clause that allows Congress to pass laws based on the amendment, such as giving it limited entitlements to protect its individual constituents.

Now using Trivialis handle.

That's not the heart of the problem at all. Hell, they've got like 90% incumbency. Congressmen are well aware of how to say the right things to get their constituents behind them.

The problem is that they're all businessmen with private interests, and get rampantly paid off by other businessmen with private interests.

edited 17th Dec '11 2:36:38 PM by Pykrete

90% incumbency isn't necessarily bad - in Switzerland, Bundesräte(our counterpart to the POTUS) are almost never defeated. Incumbency itself isn't a problem, its causes (electoral fraud, overly-corrupt electoral processes) can be. Asking for term limits is pointless.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

I was using it to illustrate that they're not remotely out of touch with the people.

Incumbency that high isn't necessarily bad — I mean if you manage to get a good apple you want to keep him as long as possible — but it does tend to encourage the wrong things. Stagnation in governmental bodies means any corruption that is there just gets entrenched.

Yeah. I think the more important thing is that people take a more active role in congressional elections. It was pointed out before that SOPA wasn't a campaign issue, but nevertheless making people aware about these things will help influence voters to kick the bums out when they turn against the people.

More attention to congressional elections needs to be called. The legislative branch is where the laws that make or break this nation come from, after all. I've noticed that when Congress tends to do something stupid, though, we tend to blame the President. Or rather, the President is associated with what happens in Congress.

... Why does "incumbency" make me think cucumbers?

edited 17th Dec '11 3:35:00 PM by TrevMUN

Gerrymander the fuck out of everything so that conservatives can't ever get elected, that'd be optimal.

If that can't be achieved, give political weight only by population: That'd avoid States populated by a coupla hundred fundies and the odd coyote having the same number of Senators as California (which is larger than fucking Spain).

edited 17th Dec '11 3:46:56 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

*Sigh*

You realize the Senate is actually more Democrat than the House right now, right?

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

Lobbying at its core is just people saying what issues are important. The problem is that all too often, it turns into a glorified bribe.

...maybe third parties giving campaign donations is what should be done away with. You want to run for Congress, you have a set amount of money, that's all you're allowed to use.

That wont address the independent expenditures problem, or the lobbying that goes on after an election. There's also the issue of Congressmen getting lobbying jobs after their term expires. Term limits make that problem worse.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Democratic, yeah, but still conservative. Most flyover state democrats are "Blue Dogs" - i.e., DINOs, to rephrase the Republican terminology...

Anyway, as I've indicated in the other thread - abolish the Senate, and have the President lose the veto power (which is a legislative power anyway, and hence if you really do want strict separation of powers shouldn't be in the hands of the executive, I think. However, strict legislative-executive separations is IMO not really necessary).

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

The problem with that is that it enables a lot of totally insane bills to get passed.

Case in point, we're kind of counting on a veto of SOPA.

Octo, I'm not sure you understand the way the power dynamic works in practice. The Republican-controlled House sends up a ton of bills, and it's Obama who strikes them down when they're totally insane. What you're suggesting would create a system which, currently, would be a lot farther right than it is right now.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

Agree with Octo here. If the president lose veto power, he will just become symbolic president, like President of India and Finland, Americans will pay more attention on their legislative election instead of blaming the president, so Congress will be more sober.

You're banking the main criteria for stabilizing a shaky political situation on "Americans paying attention to politics." We don't exactly have a good track record on that, even the easy bits.

edited 18th Dec '11 8:04:24 PM by Pykrete

It is a lot easier to pay attention when people just have to vote for single House of Rep, instead vote for President, Senator, and Rep. You just need 1 / 3 of attention .

Beside with powerful House who can make law, party voting will be stronger, so people just need to pay attention to which party to vote.

Let's see:

We need independent, non-partisan (or bipartisan at least) commissioners chosen to divide Congressional districts. They should be expressly tasked not to take political affiliations into consideration, and to divide districts into as even chunks as possible. This would prevent the lunatics from getting in power, as it's far easier to get moderates in office when the district is split 55/45 one way than 65/35.

Next, we need major campaign finance reform. This starts with a Constitutional Amendment to fully repeal Citizens United, such as the one proposed by Mr. Sanders. Limiting 501(c)-4 corporations (not sure if I have the right number there) and Super-PAC's from making political advertisements is the next step (possibly incorporated in the previous step), and all contributions must be transparent; no using paper corporations to funnel money to politicians.

Those two things would be a nice start.

Remember that the vast majority of Congressional gerrymandering is done by both parties in concert to ensure that, whatever happens, professional politicians stay in power. The affiliation of "politician" is stronger than the divide between Democrat and Republican.

To the OP: How about Athenianization of Congressional districts?

Eliminate the House (for simplicity) and have Senators elected by a hundred tribes, whose membership is essentially chosen by nationwide random selection. That way, our legislators are no longer able to cultivate regional constituencies.

edited 18th Dec '11 11:20:02 PM by Ramidel

To get rid of them all and abolish the damn thing. it's beyond repair, a cesspool of authoritarianism and corruption.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

End the 2 term limit for the POTUS post and regulate lobbying.

Dutch Lesbian

First you need proper proportional representation. So down with First Past the Post and one representative per electoral district. The districts also need to be reworked to stop gerrymanderging *

. A district is one cultural-geographical whole, not some bizarre jigsaw piece that covers enough one party's supporters to outvote the other.. Also change elections from personality vote to list vote (all votes for a candidate go to the list they're running for, and seats are awarded by number of list votes, in the order of which candidates received most votes).

A unicameral parliament is also highly beneficial to democracy, though I understand there are historical and practical reasons for the senate. But that's what you get when you try to run a nation of 300 million.

Also, make Puerto Rico and the other overseas territories either independent, or give them fair representation.

[ed.] ending the two term limit would be the opposite of improving democracy.

edited 19th Dec '11 4:18:26 AM by JethroQWalrustitty

the statement above is false

Puerto Rico can become a state any time it likes. They prefer being a commonwealth.

Relinquish independence and go back to being a British colony? [/sarcasm] Seriously, I don't think anyhting will change without a huge restructuring of the US political system, which many people, most likely puppets backed by large corporations would do their best to get blocked.

Direct all enquiries to Jamie B Good

No it wouldn't because the voters themselves would be the check against a tyranny.

Dutch Lesbian

Incumbents are rarely defeated, and any politician in power for long enough can modify the system to be biased for them.

the statement above is false