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

-citation needed please-

Dutch Lesbian

Remove the burgeoisie's ability to vote, campaign or stand for Congress: Only working class Joes'n'Janes and intellectuals, thank ya.

edited 19th Dec '11 5:18:42 AM by SavageHeathen

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

Your inane suggestions fill me with shame of my political leanings.

the statement above is false

Me for dictator of the world!

I couldn't do worse than we're already doing.

I despise hypocrisy, unless of course it is my own.

The bourgeoisie has just as much of a right to vote as everyone else Savage. They just can't make the working class their slaves. It is all of our faults for how America is doing right now and everyone American, rich or poor should be ashamed of themselves.

"If there is a hole then it's a man's job to thrust into it" - Ryoma from New Getter Robo

I would say no to ending presidential term limits. Why? It throws the judiciary and other presidential appointees out of check. FDR stayed president for 12+ years and got to pack the whole court.

We're supposed to have checks against the Congress, not loosen the presidency.

Now using Trivialis handle.

As I've said - I don't actually think a seperation of powers between legislative and executive is necessary. What matters is an independent judicative. So executive and legislative can well be interwoven.

However, usually US-Americans always stress how their system is all about the strict separation of powers, and so on - despite the fact that the executive holds a very influential legislative power. I'm not saying it's necessarily bad *

, just that it blatantly contradicts the US-American political self image.

If you want non-regional representation, why use something so complicated? Why not simply use a proportional representation voting system?

Democracy is the rule of the people. If the people want a person to have a third term, then the amendment is indeed somewhat undemocratic. I don't think it's a major issue, though.

edited 19th Dec '11 8:33:44 AM by Octo

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

It's a misconception to think that each branch has exactly third of a government in a respective area.

What we have is competing executive and legislative branches, dealing with the same issue - creating and enforcing laws, and then the judiciary stepping in when necessary to resolve disputes (that's its purpose).

There's nothing wrong with the president having a legislative role.

Now using Trivialis handle.

But that's what separation of powers is supposed to mean: All powers of one kind in their respective branch. Not exactly a third maybe, but as said, all of the same kind. That's rather how Montesquieu imagined it.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

That some of the powers affect the other branches of government is a part of the checks and balances, though. The President having veto power over legislation is a check on Congress. The Supreme Court having the power to call laws and practices un-Constitutional is a check on both legislative and executive. And Congress being able to impeach the President is a check on the Executive.

She of Short Stature & Impeccable Logic My Skating Liveblog

Aw hell naw.

I am now known as Flyboy.

-cough cough The United Kingdom says hi cough cough-

Dutch Lesbian

...the UK has two legislative houses, though...

And, as noted, it doesn't quite work for a nation of 3[12] million, though. What really needs to happen is that we, as noted, need to change the voting system. With that, the parties will change, and inevitably, the people who run things.

The system itself isn't really that bad. It's how we determine who gets to work with it that's the problem.

I am now known as Flyboy.

The Commons has almost complete power over the Lords though

Dutch Lesbian

Well, point is, you can abolish the Senate, and we can be the United States of California, Texas, New York, and Florida, and basically nobody else will matter, or you can get rid of the House, and little Rhode Island can boss big old California around like a motherfucker.

Or... we keep both. I prefer that.

I am now known as Flyboy.

USAF, in a true democracy, California and Rhode Island don't exist. Only the population of the single nation exists.

But we're not just a democracy. We're a republic, meaning that people's wishes shouldn't change everything. We also believe in decency to keep natural rights.

Now using Trivialis handle.

If I thought direct democracy for everything was remotely feasible I'd advocate it, but it's not, so I won't.

I am now known as Flyboy.

I'm just pointing out that the Senate is undemocratic, but that alone isn't a problem in a federal republic. The election system and the fact that the two houses have to agree on just about everything are the problems.

Now using Trivialis handle.

@Octo: Seperation of powers in the US does not mean that the legislative and executive functions are kept entirely distinct. That was never the intent. It means thst no one branch can entirely dominate the others, that each maintains a degree of political independence from the others.

@various others- bear in mind that the US is not, and isnt intended to be, a unitary nation. We're a federation of semi-soveriegn states. Thus, proportional representation will never work here.

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

California, Texas, etc. would not act as unitary agents, though. That's really unrealistic. But it would lead to better, more democratic representation.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Google "incumbency rate". Click on pretty much anything from the first page.

@Octo,

Yes, more democratic representation of those states. The rest of the country won't mean shit anymore.

It's called sectionalism. It started the US Civil War, it sucks, it needs to go die, and I won't see it brought back to life by this nonsense "decide everything by population!"

I am now known as Flyboy.

No, more democratic, period.

That's nonsense. The rest of the country together still has more people than California, Texas and NY together. And allegiances run along ideological, not state lines.

That's what democracy is.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

We are a democratic republic, and lack the maturity or culture for direct democracy or legislative houses decided purely by population.

That the rest of the country combined has more population means little, as we wouldn't unite to oppose the big states. Again, sectionalism.

I am now known as Flyboy.

As I've just said in another thread, "republic" is defined solely by being not a monarchy. Nothing more. That just says you don't have a king, queen, duke, whatever.

edited 19th Dec '11 12:05:03 PM by Octo

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic