What do you mean fixed? We allowed the election to be stolen. Remember? We are in control, and these things are necessary, not everyone’s gonna love a report of this, but we are in charge. We are in control. We allowed this to happen. In order to set them up, and open up eyes, and to wake people up, and to show them how bad things can get. Don’t you remember?
It was only stolen if we allowed them to steal it. Remember?
So I’m not sure what the problem is here. As soon as the stolen election has served its purpose, the good guys pounce, Trump is back in, and there are no more stolen elections. Why stress out about it? We’re already in control. All of this happened on purpose and for a reason.
Is there a percentage of the veto vote you'd support? What if voter veto only needed 30% (or pick another number) of the vote to veto the bill? Wouldn't the minority then be able to hold onto their rights?
It isn't the veto idea that I have a problem with it's what would come after, what they would turn it into like they do with everything else. it would come back and it would bite us in the a$$
Totally agree. No way to get that done now. Term limits should have been implemented for all branches, Judicial branch included. Judicial could be appointed but maybe for a 6 year term and the President would have to reappoint if they wanted to keep you. This would have kept things maybe not more honest but at least we could keep things moving if it went bad.
If you consider that from the beginning and not how it would affect things now, I think it might have been a good strategy.
No, but we should limit the ability for laws to be written. How about they write them. Expose them to the public, then the guy who gets elected after that group is gone decides which laws tonsign into effect. That way, the group who writes the laws can be kicked out of office before a president even gets the chance to sign them if people think the laws suck or are traitorous tonour freedom. . The next election will be over that platform instead of a platform of lies prior to the election.
You'd want to do it by electoral college like the vote for president or New York and California would make all those decisions. Also, you definitely want to finish fixing election integrity before starting something like this.
In today's tech world we no longer need representatives. It worked back in the day but is now so demented and crooked we need to do away with the reps and go with live votes. We need to get rid of Washington all together, return power to local and state gov.
If you think things are bad now, add pure democracy to the mix and marvel at the wreck this nation would become.
The big problem with the House is that there are too few Reps relative to the US population. They capped the House at 435 in the 1920s. The population has gone up by a factor of 3 since then. They keep the House roll call relatively low since it is a lot easier to buy off 220 people than 660 (or more). It also makes it a LOT easier for them to maintain a two party stranglehold.
The other problem with the House is that they made it into a career for scumbags with the extravagant benefits packages.
Change both of those things, especially the number of Reps, and the House will be more in line with what the Founding Father's envisioned. The House was supposed to be chaotic ... Instead, they made it more of a country club like the Senate.
It's definitely too cushy of a job. While they're serving, they should adopt the restrictions of the armed forces, which means: uniforms, barracks/dormitories, cafeterias with basic nutrition, and a demerit system. And if they serve honorably, then they can have their retirement benefits. Also they will not be addressed by name while Congress is in session. They will be addressed by their state and district number (or in the case of Senators, the name of their state followed by Junior or Senior, and NEVER followed by and R or a D) , which will also be displayed proximately on their uniform, along with pips or different colors signifying how many terms they have been serving. OR even better: for every term they serve, strap a 10 pound ankle weight on their legs.
There should also be restrictions on media, social media and communications. They need to understand that they are not celebrities and they are not soundbite fabricators. The only people they should really be talking to are their families and their constituents.
How does legislation get proposed? Couldn't the representative system, as flawed as it may be, still be used to craft the legislation that voters then get a chance to veto?
Except our population is getting dumber by the minute. You get one emotionally charged story that goes over with a majority of the American people, they vote emotionally on some thing and we are screwed. You think media manipulation is bad now, wait until you see what happens if we have elements of a direct democracy.
The problem is that those elected to vote on these matters are SUPPOSED to represent their constituents, but could not give less of a fuck about us. What makes anyone think they’d let us directly vote on how they blow our money? That would be the end of their gravy train, or they’d just rig it like everything else.
Seeing as the democrats think that mail-in voting is perfectly acceptable, perhaps we should convince them to eliminate congressional voting on everything, and just let the public vote directly on congressional bills, district by district. Cut out the middleman. We don't need no stinkin' "representative's!"
One thing for certain, we need to change some things to make it work...
Politicians should have one vote like everyone else, but everyone can share their ideas. Politicians would present their point of view or that of their constituents.
The federal government is at least 90% bloated, and states need to have more control.
Laws should take a long time to pass and or go into effect.
I think perhaps there should be an option for a compact of States - a required minimum of perhaps 20 - to either issue a veto before it reaches the President's desk, or a line item veto, or a call for a plebiscite. The problem with that is getting all the state legislatures to act quickly enough.
Why an "option" instead of a "requirement" and why the states instead of the people? Is a flaw of the Constitution that it did not give any procedural checks directly to the people against runaway legislation?
"getting ... legislatures to act quickly enough" - isn't a problem that legislatures are acting too quickly? E.g., how much debate was there before the last $2T 3000 page spending bill or the $40B Ukrainian laundromat aid?
I say the states instead of the people just based on the logistics of trying to hold an election for every issue or piece of legislation. Unless we move to some kind of vote-by-phone, secure blockchain election.
We're essentially talking about adding a third chamber to Congress, depending on whether the proposed legislation is vetoed before or after it reaches the President's desk.
Your point about the legislatures acting too quickly - they might have to slow down and think about what they're passing if they know someone else has veto power.
No, laws need to be written in 12 point times New Roman font on two pages of 8.5x11 and be restricted to a single issues. The mandate, source of funding, and punishments for violation should all be on that 8.5x11.
Our youngest congressman should have died of old age before the ACA completed passage.
Maybe. But this is a representative republic. Not a direct democracy. That does begin to open the door to a direct democracy, however, and I’m not happy with that. But it would be nice to be able to check these freaks before they screw us. So I’m torn, this is actually a really really good question it’s worth a healthy debate. Excellent job man. I’m looking forward to reading this thread.
Would the proposed be a direct democracy? What if the veto vote percentage required to veto a bill by the public were adjusted (e.g., only 30% needed in order to veto)?
What’s the point unless you get voting fixed
What do you mean fixed? We allowed the election to be stolen. Remember? We are in control, and these things are necessary, not everyone’s gonna love a report of this, but we are in charge. We are in control. We allowed this to happen. In order to set them up, and open up eyes, and to wake people up, and to show them how bad things can get. Don’t you remember?
It was only stolen if we allowed them to steal it. Remember?
So I’m not sure what the problem is here. As soon as the stolen election has served its purpose, the good guys pounce, Trump is back in, and there are no more stolen elections. Why stress out about it? We’re already in control. All of this happened on purpose and for a reason.
How long are you willing to wait and stand by this assertion?
Just curious.
When Trump passes away from old age sometime after Biden's next term and the country is ravaged in a total economical collapse, or..?
Let's not pretend we have an infinite time frame here.
They would find a way to steal those votes just like everything thing else politicians do.
This is the way. And should be the only way. And will never work without honest media.
You still haven't figured out that all voting is rigged? After all we've been through?
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Only to the extent it doesn't violate the US Constitution. Lots of morons out there who would gladly do that.
Direct democracy? No thanks. Next the majority will vote on what rights they can take from me.
This is correct. Why the framers didn't want a democracy.
Is there a percentage of the veto vote you'd support? What if voter veto only needed 30% (or pick another number) of the vote to veto the bill? Wouldn't the minority then be able to hold onto their rights?
It isn't the veto idea that I have a problem with it's what would come after, what they would turn it into like they do with everything else. it would come back and it would bite us in the a$$
This is why the founders hated democracy.
Implementing term limits to Congress in the Constitution would have saved this country an awful lot of heartache.
Totally agree. No way to get that done now. Term limits should have been implemented for all branches, Judicial branch included. Judicial could be appointed but maybe for a 6 year term and the President would have to reappoint if they wanted to keep you. This would have kept things maybe not more honest but at least we could keep things moving if it went bad.
If you consider that from the beginning and not how it would affect things now, I think it might have been a good strategy.
No, but we should limit the ability for laws to be written. How about they write them. Expose them to the public, then the guy who gets elected after that group is gone decides which laws tonsign into effect. That way, the group who writes the laws can be kicked out of office before a president even gets the chance to sign them if people think the laws suck or are traitorous tonour freedom. . The next election will be over that platform instead of a platform of lies prior to the election.
Laws should be written in plain English and have a strict page limit as well.
Yes. Legalese is stupid. Even the most literate often can't make sense of it.
It is clearly devised to make eyes glaze over as they heap on more laws.
You'd want to do it by electoral college like the vote for president or New York and California would make all those decisions. Also, you definitely want to finish fixing election integrity before starting something like this.
They would just rig it all anyways.
In today's tech world we no longer need representatives. It worked back in the day but is now so demented and crooked we need to do away with the reps and go with live votes. We need to get rid of Washington all together, return power to local and state gov.
If you think things are bad now, add pure democracy to the mix and marvel at the wreck this nation would become.
The big problem with the House is that there are too few Reps relative to the US population. They capped the House at 435 in the 1920s. The population has gone up by a factor of 3 since then. They keep the House roll call relatively low since it is a lot easier to buy off 220 people than 660 (or more). It also makes it a LOT easier for them to maintain a two party stranglehold.
The other problem with the House is that they made it into a career for scumbags with the extravagant benefits packages.
Change both of those things, especially the number of Reps, and the House will be more in line with what the Founding Father's envisioned. The House was supposed to be chaotic ... Instead, they made it more of a country club like the Senate.
It's definitely too cushy of a job. While they're serving, they should adopt the restrictions of the armed forces, which means: uniforms, barracks/dormitories, cafeterias with basic nutrition, and a demerit system. And if they serve honorably, then they can have their retirement benefits. Also they will not be addressed by name while Congress is in session. They will be addressed by their state and district number (or in the case of Senators, the name of their state followed by Junior or Senior, and NEVER followed by and R or a D) , which will also be displayed proximately on their uniform, along with pips or different colors signifying how many terms they have been serving. OR even better: for every term they serve, strap a 10 pound ankle weight on their legs.
There should also be restrictions on media, social media and communications. They need to understand that they are not celebrities and they are not soundbite fabricators. The only people they should really be talking to are their families and their constituents.
Agree with this as well!
How does legislation get proposed? Couldn't the representative system, as flawed as it may be, still be used to craft the legislation that voters then get a chance to veto?
Agree!
Except our population is getting dumber by the minute. You get one emotionally charged story that goes over with a majority of the American people, they vote emotionally on some thing and we are screwed. You think media manipulation is bad now, wait until you see what happens if we have elements of a direct democracy.
The problem is that those elected to vote on these matters are SUPPOSED to represent their constituents, but could not give less of a fuck about us. What makes anyone think they’d let us directly vote on how they blow our money? That would be the end of their gravy train, or they’d just rig it like everything else.
Must secure elections first.
Voting is rigged. A big chunk of people out there are retarded; a direct democracy would probably be a quagmire
Of course if Senators actually represented their States instead of their political parties, this would be less of a problem.
Some of these could be amendments to the Constitution. That would make sense.
Seeing as the democrats think that mail-in voting is perfectly acceptable, perhaps we should convince them to eliminate congressional voting on everything, and just let the public vote directly on congressional bills, district by district. Cut out the middleman. We don't need no stinkin' "representative's!"
Let's fix voting first
Block chain can solve election problems I am told.
How about the purple ink finger thing like other countries do?
The problem with a direct democracy is the amount of retards out there willing to vote your rights away when the news media scares them
Yes.
One thing for certain, we need to change some things to make it work...
Politicians should have one vote like everyone else, but everyone can share their ideas. Politicians would present their point of view or that of their constituents.
The federal government is at least 90% bloated, and states need to have more control.
Laws should take a long time to pass and or go into effect.
I think perhaps there should be an option for a compact of States - a required minimum of perhaps 20 - to either issue a veto before it reaches the President's desk, or a line item veto, or a call for a plebiscite. The problem with that is getting all the state legislatures to act quickly enough.
Why an "option" instead of a "requirement" and why the states instead of the people? Is a flaw of the Constitution that it did not give any procedural checks directly to the people against runaway legislation?
"getting ... legislatures to act quickly enough" - isn't a problem that legislatures are acting too quickly? E.g., how much debate was there before the last $2T 3000 page spending bill or the $40B Ukrainian laundromat aid?
I say the states instead of the people just based on the logistics of trying to hold an election for every issue or piece of legislation. Unless we move to some kind of vote-by-phone, secure blockchain election.
We're essentially talking about adding a third chamber to Congress, depending on whether the proposed legislation is vetoed before or after it reaches the President's desk.
Your point about the legislatures acting too quickly - they might have to slow down and think about what they're passing if they know someone else has veto power.
There’s a reason why our founders did not desire a direct democracy.
Single issue bills.
Yes, to all the above.
We all should have The right to remove any official from office
No, laws need to be written in 12 point times New Roman font on two pages of 8.5x11 and be restricted to a single issues. The mandate, source of funding, and punishments for violation should all be on that 8.5x11.
Our youngest congressman should have died of old age before the ACA completed passage.
Maybe. But this is a representative republic. Not a direct democracy. That does begin to open the door to a direct democracy, however, and I’m not happy with that. But it would be nice to be able to check these freaks before they screw us. So I’m torn, this is actually a really really good question it’s worth a healthy debate. Excellent job man. I’m looking forward to reading this thread.
Would the proposed be a direct democracy? What if the veto vote percentage required to veto a bill by the public were adjusted (e.g., only 30% needed in order to veto)?