Glaring faults of US style democracy

perception, you can go in and edit your first post. I see you didn't add Judicial as an option.

Jespah

Done--thanks

Well, there is no "Administrative" branch (It's "Executive"! lol) and that is where I'd put my money because it is by far the largest, that is where 99.9% of the budget is executed and by the time any corruption can be detected it's pretty much already happened.

They are all corrupted! When in the history of this country have we ever had a president elected by the supreme court? Which congressman/woman has not received 'soft' money? Which supreme court justice has no political leanings? c.i.

c.i. ditto

Was the soft money the politicians got illegal? Does having a political leaning make one corrupt? Don't you have a political leaning? Does that make you corrupt?

I think you are using a lot of grey area in your statement there c.i. Try thinking of "corrupt" in terms of "illegal activity" instead of "things I don't like".

fishin, There are many things in this country that's legal, but still unethical. Many of the bookkeeping shenanigans that were revealed this year were all legal. Tell the investors that's okay, because they were all 'legal.' Having a political leaning makes one's views tainted. Even when something is right for the people, the politicans will cry "foul" depending on who's side the initiative was introduced by. My political leaning is "independent." I don't vote any party line, but for the individual I feel best represents the ideals of a democracy and fair play. In that regards, I like Diane Feinstein of California. On some issues, I'm a left wing liberal. One of the issues I believe in is universal health care, with co-pays by a sliding fee scale. On others, I'm a right wing conservative. I don't believe in big government, tax and spend, policies. Like I said, legal doesn't necessarily make right. c.i.

I had a motive for starting this thread and it was to try to arrive at a concensus on items that I perceive to be wrong with our system provided for in the constitution that perhaps should be changed---examples
1. The electoral college to determine the presidency
2. Term limits for congressmen and senators

The unlimited number of terms for both senators and congressmen builds in an almost absolute certainty that certain members will gain too much power and or a ridiculous waste of a position---example Strom Thurmond(dead on his feet)

Those with too much power:

Robert Byrd
Trent Lott(past tense)
Any of the committee chairmen

Should the electoral college be abolished?
Should senators be limited to 2 terms
Should congressman be limited to a total of 8 yrs

Here's a couple of things that should be changed but are not in the constitution.

The length of the campaign for national office should be limited to 30 days period.

Every campaign should be funded only with public money period.

Here's another item that I consider both good and bad.
Should lobbying be allowed?

Perhaps this thread should have a different title but these are all glaring faults of our system in my opinion and cause an accumulation of power that can only lead to abuses.

perception, Term limits have been discussed many times before, but nothing will ever come of it. It's called "conflict of interest." They're not going to limit themselves out of a secure job with all that power inherent in any elected position. The electoral college will not be disposed of, because that will essentially disenfranchise the small states. One thing I would like to see changed is the time limit of casting our votes on national elections. It should be extended into one week. That way, it doesn't make any difference whether you live on the east coast or the west coast. c.i.

Fishin'

Remember--nothing happens in gov't without money----congress holds the purse strings.

C.I.

All good points.

Re: Term limits--remember each state makes the rules for elections within that state(I think I'm correct) what if each state made a rule that after a certain amount of time served that person would not be permitted to register as a candidate?

Soft money - the legalized graft in government equivalent to Mafia protection, albeit without getting beat up or whacked but ignoring a faction that doesn't contribute enough serves that purpose. The Enron debacle was too high profile to bail them out at the end but there's certainly seems to be enough evidence to link their rise with political gains through contributions. I agree with perception on the term limits but I don't see a good alternative to the electorial college except for reorganizing the way states can partition off their congressional districts. Very complicated, I understand, but what are computers for? We also need more strigent national guidelines for national elections, especially in criminal prosecution for voting fraud. Term limits are not going to pass now but after campaign finance passes without loopholes, it could be possible. Did it ever occur to anyone that we get what we pay for with congressmen and senators? Most of them can make more money working in the private sector. Are they really that devoted to serving the public? I don't agree that they cannot return to the private sector with the credentials of serving in the senate or congress and not make as much or more money.

I'd like to see a poll on whether there's more corruption in national, state, county or city governments!

c.i. I wasn't trying to sound to stiff there but to say "they're all corrupt" diverts the jist of the original question. My desire there was to keep things on track. Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh.

perception - yes, the Congress holds the purse strings but the Congress is a group of 500+ people with diverse views and interests. They each have to compete with each other to get their agenda pushed through so there is some counterweight. Once that money is budgeted the control of it passes to the Executive branch agency where it is actually spent and what goes on there is less visable to the public until well after the fact.

Oh, I though I gave some examples of why they were all corrupt. c.i.

Executive
For the poll I voted "Executive." The reason I chose Executive is that it is run by one person and one person is more easily corrupted then a group as in Congress or the Supreme Court.

On to the more detailed points:


I've seen many arguments pro and con on this. I certainly feel it needs to be tweeked. And I certainly feel that our election process needs a huge overhaul and there needs to be more checks on ensuring that all votes are counted. Scrapping or modifying the Electoral College would mean ammending the Constitution however (if I'm correct?) and I think we really should think long and hard before we mess with the Constitution on any issue.

I agree with what c.i. said about extending the election period, perhaps not a week, but at least 2-days, and no poll results during that time. And I'd really like to see our campaign time shortened (though how, I don't know), we already have people announcing for the election in November 2004!


I've always said, we already have term limits, they're called elections. If people want someone out of office they should vote them out. Term limits are the lazy way to improve citizen involvement in government. The best way to keep people moving through Congress and keeping it from getting full of career politicians is getting more people to vote (informed voting) and to make it more attractive for more people to run. It's a sin that you need to be a millionaire at this point to run for Senate in the larger states. The high price of access to media in NYC and Philadelphia makes it impossible for the average person to afford to run for state-wide office in New Jersey for example. The term limit on the President I think should stay though. It's an American tradition and I like it.


Yes, I agree (well maybe a bit longer then thirty days, but not 4 years!). But how, telling someone they can't campaign for office becomes a free speech issue.


I don't know about public money period. I'm not really sure where all the public money would come from if all national and state-wide campaigns were entirely public funded. But there has to be ways to control how much it costs to run a successful campaign, and I think a degree of public funding needs to be part of the solution.


It has to be, it's free speech. When I (as a private citizen) write a letter to my Senator, that is a form of lobbying. Government is the representative of business and special interest just as it is a representative of the people, and the decisions government makes effects business and special interests, you can't say that they can't tell the government how they feel about these decisions.

perception

Good topic and question, I think.

CI
Though you and I have never disagreed about anything previously, I think your pessimistic claim of broad and universal 'corruption' is unhelpful. Perfect is a bit hard to attain, true, but there surely are profound and important differences between individuals presently sitting in elected office, and certainly between, say, our English-based judiciary systems and that of Botswana.

For reduction of what real corruption does exist (and for the potential of more of it) my money would be on money - in financing of parties and campaigns, and in the access it provides to those already elected by priviledged agents. I surely do not think speech and money are equal, but the argument will continue to be made by those who have money.

To all

Your responses are all pertinent and thoughtful however the fact remains---the system as we know it is out of control and needs fixing.

HOW DO WE FIX IT?????

Number one....campaign finance reform not watered down into meaningless by those agents now attempting to do just that via the courts.

(No magic bullet here...it will take lots of people doing lots of things over a long time.)

Little useful of accomplishment is likely to be accomplished so long as the American polity remains naive and self-righteous. Naive in believing that aspirants for high offices are and will remain morally pure--as indeed the electorate are not; and self-righteous in condemning behavior and attitudes in politicians which are, in fact, exemplary of the electorates own behavior and attitudes. There's a can of worms, anyone got an opener?