How to Reform Three Branches of US Government

This is my idea.
=======================
Lower House: Popular Vote
Senate: Electoral Vote by District (population doesn't factor)
Speaker: Picked from among House or Senate.

Up to District Courts: Hired as judges, rise through the ranks internally.
Circuit Court: Drafted similar to the way that potential jury are picked (I mean from existing judges)
State Supreme Courts: One is appointed by President per term (meaning, during eight years, he is limited to two). The rest are picked internally from existing judges.
US Supreme Court: President has absolutely no input, aside from the fact that US Supreme Court usually consists of former State Supreme Court justices. But there should at all times be nine justices. No more, no less. Moreover, they should be chosen (internally) based on their decisions, like a living scale. That is, 4 conservatives, 4 liberals, and 1 as tiebreaker. The tiebreaker should be able to be ditched easily if they are not impartial enough.

Cabinet: Appointed by President
Vice President: Appointed by President (President is given a list of potential candidates
President: Should not be elected. You ever seen the Powerball system? Numbers are chosen at random. How is this relevant? Well, the machine spits out social security numbers. Then it checks if the person is alive or not, whether they are eligible, and if so, asks if they actually WANT the job. If any of these is not so, they do another drawing. The machine is checked scrupulously for things like magnetic paint or weighted balls, but honestly, you get a totally random president.
Btw, there is no succession between President and Vice President. The Vice President only acts as Acting President for the rest of the term. Things that an Acting President cannot do are shelved as future agenda, unless there is an emergency (e.g. America is invaded).
You're probably wondering, "Why do this? Isn't the system of voting fine?" No, no it's not. It's a popularity contest based on advertising and false perception. Besides, you get the most driven and ambitious person. Exactly the most dangerous leader for a country. "If elected, I want to build a giant wall across America" or " If elected, I want to keep people in lockdown forever, and push electric carson people who can't afford more than a gas-guzzling clunker. " These people have entirely too many plans! And they are almost invariably part of the establishment. We'd be better off with a person who knows they have no idea what they are doing and has advisors, than a cocksure asshole who thinks they know what they are doing. We are in this mess not because of a senile leader, but because he is also arrogant and ambitious.
But the people do get a say. We have a process similar to the current election twice (once at the first midterm and once after four years for re-election), only here there are two "candidates". President Any-Person, and Redraw. That is, do you vote to keep this person?
=========================
Let's hear your ideas? Do you have a better reform?

We must be wary of a tyranny of the majority which would certainly ensue if the House stood alone. As the rural-urban divide continues to pervade the United States, and the rural contingent gets smaller, it is vital to make sure that rural issues still have a place of prominence in United States politics. A functioning nation cannot only function for some, and without a healthy rural America, the rest of the nation perishes. Urban Americans questioning the necessity of the Senate ought to know that even if its expressly-stated goal is not their representation, it does raise into power a group of people who would often be unfairly ignored otherwise.

The Senate is fine. I legit think people who want to have the Senate abolished need their head examined.
https://www.carolinapoliticalreview.org/editorial-content/2018/11/19/why-we-need-the-senate
It explains why. Read the article.

Quote:

We must be wary of a tyranny of the majority which would certainly ensue if the House stood alone. As the rural-urban divide continues to pervade the United States, and the rural contingent gets smaller, it is vital to make sure that rural issues still have a place of prominence in United States politics. A functioning nation cannot only function for some, and without a healthy rural America, the rest of the nation perishes. Urban Americans questioning the necessity of the Senate ought to know that even if its expressly-stated goal is not their representation, it does raise into power a group of people who would often be unfairly ignored otherwise.

You see, without a Senate, small states (like *ahem* New Jersey) or low population states like Maine get silenced. The majority wins, so NYC rolls over Podunk. Well, shouldn't the majority win? That sounds great, until you live in a small town where your views are always the minority. The Senate serves those areas, by giving voice to remote areas. In particular, if farming areas were taxed out of existence (this happened in soviet Russia, where the farmers were equated as "rich landowners") suddenly, you get mass starvation. If you don't want to starve, take the ******* hint, and believe people when they say that Senate really is damned important.

But the most deranged part of our current government is this...

Suppose you have a childhood friend. Let's say you grow up with a man named Chad Moe Lester. Dude, maybe this guy is perfectly alright when you're at his house playing Dungeons & Dragons or whatever the cool people do nowadays, but he should not be in office of president cuz he's a chad molester (*ahem* child molester). But he is told that the office is a great honor, and he dreams of running the country. He becomes a lawyer, then manages to run for Congress. His greed for power moves him from a small town creep, to a real monster, not only hungry for power but willing to cover up his past crimes with violence. He is now a known person, and his party makes excuses for him (kinda the same excuses that are made for Biden). Twenty candidates show up, 18 are weeded out and it's down to the last night between him and Meane Tweets Orangeface. Orangeface is leading because he a 2nd term candidate and the people who liked him then mostly still like him, then at the middle of the night votes suddenly appear.

This is a popularity contest, and the most disgusting thing is how easy it is to rig when you don't have people watching the system (stay six feet away, and also everyone should send ballots by mail). The second most disgusting thing is the amount of blackmail and coverup that goes on. With a king, that he likes little boys is immaterial, as long as he doesn't raid them from the towns but sticks to his court. Just look at Frederick the Great (below). Probably a homosexual, died without issue, nobody gave a **** and he ran the country well for his lifetime.

There's a saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely" but this is not historically true. During absolute monarchies, the least desirable thing was not an unchecked royal (an absolute monarch still must answer to their people if they don't want to be beheaded). It was a coup. The War of the Roses, for example, was so brutal and bloody that people compared it to the fantasy Game of Thrones (though I think it's legit based on that history tbh). It finally ended when people stopped backstabbing. Exhibit B, Qin Shih Huangdi (spelling inexact because Chinese) the First Emperor exerted absolute power, brutally putting down any would be assassins. He destroyed scholars (and their books), built the Great Wall, and tried to live forever with unhealthy amounts of mercury. When he died, each of his sons wanted to be emperor. The intrigue and feuding caused by their ambition for power that he had by right and effort tore the empire he built apart for several years. Exhibit C, most royals by right of birth had only small amounts of ambition to rule, their ambition then is only maybe to the size of their kingdom, not to cannibalize the existing court in order to become king. For the most part unlike the people who tried to take their power, they were uninterested in trying to oppress by force. Rightful leaders do not need fear to rule, regardless of what Machiavelli says, it's only princes that might need to hang on to power thus. For my third example, let's use Frederick the Great (who was ironically idolized by Hitler, even though his idea of enlightened absolutism was about the ruler being the servant of the state), less interested in wars than in music and philosophy, but was smart enough in the former that he became a military theorist, reformed the judicial system, and overall made good of things. He was gay as ****, nobody cared, and he did a number of improvements.
Ambition corrupts, absolute ambition corrupts absolutely. The most sick people are those who lust after power to such a degree that they are willing to kill to cover the skeletons in their closet. Who don't care about the "little people" they stomp on, to the extent that little people start to gang up and depose them.

Absolute monarchy by succession shuts this down immediately. You are the king whether you want it or not (unless you abdicate). No parliament running the show and making you the figurehead, no regents. You're the king, and it's a tough job but damn it if you don't do it, Prince Pedro Phyle is next in line. And nobody wants that.

On the other hand, American History tells us that absolute power corrupting (American History LIES, most leaders have been decent with the exception of leaders that forcibly took power (dictators), while presidents seem to keep getting worse), and conveniently ignoring that its own system is set up so that the most ambitious people rise to the top.

Since nobody in America wants a royal class, the only way out of this is to pick randomly or otherwise draft people against their will. I've thought maybe have it like jury duty, but Powerball is so much cooler.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vnkr54w_fMA[/youtube]

Yay, you won! You're the president of the United States!
(Of course, the problem with this system is, some people are impossible to contact)

Frank Apisa wrote:

Your "improvement" does not handle the single most deranged part of our system...the composition of the Senate. The state of Wyoming has 600,000 people...and those 600,000 people are represented in the most powerful body in the US government by 2 Senators. The State of California has 40,000,000 people...and those 40,000,000 people are represented in the most powerful body in the US government by 2 Senators.

Don't you get it????

So in presidential elections and the Senate, instead of a tyranny of the majority, the US has a tyranny of the minority.

Perhaps this explains the world wide usa tyranny over all the poor nations of the world and the world itself. Consider just what the usa has stolen to give the usa 50% of the world's wealth with just 6.3% of the population. This around about 1950, what is it now?

If you want to assert that we stole the world's wealth...you really should come up with more than just your words.

Quote:

If you want to assert that we stole the world's wealth...you really should come up with more than just your words.

Why? You and the others who despise reality would just pull out the usual usa memes like "If you want to hate on the US...do it. That is your right. in order to distract from the realities you can't face.

And in my opinion, for you to suggest that we exert tyranny over all the poor nations of the world (and the world itself) is an absurdity.

Bite me!

And in my opinion, for you to suggest that we exert tyranny over all the poor nations of the world (and the world itself) is an absurdity.

"We must be very careful when we speak of exercising "leadership" in Asia. We are deceiving ourselves and others when we pretend to have answers to the problems, which agitate many of these Asiatic peoples. Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3 of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships, which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction… In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the aspiration to 'be liked' or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers' keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague — and for the Far East — unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.“ — George F. Kennan VII. Far East Memo PPS23 (1948)

Quote:

And in my opinion, for you to suggest that we exert tyranny over all the poor nations of the world (and the world itself) is an absurdity.

=====
Some 60 usa illegal invasions since WWII, the usa with 800 military bases all over the world, every usa prez truman to biden a war criminal by Nuremberg Standards, the usa being at war for 93% of its years as a "nation", no usa prez being a peace time prez, the world's largest genocide ever, stealing 55% of Mexico's lands right after they had gained their independence from Spain [doesn't that also illustrate STUNNING HYPOCRISY!] ... . I could go on but I think, I hope you get the picture and you realize that yours, the false image, which Americans and a lot of the world that has been royally duped by usa propaganda, holds is the real and huge absurdity.

Quote:

Bite me!

I didn't think it would come this fast but I can't say I am shocked or even mildly surprised.

You and the others who despise reality would just pull out the usual usa memes like "If you want to hate on the US...do it. That is your right. in order to distract from the realities you can't face.

How many minutes did it take you to positively confirm the above, in bold!

Quote:

And in my opinion, for you to suggest that we exert tyranny over all the poor nations of the world (and the world itself) is an absurdity.

In the usa's own words, Mr Apisa, showing that what you think ["my opinion"] is not at all an absurdity, it is a incontrovertible truth that all decent people should work to end.
=====

Quote:

"We must be very careful when we speak of exercising "leadership" in Asia. We are deceiving ourselves and others when we pretend to have answers to the problems, which agitate many of these Asiatic peoples. Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3 of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships, which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction… In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the aspiration to 'be liked' or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers' keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague — and for the Far East — unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.“ — George F. Kennan VII. Far East Memo PPS23 (1948)