Senate How should the U.S. government be reformed?

i hate you

 

Have a minimum population to remain a state, which increases over time. Go below and you either merge with a neighboring state or you revert to a territory. Sooner or later North Dakota and Montana will have 5 residents and a herd of bison each and yet still have two senators.

 

That is a bizarre solution

 

You would need a Constitutional amendmentas:

1. States cannot revert into territories.

2. States cannot be combined without the consent of both state legislatures.

3. States cannot be broken up but through a vote of their own legislature. (possible, but not unheard of; Maine broke away from Massachusetts in 1820, West Virginia broke away from Virginia in 1861)

 

And this addresses systemic inequality and racism how?

 

I'm going to throw out another here:

When it comes to marijuana, the federal government needs to ***t or get off the toilet. Our Constitution's Supremacy Clause states that the federal government is the ultimate law of the land.
Whenever a state law comes into conflict with federal law, the federal law always takes priority.
Already we have had three states (Colorado, Washington, and California) pass recreational marijuana laws, and our government has consistently chosen to do absolutely nothing. By ignoring the Supremacy Clause outright, it has become doddering and ineffectual.
My point here isn't pro or anti marijuana....but pro-Supremacy Clause. You simply can not have states electing to ignore national law.
As soon as Colorado passed its law, President Obama should have called Congress into session and demanded an up or down vote to rescind marijuana's current prohibition. If the prohibition gets lifted great....if it doesn't, take Colorado to court.

1. It alters the system by getting more people informed and involved in politics both at the state and the national level.
1a. The United States Constitution as it stands as of its last revision in 1992 does not provide for any inequality, and when

2. What do you mean by "cult of individualism"? Are you implying that individualism is a bad thing?
Ideally, strong and empowered communities are made up of strong and empowered individuals. By reforming the education system when it comes to the social studies (histories, civics, economics, diplomacy), we can strengthen and empower future generations. When kids turn 18, they can actually give two ***ts about who and what they are voting for.

3. Popular sovereignty demands that laws (including gun control) be passed at the will of the people. By limiting term limits for Senators and Representatives and pushing for better representation at the state level, more people are likely to get involved and pass the laws that they themselves want.
Case in point: Thanks to the Reynolds v. Sims decision, here in Alabama we only have 35 State Senators...and they are doing the business of 67 counties.
In other words, the citizens of my state are underrepresented in our legislature. And I am willing to wager dollars to euros that we will see the same thing in every other state.

Quick Google search....
New York is doing alright: 63 State Senators, 62 counties.
California has 40 State Senators...and 58 counties.
Texas has 31 State Senators representing 254 counties. (and it looks like Texas needs its own brand of redistricting. Maybe then they can actually get a Heimlich County)
Florida has 40 State Senators representing 67 counties.

Fun fact: apple seeds contain trace amounts of cyanide. Your name suits you well.

 

Prince Henry of Wales should be named Viceroy of the United States and all your problems will be solved.

 

OK so let me understand this - getting more people invested in the most broken system will somehow reform things because reasons? And, the Constitution does not provide for any systemic inequality so it doesn't exist.

I mean by the same token legislation prohibits active discrimination on the grounds of gender or race, so therefore there's no discrimination on gender or race in America. Good logic mate.

No, I'm not implying that. I'm outright stating it is bad when it's unchecked by collectivism. Because you have a rights based culture under which each individual believes their rights and needs are inherently more valuable than the rights of others.

Let me put it this way - no other country is as individualistic, and they have health care, happier citizens, and functioning governments.

Ok but you also teach them the war of independence was a war of ideal, not a proxy war between imperial France and Britain where you were more or less a proxy mercenary force with an official letter of marque, so...

OK but right now 52% of Americans - which in your parlance would be a plurality right? - support more gun reforms. The state is beholden to the interests of cashed up manufacturers and this is but example of wealth controlling your democracy. So until you can change culture it'll continue to be a point of divergence between populace and legislator.

He's worse than Eeore for pessimism but he's not living in the fantasy land you are so...

 

- Repeal the Apportionment Act of 1911
- Ban the troubled teen industry
- Ban civil forfeiture

 

SithSense - have a read of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

It's a long article but it highlights several issues which culturally are unique to the US and which are designed structurally to continue this way.

For example:

"The top 1% of households received approximately 20% of the pre-tax income in 2013,[7] versus approximately 10% from 1950 to 1980.[2][23][24] The top 1% is not homogeneous, with the very top income households pulling away from others in the top 1%. For example, the top 0.1% of households received approximately 10% of the pre-tax income in 2013, versus approximately 3–4% between 1951–1981.[7][25] According to IRS data, adjusted gross income (AGI) of approximately $430,000 was required to be in the top 1% in 2013.[26]"
Most of the growth in income inequality has been between the middle class and top earners, with the disparity widening the further one goes up in the income distribution.[27] The bottom 50% earned 20% of the nation's pre-tax income in 1979; this fell steadily to 14% by 2007 and 13% by 2014. Income for the middle 40% group, a proxy for the middle class, fell from 45% in 1979 to 41% in both 2007 and 2014.[28]

To put this change into perspective, if the US had the same income distribution it had in 1979, each family in the bottom 80% of the income distribution would have $11,000 more per year in income on average, or $916 per month.[29] Half of the U.S. population lives in poverty or is low-income, according to U.S. Census data.[30]"

If that's not sobering enough, try this:

"The U.S. was ranked the 6th worst among 173 countries (4th percentile) on income equality measured by the Gini index.[34]"

I mean, I guess the US is used to standing shoulder to shoulder with a lot of undesirable states on things like reproductive health and state sponsored murder, I mean the death penalty, but this too?

Looking at the causes, here are some I agree with:

"the decline of labor unions. A study in the American Sociological Review, as well as other scholarly research, using the broadest methodology, estimates that the decline of unions may account for from one-third to more than one-half of the rise of inequality among men. As unions weakened, the vast majority of the gains from productivity were taken by senior corporate executives, major shareholders and creditors (e.g. major corporate bondholders, banks and other lenders, etc.). As unions have grown weaker, there has been less pressure on employers to increase wages, or on lawmakers to enact labor-friendly or worker-friendly measures.[78][79][80][81][82]"

Having unions too powerful is bad for productivity and reform, and can often allow a minority of usually well remunerated workers (compared with net output) to control sectors of the economy through strikes and other industrial action. As with anything, balance needs to be struck so unions are not jokes (USA) or controlling the agenda (as they do through the Labor Party in Australia).

Unions, when you strip away the corruption, bloat, nepotism and entitlement of their officials (and I'm sure Wocky, with his Americentric blinkers on, will challenge this despite no familiarity with the trades union movement outside his own country), exist to facilitate the fundamental human right to collectively bargain. But you're a country in which the individual is paramount, not the group. And you said earlier that societies are made up of strong individuals. I disagree. I have never felt a more empty, disconnected place devoid of any sense of community or society than I have in the USA.

That missing group concept is why you can't and don't have socialised medicine. "Why should I pay for the healthcare of others?!" Why policy is inherently flawed, why the system is structured to halt upward mobility. Why should I share the fruits of my labour with others? Why should I work hard if others don't?

Because it's not like that. It's not that simple. Noblesse oblige and all that. We look out for each other. I pay more tax than the average income in this country. So does my partner. And we just had a private hospital birth, so we're not exactly spending our own tax dollars. None of us have thought of ways to skirt our tax liabiltiies - we in fact consider it a good thing that we can help out. But that's also a cultural attitude inherited from Britain and baked under the ozone-layer-hole Australian skies.

So long as you remain opposed to the collective to balance the individual (i advocate not for one or the other, but for both) you'll never tackle the real issues facing America. And frankly, I cannot see a way in which you ever resolve this cultural identity piece. Hence my belief you're basically, well, doomed.

 

Which political future would be better for the US?


Option 1 (micro-states alliance):

The Constitution is trashed.

All metropolitan areas larger than 200,000 people (which is 220 in the US right now) become their own independent city-state. The remaining rural/suburban/exurban areas are divided into independent countries as well, most never more than 1000 square miles and all having at least 100 people. Most Indian reservations also become independent as long as they have at least 100 citizens. (Former national parks and empty lands have been divided up and claimed, but most of these micro-states in turn have very environmentalist policies to preserve the vast majority of their land). All have a democratic government, though not all do it in the same way.

All of these independent micro-states are members of NATO (which still includes the European countries), and at peace with each other. Some share the dollar as a common currency, though several do not. Most have a form of mostly-free trade and movement with each other, especially the city-states, with some exceptions.

Some of these independent micro-states have signed treaties with each other where they pool-in their resources to create a network of micro-states that have common single-payer healthcare and education and environmental/energy standards. Some micro-states also work together on collaborative infrastructure projects to connect each other, whether it's transportation networks, or to trade resources like water and electricity. But these micro-states are still indeed sovereign, independent countries.


Option 2 (unitary national government with a much stronger President that's also a hybrid Prime Minister):

The Constitution is trashed.

The 50 states no longer exist, and have been morphed into one unitary national government, which can still create and delegate to sub-national units of government but it's the national government that holds all the power. The Senate has been completely abolished, as has the Electoral College. The House has grown to 10,000-members, elected to a 5-year term, who nominate an individual to be President for a 5 year-term (and can be re-nominated). A referendum election is then held to all citizens to approve or reject this nomination, through secure encrypted electronic voting that's available to everyone everywhere, with correct ID proven by a quick DNA scan of the entire body (further ID required only for identical twins). If approved with over 50% of the general population, then the person becomes President within 10 days (unless there's no current President due to a death/disability, in which case the replacement becomes instant). If rejected, the current President stays in power and the House must try again to nominate someone who will be approved. A new presidential election must happen at least once every 5 years (more on that below).

The powers of the President are greatly expanded: legislative and judicial power are now invested in the President, in addition to enhanced executive power. The President's appointed officials are now responsible for writing the laws as well as executing them, all under direction of the President (though the President can directly write a law themself if they desire). Judicial disagreements are also filtered through the President's appointed officials unless they either can't agree (in which case it goes to the President to act as Supreme Court) or the President cares about a particular case and wants to write the ruling themself.

The powers of the President are checked in the following ways. Any legislative/executive/judicial decision (not involving military self-defense from existential aggressors outside the country) must wait 10 days before going into effect. Within those 10 days, the House can veto it if they have at least 2/3. The President can also be recalled by the House voting to nominate a new President and hold a new election, even if it hasn't been 5 years yet, also if they have at least 2/3 of the House. The President also cannot alter the new constitutional laws described here, and any amendment needs the support of 4/5 of House and no presidential approval needed.


If these were the only two options, which would be better for the political future of the United States?

 

Let's go with micro-states. Right now the problem with the world is that we have these huge mega-countries that can do whatever the **** they want and suffer no consequences. Whittle everyone down to the same size, and that should solve the problem.

 

That will likely cause more wars.

 

It's not like there's a lot of state-on-state violence in South America or Africa. Maybe when you're a small country, you just don't want to lose what little you already have on a stupid war with your equally small neighbor.

 

In Africa? You might want to watch something called "the news"....

 

Valid for South America, where the Big Brother from the North keeps things placated, but in Africa? There are three civil wars and another twenty active conflicts ongoing there right now, several of which are on a tribal scale (which roughly corresponds to a micro-state one).

 

Jesus **** Alpha, how are you so ignorant of this thing called "the world"?

 

i was under the impression that most of the conflicts in Africa are rebel versus government and not state versus state. In nay case, hasn't the trend in recent decades been towards less interstate conflicts and more towards civil wars?

 

You very much have conflicts below state-level - even smaller units.

 

The USA should obviously be run like a business. Look how successful those are. And who is the most successful businessman in the country? Jeff Bezos. So we make him king. It's like a CEO but for a country. Then, instead of being paid a wage, people will exchange their labor for things like housing and medicine, that way we can also cut taxes by eliminating things like income and private property. Co-ops are pretty big with millenials, so why not just have everyone grow their own food? It's greener that way.

 

I don’t know about making him king. Lifetime appointments seem like a poor idea, where the reason they’re given actually has the opposite affect.

 

I look forward to the Bezos-Zuckerberg-Gates Triumvirate and inevitable civil war.

 

The civil war needs not this Triumvirate. It's only a few years off.

Also, how can a people who can't bring cities to their knees because they won't strike reform anything?

Someone will tell me that the risk of losing jobs is too great. I've got a story about the Dutch ready to go in response!