an idea to HELP fix congress

[IndyGunworks]

I am so tired of "party" lines being what determines things... its just getting ridiculous... I think SOMETHING needs to give... neither side should get their way just on a whim that there are more of that party than the other... BOTH sides bring SOMETHING to the table, and BOTH sides represent a portion of united states citizens. I cannot remember the last compromise that was not for show.

I had originally though that it could be fixed by EVERYTHING requiring a majority vote be bumped up to 2/3rds vote, and everything that's currently 2/3rds be bumped up to 3/4, but I am afraid that would make to many stalemates.

So what about this.... in order to pass it must have a majority, AND at least 5 percent of the minority parties votes? If this were to be the case then the Colorado bullcrap couldn't have been ramrodded through, and the AWB probably would have had to of been ALOT tamer to make it out of committee...

Sure this might lead to less stuff getting done, but at least then a supermajority but still appease the representatives of the voters that see things a bit differently.....

It would not perfectly fit a far right persons agenda, but it would not fit the far lefts either... in essence for anything to pass it must make enough sense for at least SOME on the other side to vote on it.

 

[Trigger Time]

Well your idea will not work because thankfully our founders left us a republic instead of a democracy. The majority doesn't count. If it did then there would be no America. Less than 10% of the colonist supported war with England and fought them. Never underestimate what a smaller group in the right can do. I have a solution to fix congress and it is that Americans get their heads out of their posteriors and for once put country before their own selfish interest and only vote for candidates who WILL NOT COMPROMISE on constitutional issues. I will vote for a candidate in the Mickey Mouse party if they support the constitution.

 

[IndyGunworks]

Well your idea will not work because thankfully our founders left us a republic instead of a democracy. The majority doesn't count. If it did then there would be no America. Less than 10% of the colonist supported war with England and fought them. Never underestimate what a smaller group in the right can do. I have a solution to fix congress and it is that Americans get their heads out of their posteriors and for once put country before their own selfish interest and only vote for candidates who WILL NOT COMPROMISE on constitutional issues. I will vote for a candidate in the Mickey Mouse party if they support the constitution.

If its a republic, then why do we have to declare a party in order to vote in the primary?

 

[level.eleven]

If its a republic, then why do we have to declare a party in order to vote in the primary?

Each state is different, a republic. You can vote in any party's primary in Indiana but not both with the law stating that you also vote the same party in the general. The reasoning should be clear.

Primary election - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[IndyGunworks]

Each state is different, a republic. You can vote in any party's primary in Indiana but not both with the law stating that you also vote the same party in the general. The reasoning should be clear.

Primary election - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK I give I give.... would still like to see SOMETHING that prevents everything from always being along party lines... its getting ridiculous.

 

[88GT]

Well your idea will not work because thankfully our founders left us a republic instead of a democracy. The majority doesn't count. If it did then there would be no America. Less than 10% of the colonist supported war with England and fought them. Never underestimate what a smaller group in the right can do. I have a solution to fix congress and it is that Americans get their heads out of their posteriors and for once put country before their own selfish interest and only vote for candidates who WILL NOT COMPROMISE on constitutional issues. I will vote for a candidate in the Mickey Mouse party if they support the constitution.

Republic status only affects presidential vote when it comes right down to it. Every other office, every piece of legislation (excepting constitutional amendments, overrides, and other specifically names exceptions) only require 50% +1. That is the very definition of majority rules.

Your solution is less likely to work that IGWs. At least his attempts to create a standard that takes into account human behavior and motivation. You want people to act in contradiction to their own best interest (as they see it based on their standards). Good luck with that.

It would be nice if every piece of legislation had to justify it's existence by referencing the specific section of the Constitution that grants Congress the power to make that law. We'd still have to deal with the "general welfare" clause and the idiot "commerce clause." To that end, we'd need a judiciary that wasn't stupid too.

But ultimately you have to have a populace that values liberty more than anything else. That has never been the case. The residents of this continent started trashing the Constitution before the ink dried.

 

[eldirector]

A) We need more parties
B) US Senators and Representatives need to respect the wishes of their STATE, not party. We need to give them the boot EVERY time they screw up and ignore what WE want.
C) What's wrong with gridlock? If they aren't getting anything done, they aren't screwing us.

 

[Trigger Time]

Republic status only affects presidential vote when it comes right down to it. Every other office, every piece of legislation (excepting constitutional amendments, overrides, and other specifically names exceptions) only require 50% +1. That is the very definition of majority rules.

Your solution is less likely to work that IGWs. At least his attempts to create a standard that takes into account human behavior and motivation. You want people to act in contradiction to their own best interest (as they see it based on their standards). Good luck with that.

It would be nice if every piece of legislation had to justify it's existence by referencing the specific section of the Constitution that grants Congress the power to make that law. We'd still have to deal with the "general welfare" clause and the idiot "commerce clause." To that end, we'd need a judiciary that wasn't stupid too.

But ultimately you have to have a populace that values liberty more than anything else. That has never been the case. The residents of this continent started trashing the Constitution before the ink dried.

It use to also affect the way the senate was elected but they muddied up that too so they could gain more power.

 

[88GT]

OK I give I give.... would still like to see SOMETHING that prevents everything from always being along party lines... its getting ridiculous.

This I have an answer to.

Remove party affiliation from the state-financed elections. Have a generic standard for ballot access independent of party affiliation.

1. Run an open primary to ALL candidates and let the top 3, 5, or whatever winners run in the general. (Which is what other nations do when they have an election run-off. We just space out the timing on ours more.)

2. Or, have the parties run their primaries internally, and then those winners get on the official ballot. This is the way the Libertarian Party does it if I'm not mistaken. Only members of the Republican Party can vote for Republican candidates. Just like the NRA does for voting for Board members, etc. The internal winners file for ballot access. So each party can limit their candidates to one, or run as many as they want.

EDIT: caveat: once in Congress or any other legislative body though, you're kidding yourself if you think members of the same or similarly-minded parties aren't going to band together to get an agenda passed. Even if we officially eliminated parties in total, we'd still have the same division and the same formation of coalitions. That's what politics is.

 

[Trigger Time]

This is just my personal opinion ... Don't feel I'm twisting your arm, but I figure our founders formed a republic form of govt that was founded with ideas simple enough that farmers, shop keepers, soldiers, housewives, sailors, ect many of whom were illiterate could understand the basic principles and understand govt was a necessary evil (yes evil) that MUST be kept in check by people we elect as guardians or public servants.

How many public servants today have served anyone other than themselves? Sure they will be happy to list tons of examples of things they have done for their constituents that involves them Doing their damn job. But having a job that gets you rich and perks that you don't even show up to and do doesn't sound like service to me. Show ME a real job that I can be absent from more than not and still keep let alone get rich. Besides welfare.
Also how often anymore do we see presidents sending our soldiers in harms way without consulting congress at all? And the courts are becoming a circus side show. The checks and balances are all mixed up and our govt is too complicated for us simple citizens to understand. I have to pay a lawyer a retainer just to know my own govt workings! This is not right. This is not the America we were given. The citizens have failed so we must correct out mistakes of the past and learn.

In the past dishonest politicians were tarred and feathered and other things. There was motivation NOT to get it wrong. Today we allow them to get rich off the backs of workers, and the ones that do steal and lie and cheat mostly get away with a slap on the wrist.

So how do we fix congress? I guess come up with a legal way to make them fear the people they work for. And there is a whole new arguement. Hell some people even here think congress does a great job. We will never agree.

 

[CarmelHP]

I am so tired of "party" lines being what determines things... its just getting ridiculous... I think SOMETHING needs to give... neither side should get their way just on a whim that there are more of that party than the other... BOTH sides bring SOMETHING to the table, and BOTH sides represent a portion of united states citizens. I cannot remember the last compromise that was not for show.

I had originally though that it could be fixed by EVERYTHING requiring a majority vote be bumped up to 2/3rds vote, and everything that's currently 2/3rds be bumped up to 3/4, but I am afraid that would make to many stalemates.

Actually, I like this. There is no such thing as "too many stalemates." Most laws are unnecessary and arbitrary. It would be better if we had a wise electorate, but, unfortunately, that doesn't look likely in the foreseeable future.

 

[actaeon277]

A) We need more parties
B) US Senators and Representatives need to respect the wishes of their STATE, not party. We need to give them the boot EVERY time they screw up and ignore what WE want.
C) What's wrong with gridlock? If they aren't getting anything done, they aren't screwing us.

We have dozens of parties. Problem is, everyone votes for the same two parties.
I agree with the gridlock. This country started with X number of laws. Each year, more get added. Now I understand things change, and may cause the need for a law changes. But if these laws are so necessary, how did our ancestors live without them? Because they aren't necessary.

 

[dross]

All political systems are two party systems, some of them just choose to disguise it. Every vote is a yes or no vote. This creates the two parties and nothing you do can stop it. YOu can form the parties up front like here, or after the election, like in Europe. In the end, there are only ever two parties.

 

[actaeon277]

All political systems are two party systems, some of them just choose to disguise it. Every vote is a yes or no vote. This creates the two parties and nothing you do can stop it. YOu can form the parties up front like here, or after the election, like in Europe. In the end, there are only ever two parties.

Why?
There is only yes or no for an answer.
But there are hundred of questions, giving thousands of permutations.

 

[BrianJacobsen]

The Founding Fathers were strongly against parties and factions...

John Adams said:

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
​

George Washington agreed, saying in his farewell presidential speech:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

 

[Shadow8088]

I think Warren Buffet has a plan... and I'd back it..

Warren Buffett's 5-Minute Plan to Fix the Deficit

 

[Trigger Time]

Eliminate the federal reserve bank (a private non govt entity)
They pull so many strings in Washington.

 

[Thegeek]

Run for office.

 

[JoshuaW]

Until we can get a better representation of the people, I like the two parties not being able to get anything done. It prevents both of them from completely ****ing up the country.