| Author |
Message |
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
 Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:57 pm |
|
Here would by my proposal, which will never happen because they are too radical.
1. Establish term limits on congresspeople.
2. Have each distinct elect their congressmen using the STV method. (Info)
3. Each state should have an independent body to create boundaries. 100% separate from any politician.
From those we would have new fresh faces constantly coming in, third parties possibly becoming a force due to the STV method and more accountability and competitiveness in elections.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:07 pm |
|
| Arellia wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | Again, there's really no way to solve this issue, and it's up to the states to do the reform. I'd be for reform, but I don't see that happening unless we have politicians that honestly want to fix it, and that's not going to happen.
If you think it can happen, though, please share your proposal, because I just don't see it possible. |
Reform of congress, including gerrymandering, lobbying and term limits? The public. The public has to get it into their heads that the system is limping. ... We have to make the change, and challenge the existing system. Not only that, I think this would cross into challenging the 2-party system. I think a third party would be far more open to the idea. |
Well, indeed that's true, but you have to find the will in the American populous to do such radical change, and that'd take a large propaganda campaign to get it done (and I don't necessarily mean propaganda in a negative light here). It's possible, but it'd take a lot of work and state-by-state effort, in some cases. We also need to
| CJ Cregg wrote: | Here would by my proposal, which will never happen because they are too radical.
1. Establish term limits on congresspeople.
Addressed before.
2. Have each distinct elect their congressmen using the STV method. (Info)
Straight-ticket voting has been banned in virtually every state, so voters vote for individual candidates, not parties. We do not have a proportional representation system, however, and I don't believe in insituting one. It has its huge faults, but the two-party system, in my opinion, is superior to such a system, even if it's not the best.
3. Each state should have an independent body to create boundaries. 100% separate from any politician.
Each state has to approve that themselves.
From those we would have new fresh faces constantly coming in, third parties possibly becoming a force due to the STV method and more accountability and competitiveness in elections. |
I don't agree with most of that proposal, essentially, and I think it would result in a system not intended by our Founding Fathers.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:15 pm |
|
You obviously have no idea about what the STV is. Infact it isnt STV as only one person wins. Its IRV.
Instead of voting for 1 candidate they rank them. For example.
Joe Bloggs (Democrat) 1
Fred Sill (Green) 2
George Cameron (Republican) 4
Sally No (Independent) 3
Tim Cain (Libertarian) 5
That would be my vote. All the 1s are counted, if no majority exists the lowest performing candidate is removed and people who voted for them have their votes re-assigned to their 2. This goes on until a majority exists.
Another idea would be to make each state assign its seats by PR. So it accurately reflects what people voted for. with a 5% threshold for seats.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:17 pm |
|
Oh, so it's the system you proposed at Trigan a while back. I opposed it then, and I oppose it now. It surely would be a system not intended by the Founding Fathers as well.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:18 pm |
|
Yeah and their system works perfectly doesn't it.
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:21 pm |
|
The founding fathers also detested parties. With a raging passion. They wanted people to be judged individually and have very diverse opinions, not become the mobs we see today. They did not intend to create a ruling class, either, that congress has become. If the fathers were alive today, I believe they would be very disappointed. Jefferson and Madison would surely be calling for term limits and new rules.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:24 pm |
|
If it's a democracy, isn't the idea that the people choose the candidate who they believe is best suited for the job? So wouldn't a limit be unfair to the incumbent if they have served their maximum number of terms but still feel that they can do a fine job? If the people feel otherwise, it is up to them to elect someone else.
If the problem is that new candidates are overshadowed by these larger-than-life politicians, then that is a separate problem that will not be solved by term limits. It's a two-fold issue: one, the way in which campaigns are run should be analysed and overhauled. Two, the people need to be more involved. Democracy is not a spectator sport, nor should it be. The people need to get involved in the electoral process more than they do currently--it isn't enough just to sit back and watch competing television ads attack each opponent. People should do their own research, even if they need to be motivated, so that they can make an informed choice.
That being said, I agree with imposing term limits.  I'll explain.
| Arellia wrote: | | Not only that, I think this would cross into challenging the 2-party system. I think a third party would be far more open to the idea. |
Now that I agree with. Having two parties so dominate the system doesn't really give people much of a choice--lesser of two evils? Which brings me back to term limits. I said I agreed with them.
I'm looking at it from a Canadian perspective. We have many parties in Canada. We have four parties with actual members in Parliament right now, of which the two big ones are the Liberals and the Conservatives. We have eleven additional parties that are officially registered (they run candidates during an election) but have no representation in Parliament (no one got elected). If you need more information, check out this list.
Now, in the American system, congressional elections are every four years, correct? It's slightly different in Canada, in that we have our elections all at the same time, and that usually happens every five years (but not always). We don't have term limits on members of Parliament, nor should we. But there's a thing: our politics are slightly more unpredictable. While it's true that, in general, each party has certain constituencies where they usually get re-elected, the fact that we have five or so parties jockeying for position means that it keeps everyone fresh.
With only two parties, that's harder to do, which is why if the two party system is maintained as it is, I can see how term limits would be useful. In other words, I'd support term limits in the current American system because it would help reform the entire system. But I think that the need for term limits just reflects an overall need for an overhaul.
Change is good. Otherwise it leads to stagnation, from which progress cannot emerge.
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:30 pm |
|
I will say it again. It all comes down to gerrymandering once again. Term limits wouldn't be needed if each distinct was drawn fairly.
Canada along with the UK don't need them because they both have fairly drawn districts (compared with the US). That's why both countries have more movement with seat changes.
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:34 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | With only two parties, that's harder to do, which is why if the two party system is maintained as it is, I can see how term limits would be useful. In other words, I'd support term limits in the current American system because it would help reform the entire system. But I think that the need for term limits just reflects an overall need for an overhaul. |
I think you raise excellent points, Hitch. I still see in that the problem of name recognition and press, but otherwise an absence of term limits might work in your scenario. With more perspectives, more variety, then you have people identifying with a candidate more true to their own ideals. More open, more reasons for the candidates to be good solid people. With the two parties, I see term limits as essential. More parties... I might be okay with leaving the term limit issue alone. I would like to see it in practice in America first. But hey! We all know you're "throwing your vote away" on a third party, right? Funny... if all the people who say that would throw their vote away, we'd have some progressive results--I don't mean liberal progressive, I mean progress in the evolution of a better government.
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:16 pm |
|
Some of those are just wacked up. We need to make them square.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:24 pm |
|
| CJ Cregg wrote: | | Yeah and their system works perfectly doesn't it. |
No, but no system does, and the Founding Fathers had intentions which were set out in the Constitution. We could amend the process, yes, with a Constitutional Amendment, but I don't believe in straying too far from the wishes of the Founders. They had their reasons for instituting these systems, and I believe it was wise and is superior, despite its flaws, to the systems of all other nations on Earth. I do not believe in subverting the Constitution or ideas of the Framers simply because we're frustrated with the problems in it or under the system which it espouses.
| Arellia wrote: | | The founding fathers also detested parties. With a raging passion. They wanted people to be judged individually and have very diverse opinions, not become the mobs we see today. They did not intend to create a ruling class, either, that congress has become. If the fathers were alive today, I believe they would be very disappointed. Jefferson and Madison would surely be calling for term limits and new rules. |
Indeed if you read the words of Madison and Washington, they opposed political parties, in essence. Washington's farewell address addressed this, and Madison warned against parties in Federalist Paper #10. But Jefferson and Hamilton, however, founded the Democratic-Republican party and the Federalist party, respectively.
That said, Madison saw the progression towards parties and essentially foresaw the two-party system, believing that political thought would lean towards the center, hence why the Democrats and Republicans are, in actuality, similar and third parties do so poorly in the United States. The success of the two-party system is embodied in the Rational Choice Theory, stating that coalitions form within the two parties, giving power to the centrists as each party tries to court the middle.
Now, I believe the far-left is starting to more and more unhinge the Democratic party, but I do acknowledge that, in essence, the Republicans and Democrats are quite centrist, which is why you see third parties so unsuccessful in America.
The way American politics are, it's not like third parties will happen, and it was like that from the start.
We have had a two-party system in this country since the start of the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties. You had the Federalists and Democratic Republicans first, eventually evolving into the National Republicans and the Democratic-Republicans, evolving from their respective predecessors. The National Republicans then evolved into the Whigs, the Democratic-Republicans the Democrats. The Whigs eventually evolved into the Republicans, and you have had Republicans and Democrats ever since. And, mind you, the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties initially came to the forefront in 1796, with the election of Federalist John Adams (a hated rival of Jefferson, his then-Democratic-Republican VP, btw), and so you've had a two-party system in the US since less than a decade after the Constiution, therefore showing the inherent two-party status of the United States.
This is due to the inherent nature of the American political system. Allow me to explain.
First of all, America has a Single Member Plurality system for Congress in which the largest vote-getter in a Congressional District wins. This encourages interest groups to combine and creates simple choices between two main candidates, allowing the media to focus on front runners. This is different in other countries, in which the national slate of candidates is determined with 5% of the vote equaling 5% of seats in the legislature.
The Electoral College also rewards the SMP system, initiating a winner-take-all procession in most states. A margin of 1 vote or 1 million votes sees the winner get all electoral votes, as seen in third-party candidate Ross Perot in 1992, in which he got 19% of the vote but no electoral votes. The system also encourages interest groups to combine into one party.
Another aspect of the SMP and two-party system that makes it so engraved into our politics is laws, laws that already allow the Republicans and Democrats immediate ballot access. Parties that get less than X% of the vote in the last election must petition to get on the ballot, hence why third parties fair so poorly in the US, though that is due to laws put in place, naturally, but the Republicans and Democrats.
You also have campaign finance re4forms, which, for instance, reward the party that wins X% in the last election with federal funding in the presidential race. Parties that collect greater than $X from Y people can get federal funding as well. However, third parties aren�t organized to raise $X from Y people, and they receive little media attention. Obviously this particular aspect pertains to presidential candidates, but nonetheless...
Now, efforts to change the system continually fail. The proportional representation proposal, for instance, is used in most European countries in which X% of the vote means X% of the seats. There are questions as to whether or not this works well in Europe, for it allows fringe parties (like the Nazis in Germany) to gain prominence and ideological parties to form. Also, Congress would likely need to agree to any changed system, for Congress sets its own rules of business and campaign finance. Why would Congressional Representatives want to change the system when it works so well for them? Hence, yes, a need for public outrage, involvement, and support for reform.
But how would term limits be a solution to this problem? I honestly fail to see how term limits would support the institution of third parties as a major powerhouse, especially considering the history of the US from 1796 on (before many, many of the rules we have now were in place). I don�t see how term limits really have any relation to gerrymandering, and I think that the limiting of terms for Congressmen in particular, which are changed every two years (done specifically because it is the �People�s House,� and as a result of the Great Compromise), is ridiculous.
As intended, it is the closest house to the people. It has always been directly linked to the people (unlike the Senate, of which its members were originally chosen by state legislatures) and has always had 2 year term length-limits for the very same reason � that of making it easier for voters to vote out their congressman quite quickly if they do not like him.
I have always seen, as well, the House to be the �body of action.� It is the house, being the lower house of Congress, from where you see the most vigorous debate, action, and so forth, and it breeds some of the best politicians. If we had term limits for House members, I doubt, for instance, that Tancredo would be around much longer and would be unable to continue to be the effective Congressman for immigration reform that he is, and I don�t think that limiting the terms of such a Congressman � or any Congressman, for that matter - is a wise course of action. They have only two-year terms, after all, and they tend to get a lot more done than the Senate.
I wouldn�t be too opposed to giving term limits to the Senate, however, because they are the upper house, for one, and the least connected to the people in the sense that they have terms that rotate only every 6 years, as opposed to every 2 years. If you want to vote out your Senator, you have to wait 6 years to do so, and Senators are unlimited in terms. Due to the lengths of their terms, I think an 18-year limit would be appropriate for Senators, though that would mean Lieberman couldn�t run any longer.
But, again, the House definitely should not, IMO, have term limits. I think that would be bad for the country, but Senate term limits would be acceptable to me, but not because of a lack of third parties.
Again, I do not believe in any way, shape, or form that term limits in Congress would give third parties more breathing room. The system just wouldn�t accommodate it, as history has shown. An SMP system does not permit the success of third party candidates; it just doesn�t.
The only time we�ve seen them really succeed is during times of discontent, government distrust, and so forth that we don�t even have now, and that�s when a third party replaces one of the two-parties, as shown in 1860 with the Republican replacement of the Whigs.
The United States single member plurality system, Electoral College system, and other aspects of our political sphere simply do not provide for the success of third parties. Admittedly, once again, the success of third parties is further disabled by the laws that the Republicans and Democrats have put in place to ensure their power, but it goes beyond that, as the very fact that we have had a two-party system since before even Republicans came onto the political scene shows.
Halting political gerrymandering � which is incredibly difficult to do and involves the complicity of the individual state legislatures, and even more than that � and putting term limits on Congress isn�t going to do any good if the goal is putting third parties in power. History itself shows this.
If the goal is simply to aide the political atmosphere, make things more fair for at least the two major political parties, and provide further opportunities for change, then yes, doing what we can to stop political gerrymandering (which, again, is difficult to do in the US) and putting term limits on Senators would, potentially, have a grand effect on American political life, but it would provide nothing better for third parties. Any serious, in-depth analysis of the single member plurality system, the two-party system, and American history proves this to be true.
We�ve been studying this in AP Gov and AP US, so I�m pretty well entrenched in the politics and history of political parties and so forth. Heck, I wrote an essay on why third parties are doomed to fail for AP Gov for one of my tests (yes, with a cartoon of a person �throwing her vote away�  )
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:29 pm |
|
Is there any way to say the same thing over the course of three or four paragraphs?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:31 pm |
|
| Arellia wrote: | | Is there any way to say the same thing over the course of three or four paragraphs? |
I'm not gonna spend the time to do that after all that post , but here are AP Gov notes that are somewhat vague compared to what I said there, not really going into my historical analysis and elaboration and so forth that is key to my argument, but I suppose you can get by well enough to counter some of my basic arguments about why third parties are doomed to failure.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:36 pm |
|
Yes, well, it's all well and good that the system is currently geared toward two parties.
The fact that a third party is not a viable solution has nothing to do with the fact that currently having two parties is not sufficient. So, the only options are to have one party (which isn't very democratic), or three parties (or more), since it would be very hard to have 2.71828 parties or something (but I wouldn't put it past someone to try). Having eliminated anything less than three parties as a desirable reform to the system, one should exam ways to make three or more parties more viable.
Do you have an alternative to further emphasising a three party system that could bring about the same effects? Or do you just not believe that reform is necessary?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:47 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | Do you have an alternative to further emphasising a three party system that could bring about the same effects? Or do you just not believe that reform is necessary? |
Oh, well I've stated before that I'd love to have a third party pop up. I think the Republican party has gone too far away from their conservative principles and believe in an alternative to force them to steer back in the right direction.
I'd love to have reform for that very reason, and for the reason that I do believe we should have more expression and variation of ideas, but I just don't see how it's really that plausible given the state in which the United states has been for over two hundred years, and the fact that alternative parties, which are either doctrinal (rejecting the prevailing attitudes of Dems and Reps and appealing to a more extreme base, like the Libertarian and Socialist parties), single issue (formed to promote one principle), or bolter (forming when two parties are too close on a key issue, i.e. the Reform Party), cannot reach a wide enough audience, at least in the way out society has been shaped.
It works in other countries due to their inherent structures, but it doesn't work in the US, and I don't see, sadly, any way to make it work here.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
