Government for the people. How?

[Izzy]

The objective of this thread is to altruistically* design a political structure wherein the needs and interests of EVERY inhabitant of this country are met. (None of this "general public" crap, we should try to make everyone happy. ) It's impossible to not be aware of how inconceivable this sounds, but I think by being mindful of what we're trying to accomplish, but.. just might be feasible?**

Now, before we can even begin devising laws, creating our constitution, bill of rights, etc., I think it's best we assemble a list of what people want from their government. Feel free to contribute ANYTHING. (I stole some of these from the world's smallest political quiz and the bill of rights. >_>)

1. Government should not censor speech, press, media, or internet.
2. Military service should be voluntary.
3. There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults, where a consenting adult is anyone of 16 years of age or older.
4. Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs.
5. End government barriers to international free trade.
6. Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security.
7. Keep government welfare, but no taxation without representation.
8. Freedom of speech, religion, sexuality, peaceful protests, and petition.
9. Soldiers may not be quartered in a house without the consent of the owner.
10. People may not be unreasonably searched or kept in captivity.
11. The right to a free, public, and speedy trial.
12. Laws are to remain the same from State to State.
13. Eventual globalization is a priority.

*We can get into the semantics of altruism later. I have.. mixed feelings, but this most closely elucidates my intentions. (Lol, I swear, I bounce back and forth from being the apathetic hippy civilian who just wants to live to the extremely fervent humanitarian practically daily. >_>)
** Eh, truthfully, it isn't. Too many people disagree on matters of religion, which define the moral code for a LOT of people (even if they don't strictly adhere to it, haha). We need to agree now to define morals for ourselves and not base them off of religious texts. Like, if someone proposes "Don't kill", that's perfectly acceptable, and I expect it to be fully ratified. If someone else suggests "Love God", this is more open to debate. While you can submit ideas that coincide with religious texts, submit them because they are mandates you want and agree with, not just because your scripture of choice tells you to follow them.

Edited February 13, 2014 by bonanova

[Guest]

Of course there was a reason that I brought up the subject in particular. I found a nice graph to go along with it.

It's difficult to draw specific conclusions about most of the lines on the graph as they fluctuate from year to year (with some interesting effects to say the least ), but the line of particular interest is the line representing the percent of seniors below the poverty line since 1964. There has been a drastic reduction in senior poverty since then which does not align with any of the other demographics listed. Why? Because Medicare was passed in 1965. Medicare, despite all its flaws, works. It is the number one reason that fewer seniors live in poverty through their twilight years and it is a strong reason why I would support a continuation of such a program in our new world government.

It's either that or adopt the Pebble in the Sky approach (paragraph 2 of the Plot Summary ), which I think would upset a lot of people. But it would end people suffering in poverty.

[Izzy]

We could do it Anthem style..

[gvg]

1. Medicare is fine for me

2. I MUST READ THAT BOOK. IT SEEMS AWESOME!

[Guest]

What about government structure? Separating the Judiciary, the Executive and the Legislature all seem to be good ideas. Do we want to keep a structure similar to what the US has now, or would something else work better? Is a bicameral legislature the way to go, or should there only be one congressional body? What are people's thoughts on that?

[gvg]

Oh, remove the senate or remove the parties. The house doesn't have that many problems.

[Guest]

The idea of using the Internet to cast ballots was brought up eons ago on this thread, but this article is poignant to that point as to why that still isn't a feasible reality.

And the issue with the Senate are a set of rules that they set for themselves that have been abused in the last 10 years and no one has the fortitude to change them. And the parties are also not Constitutionally mandated; they just formed organically to help solidify power behind a particular point of view. I don't really see outlawing parties as a viable solution as I think that people will find a new name for the same thing.

That being said, I do think that party loyalty is far to regimented at this juncture in history (at least on one side of the aisle ). There ought to be a way to reform the party system, or at least make it easier to work outside of the two-party system. One possibility that I think I brought up before would be Instant Runoff Voting, where you rank your choices, rather than select one and if your first choice doesn't get 51%, your vote automatically goes to the next candidate on the list, until one candidate gets a majority. It would weaken the two-party system, so that's why you don't see the Democrats or the Republicans jumping at the chance, since it would allow people to cast the initial votes for third-party candidates, knowing that their votes wouldn't be useless, should the third-party candidate fail to get enough votes.

[gvg]

I like that idea, but I'm not 100% sure I understand. You place them in an order... and if youyr first isn't first on 51% of ballots, it moves on? Right?

[gvg]

GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796

However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796

To contract new debts is not the way to pay old ones.

GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter to James Welch, Apr. 7, 1799

There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet an enemy.

We have to listen to this guy more! He got it right on parties, war, and paying debts (Obama, you listening?).

Man, if we had the founding fathers right now...

[Izzy]

What do you guys think about corporate sponsorships in schools?

[gvg]

Whatdya mean? Like a schloraship by a corporation?

Well, it's the least they could do.

[Izzy]

Like corporations (Nike, the NFL, Camel Cigarettes, etc.) buying ad space in the school, either during the announcements, posters in hallways, through vending machines and so forth, and paying the school a certain amount for that space. The school gets the money they need, but should students be used to in the process?

[Guest]

Whatdya mean? Like a schloraship by a corporation?

Well, it's the least they could do.

The trouble with scholarships can be that they don't necessarily come free of charge. If a company wants to sponsor something, they usually intend to get something back from the recipient. So I think that Izzy's point is that allowing companies to "sponsor" public schools risks the possibility that the school becomes dependent on the company for monetary support, and in response, the company may start asking to set the agenda for some school activities. Something like that certainly seems problematic.

An example that doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility (kind of scary, that ) would be Coke sponsoring a school and then trying to butt in to the nutritional education curriculum. "There are no conclusive studies showing that high fructose corn syrup--sorry, I mean corn sugar--has harmful effects on your health."

Seeing as Izzy has responded, I agree that that's not a desirable thing, IMO. Students are supposed to be going to school to learn, not to be inundated with company propaganda. I mean, in a way, it could be much more insidious than what I just said above. What if the company was allowed to post fliers at the school, speaking the good word about the product, including posting misleading information about what they sell. Rather than overtly putting the propaganda in the classroom (where it would most certainly be fought by activists), they instead put it in their fliers and posters: "There are no conclusive studies showing that high fructose corn syrup--sorry, I mean corn sugar--has harmful effects on your health." In which case, they are not imposing their views on the students; they are merely posting advertisements and the onus is on the students to read the advertisements, so its not the company's fault if the students begin to believe the stuff printed on the ads.

Going back to political parties, I am well aware of what George Washington said about the party system and I agree with the sentiment, but you also notice how long it took for everyone to ignore him, right? The very next election pitted the Democratic-Republicans (Jefferson's party) against the Federalists (John Adams' party). The vote was split, so Adams took the presidency and Jefferson took the Vice Presidency and because they were always at each other's throat throughout the administration, they changed the rules such that the Vice President became an appointed position (or they ran on a ticket together), rather than giving it to second place (the original method). So we didn't even go one election cycle before the parties became a feature of the election process.

The trouble is that if one group of people don't form a party and the other group does, then that gives the people in a party an advantage because the party can organize and support its members more easily than the group of disparate people.

And finally, a comment on IRV. I guess an example would be easiest:

Candidates:

A. Person

B. Someone

C. Guy

Voter 1 ranks them as follows:

2. A. Person

1. B. Someone

3. C. Guy

Voter 2 ranks them:

1. A. Person

3. B. Someone

2. C. Guy

Voter 3 votes:

3. A. Person

2. B. Someone

1. C. Guy

Voter 4:

1. A. Person

2. B. Someone

3. C. Guy

Voter 5:

3. A. Person

1. B. Someone

2. C. Guy

So after the initial votes are tallied we have:

2/5=40% - B. Someone (Voter 1, Voter 5)

2/5=40% - A. Person (Voter 2, Voter 4)

1/5=20% - C. Guy (Voter 3)

No one has a majority, so votes for C. Guy are eliminated (since he has the fewest) and they retallied with the voter's second choice. Voter 3 voted for C. Guy first, so his vote changes to B. Someone, his second choice.

3/5=60% - B. Someone (Voter 1, Voter 5, Voter 3)

2/5=40% - A. Person (Voter 2, Voter 4)

B. Someone has a majority of the vote, so B. Someone is elected to the post.

Does that make sense?

[gvg]

Izzy: Dawh said it best. That wouldn't be good; schools are the last place that corporations should be involved in. To give you an example: What if a religious corporation (Is there such a thing?) Did what you said. Suddenly, intelligent design is a part of the school agenda, and maybe they say "If you don't remove evolution, we will stop giving you money." So an obvious delenma (How do you spell this?) ensues: Remove every chance of students learning about evolution, or losing all money to help students learn at all.

So, I disagree.

Dawh: Well, then people would complain, saying that they didn't initially vote for him, so they didn't represent what they want, yadda yadda yadda. Plus, that would mean that maybe it would be all republicans on one ballot, all democrats on another, all greenies, etc., and there wouldn't be a majority. (Now, because of the one person representing the party in the presidential race, this doesn't happen on that level. But that means you are forcing people to vote for other parties they don't agree with, bringing us back to the representation issue).

So unless I misunderstand you still, and there is a way to prevent all of these problems, then no.

[Izzy]

Haha, Dawh agrees with me, and gvg agrees with Dawh yet disagrees with me. I wasn't making a point, I was asking a question. I was purposely leaving my opinion out of it so I won't influence the discussion, lol.

Okay, but take into consideration that schools don't have to take all offers. They can refuse McDonalds sponsorship, and accept something healthy and school related. Does that change your answer? What about in poor areas where tax payer money just isn't cutting it? Is this morally questionable behavior still wrong if it does more good than bad?

I like Dawh's voting system. ..We learned about the Butterfly Ballet in Stats today. ..Bush should never have been president.

[gvg]

Well, in that case, maybe. But the thing is, if taxpayer money isn't enough, it means either a)Everyone's poor around there or b)No one is paying because no one wants to go there, in which case it is probably better if it closed, like a bank holiday (BTW, a school holiday like the bank one might be beneficial; just an idea).

If the problem is a, then I suppose. If it's b, then it's better to have it close and the students transferred.

[Izzy]

How does transfering them remove the problem? Now more has to be paid in transportation costs (which the county still has to provide), and the problem is just moved elsewhere. The lack of money is still there, and spreading it out doesn't solve anything.

(Haha, based on that sentence, I sound really pro-ads. I'm actually pretty against it.)

[gvg]

I wasn't really talking about costs in that way. I said If it was a, then yes, I suppose sponsorship is needed. But if it's because it's a bad school, then why bother?

Kinda like the bank holiday. It included transport costs, but in the long run, it helped in the depression. A school holiday, which would close schools that were below standards (Better than giving good schools money, as it has caused cheating on tests). It would improve education.

I read in that book I told you guys about, Nudge, the author suggested a type of school competition (Of course, he also wanted to privatize schools, but that's another matter) Dunno if that'll help, just a suggestion.

[Guest]

Dawh: Well, then people would complain, saying that they didn't initially vote for him, so they didn't represent what they want, yadda yadda yadda. Plus, that would mean that maybe it would be all republicans on one ballot, all democrats on another, all greenies, etc., and there wouldn't be a majority. (Now, because of the one person representing the party in the presidential race, this doesn't happen on that level. But that means you are forcing people to vote for other parties they don't agree with, bringing us back to the representation issue).

So unless I misunderstand you still, and there is a way to prevent all of these problems, then no.

I don't quite understand what you're saying here. Everyone would be on the same ballot and then voters would rank their preference. Right now, if you vote for a third party candidate and that candidate comes in third, your vote amounts to a null. It doesn't count for or against the two major candidates. This would allow voters to vote for a third party without having their vote lost in the ether, in the event that their first choice didn't win. If you see a problem with the voting system, maybe you can try to outline it in a example.

And the thing about "bad schools" is that they are usually "bad" because they lack the money to fund school supplies or they're in an undesirable district and can't attract good teachers. So they have to make due with what ever's available. Usually, adding money to the system will help (though of course if the administrators are embezzling or something, then things need to change in the administrative structure first).

[gvg]

Dawh: Never mind. I thought it over, and your voting idea seems fine. I don't know what the problem was that I thought of. =)

I understand what you're saying about the schools. But giving money to the bad schools wouldn't fix everything. Think about it: If you receive a lot of money for being a bad school, all of a sudden, you're one of the best, and outdistance other schools until it's basically a role reversal. More money, role reversal again. And plus (I look at everything this way), humans that didn't have money before + money + the fact that I know of some schools by me where there is corruption involved, and where the superintendent makes more money than the president = BAD.

I do understand that that may be the only fair option (Mine is kinda cruel), but if that's the case, we have to think of limitations to get rid of everything, or almost everything, that I mentioned above.

Edited October 5, 2010 by gvg

[Izzy]

Schools won't ever all be equal, that's entirely dependent on the students in them, and teachers can only teach so much. Some people are inherently intelligent, and others, are not. The schools that score better are either magnet schools or schools in the center of wealthy areas. Just because giving more money to the poorer schools makes the schools better than the schools that weren't poor to begin with doesn't mean it's a bad system. The other school doesn't do less well, it just doesn't look as good in comparison. Schools should be sponsored soley on a tax basis, and taxes should be distributed equally through-out the county, with consideration of school population and programs being taken into account. If taxes don't cut it, screw what the people have been led to believe they want: raise them.

Your equation doesn't make sense. If a school is failig solely based on budgeting problems, the school + money = good.

[gvg]

What I meant by my equation is that most of the money would end up in the pockets of school officials. So, I just want procedures to be set in place that would allow the government to regulate what's going on. If the money doesn't create results, an investigation must be launched; if it is found to be because none or very little of the money actually went into helping the students (through books, extra tutors, etc.), then new people have to be hired. Immediately. That's all.

And you should have realized by now that I have no problem with tax hikes and wealth redistribution. I agree. I just want to make sure corruption doesn't result, as I've heard about in some schools near me.

[gvg]

So, this thread has died at this point. Let me try some good ol' CPR:

DADT repealed. What do ya think?

Should we vote democrat or liberal independent? (For liberals)

Has the tea party done more bad than good for republicans?

SOMEBODY ANSWER!!

[Izzy]

We've.. covered all this. There just isn't much more to say. =/

It depends on the candidates. Alex Sink > Charlie Crist, but they're running for different offices, so *shrug* ..I want to move if Rick Scott wins Florida.

I wrote an essay taking the piss out of Bill Buckley yesterday. My teacher is pro-tea party (but not an activist for them, from what I can tell), but also sponsor of the debate club which I am a co-founder of, so we'll see how it goes down.

[gvg]

I guess we have sort of covered all of this, I just wanted something to discuss. Seems that without UtF, there's nothing to discuss.

And I'm sure you'll win. =)

[Guest]

So, this thread has died at this point. Let me try some good ol' CPR:

DADT repealed. What do ya think?

Should we vote democrat or liberal independent? (For liberals)

Has the tea party done more bad than good for republicans?

SOMEBODY ANSWER!!

Regarding the Tea Party, they claim to be independent, but there really aren't any "Tea Party" candidates running as a Democrat, but there are plenty that won Republican primaries. So anyone who tries to say that it's bipartisan is lying. As for how they're doing? Well, it does look possible that they might win in some races, but more often than not, the candidate they beat in the primary was predicted to win easily, while they are barely squeaking by. So even if the Tea Partiers win, it by no means shows that they were a positive for the party.

Harry Reid was expected to lose no matter who the opponent was because he had extremely high negative numbers in the state, but now he's basically polling in a dead heat with Angle. Joe Miller in the Alaska Senate race barely beat Lisa Murkowski in the primary race for her seat, but now that she's mounted a write-in candidacy, she's polling even with him and the Democrat is evening out, so it could be any of the three of them coming out with the victory in two weeks. Mike Castle in Delaware was expected to handily beat Chris Coons, but after he lost the primary to Christine O'Donnell, Coons is winning the race handily. Rand Paul beat the Republican anointed candidate for the Kentucky Senate, Trey Grayson, and now the Democratic opponent, Jack Conway, has pulled to within five points, so it looks like Conway might win to take over arch-conservative Jim Bunning's seat. Those are the most notable cases, but there are other examples where the Tea Party candidate has turned an "easy Republican victory" into a nail-biter of a race.

There is another sort of candidate running in a lot of races that aren't really being noticed as an archetype: the Uber-rich self-financed business(wo)man. Like Izzy mentioned, Rick Scott, running for FL-GOV is a super rich health care executive who managed to wrestle the nomination from the GOP pick, Attorney General Bill McCollum, and while McCollum was expected to win, the Democrat is a little ahead in the polls. In CT-SEN, Linda McMahon was the CEO of the WWE, the "professional" wrestling entertainment company. Her campaign is also self-financed and she is also trailing in the polls to Democratic Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. In California, Meg Whitman, former CEO of E-Bay, and Carly Fiorina, former CEO of HP, are running for governor and Senate, respectively. Both are using their own money and Whitman just broke the record for the amount of any candidate's own money spent on a campaign. In recent weeks, both have begun to trail the Democratic opponents (former governor Jerry Brown in CA-GOV, and Barbara Boxer in CA-SEN) despite their huge bankrolls.

The Tea Party is ostensibly "grassroots" though most of their events are financed by highly connected Republican operatives. But these CEO types are running purely on their business acumen and tons of money. That hardly seems like sufficient qualifications in my opinion. Most of them carried some baggage into the race because they either oversaw a large amount of downsizing and outsourcing during their tenure (Whitman and Fiorina) at the company or their company faced some degree of ethical or criminal allegation while they were there (McMahon and Scott). But because they have more money than they know what to do with, they still think that they would be good public representatives.

Izzy, try showing your teacher that "New Yorker" article I linked to a page or so back. It talks about how the Koch brothers have turned their energy empire into an ideological groupthink project over the past 30 years to convince a lot of "grassroots" Tea Party types that they are acting in their own interest, when more often than not, they are serving their corporate masters (i.e. the Koch brothers ).