Some steps to immediately improve the US Government:
- Disband the electoral college, go to popular vote system. We can do this is states equal to 270 electoral votes say they'll do it.
- Everyone can vote. Registration is automatic. Voting day is a national holiday on the scale of July 4th. Early voting is eligible for a month before the day.
- House seats are determined by algorithm, not by state legislatures. "Least lines" is a pretty decent way to go.
- DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc all become states
-- 18 year terms for the Supreme Court.
These are the obvious things. Any particular disagreements?
Some more questionable things that I think would be good:
- Create a Chamber of Experts to weigh in on areas of scientific and other matters of expertise. PhD's only. Create a Chamber of People, chosen by lot and weighed on demographics such that this chamber is proportional on gender, race, etc. Pay anyone in this 2.5 times the average salary. Eventually, get rid of both the Senate and the House such that government is of the people, not the states.
- Create a minimum basic income such that poverty is eliminated. Provide a public option for housing, utilities, food, healthcare, etc.
- No guns in cities. No assault rifles.
Any particular disagreements on the above?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Public option for food seems really complicated... in that it presupposes a lot of public infrastructure that doesn’t exist. Would a good start be to establish cold-chain as a necessary public infrastructure?
ReplyDeleteTony Lower-Basch Hmmm ...
ReplyDeleteSo, we don't have government-owned and operated kitchens with attached dining halls in every county in the country, setup to give out food throughout the year? Often, with nearby playgrounds and meeting rooms?
I think we do. That's one way to start.
National holidays = shopping days = disenfranchised retail workers because they have to choose between exercising their rights vs being given hours. Given the demographics of retail workers, you'd see the usual folks being unofficially disenfranchised.
ReplyDeleteKimberley Lam " Early voting is eligible for a month before the day."
ReplyDeleteHa! That's what I get for skimming.
ReplyDeleteMaybe. Depends on how easy early voting is. Currently, for me in Canada, early voting stations are a bit more out of the way than election day stations and as a public transit only person, this means I need to plan a chunk of my day around it. I'm privileged to work an office job so this isn't arduous for me, but it's a consideration.
I'm also up for voting by mail, which seems to work well.
ReplyDeleteHere in Arlington outside of DC, we're lucky to have good public transit. And early voting is done at the courthouse, which is at a metro station.
My hope is a MBI would also make it easier for nearly everyone to vote, since losing a job won't mean falling into poverty. Everything's related, of course.
Oh, yeah, some form of basic income would radically change the retail industry and help a lot of people.
ReplyDeleteOnly PhD's on panels is bullshit. Pretty sure several Republican douchebags have PhD's and it doesn't make them smart, or experts. Newt Gingrich has a PhD.
ReplyDeleteAlso, will discount people who actually know shit. Not a lot of doctors have PhDs. Not a lot of farmers, actual farmers, not corporations, have any degrees. Relying on experts without any actual experience has contributed to a lot of the current mess. At the University where I work nearly every job description comes with a rider: experience may substitute for education. Also, make sure it's valid experience. Don't be like the horrible director that drove me out. Having a Master's doesn't mean you're good at non-related things, like being an executive assistant or anything else, or even the topic of your Master's. Also, yes, Trump has experience as a businessman: a bad one. Check references and look at results of former positions.
Note: Arlington is also the geographically smallest self-governing county in the country, so it's a hard example case.
ReplyDeleteMickey Schulz Newt's PhD is in European history from Tulane. I'd love to see him on a panel regarding European history. He'd be better at that than governance.
ReplyDeleteKimberley Lam Agree. You can't really be expected to participate in democracy if you're busy worrying if you'll get enough hours to make rent.
ReplyDeleteHuh. So, I'm wondering about the statehood thing. I was going to object that it should only be if the people there want it but the statistics I'm now finding on this are weird... I don't oppose it, I'm just not sure I'd want to impose it either.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, here are some thoughts...
All branches of the govt. should have term limits
There should be hard limits on campaign spending
Campaigning should be limited to a couple of months prior to election day
I agree "PhDs only" is bullshit
You will need to define what you mean by "city" as well as "assault rifle".
Newt is an asshole who is one of the direct reasons we have the political climate we have now and shouldn't be given respect in any way regardless of what fucking degree he has, so no he shouldn't fucking be on a panel about European history regardless of what his degree is in. Fuck him.
Just want to note that, while election day should definitely be on a weekend, making it a 3-day weekend or holiday might backfire -- forcing people with little vacation time to choose between civic duty and a chance to take the family to the beach. Just make it on a Sunday.
ReplyDeleteOh, yes, university degree as metric of worthiness for power only works with free universal education up to that level.
ReplyDeleteI mean, hell, I learned more about management and organization from retail than university. (Though, admittedly, running large scale experiments in grad school really upped my paperwork skills.)
William Nichols: We do, indeed,have cafeterias set up. That’s not the infrastructure of which I speak. Here’s where I’m coming from (YMMV):
ReplyDeleteIf we attempt to scale up to a public option for food available not just for students at lunch, but for everyone, all the time, I worry that we hit some very real questions.
On the user-facing side: adults do not congregate in common buildings at meal-times. They are expected, by society, to work jobs, deal with families, etc. A grocery store is much more use to them than a cafeteria, assuming equal geographic availability. We don’t have that kind of infrastructure, and would need to build it out. Task A.
On the supplier-facing side: school cafeterias function as consumers of privately provided cold-chain resources: they get deliveries of strictly limited amounts of material that needs refrigeration, and it is possible to contract that out because the demand is small compared to the private need for food delivery and refrigerated transport. But as you try to scale up the amount of food being dispensed, you hit the point where refrigerated truck providers are saying “sorry, we have to make a choice between transporting for the government, or for private stores, and the private stores pay more.”
And then, bit by bit, the government food offerings start including less things that need refrigeration... and therefore less food that is not shelf stable. Meat is replaced by peanut butter (hello too-much-sugar) and fresh vegetables are replaced by ketchup (ditto).
This isn’t a hypothetical: it’s what happened in the public school cafeterias I think you’re referencing. It has been, and continues to be, a big fight to get kids meals that won’t ruin their health.
So I think that on the path to a good public option, we would need to either secure or build our cold-chain resources at the scale needed. Task B.
One could, certainly, just push forward toward an immediate “solution” in the absence of these first steps. I worry that the result would be all the poor people eating spam and stale breakfast cereal, and forced to choose between eating where the government provides meals (and thereby losing shifts, job opportunities, employment, childcare, etc.) or not eating at all.
Given that, I’d be inclined to push for the tasks needed to make a public option for food humane, along with pushing for it at all. I absolutely agree that our society has a moral obligation to see that people have enough to eat. I think we need to take that seriously enough to commit to more than half-measures.
ok, ok: PhD only may be bullshit. I still want a Chamber of Experts, but I'm not sure how to get it. It's most def not what we have in the Senate.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Newt is just one of those people I have a strong opinion on... but he was secondary to your point. So do you view there being a /single/"Chamber of experts"? Because it feels like maybe it should be "Chamber of Professionals" but then have there be multiple ones. And have the requirements be "Be this thing". Like, "Chambers of Professionals: Education" has teachers in it, "Chamber of Professionals: Health" has doctors and other health professionals in it... etc. What do you view as the roll of this governmental body?
ReplyDeleteSurprised having a set population to representative ratio isn't in your list.
ReplyDeleteShane Liebling That's a fine medium-term goal and is for sure better that what we do now, but that's not a goal I'm particularly passionate about.
ReplyDeleteTony Lower-Basch Dyamn. Well, that ... is a lot more than I was thinking. But hey, if I'm talking about selection of legilatiors by lot, then we should think big!
ReplyDeleteNot a fan of shifting the whole thing down to a popular vote. That privileges the needs of dense urban populations over other communities, although maybe it's intentional that the Executive branch serve the needs of citydwellers first?
ReplyDeleteAlso not convinced we need term limits on the Supreme Court. I think it's valuable to have at least one branch of the government that outlasts capricious shifts of power and is expected to settle down and operate outside of the paradigm, and I think the branch in charge of interpreting law is the correct branch for that consistency.
Declaring open (polite) season on the views of Andy Huage, for anyone who wants to deal with them.
ReplyDeleteIf nobody does, I will sometime tomorrow. But, I do not expect those ideas to last six.
[ I'm occupied and a little drunk tonight. With a little luck, the above has indicated I disagree strongly with the ideas, and want the human being respected. ]
Andy Hauge Of course, you are kind of advocating for the less densely populated country side to rule over the densely populated urban centers. Kind of a "People with more land should get more votes". And advocating for things like people losing the popular vote but wining the electoral college.
ReplyDeleteMatt Johnson Empirically speaking: Of the last 10 Presidents, how many have been elected with the electoral college and without the popular vote? Can you name the fuckers?
ReplyDeleteI will definitely need more convincing that people whose thinking patterns have solidified ten to twenty years ago should be the ones continuing to interpret the law in a modern context.
ReplyDeleteKimberley Lam It's also possible that continued thinking about laws and the constitution lead to greater insights! Can you give 1-3 modes of thought or ideas that the eldest of the nine have that you think are bad in a modern context?
ReplyDeleteNope! I don't follow the American Supreme Court justices that closely, nor do I feel a strong need to.
ReplyDeleteHowever! That does make me think of at least one thing I'd like to see of folks with lifetime appointments: a demonstration of the ability to adapt your thinking with changing times. Like, I don't necessarily care if twenty years ago you were dubious about whether a husband could really rape his wife so long as you recognize that he can now and will rigorously uphold this interpretation.
Kimberley Lam ::googles for bad decisions by RBG::: So, it turns out, some members of the 9 remain awesome for forever.
ReplyDeleteBut, yes! Changing with the times is super important: This ain't 1930. Scalia definitely had those problems. Renquest was, in multiple cases, the only person to side against the then-litigator RBG.
Basically, survey says: RBG is awesome and everyone else is stupid.
Lol. If I were a bettin' gal, I would have put my money behind RBG being awesome, yes.
ReplyDeleteSo, 18 year terms would be RBG would now be off the court. Which is sad.
ReplyDeleteIt'd also mean the court would be 4 from Bush, 4 from Obama, and 1 from that asshole. That sounds pretty good!
It also means we wouldn't be hoping hoping hoping for the continued health of an 85 year old woman who is the only stand between us and a fascist having 3 goddamn members of the supreme court.
[ To be clear: Ruthy? Please don't die. ]
Yeah, this desperate reliance on RBG isn't really healthy.... Like, she deserves to retire and feel good about it, y'know?
ReplyDeleteRight. And it is (largely) caused by the lack of term limits for our supreme court justices.
ReplyDeleteMatt Johnson: Unfortunate that neither is really a tenable solution, huh. But I'm okay not leaving it as Political American Idol.
ReplyDeleteAlso quite interesting that anyone who isn't a citydweller must be a rich landowner. Can you substantiate that claim?
Andy Hauge I'm not sure you stated a position there. Or, at least, I don't see one with any clarity. Could you restate your new position?
ReplyDeleteDid... I say that? I don't think so. What I said is "people with more land". You know, those people that you said didn't live in the densely packed urban centers. You were the one who made them in to rich land owners.
ReplyDeleteHere.
nytimes.com - Opinion | Why Do We Value Country Folk More Than City People?
And... wtf? Allowing a popular vote is "political american idol"? What sort of bullshit is that?
Matt Johnson Are you suggesting that we should NOT privilege the importance of voters based on the state of residence? Perhaps even that the federal government should consider the vote of each citizen to be equivalent?
ReplyDeleteWilliam Nichols Yes... I am.
ReplyDeleteDo you have some reason, whether it is philosophical, empirical, moral, or otherwise to suggest each vote should be equal and not based upon the state of residence?
ReplyDeleteMy position is one of interrogation. Why should we privilege the votes of citydwellers over the votes of everyone else in the country? Matt implied that these other people were rich landowners, but offers no substantiation of this claim.
ReplyDeleteI'm also uncertain about how term limits mesh with the practical realities of the Supreme Court. You certainly couldn't have the President appointing them, as you'd just have every new president stacking the Court 9-0 in favor of policies. Indeed, it's far better that term limits be short on the Legislative branch, so that new ideas and policies can be put forth, to be evaluated by the collected wisdom of the Judicial branch, which brings the perspective of years. Favoring either age or the chaotic change of new perspective is a poor choice, and balance between the two is necessary.
It is, however, a good idea to move appointment away from the Presidency, as the President is elected by a population that is largely ignorant of judicial practice. I'd be in favor of Justices nominated by recognized judicial associations outside of the government.
I fucking did not claim that. I've fucking blocked this guy because otherwise I'm sure I'm going to violate your thread integrity William. I am fucking done because he is being a disingenuous piece of shit.
ReplyDeleteAndy Hauge We've run into a problem: Folks have started blocking you.
ReplyDeleteI think it is this simple misunderstanding: Absolutely no one but you has said anything about privileging the votes of city-dwellers. Instead, there has been evidence ontop of evidence that the system as it exists privileges those ho live in tiny states.
Which is absolutely true. It's a simple mathematical fact.
Furthermore, I asked above regarding the last ten president's for a reason: 2 of them won the electoral college without the popular vote. These included a moron and a fascist, ho defeat a boring technocrat and the most qualified person to ever run for the job. Which is to say: When it disagrees with the popular vote, the electoral college chooses the wrong candidate.
You also don't seem to understand how an 18 year term limit could stack with the Presidency, given your thought a President could stack it 9-0; the point there is each term, a President gets 2. Think about that.
Before we discuss further, I need you to stop shifting to an interrogative stance when your nonsensical positions are attacked. You are not so privileged to do so here. Instead, I need you to either defend them (both well and honestly), or to say "this position was wrong. Thanks to my interrogators for demonstrating the position's faults. That's how we all get closer to truth!"
The reason I declared open season is that every position you stated is demonstrably wrong, quickly and easily. These positions are wrong empirically and morally, philosophically and pragmatically. These are wrong as matters of fact and reason. Given your lack of true engagement, I need you to either do some research on the positions on this thread, admit the positions you have stated are incorrect, or go away.
The choice is yours. Anything besides those three on this thread is a quick uncircling; continued silliness after that is a blocking offense. I trust it won't come to either of those.
Or, in other words:
ReplyDelete1. Not a fan of shifting the whole thing down to a popular vote. (position definition)
2. That privileges the needs of dense urban populations over other communities, although maybe it's intentional that the Executive branch serve the needs of citydwellers first?
(Falsehood. Puts all citizens on the same tact, regardless of if they are within a state or otherwise. Allows citizens of DC & Guam to vote. Current system gives the 300,000 people in Wyoming more authority than the citizens of DC. The electoral college, when it disagrees with the popular vote, elects fascists and morons. The popular when, when it disagrees with the electoral college, elects boring technocracts and qualified people. Framing this as citywellers versus others is divicive, and suggests the interloculoter is not argung in good faith.)
Also not convinced we need term limits on the Supreme Court.
(No reason given. All other democracies have term limits. There are good reasons for wanting this: We are one 85 year old woman having a bad day away from a presidents in office less than 2 years having 3 picks of the court. Obama only got two in 8 years. This is ridiculous.)
I think it's valuable to have at least one branch of the government that outlasts capricious shifts of power and is expected to settle down
(This is irrelevant given an 18 year term. The current supreme court is absolutely not outside shifts of power. Claiming otherwise ignores facts of the last two years, as well as the last twenty.)
and operate outside of the paradigm, and I think the branch in charge of interpreting law is the correct branch for that consistency.
(This is a nice theory that has nothing to do with reality.)
In short: All of your positions are false, show a lack of understanding of how American politics actually functions, and sound liek the argument of a teenager who is rallying against changes to the constitution they just read.
I expect a higher level of engagement and genuineness in the future.