Fixing the US Congress: how to make it respond to non-wealthy, unorganized people?

Off the top of my head...... Step 5 could easily be abused. I'm a billionaire, I don't like Obama, I take out an ad supporting Obama. Bam, Obama can't run anymore, I go home, a couple million poorer, but if I have to choose between spending 1 million to influence an election or 3 million to determine one, there's a lot of people who could and would choose the second one.

Because I sure want the guys who can't get out of jury duty to be the ones representing me.

A meth addict? Perhaps.

A guy who has no ****ing clue about anything in American politics or government or history? THAT person is much more likely to be in Congress as opposed to today.
You seem to think that your system would produce 512 Jefferson Smiths. I believe that it would produce on average 512 Sarah Palins.

Not to mention that in a system where most people have no clue what they're doing, those that DO will have far more power compared to the present system. See: Ancient Athens. And you need less than two or three years to do something like the Sicillian Expedition.

In general, I don't really have a problem with establishment change. It's the reason I remain loyal to the GOP in the end, as I believe it's the best route to change things for a better country.
Not to mention, dmc: if you really think that it is necessary for 99% of the population to constantly watch over Congress in order for reform ( and I'm not even sure what you even mean by reform as really all you've done is just mouthed off a bunch of empty platitudes of corporate interests and bought Congresses, no better than the MSM you denigrate), then you might as well say let's scrap democracy. Only under a pure democracy could such a system be remotely feasible, and that's something I would fight against to the bitter end.

 

Rule 1: Politicians or people running for any public office are not allowed to distribute advertisements.

 

Don't let business capture government.

Conversely, dont let government get so involved in the economy that it gets captured.

 

compulsory voting would be interesting. but at the least they could do elections on saturday - it would make it much more accessible for alot of people...but that is probably the whole point on having it on tuesday.

 

First, that's almost as textbook a violation of free speech as you can get. Money is one thing. Advertisements/information is another.

Second: Why is Mitt Romney banned from distributing advertising, but not the Conservative Coalition?

 

I was about to say something similar. People whine and carry on about how "they are all just the same! What point is there in voting!" and huge numbers of them simply sit at home or go to work on election day, not bothering to exercise their rights in this republic to influence the election of their leaders. Forget about trying to get many of them actively involved, actively engaged in the political process by joining a party and working within it to push it in the direction they want it to go. Hell, just get them to vote! Our turnout in Texas is something every Texan should be ashamed of. Yet so many of the same people who don't bother with politics and view it with distain, babble about how bad things are. Get involved! Make a difference! Or SHUT UP!!

 

They actually did this in Australia. Voting turnout was shrinking every cycle so they mandated voting and fined those who didn't vote. Also important to note is the fact that Australia's political dynamics are fairly similar to ours so I feel like its a pretty good test case.

But people are up in arms about mandating health insurance so there's no way in hell Republicans would be ok with mandatory voting.

 

Lol I know, I'm just referring to the UK system of elections, where people either just vote for the party they always had for the past 20 years, or actually have to read the newspaper to find out what the politicians are saying.

 

I'll ask first: what do you want to change?

You're conflating two things, the fact that a rich person has more power than a poor person, and the fact that there are policies like single-payer health care that you support. So, which one is the thing you actually want to reform?

Frankly, you're committing a error that I see as common among leftists: assuming that because your policies are naturally for the good of the people as opposed to conservative policies which are not, if the people don't like leftist policies, they must be being manipulated. An example is how I've seen leftists describe the Tea Party, claiming that it's astroturfed because some billionaires support it. From my perspective, the reason I despise the Tea Party is precisely because it is a genuine populist movement - and I distrust pretty much any form of populism, Tea Party or OWS alike.

I'm saying that if a democracy at any point requires 99% constant vigiliance like you claim it does, frankly the democracy is f'd. It's like saying that if you can get a population of non-greedy people, Communism can work.

I agree with this line of thinking, but would observe that it's the reason I am highly, highly cynical about any policy that proposes increasing democracy in the system and getting the real average person to participate with his wisdom and common sense will make thing better. I do a decent amount of work and volunteering for the GOP despite everything, and it frankly annoys me that people act like someone who just sits on his ass and pays no attention to politics outside of some occasional Glen Beck junk deserves as much say in politics as I do.

Mass politics and demonstrations are nice, but change in general will come from a small and determined cadre, as it's the only feasible way. A Leninist philosophy, but one that I like a lot.

 

"Politics is the entertainment branch of industry." Frank Zappa

 

Outlaw lobbying. That is the first thing I'd push for as president - but of course it woun't pass because Congress won't approve.

 

I think I'd want to know how narrowly you define lobbying in this scenario, because I'd have to wonder how issues or bills of any kind would get introduced into Congress.

 

Are there any current Congressmen or Senators in favor of term limits?

 

This would also mean that a bunch of idiotic uninformed voters will just show up and pick a random name on the list and go home.

 

Just like banning weaponry, banning lobbying won't do a damn thing.
People are always willing to cheat the system, and if given a lot of money most people will just look the other way.

 

Are there any constituents in favor of it for their representative? Term limits only exist at the federal level because the amount of cash and firepower we had to give to FDR made him a benevolent dictator.

 

Some of the voters may do that when it comes to voting for judges and the county sheriff, along with other down ballot contests, but the main candidates, the ones for Congress, statewide offices and the like, those voters will have read or seen something about them and formed some kind of opinion, ill informed or not. What I'm talking about aren't the goofuses who vote and aren't as well informed as they should be. I'm talking about the millions, the tens of millions who simply can't be bothered, yet have such ardent opinions about the political process and the political parties, and the candidates. They are hypocrites of the worst stripe, babbling their nonsense in the public square, and yes, on message boards, yet not "lowering themselves" to participate in the political process by voting. "Why bother?'' they bellow, "They are all alike!" What arrogant nonsense. That simply isn't the truth, whether one is talking about the candidates in the primaries, or the political parties. They are not all alike. Only an ignorant fool would think so, and the country seems filled with ignorant fools.

 

So, in other words, you're an elitist aristocrat who thinks he knows whats best for everybody else.

 

Yeah how about everything goes into an independent election fund (As independent as possible I suppose) and that gets split equally among candidates?

For the life of me I don't get how people around the world have allowed for uneven ground during political campaigns to survive.