I have a radical idea to transform government

[SingSong]

1) Eliminate the House of Representatives. (They have proven themselves to be nothing more than fools)

2) The Senate would be composed of one elected Republican, one elected third party candidate and one elected Democrat from each state. There would be no tie-breaker in case of 75-75 votes. The legislation would simply die.

3) The President would have no veto power or power to create executive orders. His primary function would be to employ diplomacy in international relations.

4) Courts would perform their interpretation of laws only - as originally intended.


Admittedly, this would diminish the power of the presidency, and the elimination of the House seems on first glance to be a bad idea, but why? There would be honest discussion and voting on the issues, most people would receive representation whether or not their ideas are "mainstream."

Okay. Since this country is so polarized, and becoming more so every week, why not, in the interest of fairness do something along these lines?

[Exultant Democracy]

1. That is a poor plan...

I could explain it to you, but James Madison already did that for me.
"In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided..." (Federlist Paper 51)

edit: Here is a good link http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed51.htm
Fed 51 should be required reading for every American.

[SingSong]

2. We're not a Republic anymore

and the current system is NOT working. I'm trying to find an idea that would provide for fairness and assimilation of differing ideals. I don't know, in this mass communication age whether the division actually accomplishes much of anything. At least the Senate had enough sense to not follow through with impeachment. It seems to me that the Senate many times exists to shut down the insane legislation passed by the House.

edit: thanks for the link

[sandnsea]

19. Exactly

The House is the reactionary body of current trends and hot button issues of the day. The Senate is the old traditional long term body that looks to the good of the country as a whole. The President is there to recommend and steer a bit, but the country is supposed to ultimately be led by Congress. I think the system is fine and would work better if we didn't have corporate personhood. That put money into politics.

And I don't know the history of executive orders so I really can't comment there.

[Character Assassin]

3. That's rather short-sighted.

The Senate would be composed of one elected Republican, one elected third party candidate and one elected Democrat from each state.

The the will of the people is thwarted because by definition, two of the three seats will always go to a Republican and a Democrat, regardless.

Count me out.

Courts would perform their interpretation of laws only - as originally intended.

I'd absolutely love to see that. But the caveat 'as originally intended' makes it unworkable, because humans will never agree on this.

Just look at the mockery of the Consitution during FDR and in the famous Santa Clara vs. Union Pacific case.

[Loyal]

4. The mockery of the Constitution during FDR?

You can sing praise about the 10th amendment and its limits on constitutional government all you want, but the fact is that the Supreme Court ruled in the 1930s that the government had a compelling interest in overriding the Constitution. That's the way it is now, and we're never going back to a libertarian form of government. I don't want a libertarian government anyway, Character Assassin.

[Character Assassin]

12. Oh, I don't deny the reality of things....

The mockery of the Constitution during FDR?

Yep.

You can sing praise about the 10th amendment and its limits on constitutional government all you want, but the fact is that the Supreme Court ruled in the 1930s that the government had a compelling interest in overriding the Constitution. That's the way it is now, and we're never going back to a libertarian form of government. I don't want a libertarian government anyway, Character Assassin.

We never were a libertarian form of gov't. We have all too frequently been, however, a nation governed by judicial fiat.

However, to state that 'Supreme Court ruled in the 1930s that the government had a compelling interest in overriding the Constitution', is, to the say the least, a unique way to describing what happened in the 1930s.

[SingSong]

5. just a hastily formed idea

but it seems to resonate with many of my brain cells.
The Dems and Repubs control the entire legislative branch as it is. My thought is to expand representation to those who don't currently get it.

I'll have to search the court case cited. Thanks

[SharonAnn]

9. And that would give South Dakota prairie dogs more

representation than New York state citizens.

Need to do a better job with proportionality.

The current conservative flavor of the Senate is because the sparsely populated states get as much representation as the states with major population.

[Nikia]

6. The House allows better representation

Districts are smaller than the entire state (with the exception of a few small states). It allows a greater variety of interests to be represented. For example, there may be a representative from a primarily poorer urban district that would not have state wide support and the same is true of rural districts. It is also easier to run a campaign for a district as opposed to the entire state, especially larger states, assuring that you don't have to be a career politician or necessarily have big connections to win a house seat. Personally, I'd rather the Senate be eliminated and the House size be increased for better representation.

[Yupster]

7. My first take

Wyoming Democrats would love the plan.

California Democrats would hate it.

What if the Democratic and Republican Parties become dinosaurs and cease to have any ideas at all. Let's say Democratic membership falls to 3 % of the totalpopulation and Republican falls to 2 %. They still get 1/3 of the seats anyway. In other words, under this plan, the Whigs would still get 1/3 the senate seats after they've disappeared as a party?

If this were put in, both parties would urge their members to register as independents and the independent senators would be really Democrats who just call themselves independents in California, and they'd be Republicans who call themselves independents in Wyoming.

These are the quick peoblems I see.

[SingSong]

8. Good points, but they wouldn't try to deceive us, would they?

I don't see the two major parties losing their support any time soon. Maybe it could be set up like the tax cuts - for a period of time. If it doesn't work, then go back to the old, screwed up way?

[Yupster]

11. Well Singsong, it's only natural

that the effort will go where the action is.

President Bush is not going to campaign against Schumer next year because there's no chance of beating him. He will spend his time where he feels he can make a difference.

If Reps and Dems each had their seats guaranteed to them, each side will spend all its time and effort trying to get like minded Independents elected. That's where the action will be.

[Guaranteed]

10. Would seemingly weaken the Constitution, too...

....without judicial review.

[MGKrebs]

13. I just want to see the influence of money taken out of politics.

I don't know how to do it, this is a problem for later on down the road.

[Yupster]

14. Discouraging

that people worked for 10 years on McCain Feigold to limit contributions for president to $ 2,000 and now there's reports of billionares spending $ 10,000,000 to ensure Bush losing. You can be sure there will be another billionaire to spend $ 10,000,000 for Bush to win, and it looks like the whole limitation thing was just a sick joke.

[MGKrebs]

16. Yup.

Bush having no opposition, one can donate an unlimited amount to the party, knowing it will go to his campaign anyway. This then allows him to not accept the federal matching funds, thereby allowing individuals to contribute unlimited amounts directly to his campaign. (I think that's how it works.)

[Yupster]

17. Bush is planning

to raise the $ 200 million in donations of $ 2,000 or less. I bet Dean could do the same thing.

The party rules I don't know? but I thought they were quite restricted by the new law too.

[Blue_Chill]

15. My take on it

1) Eliminate the House of Representatives.

That would further weaken the opinion of individuals by providing less representation per voter on capitol hill.

2) The Senate would be composed of one elected Republican, one elected third party candidate and one elected Democrat from each state. There would be no tie-breaker in case of 75-75 votes. The legislation would simply die.

Why would a spot be promised to any party. Also why would you give equal power to a third party which most likely represents much less people? You would make the opinions of extremists both Right and Left far more powerful per voter then the opinions of moderates.

3) The President would have no veto power or power to create executive orders. His primary function would be to employ diplomacy in international relations

So then the President becomes nothing more then a figure head.

[leftyandproud]

18. um, no

What if people get tired of the pukes? They will have a guaranteed power block under your system? Let people support whoever they wish, and make it easier for 3rd parties to enter debates and campaigns. That is the solution.

[SingSong]

20. People support Democratic candidates and still

have a Repub president, a Repub Senate, a Repub House of Representatives and a Repub/Conservative Judiciary.

Who exactly is being represented?

I agree that 3rd party candidates should participate in debates.