What's Wrong With American Politics

[Tony]

What aspects of American politics do you thing need to be changed?

I think party politics, special interest groups, career politicians, a de-emphasis on personal freedom and bloated beaurocracy are the most detrimental forces in our country right now. Each of these adds to the cynicism and feelings of disenfranchisement prevalent in America.

[jj]

Well, let's see.

The demoratic position: We want to take away your civil rights for your own good. (or somebody else's)

The republigun position: We want to take away your civil rights to save your soul. (and somebody else's)

The libertarian position: We want to take away your civil rights by ensuring you haven't enough food to practice them.

The communist position: We deny you ever had civil rights. All power to the state.

Yeah, something is wrong alright.

[corplinx]

Repeal the 17th, that would bring out about a new era in american politics as the current batch of directly elected senators are phased out for statesmen.

Powerful special interests? Filibustering? Judicial selection gridlock? Carpet baggers? Campain finance? These are symptoms of the problem that is direct election of senators.

[Tony]

Originally posted by corplinx
Repeal the 17th, that would bring out about a new era in american politics as the current batch of directly elected senators are phased out for statesmen.


Interesting, what would be the alternative?

[Ladewig]

I think four viable, competitive political parties would take care of a lot of my gripes.

Oh, add media willing to ask and re-ask difficult questions.

[shanek]

Originally posted by corplinx
Repeal the 17th, that would bring out about a new era in american politics as the current batch of directly elected senators are phased out for statesmen.

Powerful special interests? Filibustering? Judicial selection gridlock? Carpet baggers? Campain finance? These are symptoms of the problem that is direct election of senators.

A very good idea. With no one to represent the state governments, the Federal government has been able to tread all over them.

One example is the drinking age. The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to set a drinking age, so they resorted to extortion. They essentially told the states, "Raise the drinking age to 21 or say good-bye to your highway funds." With Senators representing the state governments like they're supposed to, this measure would likely have failed.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tony
Interesting, what would be the alternative?

Repealing the 17th Amendment would take us back to the way it was before. Congressmen were elected by the people, Senators by the state legislators.

[Tony]

Originally posted by shanek


Repealing the 17th Amendment would take us back to the way it was before. Congressmen were elected by the people, Senators by the state legislators.

And how is that better than the current system?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tony
And how is that better than the current system?

As I pointed out, it would eliminate the extortion of the state governments and the intrusion into matters relegated to the states by the Constitution. As it is, the Federal government just has too much power; the Senate was supposed to be one more tool in the system of checks and balances, and that has been abrogated.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony
What aspects of American politics do you thing need to be changed?



I think it should be obvious, you keep electing Americans.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Tony
What aspects of American politics do you thing need to be changed?

I think party politics, special interest groups, career politicians, a de-emphasis on personal freedom and bloated beaurocracy are the most detrimental forces in our country right now. Each of these adds to the cynicism and feelings of disenfranchisement prevalent in America.

the very nature of democratic politics will always insure that the best liars will be elected. Intelligence, good intent, competence etc. will never have anything to do with it. There is nothing that can be done about that.

Unfortunately the alternative is despotism, which is worse.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I think it should be obvious, you keep electing Americans.

Oh yes, I forgot, all of us Americans are stupid and deserve to have a plane flown into whatever building they happen to be standing in.


Jerk

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


Oh yes, I forgot, all of us Americans are stupid and deserve to have a plane flown into whatever building they happen to be standing in.


Jerk

Crikey, just because I don't use smileys.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tony


And how is that better than the current system?

Well, campaign finance reform for senators would be nullified since they are no longer directly elected. You wouldn't have more Liddy Dole/Hillary Clintons moving to a state and usurping a seat with their name recognition. Repealing the 17th would bring back that whole, serve lower offices, pay your dues thing for senators,

Not to mention, if half the senate is more worried running for president than in fixing the problems the country has, you will always have a gridlock situation.

Local and state elections typically have low turnout. I believe repealing the 17th is key to alleviating the apathy people have over electing state assemblymen.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Tony
What aspects of American politics do you thing need to be changed?

I think party politics, special interest groups, career politicians, a de-emphasis on personal freedom and bloated beaurocracy are the most detrimental forces in our country right now. Each of these adds to the cynicism and feelings of disenfranchisement prevalent in America.

I think you can trace most of America's problems directly to the Oprah show. :p

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by shanek
As I pointed out, it would eliminate the extortion of the state governments and the intrusion into matters relegated to the states by the Constitution. As it is, the Federal government just has too much power; the Senate was supposed to be one more tool in the system of checks and balances, and that has been abrogated.

Another thought is that the states can just say no to Federal funds and any sort of attached strings. They don't have to take the money. And I already know the counter argument that if, say Utah, refuses federal monies, the other 49 states will just spend it. True, maybe, but Utah doesn't have to play by the Feds rules just to get the money if it's a fiscally prudent state.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by shanek


As I pointed out, it would eliminate the extortion of the state governments and the intrusion into matters relegated to the states by the Constitution. As it is, the Federal government just has too much power; the Senate was supposed to be one more tool in the system of checks and balances, and that has been abrogated.

Well said. Though I am very loathe to mess with the US Constitution, you may have very well sold me on this. I'm almost always in favor of decreasing Federalism (especially with its increase after 9-11).

Two questions: What makes you think that the State legislature will do a better job selecting Senators than each state's voters currently do? A legislature selected Senator would be just as susceptible to the drinking-age blackmail example you cited, wouldn't they?

[Samus]

I think the two-party system is one thing that is wrong with American politics. I've described my theory before, but what the heck, here goes again:

One can think of the voting population's overarching political philosophy as Normal. That is to say, it's a bell curve, with people to the right of the curve being conservative, and people to the left being liberal.

In general, one can cut that bell curve in the middle and consider the right and left to be potential Republicans or Democrats respectively. Obviously there are non-voters, third parties, no party affiliation, etc. but were talking trends in general.

Now, there will always be party loyalists, those that are two or three standard deviations out. They will vote the party line pretty consistently. However, party loyalists don't win elections.

What wins elections is going after the biggest slice - those within the first standard deviation. In a two-party system such as the U.S., you have both parties going after the same real estate, the so-called "swing voters".

The result? Both parties sound like they're saying the same thing because, well, they are! They're both going after the same people.

If we had many dominant parties (say, as an arbitrary number, six), then the candidates for those parties could stand for issues that matter to party members. Congress would be made up of people from all six of these parties, and they would have to gain consensus across several parties to pass bills.

The other problem with American politics is that, at the national level, the legislature has too much money to spend. More money means more federal programs, and more power. A way to control this is to require (by constitutional amendment or otherwise) balanced budgeting, and to decrease the legislature's revenue (i.e. remove some taxes). This would prevent the stunning levels of deficit spending, while also decreasing the amount of influence the federal government could have.

As for reverting to senators being elected by legislatures: why did that amendment get passed to begin with? Obviously, the Senate had to vote on that. I'm unfamiliar with this particular bit of history...was there perhaps a very good reason for that amendment to be there?

[Kodiak]

I just found this excellent CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/09/17/fl.dean.17th.amendment/) about the history and problems of the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution.

[King of the Americas]

...MORE people need to vote, with with more information.

The problem is a complete and total lack of accountability. People AREN'T reacting to the truth of the matter, but rather some spin on the actual event. Times are good and people are content to have things happen around them, rather than trying to affect positive change themselves.

Did you know that only 65% of those who are eligable to do so are even 'registered' to vote? And out of that only about half of them actually show up on election day to cast a lot...

*Now, add to that, that half of that half have been outrightly programmed by their media outlets to 'believe' something that didn't really happen.

Look who is deciding the elections, and look where they get their information from!

Look at how the learned and wise are treated when they try to reveal 'conspiracies'!

Where there is great amounts of money, there too will you find hordes of power. Grassroots organizations and campaigns are too few in number, and too difficult to manage on a federal level.

But, don't get me started...

[Michael Redman]

Along the lines of what KOA said, as with all social problems, the the problem here is education. If the voters were better informed, they would better understand what the government was doing, and why. They would be much more likely to get involved, and to react negatively to governmental actions that harmed them. Corporations and other special interests would find their influence greatly diluted if most people made an informed vote.

[Dancing David]

What a HOOT, repeal the seventeenth Amendment, have you ever read what a pile of corruption the Senate was? Why do you think they passed the amendment, special intrest groups. Oh, well, a small laugh on a sad day.

Our system is what it is, maybe people who want to change politic should be politicians instead of tryig to change the system.

Just like proportional representation, the Green party and the Libertarian(are doing this) need to run and get elected on local issues and then build thier national support. The Liberatirians are getting very close, but the Greens just scream 'proportional representation'.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Dancing David
What a HOOT, repeal the seventeenth Amendment, have you ever read what a pile of corruption the Senate was?


All the time, wasnt there an article about it in the NYTimes last week? :D

[shanek]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
the very nature of democratic politics will always insure that the best liars will be elected. Intelligence, good intent, competence etc. will never have anything to do with it. There is nothing that can be done about that.

Except, of course, for the limitations on government and checks and balances against powerprovided by the Constitution. That's why it's so crucial that these not be ignored, as they largely are today.

[shanek]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Another thought is that the states can just say no to Federal funds and any sort of attached strings. They don't have to take the money.

There's a couple of problems with that:

1) The Federal government is still taxing that state's citizens the same amount, leaving the state much less able to raise the needed revenues on its own.

2) Should a state refuse the funds, the Federal government will consider all previous funds taken to be a loan and force them to pay back all the money with interest.

Besides, the way our country was originally set up, the state governments should fund the Federal, not the other way around; hence the Constitutional limitation on direct taxes, which should be enumerated among the states.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Two questions: What makes you think that the State legislature will do a better job selecting Senators than each state's voters currently do?

It's not that they would necessarily do a better job; that's quite subjective. They would tend to select Senators who would protect the interests of the state governments, something that isn't being done now.

A legislature selected Senator would be just as susceptible to the drinking-age blackmail example you cited, wouldn't they?

Why? The Senate is the body largely responsible for this in the first place. And even if the House tried to do it, the Senate could vote it down. How could the Senate be extorted the way the state legislatures are now?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Dancing David
What a HOOT, repeal the seventeenth Amendment, have you ever read what a pile of corruption the Senate was?

Evidence? And how are they not a "pile of corruption" today?

Why do you think they passed the amendment, special intrest groups.

No, it was passed during the same Federal grab for power that gave us the Income Tax and the Federal Reserve.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Two words.

Preferential voting.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Two words.

Preferential voting.

Two words:

Explain, please.

Are you referring to something like Instant Runoff or Condorcet Voting?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Crikey, just because I don't use smileys.

If it was a joke, sorry. I was/still am in a bad mood.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Tony
What aspects of American politics do you thing need to be changed?

I think party politics, special interest groups, career politicians, a de-emphasis on personal freedom and bloated beaurocracy are the most detrimental forces in our country right now. Each of these adds to the cynicism and feelings of disenfranchisement prevalent in America.

What's wrong with American politics is simply the ignorance of the masses who would rather have a pretty face or well known name that tells them improbable lies because they are too stupid to actually want to hear the hard cold facts and what should be done, so we end up with morons who tell the people what they want to hear and then by no means carry it out or who carry it out so badly, they screw up the rest of the country.

Not to mention that our government on the city, county, state and federal level all seem to have forgotten why they exist. To serve the people, and unfortunately, we are too weak, lazy or incapable of taking that back.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Why do you think they passed the amendment, special intrest groups.


Originally posted by shanek
No, it was passed during the same Federal grab for power that gave us the Income Tax and the Federal Reserve.


According to the CNN article I provided a link to above, you both might be correct (or wrong, for that matter).


From the CCN article posted by me above:

"There have been two principal explanations for changing the Constitution to provide for direct election of senators. Some see the amendment as part of the Progressive movement, which swept the nation in the late 1800s and early 1900s, giving us direct elections, recall and referendums.

Others, however, believe the amendment resulted from the problems the prior constitutional system was creating in state legislatures, who under that system were charged with electing senators. These problems ranged from charges of bribery to unbreakable deadlocks.

Deadlocks happened from time to time when, because of party imbalance, a legislature was unable to muster a majority (as necessary under the 1866 law that controlled) in favor any person. The result was to leave the Senate seat empty and leave the state represented by only a single senator, not the constitutionally mandated two.

Professor Zywicki basically demolishes both these explanations. He contends, first, that explaining the 17th amendment as part of the Progressive movement is weak, at best. After all, nothing else from that movement (such as referendums and recalls) was adopted as part of the Constitution. He also points out that revisionist history indicates the Progressive movement was not driven as much by efforts to aid the less fortunate as once was thought (and as it claimed) -- so that direct democracy as an empowerment of the poor might not have been one of its true goals.

What about the "corruption and deadlock" explanation? Zywicki's analysis shows that, in fact, the corruption was nominal, and infrequent. In addition, he points out that the deadlock problem could have been easily solved by legislation that would have required only a plurality to elect a senator -- a far easier remedy than the burdensome process of amending the Constitution that led to the 17th Amendment.

Fortunately, Professor Zywicki offers an explanation for the amendment's enactment that makes much more sense. He contends that the true backers of the 17th amendment were special interests, which had had great difficultly influencing the system when state legislatures controlled the Senate. (Recall that it had been set up by the framers precisely to thwart them.) They hoped direct elections would increase their control, since they would let them appeal directly to the electorate, as well as provide their essential political fuel -- money."

[arcticpenguin]

In a word: Americans.

A democracy is only as good as its voters.

[Tony]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
In a word: Americans.

A democracy is only as good as its voters.

That's a glib opinion.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Tony

That's a glib opinion.
Thank you.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
In a word: Americans.

A democracy is only as good as its voters.

It would be that simple if we were a direct democracy.

We aren't...

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Kodiak


It would be that simple if we were a direct democracy.

We aren't...

Something you guys on that side of the aisle should be mighty glad about right about now. ;)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by shanek


Evidence? And how are they not a "pile of corruption" today?


Sorry ShaneK just an opinion, comes from popular media of the time. And all politicians are corrupt to some extent.




No, it was passed during the same Federal grab for power that gave us the Income Tax and the Federal Reserve.

If you don't like it , then I wish you luck in repealing it, go for it! thats what makes the Constitution work.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Professor Zywicki basically demolishes both these explanations. He contends, first, that explaining the 17th amendment as part of the Progressive movement is weak, at best. After all, nothing else from that movement (such as referendums and recalls) was adopted as part of the Constitution.

I don't know if the Income Tax and the Fed were part of the Progressive movement or not, but they happened around the same time, and given the politics of those in charge I think it's clear that there was a massive power grab by the Federal Government going on at that time.

In addition, he points out that the deadlock problem could have been easily solved by legislation that would have required only a plurality to elect a senator -- a far easier remedy than the burdensome process of amending the Constitution that led to the 17th Amendment.

That's very true, I think. The Constitution never said how the Legislators should choose their Senators. They could easily have just selected the top two candidates in their voting, for example. And that way, both sides would have been represented equally.

He contends that the true backers of the 17th amendment were special interests, which had had great difficultly influencing the system when state legislatures controlled the Senate. (Recall that it had been set up by the framers precisely to thwart them.) They hoped direct elections would increase their control, since they would let them appeal directly to the electorate, as well as provide their essential political fuel -- money."

And this is actually the heart of my contention.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Sundog


Something you guys on that side of the aisle should be mighty glad about right about now. ;)

Why?

You forget that Bush trailed Gore in the popular vote by just the tiniest smidge of a percentage in the last election.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Dancing David
If you don't like it , then I wish you luck in repealing it, go for it! thats what makes the Constitution work.

I agree 100%.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by shanek


Two words:

Explain, please.

Are you referring to something like Instant Runoff or Condorcet Voting?

That's what you get for being Australian - you assume everyone knows this stuff.

Preferential voting is a system where your "vote" states which candidates you prefer in descending order. So in an election with Candidates A, B and C I might vote for B first, C second and A third.

Votes are tallied. If more than half of the people make a given candidate their first choice, we have a winner.

If not, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated as a contender and their votes are distributed among the remaining candidates in accordance with the voter's preferences. Repeat until someone has a majority.

It's an excellent system, if you have more than two candidates.

Because a lot of people do find it confusing, I'll spell out an example.

Suppose we have an Extreme Right Wing Guy, a Left Wing Guy, and a Moderate running for President.

48% of the people (Extreme Righties) put ERWG first, M second, and LWG last.
47% of the people (Lefties) put LWG first, M second, and ERWG last.
5% of the people (Moderates) put M first, LWG second, and ERWG last.

In a straight majority system the extreme right winger would win, even though the majority of people would prefer they didn't.

In a preferential system, the left wing guy would win because 52% of the voters would rather have the LWG than the ERWG.

It means that those who vote for third party candidates in a two party system are not disenfranchised.

All Australian elections use this system.

[shanek]

That's Instant Runoff, then.

With Condorcet voting, people still rank their choices as with IRO, but then, well, this site explains it better than I can:

http://www.electionmethods.org/CondorcetEx.htm

[Zep]

Ka-Ching!!! HOORAY! HOORAY! HOORAY! This guy has got the point!
Originally posted by King of the Americas
...MORE people need to vote, with with more information.

The problem is a complete and total lack of accountability. People AREN'T reacting to the truth of the matter, but rather some spin on the actual event. Times are good and people are content to have things happen around them, rather than trying to affect positive change themselves.

Did you know that only 65% of those who are eligable to do so are even 'registered' to vote? And out of that only about half of them actually show up on election day to cast a lot...

*Now, add to that, that half of that half have been outrightly programmed by their media outlets to 'believe' something that didn't really happen.

Look who is deciding the elections, and look where they get their information from!

Look at how the learned and wise are treated when they try to reveal 'conspiracies'!

Where there is great amounts of money, there too will you find hordes of power. Grassroots organizations and campaigns are too few in number, and too difficult to manage on a federal level.

But, don't get me started... Oh no! Please DO get started, KOTA!

[Solitaire]

Repeal the 11th amendment - the first ten were good enough! :p