What GOVT changes do you welcome?

[Cassia]

I like the Nordic social democracy model. They seem to produce happier results. I think our current system of pure capitalist (99% vs 1%) cruelty has just revealed itself as an abject failure and future times are only gonna get tougher.

The Nordic model emphasizes society-wide risk sharing and the use of a social safety net to help workers and families adapt to changes in the overall economy brought on by increased global competition for goods and services.  It combines features of capitalism, such as a market economy and economic efficiency, with social benefits, such as state pensions and income distribution. Also known as the Scandinavian model, it is most commonly associated with the countries of Scandinavia: Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland.

Towards that direction I would be for:
-Popular vote only...end the electoral college
-Access to mandatory universal health and mental care
-End offshore tax evasion banking and corporations
-Decriminalization of recreational drug use and prostitution
-Simple more progressive tax rates (plus carbon use taxes, plus wealth tax for billionaires)
-Added taxes/fees for offshoring jobs and outsourcing labor.

What changes would you like to see?

[Unbeliever]

I'd like to see candidates for office be examined by independent specialists to filter out those who are just plain bat-shit crazy.

For starters...

[Hydra009]

I like the Nordic social democracy model. They seem to produce happier results.

I would say that's just plain common sense, but apparently, that's not widely known in some circles.

Towards that direction I would be for:
-Popular vote only...end the electoral college
-Access to mandatory universal health and mental care
-End offshore tax evasion banking and corporations
-Decriminalization of recreational drug use and prostitution
-Simple more progressive tax rates (plus carbon use taxes, plus wealth tax for billionaires)
-Added taxes/fees for offshoring jobs and outsourcing labor.

Same.  Add a living wage, an increased protection of natural resources (curbing water/air pollution), modernized energy policy (i.e. phasing out coal), and criminal justice reform (elimination of for-profit prisons, lockup quotas)

Though I note that your first proposal would inexorably lead to the rest - strange that there's such a discrepancy between the popular will and the representatives who are supposed to represent the popular will.  Who benefits?

[aitm]

Frankly I think representatives should come from the common. Just pull names from a hat. Give them their 230 grand a year. No more making up special committees where you can get another 200 grand. I think most people picked this way would do a much better job than currently. And give them 4 year terms. The electoral was started by people far smarter than me to check mob rule. I am still on the fence on that one.

Truck drivers, school teachers, bakers, bricklayers, grandmas, would be a far more responsible and concerned electorate. And of course abolish lobbyist.

[Mike Cl]

Cassia's and Hydra's suggestions--yes.  Term limits.  Redraw all voting districts; somehow set up nonpartial boards that oversee the drawing of districts.  Restricting the profit margins of cooperate CEO's; 900+ the average wage is simply criminal.  And all of congress receives the retirement and health care of the nations average citizen. 

Hell, let's just surrender to the Swedes and let them govern us. :))  And Mandate that the Yankees win the WS every year!! Oh--and free ice cream for all!!

[Hydra009]

The electoral was started by people far smarter than me to check mob rule.

By wealthy aristocrats.  It's not surprising that they wouldn't particularly like a simple popular vote (they didn't particularly like the idea of phasing out slavery, either)

Do you know that state referendums are decided by simple popular vote?  Do they seem unusually horrific when compared to Congressional legislation?

[Draconic Aiur]

By wealthy aristocrats.  It's not surprising that they wouldn't particularly like a simple popular vote (they didn't particularly like the idea of phasing out slavery, either)

Do you know that state referendums are decided by simple popular vote?  Do they seem unusually horrific when compared to Congressional legislation?

I think he was being sarcastic

[aitm]

By wealthy aristocrats.  It's not surprising that they wouldn't particularly like a simple popular vote (they didn't particularly like the idea of phasing out slavery, either)

Do you know that state referendums are decided by simple popular vote?  Do they seem unusually horrific when compared to Congressional legislation?

I know what the Puritans did to Quakers in Pennsylvania where they ruled the state. I know that Jefferson and Madison were aware of the very present rule of the Church of England, I know how the Baptist’s and Catholics were like to each other in the 1650’s I know what Jews were subjected to in the early 1600’s. So did they. The rule was to prevent one large mass of people overwhelming a smaller one. The rule of religious freedom was that one man had the same right as the 100 trying to burn down his house.

[aitm]

I think he was being sarcastic

Not quite. But thanks anyway.

[Hydra009]

The rule was to prevent one large mass of people overwhelming a smaller one.

Indeed it was.  Would you prefer a system where the minority rules or one in which the majority rules?  Also, would you like your vote to count less than another person's vote?

[aitm]

Indeed it was.  Would you prefer a system where the minority rules or one in which the majority rules?  Also, would you like your vote to count less than another person's vote?

If the majority were truly allowed to rule we would still have slavery. Here we are nearly 300 years later and still 30 % of the population would put them uppity blacks back in their place. Do you think Mississippi would agree to let California interfere with their god given rights to majority rule? Do you really want unfettered majority rule?

[Baruch]

Great question.  Answering neutrally ... I want the rule of law to be followed, or if a law is obsolete or can't or won't be followed, it needs to be removed from the books., but until then, it needs to be followed.  This basically defines what is lawful or not, what is normal procedure or not.  The current lawless government (from at least 1950, no declaration of war in Korea) is a scandal of epic proportions.  Right now the law isn't what is on the books, but what current D/R consensus is.  If that is all the law is, then the US doesn't need any statutory or regulatory law, we only need to rely on the corruptible people who happen to hold particular offices.

That is a procedural POV, not about what policy I want started or what other policy I want stopped.  Without proper procedure, then getting what I want positive or negative merely requires the right carrot/stick against a corruptible official.

[Mike Cl]

I think states rights is getting a bit thin.  The entire country has a constitution and it should be followed in all states. 

[aitm]

Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker (sp)..The Puritan Oligarchy....good read, small book more like a large pamphlet, read it about 20 years ago. Interesting stories on early us history, includes some eye raising stuff on the  Mathers and the witch trials and Puritans hanging Quakers and ....oh lots of good stuff.

[Baruch]

I think states rights is getting a bit thin.  The entire country has a constitution and it should be followed in all states.

If you mean uniformity of law, that takes a constitutional amendment (say regarding voting uniformity).  Corrections like that have been made historically in state and local procedures, particularly when the gerrymandering has gotten completely out of hand.  Get to work ;-)  Making the US into just one big unit is a bad idea.

But I don't like the idea of the people of a state voting for senators, or electing the WH occupants.  The legislatures of the states should choose who the national senators are, because a state let alone a country, is too big to hold a general election for a state-wide or nation-wide office.  More like GB in fact, Parliament works out who the PM is (along party lines).  In that case, Lincoln wouldn't have been elected, since the Dems were 65% of the legal vote in 1860, presumably controlling that much of the national senate, who would be the electors in my system.  Balance has to be made between city and country, between large and small states.  Otherwise you simply have Twitter decide everything ;-(