You must log in or register to comment.
Mostly good stuff. I don’t think I’d merge house and Senate. Some of them need more constraint, like I’d legalize prostitution, but only if it’s regulated like restaurants (health inspectors, workers rights, etc.).
What is your solution the massively disproportionate representation in the senate then? There are currently around 66.7 Californians for every Wyomingite. Do you think Wyomingites deserve 66.7 times the representation in the Senate? And yes, legalization would occur with reasonable regulations which would make sure the industry is safer for all those involved. I tried to keep the list as concise as possible for each issue reformed.
Do you think wyoming deserves to be a state? Every state gets the same representation in the Senate and I think that’s fair. I don’t think it’s fair that the proportional side of the legislature isn’t proportional anymore, though, and fixing that goes a very long way.
States don’t deserve equal representation. American citizens deserve equal representation, they are the ones who create value.
Then what you’re really saying is abolish the concept of states and have a single federal state.
No, states still would elect a number of representatives based on their population. Just no 2 senators per state.
Why even have states? Good way to get rid of jerrymandering would be to get rid of imaginary borders. No states, no senate necessary.
Because state legislatures should continue to exist. If less populated conservative states want to go down a rabbit hole of far right shit then let them. Just don’t give them 2 senators per state to gridlock the states that continue to produce and provide for their population.
Something something…. Redraw state lines every 10 years…
The Senate isn’t intended to be a representative body, it’s just two per state. They aren’t doing things like setting funding/budgets. Congress (the house of representatives) is designed to do that, though that needs some tweaking.
The Senate isn’t intended to be a representative body
Both the house and senate vote to pass bills. The disproportionate population increases have led to less representation of citizens in more populated states.
But the original states didn’t have balanced populations, the founders knew that, but they still set it to be two senators per state. The house is scaled by population.
There are other proposals to solve the Senate’s disproportionate nature, such as apportioning Senate seats by state population. Most proposals I’ve seen for that would leave the Senate with a little more than a hundred seats (with a minimum of 1 seat per state), which would (mostly) solve the problem and make it closer to the house in terms of proportionality. Of course, it all depends on the exact implementation.
What’s the purpose of the senate at that point? Seems redundant, like having two house of representatives.
The point of the Senate is that it’s a more deliberative body, representing larger numbers of people, which serves to moderate the power of the House. Mind you, Congress as a whole was more powerful when the nation was founded; they’ve handed off power to the executive over the years, for better or worse (really, a bit of both). The House was also intended to grow with the population, and if we’d followed the general guidelines for growth the Founders suggested, we’d have a House with more than 600 members. The number of seats was capped ~90 years ago, because Congress didn’t want to fund another renovation of the capitol building to fit more people. Also keep in mind that the States had a more uniform population distribution when the country was founded. You didn’t have California and Nebraska sitting with orders of magnitude of difference between them, so the difference in representation in the Senate was not nearly as significant as it is today.
Wether we need a secondary deliberative body in the legislature or not is a matter of debate and opinion. I can see why you’d want one, but I can also understand why people would think it’s not useful anymore.
There’s no solution needed, since there isn’t a problem to begin with. Individuals (should) have proportional representation in the House, and states have proportional representation in the Senate, which is how it should be.
Do you think Wyomingites deserve 66.7 times the representation in the Senate?
Yes.
There’s no solution needed, since there isn’t a problem to begin with.
This is funny, it’s like an self soothing mantra. I’ll try to repeat this to myself as things get worse.
It is federally legal to prostitution. Just every single state outlaws except nevada.
Interesting, I never really thought about it, but of course that must be true for it to be legal anywhere.
I’m 90-95% on board, which is astounding considering the current options. Now fleshing out the legislation to make this transition possible…
Exactly my thought. This may as well be a list that has one bullet point “* fix America” without a lot more detail on most of these
Would you have commented on a post that just had an image of “* fix America”?
How tf Americans don’t have a holiday on voting day 😭
Russia just did three day voting on friday, saturday and sunday to make sure that both 9-5 and 2 over 2 could have a day off to vote. The downside is that it was very expensive as the staff gotta be paid more than thrice the amount, it was very taxing on volunteer observers, and ultimately useless as they’ve made up whatever numbers they wanted using the unverifyable electronic voting in the end.
Are you seriously using Russia as a good example of democracy lmao
No, lmao, but can’t deny Russia has some nice things, even though by having those it is shooting itself in the foot. Like 2012 elections where they’ve basically said “Look, we have the entire election committee in the bag - еhey can draw us whatever results we want. But, let’s try to legitimize those elections in the eyes of the people! Let’s put a camera on every single polling station and let anyone watch them online, so that everyone can see how fair our elections are!”. As you might imagine, during the election, all social medias got completely flooded by recordings of voting fraud… And yes, people instantly noticed that the price for those cameras was like 10x of their market value, with 90% of costs landing straight into government officials pockets…
Have have three voting days - FRI to SUN - in Czechia aswell, for each voting. I imagine it is the same window in other EU countries, because it just fucking makes sense.
EDIT: I misremembered, we have only FRI and SAT.
No, we don’t, most elections are Friday(14-22) to Saturday(8-14).
I stand corrected. I must’ve forgotten since last time we had elections.
I dont understand why Americans are horny for mandatory voting. Voting is mandatory in Greece, it makes no difference. It is theoretically illegal to not vote but are you going to imprison people for not voting? So it isnt enforced, at all.
No one is voting because it is mandatory. Greece has 60% participation.
Make it tied to your UBI check. Now it’s incentivized so enforcement not needed.
Yea I think I’ll add this to the v4. Incentivize rather than punish. Just give people an extra $100 a month in their UBI for voting.
Why only $100 and not the whole UBI allowance?
Why only $100 and not the whole UBI allowance?
Incentivize rather than punish
Then it’s a punishment of $100 if you don’t vote. UBI as a reward for participating in our democracy would be a great step. A punishment would be a fine or jailtime.
I agree many wouldn’t bother, but I still believe it should be every citizen’s duty to vote. It’s literally the bare minimum political involvement people can have.
Free education.
No private/charter schools.
Religions are businesses and pay taxes.
Ban religious-justified discrimination.
Religion is private between you and God.
Absolute separation between church and state.
Repeal all religion based laws.
- ranked choice voting - ok I think we can agree here
- Mandatory voting - how? Currently voting is handled state by state, you want to make the federal government take that over? What would the punishment be for not voting? Frankly I disagree with this
- Universal vote by mail - even more how? Again, federal takeover of voting process? How do you ensure no votes are lost especially when someone will be punished for not voting?
- Voting day national holiday - definitely agree.
- Legalize marijuana - this takes a lot more than just saying “marijuana is legal now.” Are previous marijuana related convictions going to be overturned, if so how? Are marijuana sales going to be regulated? If so how?
- Legalize prostitution - similar questions as with marijuana
- Revert citizens United - certainly agree here but that’s a big fuckin how? It was explicitly the supreme court overruling a law passed by Congress. Amend the Constitution to say something explicit?
- Abolish corporate home ownership - very strange stuff here because you start touching on the above, too. Maybe more you’re looking to cancel corporate personhood but that comes with a huge amount of problems too
- Abolish electoral college - sure why not if you’ve solved the voting issues above
- Abolish gerrymandering - this is what made me make this response in the first place. You can’t just say “abolish gerrymandering” without some plan for it. That’s like saying “abolish borders” like it’s meaningful. How? Who decides what districts look like? Will there still be districts? If not how will representation be determined?
- Abolish filibuster - I think the filibuster is fine. If everything else on this list goes through, hopefully we have meaningful ways of ousting useless obstructionist politicians instead
- Merge Senate into house - why? What does this solve?
- Remove house rep cap - FUCKING agreed. The cap is unconstitutional and absurd
- Universal healthcare - lots of hows here too but Obamacare was a good start and I’m down with single payer
- Universal basic income - how much? Does it count toward the 50k below?
- Income up to $50k untaxed - fine. I also think any monetary amount in the legislature should be increased by the CPI automatically every year. Fines, limits, payouts, etc.
- Ban tax prep - hmm ok
- IRS files taxes for citizens - how does this work? Is tax code flattened to make it so citizens have no choices to make? Do things like tax credits for buying solar panels go away?
- Vat for luxury items - who decides what’s luxury?
- Supreme Court 15 year limit - disagree, the whole point of lifetime terms is to prevent getting what’s yours and getting out.
- Increase highest bracket tax - sure why not
- Collateral for loan is realized gain - expand?
- Abolish PACs and lobbying
- Politicians banned from stocks - so they can’t own shares of any companies? Or they just can’t trade while in office? Does this go for any elected official? More than just elected officials?
- Municipalize Internet - at a minimum declare it a utility. What’s the rest of the plan?
- Abortion constitutional right - I’d argue it already is one, though the supreme Court evidently isn’t in agreement. An explicit “bodily autonomy” amendment would be nice. Add a right to privacy to that too, expanding on the 4th.
- Ban tipping - idk if I agree with trying to codify what should be a cultural change, but I’m generally on board with the Idea. There’s a million loopholes to close in any language to this effect
- free financial education - just like… Government funded seminars? Mandated high school courses? What do you take out to fit this in?
100% on the “lots of missing 'how’s” point. You skipped the “ban lobbying” one, which is probably the second biggest “how” after the gerrymandering.
Lobbying is not some official policy or process. Senators don’t have “lobbying hours.” Lobbying is basically just “being at lunches and parties that politicians are at.” Unless you’re proposing Congress not be allowed to go out in public and live as secluded monks, I don’t see how you “abolish” it…
Yeah I just didn’t have it in me and meant to go back for it lol.
We have mandatory voting in Australia. It’s “enforced” by a AU$20 fine. Not really a true punishment, more like a nudge. It’s more of a societal understanding here, you turn up to a polling place as a civil duty. You can donkey vote if you want, you can draw a cock on the ballot form and invalidate it, doesn’t matter. As long as you got your name crossed off, and most importantly had the opportunity to vote, then you’re clear. I wouldn’t have it any other way, it means that there can’t be changes to dissuade people from voting, and politicians don’t resort to wildly populist policies to try and encourage people to come out to vote. Also helps that federal elections always occur on a Saturday, and employers are required to give time off in order to vote.
Those are some good questions.
Politicians banned from stocks - so they can’t own shares of any companies? Or they just can’t trade while in office? Does this go for any elected official? More than just elected officials?
What about only allowing investments in broad index funds? But banning trading specific stocks and options could go a long way too.
Yeah except increase taxes on highest income bracket by 65, not 5%.
Reverse Harlow V Fitzgerald, that illegally set up Qualified Immunity.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html
End qualified immunity for law enforcement!
Start with one thing, mate. Most impact and easiest to implement.
Why delude yourself with this bullshit fantasy list? Focus on reality.
I focused on reality and all it did was make me start thinking we’re fucked, so I made a list of solutions.
Yeah, in order to have the slightest chance of doing most of these things, America would already have to be a lot better.
Yeah, in order to have the slightest chance of doing most of these things, America would already have to be a lot better.
Keep the faith, citizen. These things just take time, but change does happen.
When you propose things, you have to keep some line items you can remove easily during negotiations to show “good faith” 😬
Why delude yourself with this bullshit fantasy list? Focus on reality.
“What? Fly?!? If Man could fly, they’d have wings!” /bahhumbug
Ranked choice is quite terrible actually, barely better than Plurality (also known as FPTP). The center for election science has a whole article on it here. https://electionscience.github.io/vse-sim/
3-2-1 voting and STAR are the best choices, but the CES actually advocates for approval due to logistics and people getting confused by 321 and star.
Yea STAR voting is better, will add to v4, better than the winner take all bullshit we have right now.
Merg Senate in house: no: checks and balances.
What positives would merging them accomplish?
That person didn’t suggest it, it’s in OP’s list.
There’s no benefit to that. Removing the limit on house representatives, that’s huge and real, but merging Congress is dumb. There’s a few dumb things on the list (eg “abolish gerrymandering” is like saying “abolish speeding”). Choose your favorite!
Edit: Now that I’m not trying to hurry to get ready for work:
Chapter One: the HoRs.
For those that aren’t aware of how it works:
There’s are two lawmaking bodies with two different purposes. The Senate is equally split among states. There are 2 senators for each state – as a result, those seats are elected by their entire state (more people voting on each person), and the seats are more competitive (more people want to be elected to that seat). So Senators tend to be more serious politicians, more “universally appealing” (aka centrist). This also makes the Senate the one that gives smaller, or less populous states, more power, because both California and Wyoming get 2 senators, no matter what. These factors contribute to the Senate being a more deliberative body.
The House Representatives are determined by population – so California has many more senators than Wyoming. They’re elected in their district, which can be quite small, so the profile of voters in a district is often very different than in an entire state. (This is why all the crazies are in the House.)
There’s a minimum, obviously – the smallest state will always have at least 1? Or 2? I don’t remember. But you can’t have a state with no representation, that’s not ok.
The problem is, our national population is very very different from what it was. The difference between New York and Maine is much more drastic than it was 200 years ago. But we haven’t increased the number of Representatives. And there’s a minimum. As the oopulation grows, and the House doesn’t, it’s becoming more and more unbalanced, in favor of smaller states.
Imagine trying to get smaller states to vote in favor of decreasing their power.
(Also: electoral college votes are on the same system. The electoral college was intended to give smaller states more power, but because there’s a minimum, and we haven’t reduced the total, it’s become super imbalanced. It was a mediocre idea to start with, and now it’s even worse. Abolishing the EC is pretty popular, but it might be easier/better to just follow the rules and increase the total number of EC votes. But, again, small states won’t agree to it.)
The Constitution says we’re supposed to increase the total number of Representatives (and EC votes) but at some point (1929 to be specific) Congress was like nahhhh
Chapter two: why we can’t Abolish Gerrymandering.
First of all, it’s already illegal.
Secondly, it’s hard for outsiders to tell the difference between appropriate “gerrymandering” and actual gerrymandering. If you look at Chicago, where I’m from, there’s a weird vote assignment on the west side of the city, it looks manipulated and weird. But if you live here, you know, there’s a huge highway that cuts through there that’s very hard to cross, so populations on one side are very different from on the other. One side of the highway is there a bunch of Latino immigrants and settled, and on the north side are more affluent (white) people.
(The fact that a highway cuts through a neighborhood isn’t an accident, but that’s just regular systemic racism, unrelated to Congress.)
If you made the voting map a simple grid, the Latino voters might be split up in a way that reduces their voting power. So the map is weird, but it’s actually good that it’s weird.
(This is why I said it’s like speeding: one, it’s already illegal, but two, it’s something everyone is doing (and traffic would be super shitty if everyone followed the speed limit), but some people are taking it to an illegal extreme.)
If you look at a state, calculate a percentage of the minorities, and check that number (those numbers – since there are more than one minority) against the number of districts that vote the way those minorities vote, then, that’s what we’ve decided is “fine” – and, for real, what else are you going to do.
Illegal gerrymandering is when those blocks of voters (“blocs,” is you want to get into Gramsci), are intentionally divided so as to reduce their power. The voting rights act of 1965 made this illegal, and every ten years, after the census, districts are often redrawn. In 2010, we ended up with a lot of gerrymandering. Now,finally, were starting to see some corrections to badly gerrymandered maps, like Alabama, Florida, New York, Wisconsin, Georgia… Louisiana…idr the others, but it’s a lot. 2024 is going to have a very very different House of Representatives than the one we have now.
This last point is worth underscoring. The current Republican house majority is due to illegal distract maps. It is, technically, an illegal Congress. So all these ridiculous shenanigans the House Republicans are up to shouldn’t be happening. (And, in fact, one could easily make the argument that the high percentage of insane and stupid Republican Representatives is because of the maps – because the the “depressurization” caused by fair maps would have dialed Congress back to a more centrist stance.
If you want to learn more, check out Democracy Docket, which is a news source from a group of people (lawyers) who are taking bad maps to court.
You have done a good job of beginning to outline why things are going to break rather than change.
Imagine trying to get smaller states to vote in favor of decreasing their power.
None you lose thr checks and balance
Checks and balances would be the executive and judicial branches, not the senate.
You think the executive has power? Haha
No senate has powers beyond policy, inquiry committees to reviel corruption ect list goes on. Checks Nd balances
No, that is the original meaning of having three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. If any of them are not doing their job the other two branches are supposed to hold them accountable (supposed to being the operative term here). I was just saying that the senate was not established as a system of checks and balances against the house of Representatives, but rather as a compromise so that smaller states wouldnt necessarily be completely beholden to one’s with much larger populations.
No its their to hold the house to account. The focus of states have and always will be localised.
Instead of banning tipping, the law should maybe require to include all costs. This should not just apply to stuff served, but anything.
Banning tipping in restaurants implies that servers would need to be paid a fair wage without needing tips to make up for a lack of wages. Menu prices would incorporate those costs. Tipping in restaurants is the most invasive which is why I chose restaurants specifically.
So instead of banning tipping you mean removing minimum wage exceptions for tipping.
Fwiw a lot of restaurants worldwide are starting to include an obnoxious 12+% “service charge” that can be “removed” if you have a complaint. Basically, enforced tipping that wouldn’t be changed by your “ban tipping” plan.
I definitely agree hard with more emphasis on removal of after-the-listed-price fees
Yes, ban minimum wage exceptions and service charges. Also I think taxes should be included on the prices of grocery store items.
Remove lobbying.
just make all election cycles last for a period of no longer than 6 months, with a limit on how much can be spent on political advertisements. No Super PACs, no dark money, everyone gets to spend the same amount, and only for the 6 months leading up to elections.
dunno how you mandate people vote. the rest looks like an ambitious but overall laudable start.
Australia already does it
A benefit rather than a detriment. Have a benefit offered only to those who have voted in the past election. It could be even paired with the universal basic income, an extra $100 added to your monthly UBI if you are a registered voter who has voted in the most recent election. With universal vote by mail, election day being a holiday, and plenty of early voting days leading up to the election there would be no excuse to not vote.
I’m not sure it would be a good idea, even if it’s a benefit instead of a detriment.
Ignorant or apathetic voters with no stake in or care for politics will just vote to obtain benefits without doing any research beforehand. That leads to them either voting for the first person on the ballot or the name they hear the most.
A fewer number of informed voters would be more likely to lead to progressive changes, in my opinion. Uninformed throw-away voters adds noise and introduces a demographic that can be influenced by candidate popularity rather than their policies.
Make UBI entirely dependent on voting. Don’t vote, no UBI check.
