Anyone else disturbed by modern day newspeak?

[dibl]

I don't admire direct democracy. 50% of all citizens are of below-average intelligence. 50% of all citizens are of below-average education. 50% of all citizens are below-average informed on current events. Their stupid, ill-informed opinions should not negate the other 50%. Sorry. The election of representatives provides an opportunity to select people from the better-informed 50% to do the deciding. My two cents worth (and well worth it!).

[Snowhog]

No need to be rid of Congress et al. Just establish term limits via a Constitutional Amendment -- it won't happen by legislation. My plan:

1) House of Representatives: One six-year term, with a mid-term (completion of the third-year) 'confidence vote'. If constituents vote to retain, you finish out the term, else the State House appoints a replacement. One third of the House seats come up for election every two-years. A replacement may run for election at the completion of the term of appointment (so could serve for a maximum of nine-years).

2) Senate: One eight-year term, with a mid-term (completion of the fourth-year) 'confidence vote'. If constituents vote to retain, you finish out the term, else the State Senate appoints a replacement. One fourth of the Senate seats come up for election every two-years. A replacement may run for election at the completion of the term of appointment (so could serve for a maximum of twelve-years).

3) Representatives and Senators, having served a 'full term', may not run for election unless four-years from the completion of their full-term has elapsed.

4) No Representative or Senator shall receive a retirement payable from public funds other than those retirement plans available to the public at large.

5) No representative of Senator shall receive health/medical coverage from plans payable from public funds other than those health/medical coverage plans available to the public at large.

6) The salary of Representatives shall be the median household income of their legislative districts multiplied by a factor of 1.25. Salary shall be set annually. No cost of living adjustment is authorized.

7) The salary of Senators shall be the median household income of their legislative districts multiplied by a factor of 1.50. Salary shall be set annually. No cost of living adjustment is authorized.

This would be an excellent start in my opinion.

[SteveRiley]

The election of representatives provides an opportunity to select people from the better-informed 50% to do the deciding.

But the the thing is now, the better-informed 50% appears reluctant to run for office.

[dibl]

But the the thing is now, the better-informed 50% appears reluctant to run for office.

It's been a very long time since the best and brightest in America wanted anything to do with elected office. And it's no mystery why they should be reluctant. But still, as long as we get some choices in the upper 50% (e.g. at the 55% level), we're better off than with direct democracy. IMHO.

[bsniadajewski]

Why not add some sort of requirement based on education level somehow? I would love top hear real civil yet passionate debates among representatives of all political persuasions (conservative, liberal, libertasrian, socialist, etc.) on CSPAN any day.

@SR The idea of the Senate was to have each State represented equally while the HR represented tyhe people of those States based on population. It was a compomise on whether the Congress should have each State represented equally or based on population (Larger states like Virginia or NY had more reps than RI or Connecticut). So they said, "Why not both?, Have two houses instead".

[SteveRiley]

Why not add some sort of requirement based on education level somehow?

Perhaps we administer the US Citizenship Test to all those running for office. It might be a decent enough baseline.

@SR The idea of the Senate was to have each State represented equally while the HR represented tyhe people of those States based on population. It was a compomise ... So they said, "Why not both?, Have two houses instead".

Yep, I'm aware of the historical reasoning. That reasoning no longer applies to 21st century American democracy. In an essay published in Harper's Magazine, Richard Rosenfeld makes the case for abolishing the Senate:

. . .
Today, however, we are not thirteen but fifty states, all of which (except the original thirteen) accepted the Senate’s undemocratic voting system not as a concession to get smaller states to form a union but rather as a constitutional fact of life. Furthermore, except for Texas and California, the additional thirty-seven states were not independent before they became part of the Union; they were sections of territory that the United States already owned or claimed to own. Consequently, the inhabitants of the other states were already U.S. citizens before Congress allowed them to become citizens of the new states, which were created by Congress. There is thus no reason to apply the rationale of the Great Compromise to the vast majority of states that are part of this nation today.
. . .

But what about protecting small states against large states, farmers against manufacturers, “old country values” against “the corruption of the city”? Pure mythology. Rhode Island and Delaware, among the smallest states, have less farmland and fewer farmers than either California or New York, two of the largest states. Nevada’s small population is concentrated in Las Vegas and Reno, giving it a special interest in gambling, not farming. Besides, why should farmers have a greater say than manufacturers on questions of energy policy or airline deregulation? Why should country folk have a greater say than city folk on decisions about defense appropriations or funding AIDS research? If small states represent special interests and values, do such interests and values justify giving those states a veto over every national question?
. . .

An ironic alternative to outright abolition might be possible, however, which could prove to be a new “Great Compromise.” Perhaps, in tribute to the drafters who so admired the British constitution, we could allow the Senate to continue in the footsteps of the British House of Lords, retaining its undemocratic, unrepresentative, and aristocratic membership (i.e., “equal suffrage” for each state, large and small) but with greatly reduced powers, so that it might, as in Britain, inform and delay, but not defeat, measures of “the people’s house,” which, in this country, means the House of Representatives. By conferring final lawmaking authority on the House of Representatives, we would thereby enhance the prestige and importance of our most democratic and representative branch, attracting more qualified (“wiser”) candidates to its membership and encouraging greater citizen attention to its work.

Why would those citizens who live in small states support such an amendment? Because they, like all Americans, believe in “one person, one vote,” fair representation, justice, equality, and democracy. As Thomas Paine wrote in January of 1776, “We have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the noblest, purest constitution on the face of the earth.” More than two centuries later, we still know that to be true.

In the centuries that have passed since “our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that ‘all men are created equal,’” we, the children of these Founders, have slogged a long and difficult path toward a place of greater liberty. Along this path, we have disestablished the Founders’ state churches, removed their wealth, property, and religious qualifications from voting or office-holding, abolished their enslavement of African Americans, ended their second-class treatment of women, paid compensation for their abuses of Native Americans, deprived their elites in state legislatures of the power to appoint presidential electors and U.S. senators, and made the Bill of Rights a guarantee not merely against actions of their new federal government but against actions of their old state governments as well. Along this path no principle of equality or democracy has been more important than that of “one person, one vote,” and yet the U.S. Senate remains a glaring exception to this rule, a relic of Paine’s two ancient tyrannies that continues to infect our political system. Today, we must resume the historic struggle to bring forth democracy in America: We must do away with our small and unequal Senate. This is America’s next step.

It's a longish article, but I'd encourage everyone to give it a full read. Then scroll back up and look at the date: May 2004. Not much has changed in nine years. That's sad.

[jlittle]

A comparison of the history of my country, New Zealand, where we did away with our upper house in the 1950s, with our neighbours (sort of) Australia, which has a senate, can suggest that only one house is not good; it's too easy here for ill-considered decisions to be pushed through.
However, in the USA you have a separate executive branch. (Our executive comes from the elected house, as in the UK.) Perhaps that's enough.

Regards, John Little

[bsniadajewski]

I wonder if he said anything about the lower House. Anything about moving to a proportional system (by state, maybe)?

[SteveRiley]

That's his point -- a single legislative body, based on proportional representation. We keep the current House of Representatives. As John Little mentions, the U.S. already has a separate executive branch. Now that the geographic extent of the U.S. is stabilized, we aren't adding more territory, and most of the states didn't participate in the "Great Compromise," the conditions that required said compromise no longer exist.

[HalationEffect]

What bothers me most is that there seems to be no achievable way to solve the biggest problems in representative democracy (mainly corruption and incompetence). It was a grand experiment, but it's failed. When that happens, it's time to try something else.

Direct democracy is one system that I like because it eliminates corruption, and if combined with well-informed citizens it should greatly reduce incompetence.

However, there are other systems that have their plus points, such as Demarchy.

The result of this (the party political system) is that people vote according to their impressions of the politician and party based upon political advertising, plus any other form of media that has influenced them. The problem with this is that people may not necessarily vote for the best candidate since they have not taken the time to examine whom to vote for. Demarchy eliminates an election process, saving time and money involved in self-promotion.

...

An attractive feature of demarchy is that if political leaders were replaced on a regular basis with randomly selected citizens, it would reduce institutionalised corruption, party apathy and complacency as well as a history of party led entitlement, lack of choice and variety in political ideas in platforms. It could be argued that replacing politicians in this way would solve such problems.

...

Politicians are often forced to make decisions which compromise their own beliefs and what they may think is best through the pressures of future elections, fitting into their party apparatus, pleasing those who funded their campaigns and vote sharing and voting compromise. The time lost in the voting process, image forming and maintenance and focusing on approval would be better suited to forming good law and policy.

(Edit) It would make political service similar to jury service. People are selected by lot and do a specific job for a specific amount of time, then go back to their former lives when their term is done / task is complete. We don't think professional jurors are a good idea, and I posit that professional politicians are an equally bad idea.

[SteveRiley]

if political leaders were replaced on a regular basis with randomly selected citizens

This sounds a lot like jury duty -- government by lottery


"Dear Sir or Madam:

You are hereby ordered to report to the Office of the Governor to begin your mandatory six-month term as head of the state's Executive Branch. You will be assisted by a cabinet of 15 similarly randomly selected members of the citizenry. Your opposing team, the Legislative Branch, will remain in place for the first three months of your term in office. The entire body will step down, at once, midway through your term, and a replacement Legislature will be randomly assembled from the group of citizens who live on the other side of the tracks from your current residence. As always, members of the Judicial Branch retain their appointments for life. Should a member retire, die, or otherwise lose his/her job because of inappropriate body part exposure, you must select a replacement within seven days. You are required by law to make your selection from the people who live on the moon.

Enjoy your six-month stay in the finely appointed Governor's mansion. We look forward to your arrival."

[bsniadajewski]

Now that is just hilarious!

[vw72]

This topic seems to have drifted political, but I just wanted to mention why I prefer Human Resource Manger versus Personnel Manager. Things the decisions makers in business value as helping the business achieve its goals are called resources. Everything else is a cost or expense. By having a Personnel Manger, that is just one more administrative cost to deal with and the employees themselves tend to be viewed as expendable cogs in a wheel.

Managing the business resource that is known as human beings, assigns the same strategic importance to that resource as does all the other resources used by the entity. Resources tend not to be interchangeable, nor are people. A large box store was just in the news about raising the minimum wage. They said it wouldn't significantly impact them because they already pay above it. They found that paying the minimum wage led to high turnover and the cost to interview, process and hire more than offset the increased wages they were paying. BTW, interviewing, processing and hiring are all personnel costs. The company, on the other hand was was effectively lowering its over all costs by managing its human resource effectively.

So, while some may feel they are a person and not a resource, from a business perspective, it is good to be valued as a resource. Resources are something that are good and help the business meet it's goals. Persons, or people are just faceless, nameless blobs. They could be employees, they could be customers, they could be somebody with no interest in or by the company. As such, they are easy to dismiss. But a company that dismisses or misuses it's resources, whether human or otherwise, will fail to remain a company for long.

[PaulW2U]

So, while some may feel they are a person and not a resource, from a business perspective, it is good to be valued as a resource.

It is?

I'd still like to be considered to be person or a member of staff rather than part of the resource available to meet the daily targets and ensure that SLAs (service level agreements) are met.

Am I getting too old for the company that employs me? Only 1,908 working days and I'm a free man. Yes, I have worked it out.

[oshunluvr]

I have been involved in some research lately surrounding "Human Factors" which I thought was a funny title. It means human behavior and psychology, but seems to be designed to obfuscate it's true meaning.

One reason our populist representative government doesn't work well is because our representatives don't actually do what the majority of the people they represent ask them to do. I definitely think a great many issues need to be settled via direct democracy.

I think there a lots of ways we can improve on our current system, just very little impetus to do so.

1. Term limits: I don't think the Framers intended Congress to be a career, and I don't think it should be.
2. Campaign finance reform: It's way too easy to buy a position in the government. Totally transparent documentation of the source of all campaign funds would be a good start. Maybe campaigns should be financed publicly and private donations should be only allowed to a particular office or issue - not a specific candidate or side? I realize this would virtually end private donations, but it would also end buying influence. If a multimillionaire wants to run for office, let him donate to the general campaign fund for that office and then stand toe-to-toe, dollar-for-dollar with the competition. Obviously, there are numerous problems with this idea - but it's a starting point.
3. Discontinue "Earmarks": The #1 way Congress manipulates money in near-secrecy.
4. Restore States Rights: As Steve pointed out WY != CA or any other state for that matter. There is way too much Federal over-reach.