Poll: What Does the United States Need?

[MineralMan]

Someone in another thread suggested a poll of this nature, so here it is. Vote as you will.

12 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	The Entire US System Needs to Be Replaced and the Old One Tossed in the Garbage.
	1 (8%)
	It Needs to Have Voters Turn Out 100% and Change Things through Elections.
	3 (25%)
	It Needs a People's Revolution and Damn the Consequences.
	0 (0%)
	It Needs to Make Steady Progress to Become a Progressive Nation.
	3 (25%)
	It Needs A Complete and Drastic Change of Leadership.
	1 (8%)
	It Needs to Become a Pure Socialist State and Those Who Oppose That Should Leave.
	0 (0%)
	It Needs Something, but I Have No Idea What.
	0 (0%)
	Screw It. It's Too Late. Anarchy is the Only Solution.
	2 (17%)
	I'm Not Answering This Stupid Poll.
	0 (0%)
	Here's My Vote.
	2 (17%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Democracyinkind]

1. Fewer internet polls would be a start. nt

[MineralMan]

4. But, they're so useful and important.

I think every DU OP should be a poll.

[Democracyinkind]

5. Lol.

At this point, I'm open to try anything

[MineralMan]

2. If I missed your choice, please post it as the title of your reply.

I'm sure I missed some options in this poll.

[RKP5637]

3. IMO, needs the money out of politics, as well as, all redistricting eliminated. ... maybe

districting gone all together.

[justabob]

18. money out of politics, hands down nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

52. Or more in - pay everyone who comes out to vote $100.

That would get participation rates up a lot; probably start seeing eligible voter voting rates above 90% if you did that.

[RKP5637]

57. Isn't it also mandatory to vote in some countries? n/t

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

58. I think I heard it was in at least one.

But I prefer the carrot to the stick, since I assume if it's mandatory and you don't, there's some penalty.

[RKP5637]

60. The $100 would certainly be an incentive!!! n/t

[Benton D Struckcheon]

6. Proportional representation in the House.

Theoretically this would allow more parties, but thinking about the British and what's happened there, we'd have two big parties still, with a little one in the middle, more than likely. Either way, winner takes all was all they knew about when they did the Constitution, but most places now do some form of proportional representation. We need that here too.

[Spider Jerusalem]

11. The UK does not have proportional representation.

The UK has a first-past-the-post electoral system (aka "winner take all&quot . The Liberal Democrats trace their roots to the Liberal Party, which was itself descended, more or less, from the Whigs, and were formerly one of the two major parties in British politics; that ended after WWI, as the rise of socialism and trade unionism saw the newly-enfranchised working classes voting Labour. But the Liberals hung around as a minority party in the decades since, eventually merging with the Social Democratic Party (itself a splinter from the Labour Party) to form the Liberal Democrats. ..and spending decades making themselves electable only to piss it away by going into coalition with the Tories. (I know quite a lot of people who never would have voted Lib Dem in the last general election if they'd known they'd get a Tory government as a result.)

[Benton D Struckcheon]

15. True, but your parliamentary system

does allow for coalitions like the one you speak of. We don't have that, so for us proportional voting might loosen things up a bit.

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. Sure you do

what do you think the Blue Dogs are? Just because you have the same party label doesn't mean it isn't a coalition.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

32. 1. Erm, mebbe...

2. You're WAY too rational and clear-headed to be on the Internet, ya know...

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. Scrap the presidential system, replace it with a parliamentary system

eliminate the power of the Senate to vote on any budget matters.

Those two, for a start.

Beyond that, sensible infrastructure planning, major investments in alternative energy sources, and serious planning for mitigating the effects of climate change (which will include the mass migration of millions of people and increased tensions along the USA's southern border); in the coming decades this is likely to be THE major issue. And anarchy, riots, famine and civil war are the likely outcome, anyway.

[MineralMan]

10. That's pretty much the first choice in the poll.

Any complete replacement of our systems would fit with that vote. There are no specifics in that selection. Thanks for your explanation of your ideas.

[Nye Bevan]

12. I guarantee you that the Tea Party would have much more power under a parliamentary system

than it has now.

A parliamentary system frequently involves lots of back-room horsetrading outside of the public view as the various parties try to build uneasy coalitions to cobble together an overall majority so that they can actually get stuff done. It is only too easy to envisage a more mainstream bloc agreeing to something like stringent abortion restrictions in exchange for support from the Tea Party bloc in order for it to stay in power.

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. Would it? The Tea Party as it is is a faction within the Republican Party.

Just as the Blue Dogs are a faction within the Democratic Party. Under a parliamentary system, these broad coalitions of convenience that characterise American political parties would probably fracture into smaller parties. In such a situation it's more likely that hypothetical mainstream parties would work out a confidence and supply agreement with some not-crazy faction.

[Nye Bevan]

21. Under a parliamentary system small factions have tremendous leverage.

Right now in the US all they can do is stall a bill here or a nomination there. In a parliamentary system they can bring down the government and force new elections.

[Spider Jerusalem]

23. Not under a Westminster-style system, they don't.

You seem to be thinking of European parliamentary systems.

[Nye Bevan]

35. The House of Commons in Westminster has 650 seats.

The Conservatives have only 303 seats and the current governing coalition only has an overall parliamentary majority because of the support of the Liberal Democrats (56 seats). If the Liberal Democrats wanted to, they could bring down the government and force new elections by siding with Labour and enlisting the support of some of the even more minor parties.

As another example, in 1977 Labour lost its overall majority in parliament and clung to power only through a "Lib-Lab pact" (an agreement that the Liberal party, which only had about 13 seats, would support the government in a no-confidence vote). Subsequently the Liberals decided to end this agreement and new elections were forced when the government lost a no-confidence vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lib%E2%80%93Lab_pact

[Spider Jerusalem]

38. No, they couldn't.

They agreed coalition rather than a confidence and supply deal that would've seen a Conservative minority government. If they rebelled and forced a confidence vote they'd be slaughtered at the next general election, and Labour would be very unlikely to do a deal with them (or to need to; latest polls show Labour with a slim but consistent majority, and the Tories have been bleeding support from the right to UKIP).

[Nye Bevan]

40. Your subject line disagrees with the body of your post.

You are saying that they could bring down the government, which was my point, but that right now it is not in their interests to do so, which I agree with.

[Spider Jerusalem]

43. No, I'm saying they couldn't.

One of the things the coalition passed was the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act of 2011 which sets the length of a Parliament at five years, unless there is a vote of no confidence; it further requires a 55% vote for a motion of no confidence to succeed. 55% of 650 is 358 (357.5, actually); Labour + Lib Dems + all the smaller parties together don't have the votes (and DUP will vote with the Tories anyway, and you can take 5 out of the total because they're Sinn Fein and refuse to take their seats).

[Nye Bevan]

53. Ah, I was not familiar with the new 55% rule.

So I see your point that with the current composition of the House of Commons the Conservatives should be safe from a no-confidence vote even if the Lib Dems jump ship.

[laundry_queen]

34. That's only in a minority situation. nt

[laundry_queen]

33. That depends on how it's set up

and how many parties exist. If it's like Canada, where there are a lot of minor parties but only 3-4 major parties (and only 2 that have ever held power) the chance of minority governments is smaller. Most of my life, it's been majority governments.

Also, while it may give the tea party more power occasionally, the same would also happen on the left. And because legislation often happens far more quickly with a parliamentary system, imagine if more left wing policies became law more quickly - when the right took over, do you think people would give up that progress easily (think Medicare and Social Security)? Not likely. It could shift things leftward in a hurry.

The president (PM in this case) would also have a lot more domestic power. That could be good because there would be less gridlock, but it also means someone like GWB would've had MORE power.

There are good things and bad things about a parliamentary system...I think a hybrid would be good - Canada's system needs some reforms too. No current system is perfect.

[Nye Bevan]

39. Yes, when you said "someone like GWB would've had MORE power",

you hit on a huge problem with parliamentary systems; a government which has a big overall parliamentary majority tends to have too much power. Mrs Thatcher, for example, was able to do essentially whatever she wanted. More recently, I guarantee that a Prime Minister George W Bush would have been successful in his quest to privatize Social Security. On the flipside, a Prime Minister Barack Obama might well have been able to implement a single-payer healthcare system.

You are absolutely right that no system is perfect. The US system has much more checks and balances, so it's harder to do bad things as well as good things.

[Spider Jerusalem]

50. Someone like GWB never would have risen to the leadership in a parliamentary system.

[Nye Bevan]

54. The Reichstag was a parliament.

And yes, I know, Godwin. But the point is that people can rise to power under that system via horsetrading and backroom deals as opposed to being directly elected by the people.

[Spider Jerusalem]

55. Weimar Germany is not a good yardstick for measuring parliamentary government.

Neither is postwar Italy, for that matter.

And "directly elected by the people"...like George W Bush? Or John Quincy Adams? Or Benjamin Harrison? Or Rutherford Hayes? In a representative democracy the leader of the majority party in parliament is as much a representative of "the collective will of the people" as a president, and sometimes more so.

[laundry_queen]

63. Well, that is true. :) nt

[Warren DeMontague]

28. Yeh, that'll happen.

Fascinating process, here, as DU continues to march steadily out of political reality, into total irrelevance. Wheee!

[Spider Jerusalem]

36. Not going to happen, no

because people in the USA have a bizarre and pathological reverence for the antiquated Constitution and act like it was brought down from Mount Sinai graven in stone even when it becomes increasingly clear that the form of government it mandates is inherently flawed, fundamentally broken and ultimately unworkable (states representing fifteen percent of the population control half the seats in the Senate, for instance). The country will collapse into civil war and disunion and old men with tears in their eyes will talk wistfully of a mythic land called the United States of America before there's any chance of changing the system. But that doesn't mean we can't talk about it, anyway. (It's fascinating to see how many people are incapable of both walking and chewing gum at the same time.)

[Warren DeMontague]

41. Can't talk about it? Sure, you can.

I mean it's funny when a solid chunk of GD acts like a single picture of few attractive women in bathing suits is going to cause their heads to melt like the Nazis at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark.... people would be like "how come we can't talk about such and such?".



Sure, people can talk about it. However there is hypothetical speculation and then there is on-the-ground political reality in this country. And then there is "never going to happen in a million years" fantasyland. I think doing something about gerrymandered districts- that's a realistic goal, even if it's not likely to be achieved. And I've said a thousand times that, for instance, the US senate, by proportionally giving a much stronger vote to low-population states, skews the Federal Gov't more conservative than where the mean population views actually are.. even less likely to ever be addressed.

Scrapping the Constitution? Not gonna happen. Plus the fact that the US Constitution, for all its flaws, is a surprisingly wholly secular document for the time AND incredibly resilient and flexible given the potential alternatives, above and beyond the fact that it's not going anywhere, I'm certainly not in any big hurry to advocate a replacement.

[Spider Jerusalem]

46. "A surprisingly secular document for its time"...230 years ago.

Resilient, sure, flexible? Only up to a point, but that point may be the breaking point--especially with Republican-controlled state governments gerrymandering Congressional districts in such a way that elections are almost guaranteed to end up with a Republican-dominated house, leading to the problem of competing claims for democratic legitimacy between the legislative and executive highlighted by Juan Linz in his essay "The Perils of Presidentialism".

[Warren DeMontague]

47. Like I said, Gerrymandering is right at the top of my list.

[panader0]

8. I used to hear the expression-"guns and butter"

guns being defense, foreign affairs etc, and butter being domestic affairs.
We need less guns and more butter.

[JaneyVee]

9. switch the military budget and education budget

Plus a massive investment in infrastructure.

[LiberalAndProud]

13. Something on a Ritz cracker.

On a more serious note, the single most revolutionary thing the US needs is meaningful and impenetrable campaign finance reform.

[MineralMan]

19. Can't get that with Republicans in control of the House.

It's a great idea, but will require a Democratic sweep of Congress and the Presidency.

Might even require a Constitutional Amendment, and those are hard to come by.

[LiberalAndProud]

22. You asked me what we need, not what we can get.

Throwing the whole shebang into the crapper doesn't seem particularly realistic either.

ETA:
I don't think a Democratic sweep would earn us the needed reform either. No one is immune, including those with the (D) tag.

[MineralMan]

26. Once we decide what we need, we have to figure out how to get it.

The two questions are very closely related.

[LiberalAndProud]

37. Okay.

I'll tell you how we can get campaign finance reform if you tell me how we get 100% voter turnout.

(And if you hack the machines, I may have to get violent.)

[polichick]

24. Also one person, one vote (no Electoral College), verifiable voting in 50 states...

one-day primary voting and easier access to the polls, even for *gasp* poor people.

You know, the kind of stuff you might find in a democracy.

[Auggie]

29. +1

[Journeyman]

17. It used to be "a really good five-cent cigar," tho' it'd be nice to get back to a great dime bag...

http://www.indiana.edu/~librcsd/internet/extra/cigar.html

[Nye Bevan]

20. Number one on my list would be a complete end to gerrymandering.

All districts should be determined on a purely geographical basis by nonpartisan boundary commissions (as is the case in the UK).

[MineralMan]

25. Some states already have that system in place.

Minnesota comes close to that, as well. There was no gerrymandering in 2010 here, despite Republican control of both state houses. We flipped the legislature to Democratic control in 2012 despite the redistricting.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

59. I'd settle for 'all districts must be rectangles'

except where they hit the edge of the state, of course. Or as close to it as possible. Let a computer draw districts, based purely on math, maybe include population density as a variable, but completely ignore voting habits of people therein. If that means some districts are 'safe' and others always 'swing', so be it. As far as 'representation' goes, the real split in the US is rural vs urban. The more rural, pretty much always the redder, the more urban, the bluer.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. To wear brighter colors.

Seriously, people. You're a little drab.

[MineralMan]

30. Best option so far, I think.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. That's what I'm here for!

to provide the answers no one else has thought of.

[NuclearDem]

44. I'm not drab, I'm just differently-happied.

[Warren DeMontague]

48. Hey, I'm all about earth tones, myself.

However, external optical stimulation is always appreciated.

[NuclearDem]

42. A parliamentary proportional representation system.

Holding primaries after general elections, and publicly financed elections.

[G_j]

45. campaign finance reform/clean elections

that would make the act voting far more effective.

[PowerToThePeople]

49. The non-negative parts of 1,3, and 6. Here's my Vote. eom

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

51. I don't even know what a 'pure socialist state' is...

other than impractical, given human nature, but then that about sums up capitalism too.

And I say that as someone who wants to see public state banks, public utilities, public schools, public prisons, and public everything else that is a matter of human survival. The private sector should be for things that are non-essential to survival or 'the common good'. Fashion, entertainment, decoration, durable goods with extra bells and whistles.

I also strongly suspect millenials and future voting cohorts will start abandoning or ignoring the 'party' structure, and start voting more and more for specific politicians who can more easily get their personal beliefs on record via social media. When everyone is wired in, getting your message out becomes a lot cheaper.

[MineralMan]

64. Nobody does, really. nt

[moondust]

56. Broad-based prosperity.

Ask Robert Reich how to get there.

Wasn't democracy supposed to keep the train moving in that general direction?

[Historic NY]

61. It won't become progressive if people sit home on their

asses and not vote in Federal, state, and local elections. Next to the Congress & WH, its the statehouse where all the work is done either for or against.

[TransitJohn]

62. Less military, cops, and prisons

eom

[hobbit709]

65. A massive infusion of critical thinking skills.

[MineralMan]

66. That would have been a good addition to the poll.

I'd vote for that.

[TBF]

67. You forgot the kitten option.

Given the gross income inequality we are dealing with I think we probably need a revolution, but I am hesitant to pick that choice because I think the evidence is in that these wackos will go full-scale fascist. Even in Greece where the KKE (communist party) is strong - and we certainly don't have anything like them here - there was still a massive showing for Golden Dawn. I believe that is what would happen here given the mentalities we are dealing with.

I spend quite a little bit of time thinking about which other countries might be nice to live in. That is pretty sad for someone who can trace her roots back to a Puritan coming over in the 1600s.

[rrneck]

68. What this country needs is a good ten cent cuppa coffee.

That means a cultural attitude that does not require every cup of coffee be a dessert or a status symbol of one's discerning taste.

We need to deleverage our empire before the energy resource wars ramp up. Voter turnout to make the country more progressive won't work if progressives are just as enthralled with over consumption as conservatives.

There is no doubt that we will become increasingly progressive as time goes on. The question is will we do so fast enough. The world we have made may have already outrun our ability to change.

[DiverDave]

69. Anarchy, baby

Man, just thinking what the $$overlords heads would do if they read that.

BOOM.