Government
I am avoiding political ideology in my blog (so far), but there are some aspects of government that are not about how to run a country but are about how to run a government. The topics below are, to my mind, not about ideology. I can't see how anything here fits on the left/right spectrum. But they are bound up in the Democrat/Republican duopoly.
I expect that you will shoot my proposals full of holes. That's okay with me, as long as you realize that what we are doing in the USA is not working and something needs to change. Being wedded to the Constitution and tradition will not fix the problem, in part because people have found ways to read anything that they want into the Constitution and in part because the Constitution does not look forward to our current society and technology.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGETS
It is clear that Congress cannot control the amount of money that it spends. The budget should be prepared in points. When the allocation of points is done, the points would be scaled to the income of the previous year (so no cheating on projections). Regardless of the number of points allocated, the budget would be balanced. Or it could be unbalanced by a separate law that specifies a percentage deficit or surplus.
This cannot include contractual payments, such as interest on the national debt and Social Security payments. It should include entitlements. Entitlements (welfare, Medicaid for example) are not obligatory and should only be paid as the government can afford them.
Furthermore, funds collected by law enforcement agencies, national parks, etc. should be passed on to the treasury to prevent unethical generation and use of the funds.
VOTING
The common election in the United States is - one time vote, the plurality wins. This warps the election and helps ensure two party control as voters are more concerned about blocking bad candidates than electing good candidates. It is subject to gaming - want to ensure the election of a right wing candidate - just make sure that there are two left wing candidates to split the left wing vote. And is not "majority rules".
The fix - easy and used a lot in other places - vote in rounds, first candidate with a majority wins, eliminate all but two candidates after round one.
It would also be good to have a "no acceptable candidate" on every ballot. If "no acceptable candidate" wins, a new election is held, with all current candidates are excluded.
There are other possibilities for voting, but we (the USA) have chosen, perhaps, the worst.
That still leaves us with a bunch of uninformed and easily mislead voters, biased and uninformed news sources, and external influences.
How about some one on one debates? Put two candidates in the same room without a moderator and televise them. Each would have a microphone, but only one microphone would be active at a given moment. Each candidate would have, for example, a total of one hour of microphone time. A candidate would ask a question and flip the active microphone switch. The other candidate would respond and flip the switch. When a candidate's hour ran out, the other candidate would take his/her remaining time. Then maybe two minutes each to finish.
A candidate could bring along an assistant to look up facts, but only the candidate would have a microphone.
The camera should be stationary to avoid camera bias and show the actions of both candidates and advisors at all times.
CHALLENGING CONSTITUTIONALITY
As I understand it, someone must demonstrate imminent harm by a law, executive order, or regulation to have standing in a lawsuit that challenges Constitutionality. But it isn't just a matter of harm, it's a matter of proper functioning of the government. Congress, the president, or any state government should be able to request a quick judgement from the Supreme Court to address laws, executive orders, regulations, and non-enforcement of laws.
And I don't understand why the court judgements take so long. Why can't an issue be resolved within a week after arguments are presented?
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
The way it's supposed to work - the Congress makes laws, the Department of Justice enforces the laws. The way it works - the Congress makes laws, the Department of Justice enforces the laws that the President likes. Why? Because the Department of Justice is part of the executive branch.
Congress makes the laws and sets up the rules that allow the executive branch to implement the laws and extend the laws via regulation and executive order. It seems to me that congress should oversee the Department of Justice to enforce the laws that they authored. Or possibly it should be a separate branch of goverment.
SUPREME COURT
Politics has entered the Supreme Court. Decisions are made for political reasons and then justified by (mis) interpreting the Constitution. I think this is obvious from the voting patterns - four votes on the left, four on the right, and a decisive vote in the middle. How can a group that is just interpreting the Constitution repeatedly yield this pattern.
If it's going to be political, we aren't doing a very good job of choosing justices to represent the people.
Let's try this - every five years, four or five justices are elected in a nationwide election. The election is in two rounds. The first round narrows the candidates to eight or ten. The second round selects four or five justices. Everyone gets one vote in each round.
A candidate would need 12.5 or 10 percent in the first round to guarantee a move forward. And 25 or 20 percent in the second round to be elected. Any more votes for that person would be wasted. So candidates could form groups. Any unneeded votes to a candidate would be reassigned to other candidates in the group as needed to move as many of those candidates forward as possible.
This would yield a wide range of views among the winners. In the case of five winners, it would take just one fifth of the voters working as a political group to ensure a representative on the court.
Note that this is just an initial proposal. I suggest a lot of simulation to work out kinks in this voting system.
This direct election of the justices would separate the selection of justices from the president. If you are trying to select a president to handle an incredible variety of jobs, why would you add selecting Supreme Court justices to the mix? That warps the presidential election.
Do you think that this would turn the Supreme Court into a political battlefield? It already is, and the wrong people are in charge of selecting the players.
CONGRESS
Voting for representatives by location was necessary in the past, but no longer. Politically oriented modification of voting districts is a recipe for corruption. How about if we have forty senators and eighty House of Representatives members. Ten senators and forty House members would be elected every two years. The elections would be nationwide, in two rounds, with the first round first narrowing the candidates to twenty for the Senate and eighty for the House. The final round would select ten senators and forty House members. Everyone gets one vote in each round.
A candidate would need only 5 (Senate) and 1.25 (House) percent in the first round or 10 and 2.5 percent in the second round to guarantee a move forward. Candidates could form groups and any unneeded votes to a candidate would be reassigned to other candidates in the group as needed to move as many of those candidates forward as possible.
Now you would need a ten percent political group to ensure a senator and 2.5 percent group to ensure a House member. There are no districts or gerrymandering to get in the way of representation.
The reduced size of the two houses of Congress would contribute to improved decision making, but they are still big enough to be representative of the multidimensional political spectrum.
POLITICAL PARTIES
The Democrats and Republicans have become entrenched and far too powerful. And they fail to meet the needs of many people. For example where does a fiscal conservative, social liberal go? Where does one who just wants to get rid of the current power structure go?
The two party system is not part of the Constitution. But the Constitution set up the environment that allowed it to evolve and take over.
The voting concepts for the Supreme Court and Congress, above, would have an dramatic effect on political parties. A group of twenty percent of the population would have access to the Supreme Court. A group of ten percent would have access to both houses of Congress. Small parties would become useful, getting a foothold in national politics, and becoming an organization that can grow.
PERVERSE INCENTIVES
Any government program that receives or pays money, should be set up to avoid counterproductive incentives.
If a program subsidizes something - food, income, health insurance - a step in income should never result in losing more subsidy than the increase in income - that's incentive to remain dependent.
An increase in income should never result in a reduced after-tax income.
CONSTITUTION
Regardless of how well you think the Constitution could work, assuming that it was interpreted correctly and followed, it set up the environment that produced our current mess. So I have no problems suggesting changes, as noted above.
Since I've opened the gate, one more change - why not get rid of the Senate or House of Representatives. I can't see how having two houses of Congress instead of one has any benefits. And the bill reconciliation process is used to obscure legislative tricks.
And the Constitution could use some more precise language, at least in some of the amendments.
AWFUL ACRONYMS
A side note - POTUS and SCOTUS are possibly the ugliest acronyms that I have ever encountered. How do I get people to stop using them?
