Do you believe we have the best form of government so far devised? We probably do.
Do you believe we have the best from of government possible? We certainly do not.
Herewith are a few principles, which if instituted, would help to improve upon our form of government.
1. Abolish political parties. Each elected representative votes according to the dictates of his or her own heart and mind, rather then according to the dictates of any party line.
2. Electioneering is strictly prohibited. Representatives are elected based upon their own merits, not on how much they can afford for publicity.
3. Every person eligible to vote is equally eligible to be elected. Every person elected has a civic duty to serve.
4. Elected representatives receive no pay for their services. Costs can be covered for those unable to do so themselves.
5. Lobbying is prohibited. Issues are decided on the basis of right or wrong rather than on who has the most money and power.
6. A president, or head of government is unnecessary. All power to make and carry out decisions rests in the hands of the elected representatives. The days of "leaders" are over. A head of state, elected or appointed, with no power, is acceptable.
These and other changes would go a long way toward making this country a true democracy, rather than the oligarchy that it now is - government run by a small clique of wealthy, white, Christian males.
Do you believe these changes are impossible, or will never happen? There was a time when the descendants of slaves and women were not permitted to vote. Thanks to an advancement in people's thinking it was concluded that these exclusions were wrong and that a change was needed. Today further changes are necessary to keep government current with modern concepts.
Organized society has been making progress since the dawn of civilization. Why stop now?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 24
1. Abolish political parties. Each elected representative votes according to the dictates of his or her own heart and mind, rather then according to the dictates of any party line. How could you do this? a group of people couldn't get together to elect their mayor after deciding what person they could agree on to be mayor? Sounds very good but is highly impracticle!
2. Electioneering is strictly prohibited. Representatives are elected based upon their own merits, not on how much they can afford for publicity. Define "electioneering." Could one person tell anyone else he wanted to be considered for the job? That is basic electioneering.
3. Every person eligible to vote is equally eligible to be elected. Every person elected has a civic duty to serve. We are close to their now in that most persons eligible to vote could hold the office. The president has a 35 year old restriction which I believe should never be sacrificed. And if every voter had to serve then persons with a limiting factor which prevent them from serving would be denied the vote?
4. Elected representatives receive no pay for their services. Costs can be covered for those unable to do so themselves. Can't agree here. This would be set up to be the "rich old boys club." The labor is worthy of his hire. Also this is totally incongruous with the "civic duty to serve." Most persons could not afford to leave obligation to support their families and serve.
5. Lobbying is prohibited. Issues are decided on the basis of right or wrong rather than on who has the most money and power. I'd be all in favor of this except that it is not possible without denying many persons basic rights which we currently have and I don't want to lose! I want to be able to write a letter or call my representatives and "lobby" for what I believe is important. To be told to set back, shut up and play dumb wouldn't set well with me. If we could control, to some extent, the massive amount of money that goes into lobbying it would be a great start!
6. A president, or head of government is unnecessary. All power to make and carry out decisions rests in the hands of the elected representatives. The days of "leaders" are over. A head of state, elected or appointed, with no power, is acceptable. So, there would be no had person to take the responsibility? And to coordinate the efforts of the government entities. Doesn't that make sense to you? No company would consider letting their organization run freely at random.
Such things as campaign costs, long election seasons and massive money influence have given some of these things a bad name but in reality, most are essential to a free society. This would include the parties. Outlaw them and they will still exist, defacto. We need to remember that the parties are not part of the government organization. They are a few friends getting together to select a candidate to run. No one has to vote for a party pick! And parties would exist in the legislative bodies because people would align by their principles.
There is a way, of course, that is to simply have one election for a King! Forget the other lesser dweebs as they don't count.
Actually, I believe that we have about the best form of government possible among men, right now. And that the abuses can and should be corrected without stamping on anyone's rights or privileges. It's just that the American citizen needs to have the motivation to do something about it.
Is our government perfect? Are our election processes perfect? Is our law making process fundamentally flawed? No, no, and yes, of course! This is still an organization designed by and made up of men.
Just how do you feel that they should share their power? I feel the same but I think it is a matter of not considering them to have "power" but simply to have a job where they serve constituents. There are too many people in this country for a pure democracy. A representative democracy will suffice if it's done correctly.
You're certainly prolific today! Good articles, even if I didn't agree with everything.
1) As much as I would like to see this, I can't see another way. Like minded people want to group together for a cause or platform. It would just move into the shadows. Limiting their power structure somehow may be interesting though.
2) You lost me..??? I do think too much time is spent campaigning though, instead of doing the job they were elected for in the first place.
3)Do you mean change the Constitution on requirements?
4) Sometimes I think maybe they should get paid more, especially locally. Then people that can't afford to quit their jobs could run for office. Raises almost always fail when voted on, allowing the rich with alternative incomes to be the only ones able to afford it. Maybe there should be some kind of political leave act instead, that when your term is up you get a job back?
5) Well, lobbies also have an important function in educating. No person in office can possibly know about everything, so lobbies also supply information etc. to those in office. How they influence monetarily is something to look at...?
6) Hardly so. Look how long it takes 635 people to agree on anything now! Some issues require expediency of action, a decision, leadership not mob rule. Also imagine another head of state having to face all Congress on some issue, as well as all executive responsibilities now handed over to a huge group of people.
Interesting, but I think many of your ideas actually play with liberties we have, the Constitution, and all pure democracies are doomed to failure. Bottom line, we aren't smart enough, and neither are many we elect. That's why there is a government of representatives for us, three branches, and a system of checks and balances. Messy, but....
Thanks for your thoughts.
Just stopped by to read.......won't say what I think this time....
have a great weekend coming up.....
That is the problem. We have already achieved this. Every one wants to vote for "issues" that they have no right to decide and congress has no authority to entertain. The idea behind our form of govt was for our elected representatives to uphold the constitution more so than the desires of the majority. The amount of unconstitutional "laws" that have come about over the last 100± years is disheartening. If my lifestyle and actions don't infringe on your rights you have no right to infringe on mine simply because you're part of a larger faction. Individual liberty was what was supposed to separate us from the rest. The other reality to that is that many of what passes through congress is based upon the desires of extremely small factions and the people are unaware of what is going on and even worse they fail to look beyond the propaganda that is used to promote the deterioration of our rights.
It is only the Truth that will ever grant us all the real freedoms that we seek ... and that applies to our present "controllers" also, especially them.
An oligarchy is government by a small clique. In our case it is a wealthy, white, English speaking, male clique.
Exactly. But it is often driven by the appearance of a democracy and when you read a lot of the campaign supporters on both sides they keep referring to the "issues" that are part of the cloak. The problem with out govt is the people. Both the people in our govt for usurping the constitutional obligations they have and those of the citizenry as we cannot think for ourselves or understand the meaning of something without the opinions of those who are in a position to gain, be it financial or power.