Legislative Branch

Yep.  Registration required to post.
Post Reply
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 50835
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Post by GORDON »

Each Bill has one subject/purpose... no riders. Nothing gets tacked on and hidden.

Thoughts?
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 47090
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Post by TheCatt »

Agreed.

Although, I'm sure that's a bit grey as to when something is definition of scope, and when it's expansion... in some cases, though not at all like the shit Congress does toda.y
It's not me, it's someone else.
TPRJones
Posts: 13418
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 2:05 pm
Location: Houston
Contact:

Post by TPRJones »

I'd add in a "plain English" clause with that, too. Basically anyone with a high school education should be able to read the law and understand it, if it fails that test with more than, say, 20% of the populace then it is declared null and void and they have to try again.

Yes, I am aware that people are idiots, but maybe such a clause would encourage legislators to do something about crappy public education, if only so they could actually pass some laws and have tem stick.




Edited By TPRJones on 1227575288
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Malcolm
Posts: 32040
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 1:04 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by Malcolm »

Can we make sure that people making laws actually know shit about the things they're supposed to be regulating? If someone wants to make laws specifically targeted at the 'net or anything online, they should at least have a basic understanding of how shit works on there.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 50835
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Post by GORDON »

Malcolm wrote:Can we make sure that people making laws actually know shit about the things they're supposed to be regulating? If someone wants to make laws specifically targeted at the 'net or anything online, they should at least have a basic understanding of how shit works on there.
That shit is supposed to shake out during election season... if The People want a rep who is knowledgeable on a subject, they elect one.

Unfortunately, human nature isn't like that.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
TPRJones
Posts: 13418
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 2:05 pm
Location: Houston
Contact:

Post by TPRJones »

Well, we could require anyone running for office to do so shaved bald and stripped nekkid. That would reduce the problem of people voting for the best looking candidate, as almost no one looks dignified under those conditions. That would just leave listening to what they are saying.

'Course that would probably have gotten Palin more votes...
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 47090
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Post by TheCatt »

TPRJones wrote:Well, we could require anyone running for office to do so shaved bald and stripped nekkid. That would reduce the problem of people voting for the best looking candidate, as almost no one looks dignified under those conditions. That would just leave listening to what they are saying.

'Course that would probably have gotten Palin more votes...
On a similar theme, I came up with a "Me For President" idea for Facebook. You'd enter your views on various issues, then run for president by being matched to people with similar views, and the most popular combination of views people elected as winner.
It's not me, it's someone else.
TPRJones
Posts: 13418
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 2:05 pm
Location: Houston
Contact:

Post by TPRJones »

Here's an idea for a Legislative Branch: Self-Selected Representative Groupings. As it stands now, each US Rep represents approximately 693,000 people in a particular geographical area. But these days geographical areas don't mean very much anymore. So instead of using geography, citizens form and join an issue group and each group that signs up a certain number of people (to mirror our current numbers, it would be 693,000) gets to elect a representative to a seat in congress. If they get twice that number of members, they get two seats, and so on. Citizens can change groups between every election, so the issues that are getting seats can shift around frequently.

Essentially, it's letting citizens form their own special interest groups and using those groupings to elect their representatives. One interesting offshoot of this would be that lobbyists would have much less power in that system, because the citizenry will have funneled those special interests into the actual election process.

I'd recommend making the number of members required for a seat be five times larger and letting citizens join up to five groups. That way you don't have to try to funnel all your positions into one, you can join a "support 2nd amendment" group and a "smaller government" group and a "legalize pot" group if these are three issues you care about.

I have no idea if this would work, but it seems like an interesting approach. It would certainly blow the two-party system out of the water entirely. Elections would be much simplified, as the issues would no long be the point - that's decided by the nature of the group they are running to represent - instead it would be focused on things like negotiation skills, ability to haggle, and just being an all-around good leader who can get the job at hand done. Plus, since representatives would have a clear single-issue mandate, maybe they'd keep on task more and not be all over the place trying to get involved in every issue they can find.




Edited By TPRJones on 1250135660
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Malcolm
Posts: 32040
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 1:04 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by Malcolm »

TheCatt wrote:
TPRJones wrote:Well, we could require anyone running for office to do so shaved bald and stripped nekkid. That would reduce the problem of people voting for the best looking candidate, as almost no one looks dignified under those conditions. That would just leave listening to what they are saying.

'Course that would probably have gotten Palin more votes...
On a similar theme, I came up with a "Me For President" idea for Facebook. You'd enter your views on various issues, then run for president by being matched to people with similar views, and the most popular combination of views people elected as winner.
Damn. That's a hell of an idea actually.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Malcolm
Posts: 32040
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 1:04 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by Malcolm »

TPRJones wrote:But these days geographical areas don't mean very much anymore.
There's NO WAY you're convincing Cali, Illinois, New York, & Texas to give up all their reps in Congress.

But theoretically intriguing. I take it you only get to join one interest group?
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
TPRJones
Posts: 13418
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 2:05 pm
Location: Houston
Contact:

Post by TPRJones »

Certainly a set maximum number, but it doesn't have to be one. It could be three or five or something, to let you not have to shove your entire set of issues into one little box. But of course the more groups you allow one voter to join, the higher the number of members they'd need to have in order to earn a seat.

What to do with groups that don't get enough members, though? There has to be some way to allow those citizens to still be involved, otherwise you'd end up with just a handful of very large groups because people would be afraid to join new small groups and end up not having enough to get a seat and thus lose their vote that round. Although that wouldn't be as much of a problem if they can join more than one group at a time.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 47090
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Post by TheCatt »

Malcolm wrote:
TheCatt wrote:
TPRJones wrote:Well, we could require anyone running for office to do so shaved bald and stripped nekkid. That would reduce the problem of people voting for the best looking candidate, as almost no one looks dignified under those conditions. That would just leave listening to what they are saying.

'Course that would probably have gotten Palin more votes...
On a similar theme, I came up with a "Me For President" idea for Facebook. You'd enter your views on various issues, then run for president by being matched to people with similar views, and the most popular combination of views people elected as winner.
Damn. That's a hell of an idea actually.
Thanks. If only I could get off my lazy ass and do it.
It's not me, it's someone else.
Post Reply