politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
You need to purge your government of the selfish, the cruel and the corrupt. It doesn't matter what form of organization you choose if you don't keep the assholes out of power.
See... That the problem, the quote that best comes to mind is.
-Douglas Adams
Make it a small council, 3 to 5 people chosen at random from a pool limited to those with some list of qualifications. Make it a point system based on academic, civic, and business success. Those that have enough points are automatically in the pool.
Business success does not belong on that list. Giving capital interests a seat at the table is how we got and continue to be here.
Business success is a skill, and knowledge set, that's crucial to the economy, without which the US wouldn't be a global leader. The point of having multiple skill set leaders on a small council is to prevent the 'business above all else' mind set from prevailing, while also making sure needed expertise is at the table.
Start with an automatic retirement age; no one over the age of 65 (for example) can serve as an elected representative.
Honestly, the same should likely apply to voter eligibility - to be honest - but that’s a whole separate argument for another time.
Yeah, and while we’re at it let’s disenfranchise the intellectually disabled as well. /sarcasm
Personally I prefer term limits rather than an age cap because I’d rather see government represent everyone. If a 75-year-old manages to win an election by running a successful campaign, why shouldn’t they govern? But if they’re only in office because they ran unchallenged for 30 years… time to make room for change.
The biggest issue with term limits is that it transfers agency away from elected officials, and empowers unelected staffers who will instead be the ones with all of the institutional knowledge on ‘how things are done’ - further entrenching the rot.
By instead having an age restriction, it still allows for popular politicians to remain within Congress and transfer experience to newer members, while also incentivising politicians to plan long-term and focus on bettering things for future generations, as they will ultimately be the ones responsible for looking after things. After all, "a society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they will never sit under."
We have a great case study in how effective term limits are at achieving good governance: California. It's just as @thatKamGuy said-- it empowers party bureaucracies, advisors and civil servants at the expense of elected legislators.
California's governance did improve, but largely due to structural reforms to the budgeting process pushed through when Jerry Brown was governor. Term limits are a band-aid that doesn't even stick properly.
Because if you're not going to be around to see the consequences of the policies you supported maybe you shouldn't be taking part in it.
We don't let children take part in the policies being made even though they will change their entire lives, but we do it because they aren't informed enough for such decisions. Well guess what? Children are often smarter than people who are sun downing and while an old person only gets dumber as the years pass a child gets smarter.
For example, if you're termed out and leaving someone else to clean up your mess?
I don’t think there’s a clean standard for gerrymandering. There’s only more gerrymandering or less gerrymandering, and it’s a subjective court decision when it’s gone too far