what changes would you make to our form of govt?

[The Wrath]

Here are the big ones that I would love to see:

• Congressmen and Senators limited to a single term
  
• President limited to a single 6-year term
  
• President appointed by the Senate, rather than elected in a popular election
  
• Senators appointed by each state's government (that's how it was originally, after all)
  

[Spano]

What benefits do you see in such changes?

[The Wrath]

Limiting politicians to a single term would totally destroy the profitability of pandering to interest groups. Just imagine if politicians didn't need to engage in their silly vote-buying schemes, and pandering to groups that give them campaign donations.

As for the president being appointed by Senate...that would get rid of the freakin' fashion competition that we have to watch every 4 years. Presidential elections are not about who would be best for the country. They're about who looks better on TV and who has better microphone skills. My point is proved by the first televised presidential debates: people who listened on the radio thought Nixon won; people who watched on TV thought JFK won. Not to mention, I have absolutely no faith in the American voter to make the right decision.

Senate being appointed: currently, there is no representation of states' interests, in the federal government. It is only the people of those states. That's what the House is for. The Senate was originally intended, and should remain, as the representatives of the state governments.

[necrovore]

The changes Moose describes treat the symptom instead of the disease.

If the goal is to prevent "interest groups" from competing for government favors at each others' expense, the way to achieve it is to attack the root of the problem, which is the government's ability to grant favors to interest groups.

Pass an amendment that says "Congress shall not make government funds available for any purpose other than the police, the courts, the prisons, the armed forces, and the administration thereof," and that will eliminate most of the "special interests" problem right there, because there won't be any funds for the special interests to compete for.

Pass the amendment that Judge Narragansett was writing in Atlas Shrugged, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade," and that will eliminate many more special interests by making it impossible for "political entrepreneurs" to use the government to obtain advantages for themselves, or disadvantages for their competitors.

With these amendments, it wouldn't matter so much who was elected, and so there wouldn't be any point in manipulating the political process. Without them, the interest groups would simply find other ways to manipulate things; they would likely be driven further behind the scenes.

[The Wrath]

My changes treat the symptom and the disease. If politicians have no motivation to pander to interest groups, then interest groups lose their influence.

Edited January 11, 2007 by Moose

[D'kian]

My changes treat the symptom and the disease. If politicians have no motivation to pander to interest groups, then interest groups lose their influence.

Limiting them to one term wouldn't work.

Here in Mexico there is a one term limit (three years in the Chamber of Deputies, equivalent to the House in the US, and I think 6 years in the Senate). Now ask me: who's the Deputy in your district? Answer: I've no idea. You see, he doesn't represent his constituents, he represents his party. Prior to the elections, I received campaign propaganda from three candidates. After the elections, not a word.

Their only chance to advance is trhough a political party, not through their constituents. So they'll serve the former and ignore the latter. This is true at the Federal, state and local levels.

As for interest groups, they'll lobby the parties rather than the alleged representatives. That's a difference without distinction.

Also, depending on electoral rules, a politician could represent a district in texas this term, and a district in California the next. And so on until he looses, runs out of states, or falls out fo favor with his party.

Limiting the presidency could work better. Four yers is too short a time to enact certain policies, or even to debate them. On the other hand, next time the voters, or electors, put a Carter in the White House, you won't be rid of him for six years. Of course, the same applies if an FDR gets elected, too.

[BrassDragon]

My changes treat the symptom and the disease. If politicians have no motivation to pander to interest groups, then interest groups lose their influence.

The disease is much wider than just politicians pandering to interest groups. Even without that, Democrats would support high taxes and wealth redistribution, and Republicans would support moralizing and all kinds of manifestations of "big government." The disease would be treated by limiting the government to the protection of individual rights through a strong constitution.

Also, the possibility of Congressmen being re-elected is intended to keep them loyal to their constituents' desires. That's perfectly sensible (and rather good, I think) as long as their powers are strictly limited. Also, if they could only serve one term, none of them would build of knowledge and experience about the job.

[DavidV]

To echo some of the comments above, without fundamental philosophical/cultural change, political attempts to reform our society are meaningless and counterproductive. Witness how the text of the U.S. Constitution is blatantly violated on the one hand, and how especially intrusive laws are routinely ignored. It is possible to make small, short-term attempts at reforming incentives, but only after the required cultural change is there – otherwise you only shift power from one group to another, such as the variation between party machines and entrenchment incumbents mentioned above. Trying to change fundamental ideas through politics makes about as much sense as running Libertarians for office – and we know how much good they’ve done.

[DavidV]

… but if I were a benevolent, omnipotent dictator (and that’s the only context in which such suggestions make sense without corresponding philosophical change) I would allow any state, or significant geographical area to secede with a 2/3 vote. It would greatly limit federal power and increase competition between states.

[IAmMetaphysical]

You'd hardly be a dictator if you let people decide whether or not they have to obey you.

[mrocktor]

How do you justify forbidding people from reelecting a good representative? As was mentioned, forbidding reelection only treats a symptom - which would be absent in a proper government.

One change to the system I'd like to see is removing the voting rights of government employees and welfare recipients (while welfare is not eliminated).

[The Wrath]

I'm not suggesting that this would solve all the country's problems. I agree that fundamental philosophical change is the only thing that could completely fix this country. But there are political changes that could be made that would fix the problem of politicians choosing positions based on future campaigns. Surely no one will argue that that isn't a problem that needs to be fixed.

[y_feldblum]

… but if I were a benevolent, omnipotent dictator

That's what my middle school English teacher claimed to be, if only over her classroom.

[DavidOdden]

But there are political changes that could be made that would fix the problem of politicians choosing positions based on future campaigns. Surely no one will argue that that isn't a problem that needs to be fixed.

If you want to limit the influence that future campaigns will have on politicians, why not limit politicians to zero terms? I think you're addressing a non-problem. The real problem is that politicians do not actually have positions. If you want a real change that might have some effect, here's a proposal. Candidates can announce concrete positions on issues; then they must vote according to their announced position, and if they do not announce a position on some topic, they cannot vote on the bill. That way, voters would really know what they are voting for.

[Bold Standard]

Not to mention, I have absolutely no faith in the American voter to make the right decision.

But you do have faith in Senators to make the right decision?

[DavidOdden]

But you do have faith in Senators to make the right decision?

But they would be chosen by the state governments. And surely the elected representatives of the state could be trusted to select a representative who would, with other such selected representatives, select a better supreme representative than would be possible by direct selection by the voters.

[kufa]

Jeez BoldStandard keeps beating me to post things...

Well first off, I would control the whole thing... That would be a great government...

I would...

-Outlaw income tax

-along with welfare and compulsory social security

-Have a mandatory IQ test for political candidates (must be at least... 110, maybe more)

-voters must pass some sort of test, to verify that they are not just following all the propaganda. It would ask basic questions about the major candidates beliefs and policies.

-more laws limiting governments power.

-much less interference with private property

[DarkWaters]

I would implement some form of Instant Runoff Voting. With this mechanism, voters can submit an ordered list of candidates according to their preferences. Presently many citizens strategically must vote for a candidate from one of the two dominating parties so as to not throw their vote away.

Edited January 11, 2007 by DarkWaters

[realitycheck44]

This has been said before, but I'll say it too. I find it hard to answer these types of questions because I don't think a dictatorship is a reliable form of government, so I don't think that I have a right to force others to follow my ideas. What we really need is a philosophical revolution.

That said, if I had the power to make changes to the government, I would do one thing above all else: stop all government spending that does not have to do with foreign or domestic security.

Everything else, such as tax reform, would follow. With all the money the government is saving, we could get out of debt, and then taxes would dramatically decrease. After that, somebody could come along and say "hey, taxes should be voluntary" and people might actually think it would work because taxes would be so low already.

[DarkWaters]

-Outlaw income tax

-along with welfare and compulsory social security

-Have a mandatory IQ test for political candidates (must be at least... 110, maybe more)

-voters must pass some sort of test, to verify that they are not just following all the propaganda. It would ask basic questions about the major candidates beliefs and policies.

-more laws limiting governments power.

-much less interference with private property

That said, if I had the power to make changes to the government, I would do one thing above all else: stop all government spending that does not have to do with foreign or domestic security.

Everything else, such as tax reform, would follow. With all the money the government is saving, we could get out of debt, and then taxes would dramatically decrease. After that, somebody could come along and say "hey, taxes should be voluntary" and people might actually think it would work because taxes would be so low already.

I just wanted to point out that this thread is supposed to focus on changes to the form (i.e. structure) of our government; not the policies of the government.

Edited January 11, 2007 by DarkWaters

[realitycheck44]

Oh, my mistake. I did read the entire thread, but I must've forgot the initial question. Thanks DarkWaters. I'll have to give it more thought.

[D'kian]

Come to think of it, making the government less democratic in structure might be a good idea.

America is not, and never was, a democracy. But she's always had representative government, which means people vote in real elections and their choice of candidate is respected. This has made people think it's no different from unlimited majority rule. Perhaps introducing more appointed offices as opposed to elective offices, such as senators, might weaken the popular notion of democracy.

I hope that's clear enough (it is clear to me).

Now, can you think of a way to make procedural matters more complex? If government officials have to spend more time on procedural matters, they'll ahve less time to meddle in our affairs.

All this, mind you, strikes me more as safeguards to be implemented later, not remedies for today.

[mweiss]

Jeez BoldStandard keeps beating me to post things...

Well first off, I would control the whole thing... That would be a great government...

I would...

-Outlaw income tax

-along with welfare and compulsory social security

-Have a mandatory IQ test for political candidates (must be at least... 110, maybe more)

-voters must pass some sort of test, to verify that they are not just following all the propaganda. It would ask basic questions about the major candidates beliefs and policies.

-more laws limiting governments power.

-much less interference with private property

I would definately outlaw property tax on domiciles. THat has got to be one of the most immoral aspects of government, besides eminent domain and military draft.

I would also eliminate lobbying and special interests' influence on government. Much of the country's troubles are the direct result of this.

[DavidOdden]

I would implement some form of Instant Runoff Voting. With this mechanism, voters can submit an ordered list of candidates according to their preferences. Presently many citizens strategically must vote for a candidate from one of the two dominating parties so as to not throw their vote away.

I looked at a couple of sites that advocate this change, and I can't say that I'm impressed by their reasoning. I'm hoping you can do better than they did. The "allows more candidates without accusations of spoiling" isn't a very good argument -- we need good candidates, not more candidates, and we can procede rationally with or without accusations. I totally don't get the "no negative campaign" argument -- it strikes me that we'd be as likely to have more negative campaigns (and anyhow, negative campaigns -- pointing out the truth about your opponent, when he isn't honest with voters, is a virtue). The "ensures that the winner has a majority" argument is stipulatively true -- the system says "by definition, all candidates must have a "majority", and that can be guaranteed by simply requiring a majority of votes rather than a plurality. Combined with the money-saving argument, the argument appears to reduce to saying "This is the cheapest way to obtain a 'majority' winner", and that seems to be the only legitimate argument. Is there a better argument for this system?

I looked at their links on the Irish system, and interestingly they don't give the actual data, just the final results. In the '97 presidential elections, the point system approach gave the same result as straight plurality voting. Is there any significance to declaring that "the winner got an actual majority"? Can't you get the same results by proportional redistribution, where the votes for candidates in 3rd and lower place are just given to the top two candidates in proportion?

[DarkWaters]

I looked at a couple of sites that advocate this change, and I can't say that I'm impressed by their reasoning.

My endorsement of this system is purely from an algorithmic game theoretic standpoint. I do not endorse any of the other arguments that the website may provide and I am not even sure if any other compelling arguments for this system exist. I believe that given we have a democratic elections, IRV is a more accurate mechanism to assess the opinions of the voters.

Is there any significance to declaring that "the winner got an actual majority"? Can't you get the same results by proportional redistribution, where the votes for candidates in 3rd and lower place are just given to the top two candidates in proportion?

I scanned that website for the first time in a while and the presentation on how the voting system works is not very clear. Instant runoff voting would iteratively redistribute the votes for the lowest, uneliminated to the rest of the candidates. It is undesirable to redistribute the votes for all 3rd and lower place candidates simultaneously for mathematical reasons. I will provide an example to justify this below.

Some background:

Are you familiar with the Impossibility Theorem of Nobel Laureate Kenneth Arrow?

An implication of the theorem for voting systems is as follows:

Assume that we have an election between n distinct candidates and a voting population of individuals. Each voting individual has a strict ordered preference for the n candidates.

For example, if there are five candidates A, B, C, D and E then we could say:

Voter 1 prefers A > B > C > D > E

Voter 2 prefers C > B > D > A > E

and so forth...

Arrow's theorem states that it is mathematically impossible to design a voting system based on ranked preferences where the winner of the election would necessarily defeat each of the candidates (assuming preferences remain constant) in a "one-on-one" election for all possible voting populations (defined by the distribution of preferences).

Example 1 (Why this system is useful):

Suppose this is our voting population's preferences:

45 voters prefer: A > B > C

35 voters prefer: B > C > A

20 voters prefer: C > B > A

If the voting mechanism is a simple "one person, one vote" system then A receives 45% of the votes, B receives 35% of the votes and C receives 20% of the votes. Candidate A would win this election. However, if all of the voters submitted an ordered list of their preferences and the votes were tabulated with instant run-off voting then candidate B would win. The rounds are listed below.

First Round: A gets 45% of the votes, B gets 35% and C gets 20% -- Candidate C is eliminated.

Second Round: A gets 45% of the votes, B gets 55% of the votes -- Candidate B wins the election by a majority.

Example 2 (Why we should not eliminate multiple candidates simultaneously):

Consider this voting population's preferences amongst four candidates:

31 voters prefer: A > C > D > B

29 voters prefer: B > D > C > A

25 voters prefer: C > D > A > B

15 voters prefer: D > C > B > A

By the simple system, A would win the election. By IRV, C wins the election.

Round 1: A gets 31%, B gets 29%, C gets 25% and D gets 15% -- Candidate D is eliminated. (Notice how C is in third place)

Round 2: A gets 31%, B gets 29%, C gets 40% -- Candidate B is eliminated.

Round 3: A gets 31%, C gets 69% -- Candidate C wins the election.

Pseudocode for Instant Runoff Voting

Initialization:

Every voter submits a single ballot which contains an ordered list of preferences for candidates.

All candidates are currently marked as uneliminated.

WHILE( no candidate receives over 50% of the votes) {

* Every voter automatically votes for the highest uneliminated candidate on his list

* The uneliminated candidate receiving the fewest number of votes in this iteration is eliminated.

}

Other comments:

Although this system cannot eliminate all voting paradoxs by Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, I think it is a significantly better mechanism for tabulating the true desires of the voting population.

My friend in my school's Objectivist Club expressed that Instant Runoff Voting was a horrible idea because it makes it easier for the present voting population to elect the really bad candidates, which I suppose he considers all to be third party candidates. This system would certainly make it easier for third party candidates to accumulate votes. However, I imagine that if the voting population is secretly clamoring for a candidate who will bring Armageddon but cannot get him into the office only because of the electoral system then we have much bigger problems to worry about. What do you think about this?

Edited January 13, 2007 by DarkWaters