Reforming the U.S. Gov't

[Autolykos]

Okay. I'd like to bring up something that's been bugging me for a while. It has to do with the rampant spending that every single Congress in modern history has achieved.

The suspects are familiar: career politicians and "pork-barrel" spending. Due to the structure of the federal government, Representatives are elected from geographical districts using the winner-takes-all method. As a result, Representatives have an incentive to procure federal money and spend it on their district -- also known as "bringing home the bacon". Incumbents are predictably favored by this system, since they're obviously the ones who are good at bringing the bacon home.

Unfortunately, many (if not most) people tend to latch onto a single policy change, whereas an effective solution must have many. Not all of the changes will be equally powerful, however. The most powerful change, I think, would be eliminating so-called "single-voter districts". Representatives would no longer be tied to specific geographical areas within states. Instead, I envision them elected by some method of proportional representation, as in most European countries.

The problem here is that this change alone does not eliminate the possibility (full stop) of pork-barrel spending. Other, concurrent changes are needed. One such change is imposing term limits on Representatives. Career politicians would be swiftly eliminated. The only question is what kind of term limits to impose. Personally, I like the following: a Representative is ineligible for reelection to a consecutive term.

Finally, there are several useful (if not necessary) reforms that happened to make their way into the Confederate Constitution. One is the line-item executive veto, which would allow the executive to reject specific spending provisions. Another is the prohibition against spending on "internal improvements". Last, but not least, is the requirement that each spending bill have a single purpose, which is expressed in its title.

What do you think, gentlemen?

- Rob

[Autolykos]

So now you define a "real government" as one which provides for "self-government", whatever you take that to mean?

I don't see things so cut-and-dried with a federation. "Federal government" is not an oxymoron to me, because it takes certain matters into its own hands, such as foreign relations. All other matters are left up to the individual member states.

Maybe. I'd rather say it's a flaw of the Constitution. At the time it was great because it established a federation of states simultaneously with one overseeing governing body. While the former was the revolutionary idea, the latter was a lingering throwback of European attitudes, and the conflicts are evident today.

By "the former" you mean a federation of states, and "the latter" a single overseeing governing body?

- Rob

[Osborn F Enready]

Auto said: Representatives would no longer be tied to specific geographical areas within states. Instead, I envision them elected by some method of proportional representation, as in most European countries.

I would like to know more about that, before I would agree, mainly because I don't see a significant goal achieved.

How is it significantly different, and why can't geographical area play a role even if it is determined by population, or representation?

Auto said: The problem here is that this change alone does not eliminate the possibility (full stop) of pork-barrel spending. Other, concurrent changes are needed. One such change is imposing term limits on Representatives. Career politicians would be swiftly eliminated. The only question is what kind of term limits to impose. Personally, I like the following: a Representative is ineligible for reelection to a consecutive term.

I agree with the motive and position you clarify, but not all of the methods.

I have no problem with consecutive terms, if there are significant changes done to the system of elections. I think election laws and campaign costs are the biggest reason we have a political problem in our nation.

If there were ever a just reason for a tax, I think it would be to make campaigning free for those who run and meet a reasonable bar for public support, which is why I think we the people should use the FCC to impose laws that define what I think are basic expectations from the people, of the broadcasters in respect to their ability to profit and operate in the United States. I think the FCC should require all broadcasters to provide equal air-time to all canidates that meet that basic bar for public support, during the last two months of election campaigns, and I think that airtime should be strictly for canidate debate, and public Q&A equally.

I think we can make a big step in eliminating the influence of money on politics by removing money from campaign costs, and making the 5 years prior, all time during, and 5 years after "elected seats" are held public information as far as the representatives economic earnings and income statements, and eliminating the ability for additional riders on pre-existing bills.

Auto said: One is the line-item executive veto, which would allow the executive to reject specific spending provisions.

I totally reject the Constitutionality of the line-item veto. Its one mans ability to re-write the law by striking out parts that have been debated and voted on by the representatives of the people, and he has no authority to do such unless the items being lined out are clearly un-constitutional, in which case the bill should fail entirely.

Auto said: Another is the prohibition against spending on "internal improvements".

This could be tricky. I can forsee a need for certain things due to technology change, and maintenance to stay current.

I may agree if it was worded well enough, and allowed for maintenance and updates of existing structure.

Auto said: Last, but not least, is the requirement that each spending bill have a single purpose, which is expressed in its title.

I agree. One item in question per bill.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Auto The most powerful change, I think, would be eliminating so-called "single-voter districts". Representatives would no longer be tied to specific geographical areas within states.

Why should voters elect someone who doesn't understand their way of life? This is something that should be decided by each individual state government, not by a federation government.

Quote by: Auto The problem here is that this change alone does not eliminate the possibility (full stop) of pork-barrel spending. Other, concurrent changes are needed. One such change is imposing term limits on Representatives. Career politicians would be swiftly eliminated. The only question is what kind of term limits to impose. Personally, I like the following: a Representative is ineligible for reelection to a consecutive term.

Limited term limits, I agree with.

Quote by: Auto Finally, there are several useful (if not necessary) reforms that happened to make their way into the Confederate Constitution. One is the line-item executive veto, which would allow the executive to reject specific spending provisions. Another is the prohibition against spending on "internal improvements". Last, but not least, is the requirement that each spending bill have a single purpose, which is expressed in its title.

So I take it you're no longer on the "federation" track? This is flawed because it allows too much power for one set of people. If the citizens of the government vote for something to become a law, no one should be able to veto it.

Quote by: Auto I don't see things so cut-and-dried with a federation. "Federal government" is not an oxymoron to me, because it takes certain matters into its own hands, such as foreign relations. All other matters are left up to the individual member states.

Problem with that.

What business does a Federation have telling individual governments how to conduct themselves?

In a Federation, each "state" is a foreign government in relation to another.

The Federation, then, can establish conduct requirements for inter-nation relations, but not extra-nation issues.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I would like to know more about that, before I would agree, mainly because I don't see a significant goal achieved.

Eliminating pork-barrel spending is not a significant goal?

How is it significantly different, and why can't geographical area play a role even if it is determined by population, or representation?

Here's my idea:

From the federal government's point of view, the only meaningful geographical areas should be the individual states. Each state would have a number of Representatives equal to its population divided by a given amount (say, 500,000). None of these Representatives would be tied to a particular area within his state. General elections would be held state-wide for all of its Representatives. The state's citizens would vote based on a preferential ballot, either by party or by candidate. Once the election is over, the seats would be distributed to individuals/parties based on their percentages of the total vote.

I agree with the motive and position you clarify, but not all of the methods. I have no problem with consecutive terms, if there are significant changes done to the system of elections. I think election laws and campaign costs are the biggest reason we have a political problem in our nation. [...]

I've actually come to agree, in principle, with the idea of granting equal financing and equal "airtime" to all political candidates. However, I can see a problem arising, namely that of criteria for eligibility. If all campaigns are tax-funded and there are no restrictions on who can enter, then it seems likely that enough peole will enter to exhaust all government funds. So obviously there must be some kind of restrictions upon entering. But what should those restrictions be?

I totally reject the Constitutionality of the line-item veto. It's one mans ability to re-write the law by striking out parts that have been debated and voted on by the representatives of the people, and he has no authority to do such unless the items being lined out are clearly un-constitutional, in which case the bill should fail entirely.

Good point. I can see now that this would lead to greater executive power, not lesser. Thus it should be removed from the list of reforms.

This could be tricky. I can forsee a need for certain things due to technology change, and maintenance to stay current. I may agree if it was worded well enough, and allowed for maintenance and updates of existing structure.

Since there would be no infrastructure that would not exist within individual states, it would be the states' responsibility to maintain their own infrastructures. In other words, I don't believe in having any separate "federal infrastructure".

Still, there may not need to be an actual prohibition against internal improvements, if certain clauses of the Constitution (i.e. the Commerce Clause and the Necessary-and-Proper Clause) were struck out.

- Rob

[Osborn F Enready]

Auto said: Eliminating pork-barrel spending is not a significant goal?

Not what I said. I support the elimination of pork barrel spending, no doubt.
I just don't see that as being effective toward that goal, or all inclusive.

Auto said: From the federal government's point of view, the only meaningful geographical areas should be the individual states. Each state would have a number of Representatives equal to its population divided by a given amount (say, 500,000). None of these Representatives would be tied to a particular area within his state. General elections would be held state-wide for all of its Representatives. The state's citizens would vote based on a preferential ballot, either by party or by candidate. Once the election is over, the seats would be distributed to individuals/parties based on their percentages of the total vote.

Why would this be "better"?

Auto said: I've actually come to agree, in principle, with the idea of granting equal financing and equal "airtime" to all political candidates. However, I can see a problem arising, namely that of criteria for eligibility. If all campaigns are tax-funded and there are no restrictions on who can enter, then it seems likely that enough peole will enter to exhaust all government funds. So obviously there must be some kind of restrictions upon entering. But what should those restrictions be?

Perhaps a bar that changes with every election, so as not to be "tabulated and assessed" by the major parties, and allowing them to saturate the entire pool with only their canidates. So, maybe if we had a bar that changed based on the public funds pool, for each election, allowing the most canidates per seat open based on equal division of those funds, and put a limit to "organized party" canidates of only two "party approved" canidates for each race. This would prevent being forced to choose between only two parties, as well as provide a changing field of space for each election that is "fairly" divided amongst those who have public support to gain access to the polls.

I do think you should have to meet some minimum percentage of public support in order to gain poll access however, as of now, I believe each state is different, even for national elections. I think this should be uniform, based on a percentage of the population that equalizes state of varying populations, yet is low enough to allow most major third parties access to the polls, which greens and libertarians already do, even with the poll access requirements being absurd in some states. Over time, I think this would allow more and more smaller parties, as well as "true" indpendents to win office.

I also think we need to adopt IRV style voting, though I question electronic means of voting that is absent a verifiable two party (voter, vote tabulators) ballot receipt.

Auto said: Good point. I can see now that this would lead to greater executive power, not lesser. Thus it should be removed from the list of reforms.

Roger that.

Auto said: Since there would be no infrastructure that would not exist within individual states, it would be the states' responsibility to maintain their own infrastructures. In other words, I don't believe in having any separate "federal infrastructure". Still, there may not need to be an actual prohibition against internal improvements, if certain clauses of the Constitution (i.e. the Commerce Clause and the Necessary-and-Proper Clause) were struck out.

Not sure I fully agree, but I think we are on the same page.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Not what I said. I support the elimination of pork barrel spending, no doubt. I just don't see that as being effective toward that goal, or all inclusive.

How not?

To me, most (if not all) of pork-barrel spending stems from incumbents' incentive to appease their (geographic) electoral districts in order to get reelected. If, instead, they operate on a state-wide level, this incentive would therefore be reduced, if not eliminated altogether.

Why would this be "better"?

Two reasons, off the top of my head:

1. First, I believe it would drastically reduce pork-barrel spending, as outlined above and in previous posts.
2. Second, proportional representation means that there is no one winning person or group (i.e. political party). Proportional representation is much more conducive to a multi-party system because it by and large eliminates the phenomenon of tactical voting.

Perhaps a bar that changes with every election, so as not to be "tabulated and assessed" by the major parties, and allowing them to saturate the entire pool with only their canidates. So, maybe if we had a bar that changed based on the public funds pool, for each election, allowing the most canidates per seat open based on equal division of those funds, and put a limit to "organized party" canidates of only two "party approved" canidates for each race. This would prevent being forced to choose between only two parties, as well as provide a changing field of space for each election that is "fairly" divided amongst those who have public support to gain access to the polls.

After thinking about this issue, I have come to the following conclusion: tax-funded campaigns will never eliminate the issue of money in politics.

Let me explain why. If all of the campaigns were officially tax-funded, and non-tax direct contributions were illegal, indirect contributions would certainly still exist in the form of think-tanks and special-interest groups that endorse particular candidates. One would have to make those illegal, and so on, until the end result is the literal end of freedom of speech in the country.

While the above is merely a summary of my thoughts, hopefully you can see how important a question it raises. Before we really get into the criteria for eligibility of public campaign funds, and the distribution thereof, we must address this more fundamental issue.

I do think you should have to meet some minimum percentage of public support in order to gain poll access however, as of now, I believe each state is different, even for national elections. I think this should be uniform, based on a percentage of the population that equalizes states of varying populations, yet is low enough to allow most major third parties access to the polls, which greens and libertarians already do, even with the poll access requirements being absurd in some states. Over time, I think this would allow more and more smaller parties, as well as "true" indpendents to win office.

Here is an idea. The money used for public campaign funds would come directly from a voter-registration fee. However, this fee would be regressive in terms of proportionality, so it must be kept low enough for anyone to afford. Voter registration would be subject to renewal after the shortest electoral term (probably 2 years).

I also think we need to adopt IRV style voting, though I question electronic means of voting that is absent a verifiable two party (voter, vote tabulators) ballot receipt.

I certainly agree with IRV. Tie it in with proportional representation, and I think you have a far superior system of voting to what the U.S. has today.

Not sure I fully agree, but I think we are on the same page.

Hmm. Can you give me any compelling reason(s) why there should be separate federal infrastructure?

- Rob

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Autolykos Here is an idea. The money used for public campaign funds would come directly from a voter-registration fee. However, this fee would be regressive in terms of proportionality, so it must be kept low enough for anyone to afford. Voter registration would be subject to renewal after the shortest electoral term (probably 2 years).

That's a very good idea, but then you'll run into opposition from people who complain that you shouldn't have to pay to vote.

I think a more effective solution would be to regulate what each candidate gets.

For example, they are allowed X miles of travel a week. Three commercials, of X time in length, and they can say whatever they want. X number of televised debates. No spending from personal money. Monitored bank account and no receipt of money from any source other than their own normal income.

[Autolykos]

That's all well and good, but...

What if an organization invites them to a dinner/conference/whatever?

What if a privately-owned radio or TV network decides to hold its own special debate, among two or more of the candidates?

Finally, the most important question: why shouldn't you have to pay (a nominal fee) to vote?

- Rob

[Fonceai]

On the what-ifs, the answer is no.

No action shall be taken by a candidate that is intended for one specific audience and not for the whole nation.

The private dinner/conference/whatever means that the other candidate does not have equal representation.

A private network is the same thing.

Equalized exposure for each candidate.

How the candidate gets nominated in the first place is another issue, but once they are in the running, the rules are implemented.

---

This is a tricky question.

Being able to vote is the greatest right a government can grant; the ability to actually change the government itself.

If you have full citizenship rights, and you pay your income taxes, you should be able to vote.

If the voting fee is collected at the polls, then you'll be faced with people who want to vote but might not be able to spare the money at the time.

You'd be amazed at how many people can't spend $5 casually.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Fonceai On the what-ifs, the answer is no. [...]

Then the government is encroaching on people's freedom of speech, de facto as well as de jure.

This is a tricky question. Being able to vote is the greatest right a government can grant; the ability to actually change the government itself. If you have full citizenship rights, and you pay your income taxes, you should be able to vote.

Of course, if I had my way (presuming that a State somehow must exist ), the voter-registration fee would be one thing in lieu of an income tax.

If the voting fee is collected at the polls, then you'll be faced with people who want to vote but might not be able to spare the money at the time. You'd be amazed at how many people can't spend $5 casually.

I'm not talking about paying every time you vote -- I'm saying that voter registration would cost money, just like a driver's license.

- Rob

[Fonceai]

In that case, I still disagree.

I think I understand the concept... you have the right to drive but pay for the license. Similarly, you have the right to vote but pay for the registration.

On the surface it makes sense, but for me, because voting exists on the level of civic responsibility, paying your "membership fee" (income taxes) includes your right to vote.

But again, I also think citizenship should require testing for all. Birth or a visa only gets you limited rights and citizenship. A full citizen, because they passed the testing, would hopefully be more aware of the impact and importance of their vote.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Fonceai In that case, I still disagree. I think I understand the concept... you have the right to drive but pay for the license. Similarly, you have the right to vote but pay for the registration. On the surface it makes sense, but for me, because voting exists on the level of civic responsibility, paying your "membership fee" (income taxes) includes your right to vote.

Again, for me, there would ideally be no income taxes, at least not on the federal level. So I do not see income taxes as the/a "membership fee".

What is "civic responsibility", in your opinion? (I hope I haven't asked you this before. )

But again, I also think citizenship should require testing for all. Birth or a visa only gets you limited rights and citizenship. A full citizen, because they passed the testing, would hopefully be more aware of the impact and importance of their vote.

This goes a bit too far afield, don't you think?

The voter-registration fee was simply an idea. It was a means to tie the available amount of campaign money for candidates to the willingness of the citizens to vote. So the more apathetic the citizens become, the less money there is for candidates to use. While one could still draw the campaign money out of a "general fund", such as that generated from income taxes, the connection outlined above would not apply.

Finally, do you have no reply to my claim that "equal air time", including for private organizations, means government infringing on those organizations' freedom of speech?

- Rob

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Auto Again, for me, there would ideally be no income taxes, at least not on the federal level. So I do not see income taxes as the/a "membership fee".

Ahhh, okay.

Sorry. I didn't realize we were talking about a federation.

In that case, I think a nominal fee for being able to vote in federation-level elections is a bit more appropriate. You aren't really a "citizen" of a federation as much as your nation is a member. In this case, I would liken it to Canada accepting our U.S. driver's license.

Quote by: Auto Finally, do you have no reply to my claim that "equal air time", including for private organizations, means government infringing on those organizations' freedom of speech?

Didn't notice that part... going back to re-read...

Okay. "Then the gov't is encroaching..."

Well, on whose freedom of speech are they encroaching? The candidate?

I think the difference is that getting private the support isn't the same as getting equal public support.

Also, I included "equal air time" because it's the only way to ensure fair opportunities in an election. If all candidates have the same opportunities but don't take them, that's up to the candidate. But if opportunities are offered to one candidate over another, that's a potential type of "lobbying" support with which I disagree.

Quote by: Auto The voter-registration fee was simply an idea. It was a means to tie the available amount of campaign money for candidates to the willingness of the citizens to vote. So the more apathetic the citizens become, the less money there is for candidates to use. While one could still draw the campaign money out of a "general fund", such as that generated from income taxes, the connection outlined above would not apply.

You didn't say that before!!

In this case, how often would you have to register to vote?

It seems then that a candidate would be generating interest so that he/she can get more campaign funds. Thus reaching more people, thus getting more money... etc. But they would only get a percentage of the money collected; they would, in a way, be helping their opposition.

I think that introduces a much more competitive and thought-provoking dynamic to consider.

I know that a slanderous series of TV ads here in New York actually generated sympathy for a candidate and helped them as opposed to dissuading people from voting for them.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Fonceai Ahhh, okay. Sorry. I didn't realize we were talking about a federation. In that case, I think a nominal fee for being able to vote in federation-level elections is a bit more appropriate. You aren't really a "citizen" of a federation as much as your nation is a member. In this case, I would liken it to Canada accepting our U.S. driver's license.

Thanks. :)

Although I would add that, in being a citizen of a member nation, you are thus a citizen of the federation (or "citizen-member", if you want to make a distinction).

Didn't notice that part... going back to re-read... Okay. "Then the gov't is encroaching..." Well, on whose freedom of speech are they encroaching? The candidate?

No, they are encroaching on the private organization's freedom of speech.

I think the difference is that getting private support isn't the same as getting equal public support. Also, I included "equal air time" because it's the only way to ensure fair opportunities in an election. If all candidates have the same opportunities but don't take them, that's up to the candidate. But if opportunities are offered to one candidate over another, that's a potential type of "lobbying" support with which I disagree.

The only way to ensure equality of opportunity among candidates is to draw the winner by lot. Ironically, this method is also the most cost-effective -- no money is necessary to (try to) garner favor, since there is no favor to be garnered.

Anyways, the only way to ensure equal air time is to control all resources used for air time. Of course, this effectively means controlling (if not outright owning) all property. The idea of separate political parties becomes moot at this point.

Perhaps a (partial) solution lies in appropriate phrasing of the laws involved. Basically, the restrictions should be placed upon the candidates as opposed to outside individuals and organizations. So, for example, private organizations would be free to offer candidates money, but the candidates themselves would be prohibited from accepting it. I also think that there should be no punitive consequences for violating these rules; rather, a candidate who breaks the rules is simply removed from the running. He may also be required to pay back the money he has already spent, which could be a rather powerful incentive to not break the rules.

You didn't say that before!!

Heh, sorry. I guess I figured my train of thought would be apparent. Anyways, I was trying to grapple two problems: how to determine eligibility for funds and how to determine the amount of funds for each individual/group wishing to run for office. Eligibility could be handled on the basis of either a "party runoff" or the results from the last general election, with a minimum cutoff point. The share of public funds for each "legitimate" group would then be equal to their share of the votes tallied. So the only remaining question would be, what's the total amount of funds to be allocated?

In this case, how often would you have to register to vote?

Your voter registration would last for one legislative session. In the United States, that would equal 2 years.

It seems then that a candidate would be generating interest so that he/she can get more campaign funds. Thus reaching more people, thus getting more money... etc. But they would only get a percentage of the money collected; they would, in a way, be helping their opposition. I think that introduces a much more competitive and thought-provoking dynamic to consider.

I agree. Do you think it would be a good thing?

I know that a slanderous series of TV ads here in New York actually generated sympathy for a candidate and helped them as opposed to dissuading people from voting for them.

Interesting. Sometimes negative campaigning damages oneself rather than his opponent.

- Rob

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Auto Perhaps a (partial) solution lies in appropriate phrasing of the laws involved. Basically, the restrictions should be placed upon the candidates as opposed to outside individuals and organizations.

Agreed.

That's how I understood it... no penalty for the organization for offering, but naughty on the candidate for accepting.

Quote by: Auto Your voter registration would last for one legislative session. In the United States, that would equal 2 years.

Gotcha. One fee per season, not per vote.

And this is just for voting at the federal level, correct? Not for state-level?

Quote by: Auto So the only remaining question would be, what's the total amount of funds to be allocated?

I quoted the last line, but I see where you're going with it. I wasn't considering party or anything else so complicated.

Candidate Funding = Voter Fee / Number of Candidates

3 candidates, $10 voter fee, each candidate gets $3.33 with a penny going into the remainder slush.

Doesn't seem that complicated to me.

I think the harder question is to ask how a candidate gets nominated for a federal-level position in the first place thus preventing 20 candidates.

That's what I think the debates would do. Allow people to vote to narrow down the selection.

Of course, this would rely on a more efficient voting system.

Ahhh, how the questions only result in more questions.

Quote by: Auto I agree. Do you think it would be a good thing?

Yes.

Consider that if you and I are opposing each other, you might work your ass off to reach more people to get them to register. I choose to sit on my ass.

Because you get more people to register, I get more money. I save up enough to do a one shot, expensive flash-in-the-pan campaign. Get everyone aware of my issues, show them you're a bad choice, and such and so on all at once.

What would be more effective with the more simple minded voter?

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Fonceai Agreed. That's how I understood it... no penalty for the organization for offering, but naughty on the candidate for accepting.

All right. I think we can be in agreement here, since I have no problem with restrictions on (would-be) politicians.

Gotcha. One fee per season, not per vote. And this is just for voting at the federal level, correct? Not for state-level?

Correct.

I quoted the last line, but I see where you're going with it. I wasn't considering party or anything else so complicated. Candidate Funding = Voter Fee / Number of Candidates 3 candidates, $10 voter fee, each candidate gets $3.33 with a penny going into the remainder slush. Doesn't seem that complicated to me. I think the harder question is to ask how a candidate gets nominated for a federal-level position in the first place thus preventing 20 candidates. That's what I think the debates would do. Allow people to vote to narrow down the selection. Of course, this would rely on a more efficient voting system. Ahhh, how the questions only result in more questions.

I came upon a solution today.

When one renews his voter registration, he is given a list of political parties and asked to give his preference for as many as he would like, up to the total number of parties. After everyone has renewed, their preferences are tabulated, and all of the parties reaching some minimum cutoff point are eligible for campaign funds. In such a way, both the money and the eligibility are given at the same time.

Yes. Consider that if you and I are opposing each other, you might work your ass off to reach more people to get them to register. I choose to sit on my ass. Because you get more people to register, I get more money. I save up enough to do a one shot, expensive flash-in-the-pan campaign. Get everyone aware of my issues, show them you're a bad choice, and such and so on all at once. What would be more effective with the more simple minded voter?

Heh, I didn't mean "good" in terms of trying to win, but "good" in terms of the usual "good-government bullsh*t" (as Henry Hill says in Goodfellas).

- Rob