Exactly. Never should have allowed women to vote. Slaves, no way. If you don't own property - what good are you? Other than that, what sort of 'means test' would you propose?
Perhaps Heinlein had it right in Starship Troopers?
How I would fix election of the US presidency
- Thread starter Asterix
- Start date
Perhaps Heinlein had it right in Starship Troopers?
The South already tried that in the late 19th century and early 20th century. It was labeled a "literacy test" and was used specifically to exclude Blacks. You could also throw in the poll tax. Not sure what criteria you would use for a "means test", but anything you came up with would be shot down as unconstitutional.Based on the comments from both the right and the left in this election I would say the best way to fix the election is have in place a "means test" for the voter. The amount of ignorance that has been spouted on both sides shows that a fair percentage of the electorate should not be allowed to vote for the person who is going to hold the most important job in the world.
I don't know about that. Using the same view, you could argue that a president during his entire 2nd term has very litlle accountability. There are two things it would do. Free the person holding the office from feeling they have to endlessly campaign, and in turn somewhat diminish the power of the presidency, which I don't think is neccessarily a bad thing.This makes some sense, we have one house of congress elected every 2 years, one house where a third is elected every 6 years.... a single 6 year term would be consistent with the Senate (in duration at least). The only weakness of this is that once elected the POTUS would feel very little accountability (much like the last two years of the second term).
OTB
However, all fourteen of the Atlantic Colonies (including Nova Scotia) and I'll bet slightly later Upper Canada as well, had a property qualification. You had to have a certain vested interest before you could vote to raise taxes willy-nilly, and that had absolutely nothing to do with race.The South already tried that in the late 19th century and early 20th century. It was labeled a "literacy test" and was used specifically to exclude Blacks. You could also throw in the poll tax. Not sure what criteria you would use for a "means test", but anything you came up with would be shot down as unconstitutional.
Do you disagree that the literacy test and the poll tax were directed specifically to exclude the poor and minorities? A citizen of the US has a right to have a say, property ownership be damned.However, all fourteen of the Atlantic Colonies (including Nova Scotia) and I'll bet slightly later Upper Canada as well, had a property qualification. You had to have a certain vested interest before you could vote to raise taxes willy-nilly, and that had absolutely nothing to do with race.
So you want to go back to a time when women were chattel, criminals were hung for stealing food and voters were plied with liquor till they could barely stand to mark their 'x'.However, all fourteen of the Atlantic Colonies (including Nova Scotia) and I'll bet slightly later Upper Canada as well, had a property qualification. You had to have a certain vested interest before you could vote to raise taxes willy-nilly, and that had absolutely nothing to do with race.
It would make more sense to have elections line up. Get rid of the mid term elections.
From what I can see, no US politician has the balls to do what's right for the country because they are too busy worring about getting re-elected.
Have ALL the elections every 6 years and all terms for 6 years. Representatives and Senators are limited to 2 terms.
Potus to be limited to 1 term.
Right now I see it this way, in term 1 Obama is worried about getting elected to to term 2, so he can't raise taxes, or cut spending. (No-one loves a free lunch more than Americans.) You would think that in Term 2 that this would change, but no, the problem becomes the good of the party. Plus, they are always worried about the damn mid term elections, so nothing gets done.
To make matters worse - it seems like the US is forever running one election or another.
Hell, the race for potus takes up 2 of 4 years. The Senate and house are no better - so the end result is permanent election. So nothing gets done.
Every 6 years - 1 election for everything.
From what I can see, no US politician has the balls to do what's right for the country because they are too busy worring about getting re-elected.
Have ALL the elections every 6 years and all terms for 6 years. Representatives and Senators are limited to 2 terms.
Potus to be limited to 1 term.
Right now I see it this way, in term 1 Obama is worried about getting elected to to term 2, so he can't raise taxes, or cut spending. (No-one loves a free lunch more than Americans.) You would think that in Term 2 that this would change, but no, the problem becomes the good of the party. Plus, they are always worried about the damn mid term elections, so nothing gets done.
To make matters worse - it seems like the US is forever running one election or another.
Hell, the race for potus takes up 2 of 4 years. The Senate and house are no better - so the end result is permanent election. So nothing gets done.
Every 6 years - 1 election for everything.
Many good ideas, but add a two month campaign. If they want to blow $2 billion in that timeframe, knock yourself out.It would make more sense to have elections line up. Get rid of the mid term elections.
From what I can see, no US politician has the balls to do what's right for the country because they are too busy worring about getting re-elected.
Have ALL the elections every 6 years and all terms for 6 years. Representatives and Senators are limited to 2 terms.
Potus to be limited to 1 term.
Right now I see it this way, in term 1 Obama is worried about getting elected to to term 2, so he can't raise taxes, or cut spending. (No-one loves a free lunch more than Americans.) You would think that in Term 2 that this would change, but no, the problem becomes the good of the party. Plus, they are always worried about the damn mid term elections, so nothing gets done.
To make matters worse - it seems like the US is forever running one election or another.
Hell, the race for potus takes up 2 of 4 years. The Senate and house are no better - so the end result is permanent election. So nothing gets done.
Every 6 years - 1 election for everything.
You make me laugh.That is true and I laugh how the USA claims its free of Britain--sure, we won the Boston Tea Party but guess what, we might not pay taxes to the Queen anymore but how many billions does the USA spend helping Britain fight their wars ? Sure-sure we went to war with Iraq just cause we wanted to, funny how Britain was all for it to.
Lets cut off the rest of the world and just spend our US dollars in the USA and no more helping out Europe and see what happens, ha ha...The USA still has to pay taxes to Europe, we just pretend its not a tax and we really want to help Europe....people from 1776 would be shock if they knew how we help out Britain today
The USA does not bank roll Britain, not now, not then.
During WW2 the USA leant Britain some old shitty war equipment and some money - all of which Britain repaid in full. And I bet you know that "lend / lease only came in after the Battle of Britain. Furthermore, Canada financed Britain much more so than the USA ever did.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6215847.stm
BTW, the British GAVE the USA the design for the Rolls Royce Merlin engine and the P51 Mustang.
Post Reconstruction literacy tests and poll taxes in southern states were used for purposes different than seventeenth and eighteenth century poll taxes.Do you disagree that the literacy test and the poll tax were directed specifically to exclude the poor and minorities? A citizen of the US has a right to have a say, property ownership be damned.
You need to take another look, the English penal code was never applied in its full panoply particularly in terms of Capital Crimes in the Atlantic Colonies. Women were far less “chattel” in the Atlantic Colonies (in part due to religious non-conformity) than in Great Britain. However, yes, liquor was provided at the polls then again straight through most of the nineteenth century polls were conducted in public.So you want to go back to a time when women were chattel, criminals were hung for stealing food and voters were plied with liquor till they could barely stand to mark their 'x'.
Which doesn't answer the question at all. Do you or do you not agree that literacy tests and poll taxes in the southern states were targeted at excluding Blacks and the poor?Post Reconstruction literacy tests and poll taxes in southern states were used for purposes different than seventeenth and eighteenth century poll taxes.
Here is a solution, just a few small changes to the American constitution required:
1. Eliminate the Presidential Elections and have Congress appoint the President by majority vote
2. Require the President to appoint a slate of directors/secretaries chosen by the House Majority Leader to all Federal departments and agencies. These would be referred to as the majority leader's cabinet.
3. Grant the House Majority Leader the power to appoint additional Senators as required, to ensure that the government always has a majority in the senate
4. Allow the House to over-ride any Senate decision by a 2/3rds majority vote
That would eliminate most of the failures in the US political system. You would no longer have these stupid deadlocks between the Senate/House/President that prevent you from passing a budget, and which turn every single issue that gets debated into some kind of election campaign sideshow. The elected government would be able to hunker down and get stuff done, and elections would result in a government that more directly reflects the will of the people. You would still have a weakened Senate, sufficient for providing sober second thought. The President would become largely a ceremonial role--rubber stamping most bills presented--but now and then adjudicating important procedural and constitutional issues.
Under this system elections would no longer automatically occur on Nov 6 every four years. Instead, you could allow terms up to five years, or an election could be called at any time the House Majority Leader lost the confidence of the House.
1. Eliminate the Presidential Elections and have Congress appoint the President by majority vote
2. Require the President to appoint a slate of directors/secretaries chosen by the House Majority Leader to all Federal departments and agencies. These would be referred to as the majority leader's cabinet.
3. Grant the House Majority Leader the power to appoint additional Senators as required, to ensure that the government always has a majority in the senate
4. Allow the House to over-ride any Senate decision by a 2/3rds majority vote
That would eliminate most of the failures in the US political system. You would no longer have these stupid deadlocks between the Senate/House/President that prevent you from passing a budget, and which turn every single issue that gets debated into some kind of election campaign sideshow. The elected government would be able to hunker down and get stuff done, and elections would result in a government that more directly reflects the will of the people. You would still have a weakened Senate, sufficient for providing sober second thought. The President would become largely a ceremonial role--rubber stamping most bills presented--but now and then adjudicating important procedural and constitutional issues.
Under this system elections would no longer automatically occur on Nov 6 every four years. Instead, you could allow terms up to five years, or an election could be called at any time the House Majority Leader lost the confidence of the House.
This is satire, right?Here is a solution, just a few small changes to the American constitution required:
1. Eliminate the Presidential Elections and have Congress appoint the President by majority vote
2. Require the President to appoint a slate of directors/secretaries chosen by the House Majority Leader to all Federal departments and agencies. These would be referred to as the majority leader's cabinet.
3. Grant the House Majority Leader the power to appoint additional Senators as required, to ensure that the government always has a majority in the senate
4. Allow the House to over-ride any Senate decision by a 2/3rds majority vote
That would eliminate most of the failures in the US political system. You would no longer have these stupid deadlocks between the Senate/House/President that prevent you from passing a budget, and which turn every single issue that gets debated into some kind of election campaign sideshow. The elected government would be able to hunker down and get stuff done, and elections would result in a government that more directly reflects the will of the people. You would still have a weakened Senate, sufficient for providing sober second thought. The President would become largely a ceremonial role--rubber stamping most bills presented--but now and then adjudicating important procedural and constitutional issues.
Under this system elections would no longer automatically occur on Nov 6 every four years. Instead, you could allow terms up to five years, or an election could be called at any time the House Majority Leader lost the confidence of the House.
The Canadian political system is strictly better, so no.This is satire, right?
Nice to see the at women were far 'less' property. I'm sure they felt better. The New World had something to offer after all. As far a free liquor, I can't speak for many US cities, but it wasn't too long ago that large parts of TO were dry 24/7 for almost a 100 years.You need to take another look, the English penal code was never applied in its full panoply particularly in terms of Capital Crimes in the Atlantic Colonies. Women were far less “chattel” in the Atlantic Colonies (in part due to religious non-conformity) than in Great Britain. However, yes, liquor was provided at the polls then again straight through most of the nineteenth century polls were conducted in public.
And yet you elected the biggest ass as mayor of your most populous city, according to everyone here, and still can't deal with solidifing the rest of the country with Quebec. Also according to everyone here. The US will never agree to the parlimentary style government you are suggesting. Ain't gonna happen.The Canadian political system is strictly better, so no.
.... but the boy can dream.And yet you elected the biggest ass as mayor of your most populous city, according to everyone here, and still can't deal with solidifing the rest of the country with Quebec. Also according to everyone here. The US will never agree to the parlimentary style government you are suggesting. Ain't gonna happen.
Toronto City Council does not operate on a Parliamentary system, such as we use at the Federal level. There is no City of Toronto senate. The Mayor does not have the executive powers of a Prime Minister, and is separately elected, like a President, only weaker. As for Quebec, there is an issue there that goes beyond any electoral system--I subscribe to the belief that Quebec is in fact a distinct nation, and fiercely proud of the same. You have nothing like that in your federal system. A few European countries do. The English have a watered down version of it with respect to Scotland or Wales and a nastier version in Northern Ireland. Maybe the Spanish Catalan's or Basques come closest in terms of being a linguistically distinct group in a larger, diverse nation.And yet you elected the biggest ass as mayor of your most populous city
In any case I agree with you the US will probably never agree to a Parliamentary style government, and you will always suffer for it.
Systems do become entrenched don't they? Frankly I think both Canadian and US politics are broken. It's just that US politics carries more weight, and far more affects the world stage.Toronto City Council does not operate on a Parliamentary system, such as we use at the Federal level. There is no City of Toronto senate. The Mayor does not have the executive powers of a Prime Minister, and is separately elected, like a President, only weaker. As for Quebec, there is an issue there that goes beyond any electoral system--I subscribe to the belief that Quebec is in fact a distinct nation, and fiercely proud of the same. You have nothing like that in your federal system. A few European countries do. The English have a watered down version of it with respect to Scotland or Wales and a nastier version in Northern Ireland. Maybe the Spanish Catalan's or Basques come closest in terms of being a linguistically distinct group in a larger, diverse nation.
In any case I agree with you the US will probably never agree to a Parliamentary style government, and you will always suffer for it.
