So Kerry’s in now what?

Let us for argument sake say Kerry has got in the worse excess of the neo-cons have been scraped.

But from my point of view that is just a stop gap, the real problem the US political system will remain in place.

Do you think that correct and the system needs changing and if you do what do you think could be done to improve things?

 

Why don't you go first, Balbus? I'm particularly interested in know if/how you think our Constitution should be amended.

One change I'd like to see is the implementation of instant runoff voting, which would give smaller parties a real chance of actually competing in elections. This could probably be done at the state level without amending the federal Constitution, since have no national elections.

 

things that need to change??

the elimination of the "electoral college". Presidents, like all other public positions should be determined by popular vote. How ever many people vote for a guy is how many votes he gets.point blank. your vote directly effects the who becomes president.

none of this..."well candidate A recieved the most actual votes...but candidate B recieved the most electoral college votes..therefore candidate B wins." It's nonsense and complicated and allows for corruption...ie:the 2000 florida fiasco.

Nextly...I would prefer to see political parties eliminated altogether.he reasons for that are quite obvious. not only is it aggrevating but it truly limits the peoples' choices for candidates.

I think it should be unconstitutional for candidates to be sponsered.why you ask? because it causes corruption and candidates are then pressured to bow to corporate agendas.

make it so that all public office candidates have to run on their own money.

Mudslinging should be unconstitutional during the election year. all campaigns should be focused on what that particular candidate has to offer, their ideas, their stances....NOT how dumb and incompetant the opposing candidates are.


the most annoying thing about Kerry's campaign is that up until the convention..his whole platform was.."I'm not Bush".

??? I dont care that he's not Bush...I want to know his ideas for education, health care, pulling troops from Iraq, mending broken international relationships, helping our elderly, helping our ailing domestic industries.

I want to hear from candidates about what they can do...not what their opponant can't do.


I'll think of more later...but my little wishlist will suffice for now.

 

Otter,

You should read some writings of our founding fathers. They articulate very clearly why we are the United States and not merely the nation of "America." Futhermore, as a practical matter, the abolition of the electoral college simply isn't going to happen. It benefits small states, who are in the majority, and such an amendment would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

Several of your other proposals would require repeal of the 1st Amendment, which is even more misguided and unrealistic than abolishing the electoral college.

 

A few ideas

First I think I’d try and lesson the influence of money in US politics.

Stricter controls and limits on campaign contributions with and a limit on how much can be raised.

A limit on political advertising and a set time for electoral advertising (only to be allowed say one month before an election).

In that period each party would be allowed five, five minute TV political broadcasts which air time would be donated by the TV companies.

Lobby groups would have to publish the minutes of any meetings they have involving government or public servants and publish open and frank accounts.

 

I think little can be done to change the SYSTEM and little needs to be. The system is written to be changeable, but the populous refuses to demand change. I think their should be more involvement from third fourth and fifth parties because the more voices you have, the more coalition building is needed. We hang on to our parties because every time a third candidate poses a real chance of getting a message out it thwarts the efforts of the party most closely aligned to it. How do you change this? I am not sure...


We have one of the lowest voter turnouts in the democratic world. We simply need to be involved and really DEMAND the things we sit around complaining about. No, it will not happen overnight... No, you will not see a revolution of thought. But the best change occurs slowly and within the rules.

 

I don't know how the content of media advertisements could be restricted in this way without gutting the 1st Amendment. A much more feasible course of action would be to require full disclosure of the sources of funding for such ads, which is the intent of current campaign finance law. However, I'm not sure how much disclosure is required of the "527 groups" (IRS code) that have mushroomed since McCain-Feingold went into effect.

 

BUSH( red)

KERRY(green)

against gay marriages

supports um.... constitutional gay rights?

against abortion

supports abortion for rape, young, life threatening

with invading iraq

rebuilding iraq with other countries

1000 scholarship

2,500$

supports drilling for oil in alaska

doesnt. only 2% difference without it.

supports death penalty

only for terroists





Just to fill you in.

 

Nisha,

Where does the US Constitution require that marriage be defined in androgynous terms?

As for abortion, Kerry supports it for any reason whatsoever, not merely for the small percentage of cases involving rape or life threatening situations.

Regarding Iraq, Kerry voted to give Bush authority to invade, but then voted against funding for reconstruction.

Of course, this whole discussion is beside the point of the thread, which is supposed to be about systemic reform rather than policy debates.

 

wow wow wow. easy man. im not all political and, really, im not so into it. i was jsut posting what i saw in a seven teen magazine and im not gonna debate with you because someone's gonna get hurt. i can see your fire lol..

so have fun and maybe you should really worry about your own life and family, rather than trying to change the mins of poepl who dont even know you name.

 

um.. can you read? i sadi that he supports it for young ones too.
and jsut for your information, all those reasons take up almost 30 percent of all abortions..

 

So you believe that unrestricted abortion on demand is something positive?

Please provide a reference, hopefully something besides Seventeen magazine. Here's a summary of statistics from a published journal article that indicates otherwise:

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/reasonsabortions.html

 

Completely off topic, but I really don't think that it should be legal for Seventeen magazine to be discussing politics and further corrupting the minds of young women. And yes Huckfinn, I do realize this would be to completely disregard the 1st Ammendment, but honestly, don't you think it is worth it?

Nisha, maybe you should care more about the current political system and less about what is in Seventeen magazine, or at least pretend you care when you come to the "Politics" forum and post on something completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

Huckfinn, just in case you haven't noticed, I will let you in on a little secret here, the government does not give a flying fuck about the First Ammendment. Haven't you heard of the FCC? With all of the censorship going on these days, it is my opinion that we do not even have a 1st Ammendment anymore. I think the point people were trying to make though, is simply to make things fair and even for each candidate. All of them not just the main 2.

Now, what do I think should be changed...
Something seriously needs to be done about the election process. Instant runoff voting is a good idea, or perhaps even a parliament type of government, although they both have disadvantages as well, I would have to do more in- depth research to be certain either could completely work here. In any event we have to make people believe that they have an active role in the government and make them care about what happens. Perhaps this could happen through education, I'm not certain.
I don't know why we would want candidates to strictly use their own money. I mean if I want to give a donation to the Green Party, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to, and why they shouldn't be able to use that money to help a candidate run for office. However (and I have no idea how to make certain this is done) we need to make sure that the candidates money is not a bribe for special treatment, tax breaks, law changes, etc. later. Perhaps limits are a good idea.

I have to get back to work now, but I'll post some more later. Other changes need to be made, but my boss is breathing down my neck.

 

haha i never said i did.

but you know what i think of abortion? I think that it is fine. I have no problems with it. You are probably a man so you don't exactly know what it's liek to be young, either raped, in a life threatening situation, or just simply scared to have to take care of another person that is completely in your hands and responsability. It's inside you and its gonna grow but you dont want it. It isnt born yet so I think it's perfectly fine to have abortions.

Im gonna stop arguing with you because it's pathetic to it with someone i've never met before.

thank you for the link, i'll keep it as a wonderful treasure.

peace.

 

oh sorry, make that 39 percent


*leaves*

 

Maybe you should clarify what you meant by "all those reasons" for abortion. I was referring specifically to cases of rape or life endangerment, which account for far less than 30% of the total (1-1.5 million) performed annually in the US.

 

If this was the case. There would be no change. Only the rich elite will have a chance of winning an election. I think there should be a party quota or candidate quota. They are all qiven equal amounts of public money. Thats the only money they can use. Make it a fare playing field.

 

Who would decide which candidates qualify for public funding, and how? Would all private campaign contributions be banned, however small? Would advocacy groups like the Sierra Club be allowed to run their own advertisements?

 

Kerry's abortion position is more complicated than has been presented.
Kerry is against abortion except for the listed reasons.
He is also against changing abortion laws to coform to his opinions.

He sees a difference between "abortion is wrong" and "abortion should be illegal."


Back to the original question,

I don't think that a Kerry presidency will change the basic situation of a corporate controled government.

HOWEVER, the corporate world cares about profits. Period. They are uninterested in controling personal freedom, preemptive war & freedom of speech other than as relates to profits.

The Bushies do care about those things. The playing field on which corporations make their obscene profits will be very different under Bush or Kerry. That they make obscene profits will be pretty much the same.

 

I wonder what other forms of violence he believes should be legal.