Could we use another branch of government?

[HydrogenBond]

The constitution provides for a separation of powers by dividing the govenment into three separate branches; Legislative Branch, Executive Branch, Judicial Branch. When the consititution was written the Founding Fathers tried to separate the power of the government so no one person had too much power. Two hundred plus years ago it made no sense to separate the power of the government to where everyone has a voice because of logistics and time constraint of farmers. It made more sense to have elected official to represent the voice of their constituency.

 

In current times, with computers, the internet and communication, the separation of powers could be extended further by adding a fourth branch of government that more directly voices the will of the people. For example, the Fourth Branch would set the agenda for the House of Representives. I could see the universities debating and defining the important issues for the year, then setting up a series of objectivity exams. The various objectivity exams would make sure anyone who wants to vote in the fourth branch of government understands the various pros and cons of any given topic. One could take the exam as many times as needed until they pass. If 1 million voting age citizens pass the exam by a certain date, these fourth branch members will vote on the agenda issue. The sum of all these agenda issues are given to the exisiting three branches of governement for final debate.

[Buffy]

Well, insofar as the elected representatives seem to represent big money interests (some yell "labor" and some yell "big business"; I don't care, pick your poison...), this idea has some merit in the short term, but in the long term, money will buy out whatever as long as the "people" *comply*. So, no this is actually a silly idea, and it would never happen anyway: it would be easier just to regain control of the three branches we're *all* supposed to be ensuring do what we want with our *votes*.

 

Its time we took back control of our political parties and our government. But this means *you*. Stop proving that Adlai Stevenson was right when he said, "the American people get exactly the government they deserve...."

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[HydrogenBond]

At one time, I was for radial change of the government to regain control to the people. But that is not going to happen, because those who influence change will not do anything that did not serve their own best interest. That is human nature. What I suggested was a tiny baby step in the right direction that would not make the power brokers feel insecure since they can still do what they want. But once the ball starts rolling and the logistics are in place additional social change would be inevitable. Our culture has lost track of looking long term which is what i am depending on. Short term vision leads to long term problems.

[C1ay]

At one time, I was for radial change of the government to regain control to the people. But that is not going to happen, because those who influence change will not do anything that did not serve their own best interest. That is human nature. What I suggested was a tiny baby step in the right direction that would not make the power brokers feel insecure since they can still do what they want. But once the ball starts rolling and the logistics are in place additional social change would be inevitable. Our culture has lost track of looking long term which is what i am depending on. Short term vision leads to long term problems.

The answer is not a new branch of government though, particularly one that pushes us closer to a true democracy. I think the best efforts at fixing the current failures of government would be to repeal the 17th amendment and to hold the representatives of the people more accountable in their positions, Senators should not think they are to represent the people and those that represent the people should represent the people and not themselves. The people have the power to do both if they would quit being so passive, like sheep, and rise to the challenge.

[nemo]

C1ay, would you disband the Senate, or simply make their terms shorter?

[C1ay]

C1ay, would you disband the Senate, or simply make their terms shorter?

No, I would not eliminate the Senate. Repealing the 17th amendment would only revert the method of choosing senators to the original method called for in the Constitution, that the Senators be chosen by the legislatures of the states they represent. As it is now, senators are chosen by the people to represent their state and some of the senators are beginning to act like representatives of the people which is not their function. Because of the sovereignity of the states it is important that they are represented in government seperately than the people of the states and the 17th amendment fractured that representation.

[Amtekoth]

Sorry to jump in so late.

 

I think you are right about the Senate, but in addition I'm reminded of something I read years ago. What about making the House of Representatives a non-elected position like jury-duty or the draft? Every 2 years, the computers spit out randomized lists of eligible citizens. If you are at the top of the list, you are the new Rep. Welcome to Congress! Exceptions can be made for mental health issues and what-not (although we've had some loonies in the government over the years). The pay would be better than 95% of the population currently gets. Increase the penalties for accepting bribes. There is no re-election campaign, so bribing would be a dangerous crapshoot for a company instead of the wise investment it now is.

 

A professional staff helps get newbies up to speed. Laws would get a LOT simpler if you didn't have a few hundred lawyers writing them.

 

And you still have the "States Rights" Senators making sure things don't get too crazy.

 

I know it'll never happen.

 

But "What if...?"

[Panjandrum]

If you were to repeal the 17th amendment, how woulod you prevent the return to the situation that lead to its passing, where sentaorships are handed out on a basis of nepotism and bribery? At least now, the bribe money goes to the senator himself, so you can predict how they will vote. If it was simply appointed by the state legislature, you'd get a lot more ****tards and deviants.

[C1ay]

If you were to repeal the 17th amendment, how woulod you prevent the return to the situation that lead to its passing, where sentaorships are handed out on a basis of nepotism and bribery?

Censure the representatives of such States. The people of those States have the power over their own legislatures to correct such abuse.

[TheBigDog]

Requiring people to be educated to vote would be viewed as the greatest civil rights violation since the Constitution allowed states to decide the issue of slavery for themselves. I don't think it would ever work.

 

One option available in the constituion that has never been exercised is the use of a Constitutional Convention to initiate change to the constitution that our elected leaders in Washington choose to ignore.

 

On the issue of accoutability in Washington, I am in favor of setting standards of performance for the federal elected officials. If they fail to live up to those standards then they lose their option for reelection fo the next term. For instance, a balanced budget would be a requirement of the House and Senate. Over budget? No reelection for anyone. I would have the House and Senate combine their committee systems to obviously savve money by removing redundancy, but also to provide stability in that a Senator is going to be around for at least 6 years, where a congressman is only guaranteed 2 years.

 

Bill

[C1ay]

Requiring people to be educated to vote would be viewed as the greatest civil rights violation since the Constitution allowed states to decide the issue of slavery for themselves.

You're right, the right to vote should not be infringed for a lack of education but, our children should be better educated on the responsibility of voting. I'm amazed at the responses I get when I question young people, near voting age, on the Constitution and the branches of government. Young voters are not getting the material they need to make responsible choices at the polls.

[cwes99_03]

I'm just wondering if you all are just optimists in your own ability to solve all mankinds problems. Do you really believe one person, or a coalition of people, or a voting electorate really knows what is best for themselves? Will one more branch of government, or new laws concerning voting rights, or new laws constraining legal behavior of elected officials, make any difference in the long or even short term?

Seems to me that whenever changes to the constitution or to ethics and behaviors of lawmakers have been passed in the past, it took a considerable amount of time for these changes to take any type of effect (10-20 years) and when they finally did have some sort of effect, there were already those who had found loopholes in the new laws or repealed portions of it so new loopholes could be created. Politics is an ethereal beast that makes those under its control believe that they have an ability to effect change, when really the only people with that ability are those willing to give up everything that is decent for their own personal views (which by the time this has been accomplished, generally are no longer their personal views but the views of a few string-pullers.)

[TheBigDog]

You're right, the right to vote should not be infringed for a lack of education but, our children should be better educated on the responsibility of voting. I'm amazed at the responses I get when I question young people, near voting age, on the Constitution and the branches of government. Young voters are not getting the material they need to make responsible choices at the polls.

I couldn't agree more about needing to better educate youth on the way the government works. But if I had my druthers I would have anyone who wants to vote first pass the same test we require for becoming a natralized citizen, including the porions on US History and how the government works. I don't think that would be unreasonable. I would grandfather anyone who has already voted to be exempt, but require it of all new voters. But I don't think politically it will ever happen.

 

Bill

[Cedars]

I dont think a history/government test would impact the vote as much as some think it would.

 

I think voters would do better being required to pass an abnormal psychology course to be eligible to vote.

 

I would also like to see more referendum voting going on. Both on the state and federal level.

[cwes99_03]

I couldn't agree more about needing to better educate youth on the way the government works. But if I had my druthers I would have anyone who wants to vote first pass the same test we require for becoming a natralized citizen, including the porions on US History and how the government works. I don't think that would be unreasonable. I would grandfather anyone who has already voted to be exempt, but require it of all new voters. But I don't think politically it will ever happen.

 

Bill

 

I don't know what requirements other states have, but in Illinois all students are required to pass with at least a 70% a test on the US Constitution and on the state constitution.

Funny thing is that nearly 50% of those in my high school failed the test at least once, and I know of two students who failed it twice and had to retake the test the following year.

Now when all had passed the test, how many do you think could recall the number of senators, electoral college votes, branches and duties of the government.

Funny I can still remember most of this stuff and I'm apolitical. I have nothing to do with politics even at the lowest level of city or township.

[TheBigDog]

I don't know what requirements other states have, but in Illinois all students are required to pass with at least a 70% a test on the US Constitution and on the state constitution.

Funny thing is that nearly 50% of those in my high school failed the test at least once, and I know of two students who failed it twice and had to retake the test the following year.

Now when all had passed the test, how many do you think could recall the number of senators, electoral college votes, branches and duties of the government.

Funny I can still remember most of this stuff and I'm apolitical. I have nothing to do with politics even at the lowest level of city or township.

You retain it because it is probalby your nature to remember things. Probably very common among people who would frequent a site like this. What really discourages me is people's rights when they are excercised in the name of complete ignorance. I hear people interviewed on the radio who have not a single fact straight about any current events, but have a hard and fast opinion about who is responsible for what is wrong. So they are excercising their right to vote based upon complete ignorance and fiction. When presented facts (without names) they have a completely opposite political view. But as soon as the names are placed with the facts they throw all logic to the wind and descend back into ignorance.

 

When I take the time to dwell on that it really gets to me. I don't think any amount of education can help with that. But I think it is best to discourage people who are not going to bother to think about issues to not force their random nonsence on others and not vote. If they are going to bother to learn and to think, THEN make your vote count. No matter what side of any issue that you are on.

 

Bill

[Pyrotex]

...I hear people interviewed on the radio who have not a single fact straight about any current events, but have a hard and fast opinion about who is responsible for what is wrong. So they are excercising their right to vote based upon complete ignorance and fiction. ...

Robert A. Heinlein, in his novel "Time Enough for Love", and again in "The Notebooks of Lazurus Long", had this to say about civic duty. (paraphrase)

 

If you wish to be a good citizen in a democracy without a lot of tedious research, the easiest way to do so is to find the stupidest, must uninformed, and most opinionated moron in the circle of your acquaintences, and ask that person how they are going to vote. Then go to the polls and vote the opposite. You have nullified the vote of an idiot, thereby increasing the chances that civilization will be saved by the intelligent and tolerant minority.