Perusing the Eric Cantor thread and, noticing the mention of money in the campaign, it got me thinking about the necessary political changes that must be needed in today's circus of endless campaigns and big money involvement skewing the process. Clearly, some real substantial changes in the process are necessary, but exactly what? And how realistic are these ideas? So, I came up with a few. Discuss/add/savage as you like. 1. End gerrymandering. ASAP. I've mentioned it a few times, but it's utter horseshit that the ruling party in the legislature, whether at the state or national level, gets to make the map out to their benefit. It's gone both ways, for Democrats and Republicans, for sure. The latest example was 2012, when Democratic candidates won more votes in House, yet the Republicans maintained their clear majority as they had made the district maps in 2010. Get some kind of non-partisan commission to do it and end the manipulation. - Unfortunately, I have little hope this will ever be done in my lifetime. 2. Pass the amendment to eliminate the Citizen's United ruling. I imagine the most annoying aspect of running for office is fund raising, but it's become necessary due to the extravagant expenses required to run lengthy campaigns. In the end it makes the candidate beholden to their rich benefactors when in office and just perpetuates the shitty system we currently have. This goes hand in hand with; 3. Limit campaign season. We are going to spend the next two years, just like we did in 2006-08, in presidential campaign mode. It's a ridiculous waste of time going over redundant items and pushing real issues to the background for the next two years, while making the current president more ineffectual (which would make some happy, if he's not their guy, but not practical for the purpose of actually having a president). I know of a number of countries that keep their election campaigns within the time frame of six weeks or so prior to the election and I don't see why we can't - I see the money aspect the least likely to change, only moderately more so than a change in the campaign times. In essence, I don't have much hope that we'll do the most beneficial thing to the process of transitioning leadership as long as people can make a lot of money in the current environment.
That's what I was going to say. It seems like keeping themselves in office is a big driving force behind a lot of the BS.
Ending the cap on the House of Representatives and making it closer to what the founding fathers wanted instead of the current cluster since 1911
I struggle with this because I believe we do have "term" limits by voting representatives in and out but I also understand the money involved and how much it weighs on political backing of legislation. I still say we force politicians to wear NASCAR jumpsuits with all their sponsors for every one to see.
We try to be too theoretical and idealistic when it comes to politics and the political game. If you want to make changes, you have to base them in reality.
I've said 12. That gets you 6 house terms or 2 Senate terms. Or 1 senate and 3 house, take your pick.
I don't see term limits doing anything. Special interest would still be the ones running the show due to the scope of the zoning sizes. If we could limit the amount of people per representative, you'd have a greater chance of changing the game.
Could this legitimately happen? I honestly don't see any thing happening with a collective unified front by the populace. How do you really change power in a modern industrialized country?
Of course you'd also have 1,000 people+ with their own interests, probably making it that much harder to actually get things accomplished. I'd actually rather cut House in half or more and institute term limits.
