Is it time to reoorganize Congress?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Oct 16, 2013.

  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,126
    Likes Received:
    221
    Under the current Constitution Each State/Commonwealth (S/C) has a number of Reps based on population. Each S/C has two Senators.
    The Reps and Senators each have their own chamber. To present a bill to the POTUS - each of the two chamber must pass identical bill.
    On some bills that can take some doing - as evidenced by the current govt shut down.

    Since times do change - how about this:
    1) There will be only one chamber (Unicameral - as in Neb)
    2) Politacal parties will choose their Rep based on party registration - in the General Election
    3) Sentators will be selected by their S/C legisatures and will become the Chairman of Committees - one of which will be Speaker of the House - chosen by the Reps in Congress
    4) Terms for Rep will be Three years - max of three terms
    5) Terms for Senators will be 9 years -max of one term. (1/3 appointed by S/C in each election cycle)
    6) Term for POTUS will be six years - max of one term.
    7) Election to be held on Memorial Day
    8) Ingraunation to be held on Indpendence Day
    9) No credit or retirement for elected officals.
    10) POTUS would have single line veto on $$ bills
    11) Electoral College -S/C would have proprotianal represenation based on popular vote within the S/C
    12) # of Reps would be increased to 500
    13) Each State would have at least 2 Rep (+ 1 Senator)
    14) No S/C would have more than 15% of all Rep ( 500 x 15% = 65)
    15) Only registered voters would be counted for purposes of Represenation in Congress - ie Based on Registeration on Jan 1 of election years.
    Note: Senators would have a vote in Congress

    Sounds like a good start.....
     
    #1 Salty, Oct 16, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 16, 2013
  2. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    While the current system is all mucked up by political polarization, that doesn't mean the system is the problem. The system is designed as nearly perfectly as imperfect man, influenced by a righteous God -- which the founders were, imperfect men under God's guidance -- can make it.

    The House is a representative "people's house" that gives reality to the principle of "one man, one vote." The Senate was organized as a representative body of each state's local interests, which varied widely at the time the nation was founded. It is still a good idea, but we should never have gotten away from the method by which senators were elected, which the Constitution specifies as a legislative selection process, not a direct vote of the people. in that respect, the suggestions made in the OP is valid, and it wouldn't hurt at all to return to that methodology, provided we could remove power politics from the mix.

    That was the problem in the first place, and eliminating that problem was the purpose of putting senatorial election in the hands of the people. The problem is, the collective electorate is more susceptible to corruption from the media and the way the polticial parties use them, than the legislators ever were to back-room, under-the-table hackery.

    I agree with term limits, but still think Congress should come up for election, or "reaffirmation," every two years for the House, four years for the presidency and six years for the Senate as they do now. Give a man or woman nine years in a position without being accountable to the legislature that selected that person, and you open him/her up to graft, corruption, thievery and perhaps even treason in a fashion heretofore unseen. Just limit the House to three terms, the Senate to two, and the White House to two.

    I don't agree with the unicameral legislature at all. Nebraska has one, and it seems to work well, but Nebraska doesn't have the broadly divisive issues facing it as the cross-section of the country does in each and every legislative session. Nebraska's legislature only meets for 90 days in odd-numbered years and 60 days in even-numbered years. Imagine trying to get the work of the nation done in such a short expanse of time. Then again, perhaps the arguing, haranguing and nonsense seen in a year-round legislative process would disappear.

    The best thing about the Nebraska system is that it is (allegedly) nonpartisan. There are (supposedly) no political parties represented in the unicameral legislature. I say "allegedly" and "supposedly" because there is nonetheless a decided political flavor and atmosphere to the legislative process in Nebraska, and simply refusing to all the members to identify theselves with a political party doesn't keep them from exercising the platforms of the political parties anyway.

    I've said for years the president needs a line-item veto power, and I like that part of the proposal. But leave the make-up, methodology and politics of the House and Senate alone. They aren't perfect, but nothing else will work any better.
     
  3. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    It's time to fire every nationally elected official, redraw districts based on population size with no ability to attribute to voting patterns, institute a ban on soft money contributions and ban lobbyist contact with elected officials. Then revote.
     
  4. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,126
    Likes Received:
    221
    so would illegals be counted in that population size?

    should LEGAL aliens be counted?
     
  5. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    However the national census counts citizens.
     
  6. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,126
    Likes Received:
    221
  7. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,126
    Likes Received:
    221
    opps double post
     
  8. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,656
    Likes Received:
    225
    Senators need to be elected by the state legislatures, not the population.
     
  9. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    I agree with this.
     
  10. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    You always have interesting concepts for reform. I certainly agree with 7-11. Also, I think Senators should be elected by state legislatures. Beyond that, I think the present structure of government is fine with the two houses. What we need is voters with backbone enough to throw this collection of clowns out, like we can do one year from now. We do not need term limits, we need voters to hold Congress's feet to the fire. We the people must demand they govern and serve, not take and loot. That would result in Congressmen and women that have some sort of leadership ability and morality.

    Another point, political parties have nothing to do with structure of government. It is time to get rid of both of them. We need a Constitutional type party vs a libertarian type party. Although I am in favor of Senator election through the state legislatures, I cannot see it ever happening.
     
  11. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,126
    Likes Received:
    221
    Thats the problem - the American voter has not done that.
    Three things get people elected
    1) Money -for the election
    2) Seniority
    3) Name recognition
    4) What do "I" get from the govt

    As long as the masses get much from the govt (aka those who actaully make money) then why would they even want to elect a conservtive?
     

Share This Page

Loading...