We need...

to eliminate the 2 party system. Change the constitution to allow for representative democracy, and institute proportional representation. The win or take all system we have now enables corruption, and money in politics.

I don't care what ideology you adhere to, this makes sense.

 

You mean a Parliamentary system?

 

Exactly why the Founders instituted a Constitutional Republic, and not a damned Democracy.

 

Not necessarily. Any system that allows for more ideas, and more direct democracy.

- - - Updated - - -

The founders also owned slaves, want to copy that idea too?

 

Break up the monopoly. I agree.

 

Like what?

 

I just read about the DOJ attempting to block an acquisition on the grounds it would be bad for competition. Hello?! Two parties. No alternatives. Bad for competition.

 

Not sure exactly, I don't have all the answers. Feel free to post suggestions! I wanted to see if we can all agree on what the problem with our governing/elections is.

 

I think there might be some tweaks, but a Parliamentary system is not exactly much better as evidenced by the dirty politicking and ineffectiveness of our European Brethren. Nor is the House of representatives the most directly representative of the people any more effectual , in reality it is the most gridlocked branch of our government. There are no easy solutions saying we need more direct representation is an argument that has no foundation in facts.

 

Look at it this way, parliamentary systems are also run by parties and elites. I think if we combine the two ideas, we would have something reasonable. Let their be multiple parties, with direct democracy through banning monetary donations at every level. If politicians have no donors, they can be free to govern.

https://www.termlimits.org/congress-fundraising-priority/

 

I think that is an oversimplification at best....

number one no one is preventing other parties from forming.

Two How is banning donations = to become a direct democracy? Can you elaborate?

Three how can people run for office without using donors? Or are you saying only self funded rich people should be our leaders?

 

Gross straw man/red herring combo. Bravo.

To the topic, it's not the two party system that is a failure, but overpowered, fraudulent, fed-centric government in which both parties participate. The parties are merely a patina on this monster.

1. 80% of what the federal government does should be either turned over to the states, privatized, or eliminated outright. For a clear definition of what central government should do, see Locke.

2. All public federal, state and city employee unions should be abolished immediately.

3. Government contracting should be strictly limited and regulated. The government should not be allowed to grow itself via grafty contracting relationships with insiders. People need to wise up to the fact that a government that directly employs the same number of people, but has increased contracting 200-500% over a few decades, is a growing, not a stable or shrinking government, and is riddled with all kinds of graft and fraud.

4. All quasi legislative functions of federal bureaus should be immediately curtailed. The Executive is currently overpowered and constitutionally illicit. Federal bureau investigations and enforcement actions shall be, regardless of agency, conducted in accordance with the same standards, burdens of proof, evidentiary and standards of review, etc., that apply in applicable courts at all times, from the start to finish. RICO, Patriot Act, Dodd Frank, all whistleblowing statutes regardless of agency (many others, this is just a start) all abolished immediately.

5. Purveyors of post secondary education and their employees should a) receive NO central federal payments or federal grants of any kind in non STEM fields, b) should have their advertisements held to the same standards that control legitimate private sector advertisements.

6. Anyone who holds federal political office (or an appointment or any position above a certain paygrade) for any length of time should be forbidden, for life, while serving or after, from receiving "passive" payments, consideration, items of any value whatsoever (as opposed to active payments for a trade they are engaging in directly... speaking fees, publishing contracts, mere "showing up" fees, are not "active trades" and will be illegal in toto) from any domestic or foreign interests, should account every instance of legal payments for trade of a past federal legislator/employee on a special IRS schedule that will be a matter of immediately published public record for life. Nonreporting under this law will be a felony and carry a minimum 3 year jail sentence.

7. Terms of US Presidents shall be limited to -one- four year term. Terms of US House shall be limited to a lifetime aggregate of -six- years (in three two year terms). Terms of the US Senate shall be limited to a lifetime aggregate of -nine- years (in three three year terms). All other government employment shall sunset every five years and require rehiring. There will be no permanent federal political class in representation, bureaus, etc.

8. Members of the press above a certain level of involvement shall be forbidden from federal employment or contracting for a period of ten years after their press tenure ends. Vice versa, past members of the government shall not be compensated in any way for any press or media work for a period of ten years after the completion of their public service.

9. Institutions identified as "lobbies" will be subject to special IRS reporting requirements and schedules, which shall become immediately published public record upon filing without the need for FOIA or other sunshine requests of any kind.

10. Citizens who have not met a certain threshold of federal tax payments in their lives shall not be allowed to vote until they meet such thresholds. After that, the franchise is for life.

That's a start, much more needed.

 

The only problem with term limits is finding a great leader and having to settle for less when the term is up. There may be someone in government worth keeping. But have no idea who that would be.

 

Banning all monetary donations will allow for politicians to actually do what they want to do, without being beholden to donor influence. Your vote will be a direct vote for what they say they will do, rather than lies we hear constantly.

Public funding of elections is how we fund elections. Tax money. It would be like a private company not paying to hire its own people. We can set the amount as high or low as we want, but we would control it, not billionaires.

The system prevents third parties from being successful, since they will be spoilers without 4, under a win or take all system.

- - - Updated - - -

Your "solutions" have zero to do with elections. Zero.

 

Why don't you understand that the constitution neither creates a 2-party system nor prevents the realization of a multi-party system?

People are completely free to vote whatever party they want - most just choose to vote (D) or (R).

 

Because the constitution sets up a win or take all republic, which leads to corruption.

 

That makes way too much sense.

 

How, exactly, does the Constitution do that?
Be specific, be sure to cite text from the document.

 

I am not against donations to candidates but I would like to see a limit on the donations so the common man would have a better chance of being represented. But that won't happen.

 

I think getting rid of all donations would be best. The government should be funding its own elections.

 

Ok lets say candidate A who is in office gets 10k and his opponent gets 10k, do you not see how the candidate in office has the advantage? Or would you give more money to his opponent to even it out?

Now do you think Rich people and corp cannot simply pay for volunteers to work for the campaigns? Can they not advertise on tv and radio? Or will you not allow Rich people to voice their opinion. Point is that Rich and influential people will always have more influence then a regular Joe, no matter what kind of system you rig up.

As far as other parties no one is precluding them.

 

The two party system is not specified in the Constitution by name. However, it is a natural consequence of plurality voting, which is specified in the Constitution in several places. That is, the winner is the one who gets the most votes (a plurality)*.

This is a consequence of a principle called Duverger's Law: if the group with the most votes wins, then it behooves all losing parties to unify in an attempt to reach plurality. Given enough time (and it usually doesn't take long), you end up with two parties, a winner and a loser (who attempts to expand its coalition to become the winner).

 

You have to be more specific. Where does the constitution say this?
By "winner" do you mean in elections? Where does the constitution say this?
Or do you mean for passage of legislation?

 

FEC would give out an even amount. If they give more to one candidate/party, they go to prison for breaking federal law (under my proposed system).

Plurality voting is why 3rd parties cannot win.

Of course they can, but we can't make the system perfect. The masses can organize too.

 

1. The word "elections" does not appear in your defective, nebulous thread title, "we need..."
2. The word "elections" does not appear anywhere in your OP.
3. What does appear in your OP is a condemnation of the two party system, which bears on far more than "elections" alone as a matter of irrefutable fact. I addressed this claim directly, by disagreeing with it, and offering alternate policy positions.

Don't like that? Tough. If you want to discuss "elections" and elections alone, title the thread -competently- and draft the OP -competently- as such, instead of -incompetently- as you did.