If You could Change one thing...

[Centurion1]

If you could change one thing about your respective nations political process overnight what would it be?

Personally I would have to go with imposing term limits. A combination of complacent partisan lifers and then fearful people scared to piss off their constituents is one of the most serious issues in American politics.

[Kadagar_AV]

I'd go with: Constitutional changes HAVE to head every media outlet for at least a day before any election.


Sweden changed the constitution 2010, for the first time since 1974.

You'd think that the average Swede would know about it, as it included kind of major stuff, such as Sweden now being a multicultural country, are officially a pawn of the EU, and that military can be used against civilians. But noooooo, 95% of the Swedes would have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

[Greyblades]

Have the racist parties like BNP and the National front banned. I really feel like we should be past this.

[Hooahguy]

Change the current voting system to the Alternative Voting system (otherwise known as the Instant run-off system).

[Rhyfelwyr]

Make wage labour illegal. Absolutely srs.

[Kadagar_AV]

Have the racist parties like BNP and the National front banned. I really feel like we should be past this.

You want to burn their books too?

[Greyblades]

Depends on the book.

[Hooahguy]

Depends on the book.

"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings."
-Heinrich Heine

[Greyblades]

I really must remember that sarcasm doesnt translate in text.

[Kadagar_AV]

I really must remember that sarcasm doesnt translate in text.

:yes:

I know, it sucks... But it really doesn't, I've tried.

[Strike For The South]

Enfranchise only those who can pass a civics test and are gainfully employed.

Being a citizen of republic has just as many responsibilities as rights.

[Greyblades]

Still, there are some tomes *cough*Twilight*cough*atlas shrugged*cough* that's worth more as stove fuel than brain fuel.

[rvg]

I would abolish the Electoral College. In this day and age it's just downright silly.

[Hooahguy]

I would abolish the Electoral College. In this day and age it's just downright silly.

I dont know, wouldnt then politicians just concentrate on the high-population centers?
Looking at this map (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/USA-2000-population-density.gif) it seems like the higher population densities are on the east and west coasts. While its undeniable that there are more people in those areas, but Id say that the Electoral College is there to ensure that the candidates go to all the states and not just the important ones with the most people. I mean, without the electoral college, who would go to Wyoming? Or North and South Dakota? Or really anywhere in the midwest? Id say that the Electoral College ensures that all states have some importance to an election.

A better system would be the Alternative Voting system, and then instead of the 270 to win, it would just be the majority of the electoral votes since we can assume that there would be more than two main candidates.

[Major Robert Dump]

If I could change one thing

It would be to have a Tsunami-nado-cane-quake-nuke wipe out Washington DC whiel everyone was present.

That would be the best thing to ever happen to America. And a close second would be for the dollar to lose it's favored oil trade status, so people have to actually start working again.

[Hooahguy]

If I could change one thing

It would be to have a Tsunami-nado-cane-quake-nuke wipe out Washington DC whiel everyone was present.

That would be the best thing to ever happen to America. And a close second would be for the dollar to lose it's favored oil trade status, so people have to actually start working again.
Im in the DC area so as long as I get early warning then Im ok with this.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I dont know, wouldnt then politicians just concentrate on the high-population centers?

No, they would not. If you combine the top 50 most populous cities together, you don't even get 30% of the population. At that point you are talking about "high-population" centers like....Spokane as well. It just doesn't follow. The vast majority of people live in suburban areas which can be either left leaning or right leaning or very contested.

[Hooahguy]

No, they would not. If you combine the top 50 most populous cities together, you don't even get 30% of the population. At that point you are talking about "high-population" centers like....Spokane as well. It just doesn't follow. The vast majority of people live in suburban areas which can be either left leaning or right leaning or very contested.

Sorry I should have clarified. By centers I meant states. My point is that candidates wouldnt pay attention to everyone.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Sorry I should have clarified. By centers I meant states. My point is that candidates wouldnt pay attention to everyone.

Hmmm, no still doesn't hold. The most populous states have wildly different philosophies and interests. Say you wanted to cater to Californians in general because California has the most people in it. You quickly realize the problem that the current California government has, nobody can agree on anything!

Besides, by focusing on the populous states, you are going to have a handful of states most of which want to go in different directions. How are going to cater to both New Yorkers and Texans? To both Californians and Floridans?

Even if we assume, that the candidates will focus on the most populous states, that is still for the better because now, there will be about 6-8 states to jockey over rather than the what....two states of Ohio and Florida that have decided the past 4 elections now?

[GeneralHankerchief]

All higher offices that were previously elected positions are now filled by the same system that determines who serves in juries.

[Fragony]

Leave the international-socialism

[HoreTore]

In order of importance:

1. Switch to republic
2. Join the EU
3. Leave NATO

[Fragony]

In order of importance:

1. Switch to republic
2. Join the EU
3. Leave NATO

Kudo's to number one, bring forth the guillotine and chop them up. But why the que would you want to join the international-socialism Norway is doing great without it. It will only cost you money and you will have less democracy.

[Kadagar_AV]

In order of importance:

1. Switch to republic
2. Join the EU
3. Leave NATO

Why is "1" more important?

It's not like the Norwegian queen, or king or whatever peasant took the throne, has any political power, now is it?

[Kralizec]

I would change our Senate ("first chamber"). Right now it's members are elected by the provincial assemblies. The latter is elected by the people, but people generally don't care much about provincial politics and the fact that they appoint the senators is the #1 reason people vote for it at all. It's not a bad setup per se, but the Netherlands is probably too small for it, in contrast to states like Germany.
I'd do one of these things:

- abolish it, and institute a constitutional court in its place, which we don't have as of yet
- keep the senate, but make it's members directly elected in about 30-50 single constitutencies. Some more changes would be necessary; the senate would need a clearly defined role in relation to our current directly elected chamber

There's other stuff too; I'd rather have we became a republic but that's not a priority for me.

[HoreTore]

Why is "1" more important?

It's not like the Norwegian queen, or king or whatever peasant took the throne, has any political power, now is it?

Principles.

I would like to say I live in a proper country where everyone is equal before the law. Also, it's expensive. Off it goes.

[Kadagar_AV]

Principles.

I would like to say I live in a proper country where everyone is equal before the law. Also, it's expensive. Off it goes.

How very socialistic of you to put principles before economical and world stage political conundrums.

I do however have a further question. Are you serious in believing in equality before the law? Even if you got rid of the regent, do you think the police would spend an average amount of time investigating, say, a murder of the prime minister?

Just face the facts and adjust to them, we will ALWAYS label crimes differently depending on who the victim is. If you get rid of the monarch and whole upper class, the police would still investigate the murder of a middle class citizen way more than the murder of some ghetto guy.

[drone]

I would abolish the Electoral College. In this day and age it's just downright silly.

I would leave to Electoral College, but change the allocations in all states to match the Congressional District method used by Nebraska and Maine. The winner of each district gets that electoral vote, with the 2 Senate electors going to the overall winner of the state. This will eliminate the swing state effect.

If I get a second change, repeal the 17th.

[Ronin]

introduce a basic civics and political knowledge test before voting - just like 4-5 multiple choice questions to see if you know what you are about to do....if you can pass, your vote counts.

[Hooahguy]

introduce a basic civics and political knowledge test before voting - just like 4-5 multiple choice questions to see if you know what you are about to do....if you can pass, your vote counts.

Yeah but then you get all the civil liberty groups crying how thats discriminating.

[Kralizec]

Enfranchise only those who can pass a civics test and are gainfully employed.

Being a citizen of republic has just as many responsibilities as rights.

What about:

- retirees
- (small) business owners
- Paris Hilton
- people who follow an academic or vocational education
- freelancers
- housewives

[rvg]

Yeah but then you get all the civil liberty groups crying how thats discriminating.

Of course they will and for a good reason. Literacy tests in the South were used to disenfranchise large swaths of people.
Here's an example of the test (http://www.ferris.edu/htmls/news/jimcrow/origins/images/al_literacy.pdf).

[Furunculus]

Have the racist parties like BNP and the National front banned. I really feel like we should be past this.
why?

nothing that they do is illegal, otherwise they would be proscribed already............

[Furunculus]

leave the EU if whatever federal euro-core that emerges from the ash of the crisis is not sympathetic to non-currency members sovereign status.

[gaelic cowboy]

Partition

[Furunculus]

of what?

the catholic parts of NI?

in which case i want the Serbian part of Kosovo to return to Serbia.......

:p

[Greyblades]

why?

nothing that they do is illegal, otherwise they would be proscribed already............

Yeah, I know, that's why it would be one thing I would change.

[gaelic cowboy]

of what?

the catholic parts of NI?

in which case i want the Serbian part of Kosovo to return to Serbia.......

:p

ahem careful now you will get me gander up


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msFljrJ7M4A&feature=related

[Strike For The South]

What about:

- retirees
- (small) business owners
- Paris Hilton
- people who follow an academic or vocational education
- freelancers
- housewives

I leave it to the lawyers

[HoreTore]

I want to add a fourth point to my to-do list:

4. Remove the voting rights of all those people who express a desire to remove them from others. Call it The Anti-Fascist/Nerd-act.

[Furunculus]

I want to add a fourth point to my to-do list:

4. Remove the voting rights of all those people who express a desire to remove them from others. Call it The Anti-Fascist/Nerd-act.

seconded.

[drone]

I want to add a fourth point to my to-do list:

4. Remove the voting rights of all those people who express a desire to remove them from others. Call it The Anti-Fascist/Nerd-act.
And now you can't vote! ~D

[rvg]

And now you can't vote! ~D

It is an admirable self-sacrifice.

[HoreTore]

And now you can't vote! ~D

We commies control society through inflitration and dishonesty, voting is unnecessary.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I would make formal Parliamentary Parties illegal - you should vote for the man, not the party. N party stamps on ballots, no coloured rosettes, no centralised funding.

[gaelic cowboy]

I would make formal Parliamentary Parties illegal - you should vote for the man, not the party. N party stamps on ballots, no coloured rosettes, no centralised funding.

Technically parties don't exist in our systems as it takes a vote of MP's to elect a prime minister or taoiseach to office, so it's not impossible for an independent to be elected across or outside party lines it's just very very unlikely.

However they have indeed voted themselves some rights which give them the veneer of it being a party system.

[Beskar]

How everyone views the world.

The resulting effects would usher in a Golden Age for the Human Race.

[Idaho]

I would make formal Parliamentary Parties illegal - you should vote for the man, not the party. N party stamps on ballots, no coloured rosettes, no centralised funding.

Mine would be similar changes to this, but from a different angle, going in a different direction. I can't have one change though. I need the full breakfast buffet.


Elections every four years for each house.

For the lower house:

Each person over 16 gets 2 votes in their 6 member constituency
Parties allowed to field a maximum of 6 candidates
Individual candidates can claim some basic election expenses and get free publicity materials
No private funding of parties
Purpose to lead the country forward and express the political will of the citizens


Upper house

Single person constituencies
No political parties
Purpose to protect the citizens and defend the constitution


First job - write a constitution that is based around the rights of citizens.

[rory_20_uk]

Cue political deadlock and stagnation, with possibly bancruptcy thrown in.
Every person doing what is best for their constituency, leading to pork barrel legislation to get anything done so politicians can show their voters how much money they fleeced of the state and for their election chest.
Either massive increase in off the books funding or else the modern day gentry are the only ones who can reliably spend enough to get elected / those deep in the pockets of invested interst groups.

Rights and responsibilites. Everyone tends to be very keen on what they deserve, but far less interested in what they should do. And let's not do something as stupid as America where we have one document that is both ambiguous and nigh on impossible to alter.

~:smoking:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Drone's suggestions are spot on.

Personally though, if I really could I wouldn't even let people vote for President.
Only vote from the public should be for the House of Representatives, and I would remove the cap 435 cap they have. Let the district size be pegged to the state with the lowest population, which would be about 560,000. It's no surprise people don't feel represented by their elected official when representatives cater to over half a million people each.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/US_population_per_representative.jpg

[Hooahguy]

So what exactly are you suggesting? That representatives vote for the president instead of the people?

[a completely inoffensive name]

So what exactly are you suggesting? That representatives vote for the president instead of the people?

No, sorry I meant to make those two separate points. I should have indicated such. Public should only vote for HoR. President should be chosen by qualified electors who could pass a test similar to what Strike proposes. In theory, everyone could vote if everyone could pass the test.

[Hooahguy]

No, sorry I meant to make those two separate points. I should have indicated such. Public should only vote for HoR. President should be chosen by qualified electors who could pass a test similar to what Strike proposes. In theory, everyone could vote if everyone could pass the test.

Wasnt that the original idea behind the electoral college?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Wasnt that the original idea behind the electoral college?

From what I remember, kinda sorta. The electors are supposed to be people trusted to make the right call, however the Constitution never says anything explicit from what I can see flipping through my copy real quick. The states were given the ability to individually choose how their electors were chosen, which is how we got to where we are now. Every state chose to have electors bundled in groups based on party and whichever party wins the popular vote has their bundle of electors chosen.

This is also why most likely we will see the Electoral College removed, since more states are signing a compact that ties their electors to the national popular vote as soon as the compact has 270 or more electoral votes behind it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Mine would be similar changes to this, but from a different angle, going in a different direction. I can't have one change though. I need the full breakfast buffet.


Elections every four years for each house.

For the lower house:

Each person over 16 gets 2 votes in their 6 member constituency
Parties allowed to field a maximum of 6 candidates
Individual candidates can claim some basic election expenses and get free publicity materials
No private funding of parties
Purpose to lead the country forward and express the political will of the citizens


Upper house

Single person constituencies
No political parties
Purpose to protect the citizens and defend the constitution


First job - write a constitution that is based around the rights of citizens.

Dead set against an elected Upper House - America has shown the problem of deadlock, Australia seems to make it work primarily through luck.

If I was going to make a reform of the Upper House, I'd do it like this:

Chosen by lot every 10 years from the Life Peerage, Peers themselves to be nominated by the Public and confirmed by a vote in the Commons, which should pass unless the person is genuinely unfit. Serving in the Lords would be compulsory for ten years if the Peer was chosen in the lot.

Or, just abolish it as pointless. New Zealand manages with one house, as do the Scandinavian countries.

[Centurion1]

All i can think reading this is

"white landowning males"

Really though something like a competence test would have to be very very carefully monitored.

[Strike For The South]

"white landowning males"
.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F9vRVyV914

[Centurion1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F9vRVyV914

I am hammered on jungle juice and soco but I just pissed myself

[HoreTore]

All i can think reading this is

"white landowning males"

Really though something like a competence test would have to be very very carefully monitored.

That the "non-competent" have a right to vote is a strength in democracy, it is not a weakness.

[Major Robert Dump]

ahem careful now you will get me gander up


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msFljrJ7M4A&feature=related

A little OT

But in the video above, with the IRA vs Taliban,

Can someone please tell me who that black female panel member is,

Because I need to impregnate her,

Thanks

[Furunculus]

A little OT

But in the video above, with the IRA vs Taliban,

Can someone please tell me who that black female panel member is,

Because I need to impregnate her,

Thanks
concurs.

[Idaho]

I think her name is Jamelia. She's a singer.

[Idaho]

Dead set against an elected Upper House - America has shown the problem of deadlock, Australia seems to make it work primarily through luck.

If I was going to make a reform of the Upper House, I'd do it like this:

Chosen by lot every 10 years from the Life Peerage, Peers themselves to be nominated by the Public and confirmed by a vote in the Commons, which should pass unless the person is genuinely unfit. Serving in the Lords would be compulsory for ten years if the Peer was chosen in the lot.

Or, just abolish it as pointless. New Zealand manages with one house, as do the Scandinavian countries.

One of the problems we have in the UK, is that the electoral system is meant to provide local representation, and produce a functioning legislature with a mandate. I don't think it does either successfully. Why not separate out the two functions? Use the upper house to provide the local representation and oversight, and leave the Commons to legislate. FPTP is only conceptually sound where people are voting for the person.

Nick Clegg... what an arse. Hard to believe how he could have ballsed things up any more comprehensively. If Cameron gets Scottish Indpendence then we are going to have a Tory government until the end of days.

[Fragony]

concurs.

I think she should shave her leggs first