3 suggestions to improve US political system

I read these suggestions in the Economist last week. They seem reasonable, but very difficult to implement. I think (1) and (2) implemented together would make a big difference. And take much power away from the extremes.

(1) Have open primaries where the top 2 finishers go to the general election. I think they are doing this already in CA. Seems a good way to play to the center instead of the wingnuts on both sides. But one assumes both parties would fight against this as it would weaken their position. Seems like such a system would never nominate a Elizabeth Warren or Ted Cruz.

(2) Have redistricting done by non-political boards. This would certainly weaken the two parties and make for more competitive districts which we have far too little of, at least in my view. I think CA may have done this, too?

(3) Eliminate the 60 vote filibuster in the Senate. This way the minority party can block so many bills. Not sure I like this one but see its point.

Thoughts?

1 and 2 for sure!

Make all candidates wear a coat with patches for the companies that own them like a fucking NASCAR body. Phone Post 3.0

Term limits? Probably very simple solution.

#1 leads to centrism and you use CA as the example of this working?   LOL...No thanks.

Redistricting is huge.  Both parties have drawn up absolutely fucking ridiculous maps to favor themselves

TERM LIMITS

MANDATORY PUBLIC SERVICE FOR UNEMPLOYED WELFARE RECIPIENTS

ZERO CORPORATE TAXES   

4) Ban all suits and ties. Phone Post 3.0

I've said the best thing to do is have a law that says if at least %90 of the eligible voters don't show up at the polls/absentee ballot etc nobody wins. Therefore your district has no representatives. I.e. you no mayor, senator etc until next year. See how well your community does. This will force people to vote, this will mean more centrist candidates to get things done.

Don't put R/D/I or whatever on the ballot. 1/2 the people showing up vote that way. Make them learn the name of the candidate they want to vote for.

fanat - Term limits? Probably very simple solution.




Term limits are a double-edged sword. There are some valid pros, but there are also some valid cons IMO:



1) Term limits would kick out the good leaders who may deserve to stay in office for excellent work (and the persons who replace them could well be far inferior). They would shorten the careers of some of the best  legislators. People who have no history of corruption or political gamesmanship would be forced to leave along with the bad apples, regardless of their performance or merit.



2) Politicians who are in the last term of office are more likely to ignore the will of the people since they don't face the wrath of the electorate in the future. They're beholden to no one.





 

1.Term limits
2.No corporate donations of any type, cap on donations.
3.Maximum age allowed to even be a candidate. Phone Post 3.0

Sagiv Lapkin -
fanat - Term limits? Probably very simple solution.




Term limits are a double-edged sword. There are some valid pros, but there are also some valid cons IMO:



1) Term limits would kick out the good leaders who may deserve to stay in office for excellent work (and the persons who replace them could well be far inferior). They would shorten the careers of some of the best  legislators. People who have no history of corruption or political gamesmanship would be forced to leave along with the bad apples, regardless of their performance or merit.



2) Politicians who are in the last term of office are more likely to ignore the will of the people since they don't face the wrath of the electorate in the future. They're beholden to no one.





 
I'll take my chances with term limits as opposed to not having the maybe one or three politicians who are there to make an actual change and not just fatten their wallets.

You make all politicians personal addresses available to the public as their term expires. Phone Post 3.0

rufus - 


#1 leads to centrism and you use CA as the example of this working?   LOL...No thanks.


Yep.

Using California to make an argument for the way things should be is like Boeing hiring retards, literally retarded, to design the next jumbo jet.

Can you fly a potato?

Term limits and campaign financing laws must be changed. Without that, especially without taking money out of politics, nothing will work Phone Post 3.0

T-Ham - 
rufus - 


#1 leads to centrism and you use CA as the example of this working?   LOL...No thanks.


Yep.

Using California to make an argument for the way things should be is like Boeing hiring retards, literally retarded, to design the next jumbo jet.

Can you fly a potato?

You are confusing CA with the approach itself. They recently made this change in CA so its probably too early to tell if it will help.

I myself dont like TX but would certainly be open to good innovations from TX.

Trust - 


Overturn Wickard v. Filburn and all subsequent case law based on that decision.  Interstate commerce should be defined as goods and services that actually cross state lines, not that merely have an "effect" on markets in general and are otherwise entirely intrastate.  



This would effectively repeal the bulk of Federal law related to commerce, and put control of commerce back in balance between the states and the national government, as intended by the Founders when they gave Congress the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" in Art. I, sec. 8 of the Constitution.  The Founders did not give Congress general commerce power, only the power to regulate commerce among the states, i.e. interstate commerce.  



Doing so would make the 535 people in Congress far less important with regard to the economy, and would therefore make lobbying and campaign finance far less of an issue. It would also allow states to try different approaches to regulation of commerce within their states, allowing everyone to see how different approaches work.  



The states could agree in a compact to allow some established federal agencies to continue to operate, such as the FDC, but in an advisement capacity.  



People are not taught that the Federal (national) government was set up to have limited and enumerated powers and not a general police power, but Wickard essentially did just that, and Congress has been regulating, even criminalizing virtually everything in the name of commerce since then.  



Wickard is the reason Congress has so much power, and that power attracts money and corruption.


I am going to go out on a limb and suggest you are likely a member of the conservative right, given this post.

I dont think this would appeal to you as it would likely empower the moderates at the expense of folks like you.

These ideas are suggesting the hard right and hard left are the problem.

baj54 - 1.Term limits
2.No corporate donations of any type, cap on donations.
3.Maximum age allowed to even be a candidate. Phone Post 3.0


Ideas #1 and #2 would empower the moderates in the middle at the expense of the hardliners(wingnuts?). I dont see how term limits would help reduce the power of the wingnuts.

I am not against your ideas but dont see how they address reducing the power of the wingnuts, except your #2.

Virginia has open primaries. The issue you get is that sometimes Republicans/Democrats will use their vote to vote for whichever clown they will be easiest to beat in the other party.

Daredevil73 - Virginia has open primaries. The issue you get is that sometimes Republicans/Democrats will use their vote to vote for whichever clown they will be easiest to beat in the other party.

it could be a problem.

seems like there should be only one primary then? fuck the parties.

I don't understand how #2 works when all people are political