Is the System Broken or are People at Fault or Both?

Dapper Andy said:

I think that's a bi-product of such a divided tax base.

Those who pay less want more and those who pay more want less.

It has led to radical political parties and no room for the middle ground.

Click to expand...

I don't know if i agree with the divided tax bases part of that, but i totally agree with radical parties with little middle ground.

Anybody who reads the constitution and then looks at how our government functions today would be amazed that the connection to the constitution is so remote as it is today. I lay this at the feet of the political "do good busy bodies" and the self-serving populace that elects them. That's precisely what brought us Clinton, Bush, and finally in a coda (as if one was needed) Obama. Whenever the government believes it's role is to go around to public schools at lunch time and check to see if Suzy has an appropriate lunch sent from home, something is wrong. What happened to parents feeding their children without government nosing in? Do we really have to tell parents to properly feed their children? If we do, something far more serious is occurring than just the contents or lack thereof in Suzie's lunch, and that finger of blame points squarely at the government to start with and the arrogant notion that social engineering is a central function of government.

AlabamaPaul said:

Exactly what part of the Constitution do you view as outdated?

Click to expand...

1) Having a presidential system at all is outdated. The U.S. is essentially the first incarnation of the presidential system in the modern era. Since its inception other countries throughout the world, especially in South America, have evolved into dictatorships. This is because of the weakness of presidential systems - while there may be a bipartisan legislature and a bipartisan judiciary, it is unlikely for there to be a bipartisan executive. Which means that the executive branch of presidential systems tend to overreach in the powers it can wield because within the executive branch itself there is no bipartisan opposition, and thus can use its political power more efficiently. A parliamentary or even semi-presidential system which would cause our executive branch to be much more bipartisan, and therefore much more representative of the sovereign people, would be much more of a safeguard against dictatorship.

2) Dividing House seats into single-member districts. The House of Representatives is supposed to be representative of the people, but having a single Representative represent a district within a state is not truly representative. If a politician of one party is elected within a district then he is not representing those constituents of his who are of other parties. Also, by having plurality elections in single-member districts, third party constituents go unrepresented because of Duverger's Law stating that plurality elections inherently created two-party systems in order to prevent spoilers. And that's not even getting into issues that are caused by drawing district lines, or the corruption that can happen by gerrymandering. Rather, having House seats in a state allocated via a statewide party proportional method would lead to a House of Representatives that is truly much more representative of the people.

3) We live in a world of modern transportation and communication. Which drastically changes how trade and commerce operate worldwide and also within the U.S. since the 18th century. Which also drastically changes how businesses and corporations operate worldwide and also within the U.S. since the 18th century. As such, our country would do much better to establish constitutional guidelines as to how corporate groups be considered in regards to the law, especially in which rights and liberties they enjoy as well as what obligations and responsibilities they are restricted by.

4) The 10th Amendment states that all powers not granted by the Constitution are granted to the states and to the people. State governments have processes by which they can exert these powers within the boundaries of their state. However, the people have no process by which they can exert these powers on a national level. Effectively, the 10th Amendment grants the people the right to pass federal laws for issues that the Constitution does not grant to the peoples' elected officials. Unfortunately, they did not include a process by which the people can draft and pass federal laws. In this way, the power of the people to exert their 10th Amendment powers is incomplete and continues to be infringed upon.

Those are the 4 major issues I have with our current Constitution.

samsmart said:

It's not just mobs who demand candidates who give them free candy. Economic elites use their influence to get candidates who give them free candy too. And that has happened just as much throughout history.

Click to expand...

It's probably happened more in the case of the upper class since the lower classes weren't even part of government at the start of our country's history. High social and economic status has almost always translated into perks from the government - and that's held true over many types or government and many time periods. Usually, given most of human history, the lower classes aren't represented in government decisions. That's only changed in the last couple of hundred years. Given all the failures of the past without the lower classes "asking for more candy" I can't believe it could be any worse.

samsmart said:

2) Dividing House seats into single-member districts. The House of Representatives is supposed to be representative of the people, but having a single Representative represent a district within a state is not truly representative. If a politician of one party is elected within a district then he is not representing those constituents of his who are of other parties. Also, by having plurality elections in single-member districts, third party constituents go unrepresented because of Duverger's Law stating that plurality elections inherently created two-party systems in order to prevent spoilers. And that's not even getting into issues that are caused by drawing district lines, or the corruption that can happen by gerrymandering. Rather, having House seats in a state allocated via a statewide party proportional method would lead to a House of Representatives that is truly much more representative of the people.

Click to expand...

I could get behind this idea.

The Constitution is only "outdated" because we failed to do our due diligence in maintaining it. There is an amendment process, but instead we've allowed the court to do the easy way what is our job. We are ruled not by constitution, but by the nine justices.