• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What type of gov't should the US have?

What type of gov't should the US have?

  • Semi-presidential republic

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ceremonial constitutional monarchy

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ceremonial executive monarchy

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    28
I honestly dont know. I would definatly suggest limits on positions, and if you commit a crime or are involved with a crime not only will you be charged but loose you job immediately, maybe even who ever wins president (say democrat) then the vice president would be Republican ( and if they can not figure out how to work together for the better of our country say 6 months then we vote 2 new people in. I honestly do not know but were we are at is a tipping point this very well could get really scary really fast and I believe people have been playing a chess game that is about to call check mate and it scares the hell out of me..I do not mean the criminals and corrupt that we see daily on tv. I'm worry about the ones we never see. Alot if not all major positions help I believe are bought and paid for by whomever will do the bidding of the persons behind him. And from what i have learned the last few years there are very few i believe would not sell there soul for the right price. So to answer your question I dont know I only have ideas and who knows if there any good.

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk
 
Polarization, ultra high partisanship where the two major parties refuse to work with each other as in the past. Anything the GOP proposes, good, bad or indifferent the democrats automatically oppose and vice versa. Anything the Democrats propose, good, bad or indifferent is automatically opposed by the Republicans.

Another problem is when one party controls the House, senate and the presidency, they always try to ram through their political agenda although neither party makes up more than 30% of the total electorate. The problem with our system is both major parties come up with candidates the majority of Americans dislike and don't want. But because of our two party system it is always voting for the least worst candidate or the lesser of two evils. A prime example is 2016, 60% of all Americans disliked and didn't want Trump, 56% of all Americans disliked and didn't want Clinton to become our net president. This is what happens when roughly 30% of the population controls who one party will nominate, 30% controls who the other party will nominate.

Even with all the above, if each party would back off their ultra high partisanship and at least try to work with the other party, we could get back on track. If each would play the game of give and take, compromise which most Americans want, we could get back to a working government.

Americans Favor Compromise to Get Things Done in Washington


I understand the desire to see compromise in Washington but I think the problem is the not the political parties but something far more troubling. It is a battle for control over the ideological, political, and cultural identity of the nation. It ultimately boils down to this: what do we as a country stand for.
 
The point, which went right over your head, is that Trump is a symptom of a larger problem.



Not going to participate in the thread after all, eh? K, when you're ready to discuss the thread topic at hand (your preferred form of gov't or if it should stay the same or other) I'll come back to you, until then I will ignore your thread-derailing ****posts.

You just said Trump isn't the topic...lol.
 
Polarization, ultra high partisanship where the two major parties refuse to work with each other as in the past. Anything the GOP proposes, good, bad or indifferent the democrats automatically oppose and vice versa. Anything the Democrats propose, good, bad or indifferent is automatically opposed by the Republicans.

Another problem is when one party controls the House, senate and the presidency, they always try to ram through their political agenda although neither party makes up more than 30% of the total electorate. The problem with our system is both major parties come up with candidates the majority of Americans dislike and don't want. But because of our two party system it is always voting for the least worst candidate or the lesser of two evils. A prime example is 2016, 60% of all Americans disliked and didn't want Trump, 56% of all Americans disliked and didn't want Clinton to become our net president. This is what happens when roughly 30% of the population controls who one party will nominate, 30% controls who the other party will nominate.

Even with all the above, if each party would back off their ultra high partisanship and at least try to work with the other party, we could get back on track. If each would play the game of give and take, compromise which most Americans want, we could get back to a working government.

Americans Favor Compromise to Get Things Done in Washington

IMHO, compromise simply means adding ever more power and expense at the federal government level. A prime example is the "budget" process where very, very little is ever removed (but may have it's mission morphed a bit) and almost everything gets a bit more funding than our congress critters dare ask for via taxation.

It's time to stop pretending that everything deemed "important" is by definition a federal power (has some connection to taxation, commerce or the general welfare) and worthy of borrowing (from future generations) to support. Whether the party for a bigger federal government or the party for a huge federal government holds the majority in DC, we can rest assured that come annual "budget" time that our federal government will grow some more.
 
...It's pretty damn obvious and if you still support the buffoon at this juncture congratz! You're part of the problem!

So the part that “isn’t working” for you is Trump and because of Trump you figure we should ****can the existing system. Got it.
 
The point, which went right over your head, is that Trump is a symptom of a larger problem.



Not going to participate in the thread after all, eh? K, when you're ready to discuss the thread topic at hand (your preferred form of gov't or if it should stay the same or other) I'll come back to you, until then I will ignore your thread-derailing ****posts.

So what’s the “larger problem”?

We do have a problem and the problem is that we have deviated significantly from the intent of the Constitution. We have become a “federal forward” republic instead of a “state forward” republic and in doing so have lost a lot of the ability for the people to really control what they want and need from government. Scale back the federal government and the problems become local rather than national. It’s kind of like the old adage about putting all your eggs in one basket.
 
So what’s the “larger problem”?

We do have a problem and the problem is that we have deviated significantly from the intent of the Constitution. We have become a “federal forward” republic instead of a “state forward” republic and in doing so have lost a lot of the ability for the people to really control what they want and need from government. Scale back the federal government and the problems become local rather than national. It’s kind of like the old adage about putting all your eggs in one basket.

Getting all of that toothpaste back into the tube is extremely unlikely to happen. States (via their congress critters) are not likely to give up infusions of "free" federal money and are very likely to agree to add more of them.
 
What type of gov't should the US have?

Constitutional federal republic
 
Getting all of that toothpaste back into the tube is extremely unlikely to happen. States (via their congress critters) are not likely to give up infusions of "free" federal money and are very likely to agree to add more of them.

I don’t know that we could or should get ALL the toothpaste back in the tube but we could at least rinse out the sink and windex the mirror.
 
Getting all of that toothpaste back into the tube is extremely unlikely to happen. States (via their congress critters) are not likely to give up infusions of "free" federal money and are very likely to agree to add more of them.

alexis-de-tocqueville-2450.jpg
 
I don't know or have any suggestions. Perhaps a viable third party that stands somewhere in-between the polarized two major parties.

Majority in U.S. Still Say a Third Party Is Needed

But that isn't about to happen as our two major parties write our election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. If there is one thing both major parties agree on, it's that no viable third party will ever rise.
 
It should be a geo-mutualist panarchy (and yes, there would be no more centralized USA as we know it). No more boom/bust economies. No big-government/big-corporate oligarchies
 
I don’t know that we could or should get ALL the toothpaste back in the tube but we could at least rinse out the sink and windex the mirror.

Hmm... shall we just stick to the lipstick on a pig approach?
 
I understand the desire to see compromise in Washington but I think the problem is the not the political parties but something far more troubling. It is a battle for control over the ideological, political, and cultural identity of the nation. It ultimately boils down to this: what do we as a country stand for.

Possible. But I don't think most Americans want either the far right or the far left agendas espoused by our two major parties. That most are somewhere in-between them. I think this shows up in the rise of the independent voter from 30% of the total electorate in 2006 to 42% today as both major parties have shrunk.
 
Possible. But I don't think most Americans want either the far right or the far left agendas espoused by our two major parties. That most are somewhere in-between them. I think this shows up in the rise of the independent voter from 30% of the total electorate in 2006 to 42% today as both major parties have shrunk.

You know what also shrank during that time? People’s faith in government institutions.
 
You may have a different description somewhere, but from what I've come to understand from my research, there are nominally 7 different systems of government: Presidential, Semi-Presidential, Parliamentary republic, Unitary parliamentary states, Ceremonial constitutional Monarchy, Ceremonial executive Monarchy and Dictatorship - divided into 2 types or 'forms' of government: Republican and Monarchical.

Given where the US is, what form of government should it have? I've heard some say that a Parliamentary or Semi-Parliamentary system, with election of the President done by popular vote and the parties running a "primary" where their constituents elect the entire cabinet to a ticket that would be elected in the general as an entire party to the halls of government - which I believe would be a logical first step to rolling back the exorbitant centralization of power in the White House (reversing the roles for the time being as an emergency situation to protect the US from rogue presidents like this one for example). I've heard some argue that the US is just fine as a representative Presidential republic with the Electoral College and the two-party system. And I've heard others even argue that the US isn't that at all to begin with, but a one-party state masquerading as two parties or even a straight-up fiat dictatorship.

I personally wouldn't mind trying it Euro style, but we've definitely got to try something different (imo) because this **** is NOT WORKING.

Im just fine with a constitutional republic as a basic set up and foundation

someting i would look to change is the EC and exploring going to popular vote like every other elected official or making states split up their votes etc Not sure what would be best but the EC is currently outdated in 2019 where the population is all over and communication is instantaneous.

after that i would want some type of catch system to limit big money involved in politics, i know thats a saying people love to say and i gladly admit im not sure of the best method but it is a HUGE problem that needs to be addressed.

next i would visit term limits and or restructuring terms for congress and SCOTUS.

the checks and balances are needed for sure but some of them also need revisiting simply because of abuse and the game of politics. How and when those checks can be used, needs more clearly defined.

I just wish we lived in a time where, in politics, a good idea was simply a good idea . . .shouldnt matter WHO has it or WHO worked on it.
 
1. Perhaps the United States of America should return to the time right after the Revolution: Each state was basically independent.


2. Then each American could choose the state in which s/he felt most comfortable and safe.


a. Some people might want to live in a pro-abortion state, for example.
b. Other people might want to live in an anti-gay rights state, for example.
c. Some people might want to live in a state with a particular population profile, for example.
d. Some people might want to live in a socialist state, for example.


3. If a state were composed of like-minded people, then there would peace and harmony.


4. The president of the whole country would simply be a symbol of the nation, a figurehead. The Congress would meet only occasionally, mostly to discuss defense matters. Almost everything else would be left to each state. There would no need for a Supreme Court, for each state would have the final say regarding the law.

So basically **** individual rights and let states **** all over us? NO THANKS NEVER LMAO
 
Most of this discussion is Trump hatred. I didn't see a call for changing our form of government during the Obama or Clinton years. There was no outrage by the left when a Democratically run Congress pushed through the Affordable Care Act with no support from the opposition. But, NOW, it's all about compromise and working together.

However, if we were to start completely over, considering how diverse we are now, and how powerful the central government, I would suggest a parliamentary coalition with most of the power under state control. I would also like to see almost all spending bills be subject to a popular vote. And nothing spent that isn't offset by a tax increase to pay for it. Then we would see what people really think is important; because they would have to pay for it. But we're way too far down the road of deficit spending for anything like that to ever happen now.
 
America is a representative republic. We elect people to govern us.

The dictionary says that these days, "representative republic" is the same as a democracy.
 
Other - less power at the national government level and more power at the state/local level.

At this point we might as well break it up into about5-6 smaller nations.
 
It's just called federal republic.

Federal republic - Wikipedia

I believe that term derives from this part of the link you posted: "Most federal republics codify the division of powers between orders of government in a written constitutional document."

A constitutional republic refers to a form of government, where the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and which governs in accordance with existing constitutional law. It is a government of laws not of men. Since the governing body is elected and their decisions are subject to judicial review the state is named as republican.

Constitutional Republic Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
 
Back
Top Bottom