What type of gov't should the US have?

[Geoist]

Got something other than an obnoxious response?

 

[Geoist]

One federal government is expensive enough.

Huh? That makes no sense.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

 

[ttwtt78640]

Huh? That makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. The 50 states now share the cost of a single federal/national government. If they were to form 5 or more separate nations then each new nation would require it's own federal/national government.

 

[Bullseye]

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 somethign different (imo) because this **** is NOT WORKING.

Define "working". What specifically do you see the government doing?

 

[Bullseye]

Interesting question. I was just thinking about something similar, e.g. what role do we see the government filling in our lives. Not as one of those forms of government you list, but HOW, SPECIFICALLY our lives and the government interact.

In broad brush I see two choices:

1. A powerful, overarching, large bureaucracy and paternalistic model: This denotes a government that is deeply involved in most aspects of our lives. It provides most of our needs and in return implements a large and complex set of rules, regulation and prohibitions. In essence we turn over control of most things to the government and they in return are responsible for providing a live as free as possible from want, worry, injury, unhappiness, or inconvenience. And we, in turn, restrain our desires and ambitions to live within the framework. One might say this is the people working for the government. In general the government neither "gives" us anything, nor forces us to do or not do sometime.

2. A more laissez-faire government; one that creates the basic framework to ensure fairness and a level playing field and also us to determine the direction of our lives within that framework. We succeed, stagnate, or fail based on our own motivations, skills and abilities. Rather than the government telling us how to live, we tell the government what we prefer and it's up to them to arrange that. In other words the government works for us.

 

[Geoist]

It makes perfect sense. The 50 states now share the cost of a single federal/national government. If they were to form 5 or more separate nations then each new nation would require it's own federal/national government.

Right, but the burden on those federal governments would match the size of their governments. It’s not like having 5-6 smaller countries would mean each of those countries would carry a $16 trillion debt...

 

[Perotista]

You know what also shrank during that time? People’s faith in government institutions.

Exactly. Here, have a look.

Public Trust in Government: 1958-2019 | Pew Research Center

Public trust in government has dropped from 31% in 2006 down to 17% today. It's been lower, 10% in October of 2011.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Right, but the burden on those federal governments would match the size of their governments. It’s not like having 5-6 smaller countries would mean each of those countries would carry a $16 trillion debt...

Each would have a military, national courts, foreign embassies all over the world and most (all?) other current federal government functions. Overhead is not reduced by having 5 or 6 smaller countries which is why (huge) corporations tend to merge with their prime competitors (and/or suppliers) rather than split into smaller pieces.

 

[Geoist]

Each would have a military, national courts, foreign embassies all over the world and most (all?) other current federal government functions. Overhead is not reduced by having 5 or 6 smaller countries which is why (huge) corporations tend to merge with their prime competitors (and/or suppliers) rather than split into smaller pieces.

Splitting into 5-6 smaller nations would mean no more World’s Policeman which would mean far less overhead, especially when it comes to the military.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Splitting into 5-6 smaller nations would mean no more World’s Policeman which would mean far less overhead, especially when it comes to the military.

That is quite an assumption rather than turning the world into places more easily taken over by competing superpower nations or other more aggressive nations/factions in their regions of the world. It's not as if all was well in the world without any US military intervention (see WWI and WWII) - leaving whirled peas up to China may not be the best idea out there.

 

[Geoist]

That is quite an assumption rather than turning the world into places more easily taken over by competing superpower nations or other more aggressive nations/factions in their regions of the world. It's not as if all was well in the world without any US military intervention (see WWI and WWII) - leaving whirled peas up to China may not be the best idea out there.

Alright, well now you are making a different argument.

And no one is saying anything about Americans not forming alliances in case of an invading threat.

 

[BahamaBob]

The current system is obviously the best system. We are the richest, most powerful country the world has ever seen. The poorest in this country live better than 80% of the people in the world.

However, there are things I would like to see changed.
1. No one over 60 should be allowed to run for President.
2. Congressmen and Supreme Court Justices should be forced to retire by age 70.
3. Former presidents and first ladies should not be allowed to do paid speaking engagements. This is nothing but pay for favors done while in office. A prime example of this is Bill Clinton who made over $100 million for speaking fees. Over a dozen of which were in Russia and other foreign countries.
4. Congress should have to use the same healthcare system they on the rest of the country.

 

[DiAnna]

Where is the "Type of Government that is not Corrupt to its Core" option?

 

[apdst]

Where is the "Type of Government that is not Corrupt to its Core" option?

That government doesn't exist. That's why there know option.

 

[Waddy]

Where is the "Type of Government that is not Corrupt to its Core" option?

WOW... you really are looking for Utopia. But that's what I like about Capitalism, and Democracy. Both do their best to account for the foibles of an imperfect world. Capitalism actually plays on greed, tries to turn it into a positive. And Democracy has checks and balances, and tries to place power in the hands of the people. Now, "the people" aren't themselves all righteous and pure, and both systems have their corruption, but of everything we've tried, they produce the least bad results. Both need to be tempered and regulated to produce the best results.

 

[Surrealistik]

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 somethign different (imo) because this **** is NOT WORKING.

Get the money and lobbying out of politics and you have a system that, while still laughably antiquated, at least resumes being functional and somewhat representative again.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Define "working". What specifically do you see the government doing?

Well, ultimately it is not longer a "government of, by and for We The People," and hasn't been for a looong time. You have various positions from the general American populace at this juncture, mostly swinging in ultra-partisan directions, none of which I fully agree with, but all I see have some kernel of truth in them. The left says its the corporate elite, the right says its the liberal elite. You're both nominally correct in your approximation, but you're also both wrong in your methods and policy proposals (at least for the most part).

 

[Individual]

Without repealing the 16th and 17th amendments, I see little chance of progress.
And D.C. land and population should fall under the State of Maryland government.
If that were accomplished, the next step would be a complete overhaul of how the Federal government acquires the revenue required for its operation, and it should NOT have the ability to directly tax the income of individuals, only States.

 

[American]

Without repealing the 16th and 17th amendments, I see little chance of progress.
And D.C. land and population should fall under the State of Maryland government.
If that were accomplished, the next step would be a complete overhaul of how the Federal government acquires the revenue required for its operation, and it should NOT have the ability to directly tax the income of individuals, only States.

So you want to cede part of Virginia to Maryland?

 

[Individual]

So you want to cede part of Virginia to Maryland?

The Virginia portion was returned by Congress in 1846.
Ideally, there should be no permanent residents in what is considered to be the seat of government.

 

[Lucky 1]

No kidding. Where did I say anything about Trump?

I asked you what you think isn't working about the system we have.

Seems to me that our "representative republic" is working just fine for more than 220 years....

 

[Lucky 1]

...It's pretty damn obvious and if you still support the buffoon at this juncture congratz! You're part of the problem!

Sometimes your guy gets elected and sometimes they don't....doesn't mean anything is wrong with the system... you just roll with it and vote again next time like I had to do through 8 years of the Obama nightmare.

Since you're still sore about the last election that saw Donald Trump take office... I'll say that I was just as terrified as you are that that lying, corrupt, incompetent, horrible evil old woman was going to get elected as you seem to be over president Trump who in my estimation is doing a very good job....but I guess for someone like you....all this prosperity must be hard to take!

If you're that unhappy with a having president who is putting America and Americans first.....then just exercise your vote next year and stop whining.

The way things are currently going though....I'm betting that Donald Trump will be re-elected in 2020 as I don't see the bulk of the electorate being likely to vote in either dementia addled Joe Biden or one of the radicals currently running on the Democratic ticket

 

[Lucky 1]

The president should be elected by popular vote. The EC has demonstrated that it is unwilling to protect the electorate from being duped by a madman, so it's time to get rid of it.

There are very valid reasons our current system was set in place....not the least of which is to avoid mob rule but also to give every state a chance to participate in the vote....if we went to a popular vote system....do you think any candidate would ever bother to go campaign in say....Rhode Island or rural areas??? Hell no! The top 20 cities in the U.S would select the president for all the rest and there vote wouldn't matter.

And let me ask you this....would you feel differently about it if that "lying, corrupt, incompetent, horrible evil old woman had gotten elected in 2016???? Frankly....the thought of her being president scared the **** out of me!!!

 

[Helix]

There are very valid reasons our current system was set in place....not the least of which is to avoid mob rule but also to give every state a chance to participate in the vote....if we went to a popular vote system....do you think candidate would ever bother to go campaign in say....Rhode Island???

And let me ask you this....would you feel differently about it if that "lying, corrupt, incompetent, horrible evil old woman had gotten elected in 2016???? Frankly....the thought of her being president scared the **** out of me!!!

If they don't visit RI, TS. One person, one vote. Win by getting more of them. The current EC only has one effective purpose now : to help Republicans who can't get more votes win. **** that.