Political System Overhaul

We need to change the political system in America. I think it has failed us long enough. Lots of people talk of revolution but that's going to involve bloodshed and I certainly don't want that. We need a peaceful political revolution to change how our leaders are elected.

Amendment 12 - US Constitution

We need to totally revamp the electoral college. Either change it to a direct vote or return it to the way it was originally, each member chooses 2 candidates for President and the person with the most votes becomes President and the runner up gets the VP. I would prefer a consensus vote of the public personally.

Three times in American history, presidents have been elected by the electoral college despite failing to win the popular vote: 1876 (Rutherford B. Hayes), 1888 (Benjamin Harrison) and 2000 (George W. Bush)

Electoral College
Consensus decision-making
Consensus Voting

Put all candidates for President in a nationally televised and live on the internet debate together, regardless of "party" affiliation. Return to the system where the VP is decided by who ever got the 2nd most votes for President instead of someone who will most likely agree and "tow the party line" so to speak.

Put all candidates for US Congress seats in state-wide televised debates, also on the net, on real issues. I believe we need more "real" people and less lawyers and career politicians in the House and Senate. Impose term limits for Congress.

Restrict campaign contributions to voting citizens only, no undying faceless corporations or political action committees.

I think the voting system itself should also be changed. The easiest way would be for every American to vote online but the internet is also the easiest to hack/manipulate in somebody's favor. I believe if we got enough support we could get plenty of independent volunteer oversight in the ballot counting process to ensure fair elections.

Just some thoughts I had, thought I would share. Don't know if there's already a thread like this somewhere. I would love to see this happen but I doubt TPTB would allow it. All we really need is 2/3 of Congress or 2/3 of state legislatures to propose an amendment to the Constitution.
Amending the Constitution

Thoughts anyone? Pros and cons welcome, but lets keep things civil.

Interesting post; the electoral collage has only "failed" with popular vote three times...


There are numerous reasons why we do have the electoral collage. As far as the VP being the "loser" I think that would be MUCH better. Obama and Mccain, Bush and Gore etc. It would make more people satisfied and allow for more things to get passed. I also agree that "third" parties should be on the ballets and get more debate time.

I commend your post because it involves ideas not just spouting out nonsense and is welcoming to all sides of the arguments. Excellent job!

First, we must understand why those that founded this country and drafted the Constitution chose the methods they did. This is why I always recommend going beyond the Constitution and reading the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. It gives us deeper insight into the intent and spirit these men were trying to attempt.

We know the structure that the Founding Fathers wanted to create within Government was not pure democracy. But this is not to say they didn't want democratic principles in place. This is evident when we look at the diffusion of these principles, spreading them out all the way down to the most local level possible.

At the most basic levels of Government, such as school boards, mayors, etc we see a more direct democracy in place. Because the effects are quite contained to a smaller sphere of influence. The threat of tyranny is greatly reduced.

As we begin to move up in scale and scope, we begin to see direct democracy begin to diffuse more and more. Not to take away from the people, but to ensure that the majority does not always subvert those not in the majority.

At its original intent and setup, the Constitution created a pretty solid framework to separate powers, giving preference to the People and the States; seen evident in placing the creation of the Congress within Article I. Under the original Constitution, we see that the lower house (Congress) was to be the house of the people. Representatives directly elected via popular vote to be the voice of a number of persons. The upper house (Senate) was to be the house of the States. Voted in by State Senators and intended to ensure that the States had a strong stake in the direction of the Federal Government.

Under this setup, especially the Senate, we see the diffusion of democracy I speak of. By having the State Senators elect a Senator to the United States Senate was a way to promote involvment of the People in their State politics and State Governments. This also gave the States a voice on matters of legislation that would/could possibly affect the State(s) directly. Think of it as taxation with representation for the States. Just as the Congress is for the People.

Enter the 17th Amendment. This amendment stripped away the powers of the State and gave more power to the People than intended. It gives all of Congress to the People via popular, direct democratic vote. Under this system, we can see really where a lot of bad policy has been created because there is no check on the consequences by the States. All legislation now created by the Federal Government has no input from the States. Transferring more power to the Central Government.

Now onto your point in regards to the Electoral College. Another diffusion of direct democracy. As popular vote was never meant to put a president into office, for really, the president was never intended to garner and wield as much power as they do in modern history. I agree that we should go back to the original setup. First goes to the president, second goes to the vice presidency. This would promote more 'parties' or people of the same party running for the presidency because there is a chance you just might end up vice president. A much more agreeable system, especially when using the Electoral College.

Another reason for the Electoral College was to promote, once again, local level involvement by the citizens in their Government. Where it fails, is the lack of self-governance by the people. It diffuses the vote across each state so as the big cities, that tend to be more populace, do not become the sole factor in the election of the president.

Yes, I agree that we need a rethink of the structure of Government. Some of the amendments (12th, 17th) that changed the foundation were not fully vetted I believe to understand the consequences of such changes. Maybe they actually were by design, to put us in the place we are at today. As Government must continually grow to prove its purpose to the people and prove its relavancy. Think of how the Constitution only requires Congress to meet once a year at a minimum. This still holds true today. All business could be completed within a day or two if Govenrment would remain within its limits. Of course we know that is not the case of today.

Until the 17th Amendment is revisited, which by design is to exclude the States, which are paramount in bringing about amendments (see the viciousness of such an amendment now), major changes by way of the amendment process falls upon either the People or Congress itself.

Opon further considerations and research in regards to my comments and arguments to the 17th Amendment; this post and past; I have find validity in arguments pro and con.

If we look at the arguments in the late 1780s, particular those found in the Anti-Federalist papers, we see the concerns in regards to the Senate. One, the four papers written in response to the proposed setup, viewed the Senate as a aristocratic body, mainly to counter the democratic body; Congress. Being small in size, given representation of a State with only two votes and having a lengthy seat once elected were among some of the more benign arguments. The greater arguments we see was more in the power given to the Senate. Not only a legislative body, but council to the Executive and given Judicial powers in terms of impeachment. All very valid concerns and in some cases, exceptionable.

The most fortelling statement I found was the following: Anti-Federalist Papers

Though I agree the federal senate, in the form proposed, may be useful to many purposes, and that it is not very necessary to alter the organization, modes of appointment, and powers of it in several respects; yet, without alterations in others, I sincerely believe it will, in a very few years, become the source of the greatest evils. Some of these alterations, I conceive, to be absolutely necessary and some of them at least advisable.

This is what I believe, the proponents of the 17th Amendment would hope to suffice and correct. But by handing over the power of the Senate to the People, I still contend it has removed the States from all functions within the Federal Government. Thus making them anemic and nearly worthless in the governing of the nation as a whole. This I believe is where the above quote, has come to fruition. As no more do the Senator vote in benefit for a sovereign State, but rather the supposed will of the People.

Yet while pitching it introduces more power to the People, by giving them direct democractic choice for their Senators, it dilutes their votes and leaves many people feel that their votes are just but a fraction of what matters. Senators can break off easily from their mandate to follow the will of the people using such notions as "I am but half of a complete vote for my given State, serving as many as X million people. There is no way I can make them happy, so I vote in accordance with what I feel best." While completely valid, it gives free reign to Senators to wield their massive powers in ways that no longer serve the States or even the People, but rather themselves. Accountable to no one except now special interests and themselves.

I welcome any debate on this subject as I really feel this would be a step in the right direction of sending the pendulum of power from the consolidated to the dispersed.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
The upper house (Senate) was to be the house of the States. Voted in by State Senators and intended to ensure that the States had a strong stake in the direction of the Federal Government.

I didn't know the Senate was set up this way in the beginning. That's not a bad idea either.

Thanks for the kind words.

reply to post by thov420


One of my more frequent sites: www.usconstitution.net

In reference to how it was setup prior to the 17th Amendment, the original Article I, Section III read the following

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote." - In this case, Legislature was that of the States.

The 17th, it amended that section to read "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote."

(Note: emphasis is mine)

That is the part in which I am particularly curious about. Some say because of the massive corruption that was occurring within the State Legislature, is the reasoning behind the shift to popular vote. But if we look at the year it was ratified, 1913, that coincides neatly (probably projecting here and mostly now speculating) with the creation of one of the largest power grabs, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

In my opinion, it is easier to rid a State of its legislatures than it is to rid the Federal Government of its Senators. These people are highly entrenched using slogans like "Don't vote me out, cause I have a powerful vote for [insert state name here]." Which is a bold faced lie, because the Senate is no longer about the States.