Our Political System is Broken!

a reply to: dfnj2015

I agree, but I truly believe the people need to rise up and make their voices heard. Growing up during the Vietnam War, I remember all the protests taking place in front of the White House. I'm a believer in the saying "A squeaky wheel gets oiled first." The people have more power than they think. If we continue to accept business as usual, we will continue to get exactly that.

a reply to: Peeple

Agree. I often wonder if we really need all those representatives in Washington. The computer age can easily allow the public to vote on issues that affect the majority of Americans.

a reply to: gortex

The only problem is the Constitution which is a 17th Century Document is considered written in stone! It's becoming outdated with today's technology. Yet heaven forbid if we amend parts of the constitution to reflect today's problems. It's ridiculous to think the constitution will still address society and government problems well into the future.

a reply to: WeRpeons

A big part..ok.. a huge part of the problem is there is no term limits in the house and Senate.

There should be no such thing as a "career politician".

When you can spend 20 years doing,receiving,or stockpiling "favor"s there is bound to be corruption.

At the inception of our nation it was thought respected members of our communities in good standing, would give up thriving professions, to go serve , then return to that profession.

Not be offered a cushy job on the board of some multinational corporation.. not to be offered multi million dollar "speaking tours".. book revenues from ghost writers.. or even media deals such as paid "experts" or "correspondent's" .

I'm not saying this would solve all of our problems,but it would be a step in the right direction.

Respectfully,
~meathead

a reply to: Mike Stivic
I agree, if these politicians knew their jobs were only temporary, the less likely they would be influenced, or persuaded to be dishonest just to hold onto their jobs. The majority of temporary jobs don't come with lavish benefits, and outrageous salaries, so in some respects term limits could also save taxpayer's money!

I doubt we'll ever see term limits enacted due to the fact that our representative have to vote on it! Talk about a conflict of interest!

This is one of a few of Trump's campaign promises I agreed with! Now, you notice he doesn't even mention it. He knows if he pushed for it, he would most likely lose his support from the GOP, and they would than probably call for his impeachment, lol. Probably the only issue that would break down the wall between both parties to get him out of office.

a reply to: JON666

I truly can't stand any of our representatives. Their actions are motivated by their self-interests rather than the people they serve or the values America represents.

Term limits would be a major step in removing the need for them to protect their jobs. Like I stated in my op, I really feel on major issues that affect American lives like healthcare, gun legislation, reducing the cost of pharmaceuticals, domestic laws, should all be placed on the ballot for all Americans to decide. If this is truly a country "For the People and By the People" than major legislation should be voted by the people.

a reply to: nugget1

So because of that statement I guess I'm a liberal, lol. I've been an independent for the past 10 years. My past posts have indicated that. In fact I criticized Obama's actions on issues. What discussed me the most about the current situation with Trump, are the conservatives refusing to criticize this president when he's wrong, spews blatantly lies, or acts like a 10 yr-old bully when he's criticized! His coddling of dictators is alarming! He's spoken as if he wants no constraints on his office just like admired dictators! This is NOT what America is all about, and if the American public can't honestly condemn that, this country is in big trouble! What other president has divided our country like Trump? I've said it before, the saying "United we Stand, Divided we Fall" will be etched in America's downfall.

I attacked Obama when he went after whistle-blowers like Snowden. We should be alarmed when any government figure attacks a government whistle-blower. The whistle-blower law protects them and it protects our country from our government engaging in criminal inside dealings and take overs. Trump's "friend" Kim Jong Un just kills them. Sure seemed like Trump would have wanted to do the same.

Sure, a lot of the news can be bias either way, but attacking a free press is what keeps our country from having a state sponsored news media.

I've agreed with some things Trump has done, but how many Red Flags have to be seen before Americans realize the amount of damage he's done to this country outweighs any of the good he's done?

a reply to: Klassified

As I mentioned in my Op, our constitution is outdated! Just like the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The second amendment was written to arm a militia since we didn't have a national military force. We also didn't have the type of devastating weapons we have today. To think a hand gun and rifle by a crowd of people could fight off a government that has an overwhelming force and is supplied with every weapon that can be imagined is ridiculous!

We can say the same thing about the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. The right to a person's privacy is being violated everyday due to the digital, computer and new media age of technology. Our founding father's could have never foreseen this!

The electoral college doesn't function today the way the Founding Fathers planned.
The Electoral College doesn't function today the way the Founding Father's planned.

"The Electoral College system ... was created by the founding fathers for the new Republic not as a direct outgrowth of eighteenth-century political principles but rather as an ad hoc compromise between those who believed in election of the president by Congress and those who believed in popular election," the political scientist William Keech wrote in 1978. Some founders wanted direct election; others mistrusted average voters' "capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates," as George Mason put it. This was especially true given the expectation – before the two-party system arose to winnow the number of contenders – that voters would be choosing among a host of candidates from far afield. How could some farmer from Virginia or New York know enough about all the candidates from other states and regions, the reasoning went.

The world is much more informed today with satellite, cable and internet technology than it was back in the 18th century.

"Defenders of the Electoral College seem to think that the unit rule is an inherent part of the system, it's not. The Constitution says how many electoral votes each state gets but says nothing about how they're awarded."

"That system can distort the popular expression of the people that is at the heart of democratic government."

a reply to: smurfy

Our founding fathers were not "Gods" with super human intelligence that had special powers to foresee into the future. We're talking about the 18th century here! Can you imagine if we ran corporations like we did a mom and pop shop back in the 18th century without no technology? It's only common sense that as technology changes so does the way we operate and communicate.

Today's technology has changed a wide spectrum of how we communicate and conduct business. Heck in just the last 30 years, look what the cell phone has done! Socializing with people face to face is becoming rare. Encyclopedias have become ancient and a sign of the past due to the internet. Video games have created an ever-increasing obesity epidemic with our young children and have made them less active. GPS systems have eliminated the use of paper maps. Cars have more gadgets in them today mechanics are having a hard time keeping up with them.

It's a simple thing...We have to change with the times, and our constitution needs to reflect that. It seems like some people think a huge thunderbolt will come out of the sky and destroy the U.S. if we amend parts of the constitution to reflect that.

a reply to: WeRpeons
Good post.

As I mentioned, the EC is not perfect and could stand some re-structuring, but doing away with it in favor of popular vote only would be a big mistake in my opinion.

The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”

There is much in this short paragraph that the modern mind often doesn't comprehend, but the danger is real nonetheless (Taken from the link in my first post).

The second amendment is still a deterrent to foreign and domestic powers no matter how outgunned we may be, and I'm not so sure the majority of our troops and police are going to automatically side with federal and/or state governments. A revolution fought over the second amendment would leave a very nasty aftermath no matter who "wins".

a reply to: WeRpeons

There are only 2 ways to change the Constitution.

A Constitutional convention, or a revolution.