The example is a piece of paper marked Mr X for such-and-such office. Sign here.
Seriously.
The Petition is the process by which the candidate is elected. No districts. No running for seats. Total # of seats determined by population, as the House today, but filled by petition. No districts. You get the full # of signatures, you get a seat.
Issues are discussed in speechs & debates.
As Tip O’Neill put it:
All politics is local.
So in other words where a man lives and what goes on there is probably pretty important to him.
If I were to make a recomendation, it would be more of an a la cart approach to major political issues, instead of always having to choose from either the Democrat or Republican price fix menus.
If no one else is, then yes. What a government “needs” to do is heavily dependent on the context in which it is operating. On what other non-government organizations are or aren’t doing, what it’s constituents want, and so forth.
Even if not doing so will bring economic ruin to the country ? Again, this is an example of what “a government needs to do” being a matter of context.
And if you don’t give it that power, you’ll have bickering over whether or not it should. The bickering is due to the fact that people don’t agree, not due to the government’s legal powers. They’ll “bicker” regardless of any “spoils” to be gained as well; what do you think we are doing right now ? The only real way to eliminate bickering is to terrorize everyone into silence and conformity via a dictatorship, and that is rather worse than bickering.
I don’t know about systems of government, but I’d want the following.
Citizen salary which would cover basic costs of living, but is taxable if additional income passes a certain threshold. It is paid to everyone over 16 and matches pace with cost of living. This would allow everyone to pursue happiness in whatever way they desire, and ensure that even the poorest never starve or want for shelter.
State funded healthcare.
State funded education to postgraduate level.
State funded elections.
100% Inheritance tax (everyone gets to pull themselves up by their bootstraps).
Progressive income tax.
The first thing I would do away with is the gerrymandering of congressional districts. Don’t ask me for specifics of my plan; I’ll have to get back to ya on that one. 
But, it is an outrage that of 435 seats in the U.S. House, only 30 to 40 are actually competitive each election. And that is because in every state, whether the DEMS or the GOP are in control, they set up the most “safe” seats they can for their party which leaves a minority of “safe” seats for the other party.
I never realized the extremes this goes to until I lived in Palm Beach County, FL. The districts are drawn with north-south boundaries leaving a safe seat for rich Republicans on the coast, a safe seat for poor blacks (Alcee Hastings) two miles back in the ghettos, and then a district further west filled with Jewish senior citizens that creates a safe seat for a Congressman who panders to Jewish senior citizens.
How about draw these districts east to west? Then we would have three very competetive districts where the best candidates can emerge and actually compete for votes.
Get rid of the bums who cater to their own special interests…
That’s called socialism. Thanks for playing.
Err, no it’s not.
And that’s a really lame rebuttal.
So your plan is to punish the families of people who die unexpectedly? It’s not really the sort of thing this thread’s supposed to be about, but how is it any of the government’s goddamn business?
Why should anyone benefit from having rich parents?
No one wants for the basics (food, shelter, healthcare or education), the families of the “unexpectedly dead” would have to adjust to a new standard of living. If they want extras, they’d have to work for them, just like everyone else.
Why should I not be able to leave my wealth to my children? Who ultimately owns the money, me or the government? You seem to say the government, which is…socialism…
And that plan is totally impractical. If I am told I have three months to live, what will you do to stop me from transferring my wealth to anyone I want to? Sure, it might still be subject to a gift tax, but that’s better than a 100% inheritance tax. Or would you propose a 100% gift tax as well?
If not, then only people who die unexpectedly can’t pass their wealth on to their kids, but Teddy Kennedy can set up an easy transfer…
Because the parents earned that money, and they should be free to do what they want with it?
Why should the government benefit from them having rich parents?
You don’t have any kids, do you?
I don’t have any kids either, but this plan is abhorrent and almost monstrous, IMHO.
For a real world example of the problems with your plan, giving the housing market here in this country, the only way my brother and I (and millions of people like us) are ever likely to get a house is when Mum & Dad pass on.
Also what would stop someone on their deathbed signing everything they own over to their Next of Kin? At the risk of invoking Monty Python, someone could stand up in court and argue that He wasn’t dead yet! when dear old Uncle Bob signed all his possessions over to his favourite nephew and only surviving relative.
What I think you’d like is a 100% Inheritance Tax on “Rich People”; and I’m going to point out that they’re the people with the resources to find loopholes in legislation or simply take their money out of the country, which is not what you want at all.
Might I suggest you read Frederick Forsyth’s short story A Careful Man? It’s in his short story collection No Comebacks and deals with an individual’s disposition of his estate in an era when the UK had very high Inheritance Taxes.
As for my ideal Government? Any Government that I’m in charge of. 
Totally agree. A line-item veto in the US would require a constitutional amendment (probably), but everything else should be done now.
I would rather be dead than live under a system like that.
I’m moving to your country.
Hmm… are we playing logical fallacy bingo or something?
I can see the following in your post: Ad hominem, Appeal to emotion and Appeal to authority
As for the rest:
The housing market would be very different as property would not accumulate within a small percentage of the population. As people die off, their property would come onto the market ensuring that there’s a good supply of houses (and businesses too). Ofcourse, your basic shelter needs would be met by your Citizen’s Salary, if you want more fancy accommodation then you’d have to work.
And for the deathbed signing over of assets, leaving aside that that’s actually an enforcement issue and doesn’t speak to the ethics of the system, but that’s already guarded against here. You place a temporal limit on the time in which you can sign over assets before death. I would probably opt for something like 10-30 years. If you die before that time is up, it’s 100% taxable.
Oooh… My 'Citizen’s Salary. Oh, thank you benevolent government for paying me for my hard work at existing within your borders.
As for property reverting to others… I don’t think you get it. There wouldn’t BE any property. If you took everyone’s property on their death, you’d soon find that no one owns any property at their death. For example, the first think I’d do upon reaching the age of 65 is to take out a reverse mortgage on my home, and live off the proceeds. With an amortization set so that the value hits zero at I reach my expected lifespan. I’d also buy retirement insurance that would pay me a reasonable income should I live beyond my natural lifespan. Voila - nothing for the government to take.
Or, I’d sign everything I own over to my child when I turned 60, in some sort of trust arrangement such that I can draw funds on it at my will until I am no longer able to do so.
If I was so rich that there was no way I could get rid of it, I’d retire to whichever Island tax haven was best at allowing me to keep my wealth.
And if you erect machine gun turrets to keep me from running away, and put a nice wall around the country to keep your happy Citizen-employees in place, then I guess I just won’t work all that hard. You’ve taken away the incentive for me to help my daughter have a better life, and so I’m just not going to try so damned hard. I’ll spend more time playing golf, and all that money I could have earned helping people who wanted what I could have provided will just stay locked out of the economy.
It’s easy to build a worker’s paradise when you decide the solutions are easy, there are no unintended consequences, and people don’t respond to your disincentives. In the real world, it doesn’t work.
Go ahead, and put the marginal rate at 90%, and tax inheritances. See how long it takes before you no longer have any doctors and lawyers and businessmen.
Oh, a ‘temporal limit’ on my rights. How Orwellian. How about if I go on a mad spending spree? What if I buy my daughter a new house with my money inside that 10-30 year gap? Am I allowed to do that? Here’s a good one - how about I give it all to a charity? One that hires back people like me for 1 hour a month, at $5,000 per hour? Hell, I’ll even clean up trash on the streets.
I think you’ll find that you’re going to need a hell of a lot of laws. And you might as well start building your fence and erecting those machine-gun turrets, because one hell of a lot of people, the ones with all the ideas, and the capital, and the intelligence, and the drive, will be leaving your worker’s paradise.
Budding social engineers give me heartburn.
The citizen’s salary allows people to pursue careers or occupations that may not otherwise support them initially or ever (like advanced learning, arts, volunteer work, work experience/job shadowing, apprenticeship/internships). It’s doubtful anyone would choose to live their whole life that way.
It’s nice that you put all that effort into working ways around avoiding enforcement of my proposal. I ofcourse put no effort into outlining the enforcement, but don’t let that stop you.
And then you started talking about machine-gun turrets. Could that be yet another logical fallacy used in this thread?
As for the “temporal limits”. Well, we actually have that in the UK now, you can’t avoid inheritance tax by signing over your assets if you die within, IIRC, 7 years. So there’s nothing unusual about that. And as for retaining property rights after death, well, on what basis do the dead have rights?
So now I guess I’ll alter my government plan, because it obviously pisses so many of you guys off.
I think I’ll start with a jury of randomly selected citizens who under the veil of ignorance will set out how this new society will operate. Not knowing their position in society they’ve got an incentive to keep it as fair as possible, without removing the opportunity for entrepeneurs or innovation. It’s not my plan, ofcourse, it’s just a damn good one.
Children of rich people benefit immeasurably already. They have better access to education, health care, food, have better attitudes toward education etc. Why shouldn’t those who have worked hard to provide for their family get to pass that wealth on when they die? What do you propose happens with family owned businesses? That they are confiscated by the state?
Yes.
The family could always take out a loan, or get investors to buy it back, if they wished.
The whole point is to do away with the accumulation of wealth by dynasties, everyone would therefore be responsible for their own welfare and future. It would be a meritocracy, people would rise to a level that they wished to through their own labours and abilities, whilst still having a safety net should a risk not pay off.
The rest of the system addresses the need for equality of opportunity, negating as far as possible the lottery of birth (although there would still be the genetic lottery). There would still be some benefits to being born to a rich parent, but because you wouldn’t simply inherit your wealth, you wouldn’t be overly better off than someone born to a poor parent.
If your goal in life is to accumulate wealth, no one will stop you. You simply cannot pass that wealth on. If on the other hand your priorities lie elsewhere, you have the opportunity to pursue those.
On what grounds do the dead have rights? On what grounds do the family have a claim on the deceased assets?