IMHO the US is possibly the greatest democracy ever, but still not perfect. If I could change a few things they would be:
Get rid of gerrymandering. I believe that there is some move to do this now in California, but I don’t know how likely it is to succeed. When you have 99% of incumbents getting re-elected that isn’t democracy, that’s a fraud.
No more free mailings for legislators. I get all this crap in the mail with the names and sometimes even the pictures of my Congressman, Senator, etc. all over it. And it’s supposed to be news. Give me a break! While we’re at it let’'s get rid of the names of politicans on public works. Do we really need to know the name of the mayor at the time the bridge was built?
Limited terms for SCOTUS justices. The way it is now five people can get together and create whatever agenda they want. And they don’t have to answer to anyone. If they decide that fly fishing is a good thing they can make sure that billions of our tax dollars are spent on fly fishing every year.
Limit the size of the government, especially the amount of money they can take from us and spend as they wish. The more money I keep the more power I have. the less I have after taxes the less power I have.
Treat voter fraud as a serious crime. Minimum one year in jail for voting when ineligible, whether you vote for my candidate or not. Likewise stiff penalties for interfering with the right of others to vote.
I suppose I should be against log rolling and pork barrel spending but I have an affection for the Senate, even when they do stuff I disagree with. I can’t defend it logically but I think there’s a possiblility that these things do more good than harm.
Any other ideas? What countries do you thing are better democracies? What do they do that we should copy here?
I would suggest that the US skirts perilously close to plutocracy, actually. No other industrialised democracy even comes close to the vast sums a party must lay out during an election in order to stand a realistic chance of victory. Indeed, most such democracies specifically limit parties from outright paying for TV advertising, at least, because of such pernicious plutocratic influences (which the plutocrats argue, absurdly IMO, limits their freedom of speech - all kinds of speech is “limited” in the interests of democracy, from libel to incitement).
Gerrymandering is illegal and I believe has been shut down every time it has been brought to court–usually by the rival party. ( <-- if I recall a previous discussion of this topic correctly)
My understanding is that the reason for giving judges so much is to make it harder to buy them off. Assuming that is the reason and that this does really work, I see nothing wrong with it. And historically, the SCOTUS* has ruled for a more liberal and free country, often against public opinion.
SCOTUS just sounds bad…
Certainly has my vote.
I wasn’t aware voter fraud was currently a large issue? The only case I can think of is the Bush vs. Gore run, which if it was occurring still came out to making 50/50 become 50.000001/49.999999 for the win.
While I appreciate a democracy, I dislike rule by a commitee. I would much prefer to see the cabinet become an official and more powerful section of the government, becoming the managers of their area instead of the advisors. Alexander Hamilton, supposedly was this way, taking up an issue and going directly to congress and lobbying for it, etc. seeing it get put into place.
So in a sense my suggestion for a better democracy, is less.
Of course libel and incitement should be controlled, but are you arguing that therefore all limitations on free speech are OK? IMHO restrictions on political donations are a restriction on free speech, and a harmful one at that. We have a situation now where if you want to support a candidate you may not be able to donate money to the candidate but you can give money to the Swifties or to moveon.org. But thanks for the reminder. That should be point #6: No restrictions on political donations.
More to the point. Which country do you favor? How are their elections better? Do the citizens enjoy more prosperity and freedom?
[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
Gerrymandering is illegal and I believe has been shut down every time it has been brought to court–usually by the rival party. ( <-- if I recall a previous discussion of this topic correctly)
[QUOTE]
I missed the other discussion. But my understanding is that gerrymandering is alive and well in NY and CA. Unfortunately for voters.
Institute a taxation system whereby there is no way for Congress to award tax breaks to corporations. Take away the tax breaks, and there is much less incentive for corporations to donate to candidates. Take away the corporate donations, and the price of getting elected goes down. Lower the price of getting elected, and more people would have a chance to run for office.
I say this honestly and not smart-assy: If that is true, take it to court or contact the rival parties in those areas to point it out to them and urge them to take it to court.
My point was not about donations, but plutocratic influence in elections, ie. the richest party effectively wins by default. Other democracies limit this pernicious effect by only allowing a certain level of political advertising (or in the UK, none at all except for allocated broadcasts - an approach I favour).
Overall, and not that they are perfect by any means, I prefer parliamentary democracies as found in much of Europe and the industrialised Commonwealth. I’d suggest a measure of democracy is voter apathy - people vote if they consider that their vote means something. The US system, IMO, really makes the vast, vast majority of people’s presidental election votes pretty much redundant, weighting as it does those critical counties in a few battleground states with such monumentally disproportionate importance. I would suggest that parliamentary democracy ameliorates this effect : there is still such a thing as “key swing seats”, but the all-or-nothing make up of the government will not depend solely on them. I further suggest that this translates into a bigger turnout, which healthy democracy relies upon, since people consider that their vote is more meaningful. By comparison, the 2004 US turnout was only 60%, and even that was a 40 year record.
Still, that is just my preference. I certainly wouldn’t call the UK “perfect” in this respect. But when I see the red-blue state/county map every US election and see taht the Democrats must resort to choosing a candidate from a particular state to stand a chance, I wonder whether some modification of the system is long overdue.