# What would you change about the US government if you could start from scratch? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 21, 2015, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-change-about-the-us-government-if-you-could-start-from-scratch/713268 "2015-02-21T17:16:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-change-about-the-us-government-if-you-could-start-from-scratch/713268/61 "2015-02-22T22:54:11Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > How do you change the constitution to make THAT happen? :dubious: Probably some variation on voter preference voting…you would vote by notating your relative preference for the candidates on the list. If you really wanted to vote for the Green Party candidate, you would do so. If the GP candidate didn’t hit 50%, then your vote would count for the second preference on your ballot (which could be another small party or one of the big ones). It’s a way to combat the fear that you’re “throwing your vote away” by voting for a smaller party. If you know you can vote your actual, real preference but not necessarily thereby contribute to the election of a party you hate, then the thinking goes that it would allow everyone to support a party that’s closest to their actual political views rather than the lesser of two evils, in an attempt to prevent the greater of two evils from having power. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-change-about-the-us-government-if-you-could-start-from-scratch/713268/62 "2015-02-22T23:18:40Z")
People are trying to figure out ways to make the politicians more representative of the country at large instead of wholly owned representatives of private power. Seems like there’s one obvious solution: no more voting. They’re now chosen by lottery. Like jury duty. Maybe get about 12 random candidates that way then put 'em in a circle and play spin the bottle. Maybe it wouldn’t be better, but it couldn’t be worse. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-change-about-the-us-government-if-you-could-start-from-scratch/713268/63 "2015-02-22T23:23:46Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > People are trying to figure out ways to make the politicians more representative of the country at large instead of wholly owned representatives of private power. Seems like there’s one obvious solution: no more voting. They’re now chosen by lottery. Get about 12 random candidates that way then put 'em in a circle and play spin the bottle. > > Maybe it wouldn’t be better, but it couldn’t be worse. There’s a piece of David Edding’s _Elenium_ series, in which one of the wives of the Tamul Emperor explains her island nation’s politics to the main character. The island is a republic (internally). The members of the ruling committee are chosen by lot. The instant that a person is chosen, he or she is under guard to prevent escape. All of the chosen’s assets are liquidated and entered into the nation’s treasury. At the end of the chosen person’s term, the rate of increase or decrease in the national treasury is calculated, and the person receives an amount equal to the original amount of the assets plus or minus whatever percentage the treasury has gained or lost in the chosen person’s time in office. I’ve heard worse ideas, really. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-change-about-the-us-government-if-you-could-start-from-scratch/713268/64 "2015-02-22T23:49:27Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > The members of the ruling committee are chosen by lot. The instant that a person is chosen, he or she is under guard to prevent escape. All of the chosen’s assets are liquidated and entered into the nation’s treasury. At the end of the chosen person’s term, the rate of increase or decrease in the national treasury is calculated, and the person receives an amount equal to the original amount of the assets plus or minus whatever percentage the treasury has gained or lost in the chosen person’s time in office. > > I’ve heard worse ideas, really. I’ve heard worse ideas as well, but this one is pretty bad. The “elected” increase taxes a lot, decrease services a lot, and after their term is up, surprise, the treasury has tripled in size. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-change-about-the-us-government-if-you-could-start-from-scratch/713268/65 "2015-02-23T00:24:11Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > I’ve heard worse ideas as well, but this one is pretty bad. The “elected” increase taxes a lot, decrease services a lot, and after their term is up, surprise, the treasury has tripled in size. It’s also based on the questionable premise that the measure of how well the country has been run can be determined by checking its bank account. ---
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-change-about-the-us-government-if-you-could-start-from-scratch/713268/66 "2015-02-23T00:56:34Z")
Preferential voting The government (all levels) is not allowed to give tax breaks to Anyone, Corporation, Union, Religion, Not a single tax break allowed at all without a tax payer vote. Every penny Microsoft fails to pay in taxes is another penny the rest of us have to make up. This is a form of slavery. (IMHO) Firm separation of church and state firm separation of money and state, all election money comes from one tax payer fund (decided on by election type, i.e. mayors office has 10.000$ per 100,000 tax payers in that city to be equally split between ALL candidates that run for that office) {note numbers pulled out of my ass} ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-change-about-the-us-government-if-you-could-start-from-scratch/713268/67 "2015-02-23T00:57:38Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I think I’d change the Senate significantly: instead of being 2 senators per state, it’d be a parliamentary system, in which you vote for a party, and seats are distributed according to how many votes each party gets, each percentage of the overall vote according the party a single seat. The house would remain in its current form. > > Our country has become much less regional since its founding: tech workers in Raleigh have a lot more in common with tech workers in Silicon Valley than either set of people has in common with farmers who live twenty miles away. Our current system does not serve minorities well, whereas a system like the one I described would give folks far better representation. > > The electoral college would go away, replaced by a popular vote. I’ve read extensive arguments for the electoral college, and I find them all bizarre bordering on superstitious. > > The second amendment would go away. Gun control would be decided on its own merits, not on conformity to a well-regulated militia amendment. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That would not be a parliamentary system, it would be a [proportional representation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation) system. A [parliamentary system](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system) would be one where Congress (however constituted) elects and can at any time dismiss the POTUS and Cabinet. More precisely, it’d be a party-list system. I think someone else suggested SNTV for US Senators upthread. That’s also a PR system, but it’s more contract bridge than whist. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-change-about-the-us-government-if-you-could-start-from-scratch/713268/68 "2015-02-23T11:41:49Z")
> [@Verily](#): > > But it’s not like this problem is exactly institutional; there is no law that says we only get two parties that matter. It’s just that only two parties have enough people voting for them. So to the people saying we shouldn’t have a two-party system, I would say, “I agree, but that would require a change in the voters, not a change in the government itself.” A run-off system for elections would give, at least in theory, a better chance to third party candidates. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-change-about-the-us-government-if-you-could-start-from-scratch/713268/69 "2015-02-23T11:49:42Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > This is basically it. The two parties define the issues in an either/or way making alternatives seem inconsequential. Some countries have managed to avoid this but their parties just aren’t good at it yet. I suppose the nature of some countries would allow them to always maintain coalition type governments with more plural political philosophies, but this country doesn’t seem like it will ever do that. Perhaps we are too large to operate successfully in that mode. It’s not the nature of the country, but the nature of the political system. Countries ran by coalitions are usually those with a proportional electoral system. And of course, it has its own problems : unstability of the government (need to form a new coalition each time a party is unsatisfied) and undue influence of fringe parties (since their votes are needed, they can make demands on the government, which will comply much more often than the actual electoral weight of the minor party should allow). ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-change-about-the-us-government-if-you-could-start-from-scratch/713268/70 "2015-02-23T11:52:57Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > I’d pick a winner take all parliamentary system instead of our current system which doesn’t work. > > […] > > Plus there would be mandates and funding for smaller parties, a system with 5+ parties that have to form alliances would be better than our current system. These two points aren’t compatible. The “winner takes all” system is the less likely to allow third parties to gain influence. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-change-about-the-us-government-if-you-could-start-from-scratch/713268/71 "2015-02-23T13:13:46Z")
The American system functioned adequately for most of its history, with its two broad-tent parties. Present difficulties stem largely from defective partisanship caused by modes of modern media. Recent rulings increasing the power of money in politics are tragic. Solution may not be easy, but would require changes to social organization, electoral mechanisms, and/or campaign/media rules. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The Bill of Rights should include one or more amendments protecting our economic freedoms, in addition to the existing amendments protecting personal freedoms. 😕 I daresay that your take on important problems facing present-day America is quite different from that of most rational observers. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-change-about-the-us-government-if-you-could-start-from-scratch/713268/72 "2015-02-23T15:09:25Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Prohibit media coverage of elections until one year before the election. A more useful means to the same end would be a system that triggered elections when the gears seized up (e.g. “vote of no confidence”) rather than a schedule. [quote=“ITR\_champion, post:40, topic:713268”] [li]The government may not force the American people to purchase anything.[/li][/QUOTE] “You don’t like the jungle in my front yard? Tough! The gummint can’t make me buy a lawn mower or hire a service!” “Your cat had two-headed kittens after that leak? Tough! The gummint can’t make me buy a replacement tank or hire somebody to fix the old one!” “You don’t think my sand backstop for the backyard firing range is safe for your kids in the next yard? Tough! The gummint can’t make me buy one of those fancy-schmancy walls!” ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-change-about-the-us-government-if-you-could-start-from-scratch/713268/73 "2015-02-23T16:33:16Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > So much for recalcitrant rearguard footdragging on slavery, Jim Crow, marriage equality, etc. There’s as much negative about states’ rights as there is positive. It seems to me that marriage equality, as other elements of gay rights, has advanced much faster in state-by-state action than it would have if the relevant laws could only be addressed nationally. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-change-about-the-us-government-if-you-could-start-from-scratch/713268/74 "2015-02-23T17:21:29Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > So if most people in Florida oppose food stamps and social security is it far for the feds to say sorry it is federal thing and you got to pay for it. > > Is it far for state of California if most people oppose abortion,same sex marriage for federal government to say sorry it is a federal thing. Yes, it’s fair. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-change-about-the-us-government-if-you-could-start-from-scratch/713268/75 "2015-02-23T17:32:07Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > It seems to me that marriage equality, as other elements of gay rights, has advanced much faster in state-by-state action than it would have if the relevant laws could only be addressed nationally. I don’t know how much that seeming is true. A LOT of the advance has come from federal courts, district and circuit, not from direct voter action. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-change-about-the-us-government-if-you-could-start-from-scratch/713268/76 "2015-02-23T17:41:26Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > I don’t know how much that seeming is true. A LOT of the advance has come from federal courts, district and circuit, not from direct voter action. I think you need to look deeper, at the context in which the cases originated, but it’s outside the scope of this thread. In any case, regardless of the merits on any particular front (and obviously there will be disagreements about which state-level initiatives are positive), I agree with Brandeis about the concept. ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-change-about-the-us-government-if-you-could-start-from-scratch/713268/77 "2015-02-23T20:17:31Z")
> [@](#): > > So if most people in Florida oppose food stamps and social security is it far for the feds to say sorry it is federal thing and you got to pay for it. > > Is it far for state of California if most people oppose abortion,same sex marriage for federal government to say sorry it is a federal thing. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Yes, it’s fair. How is it fair? Democracy is majority vote. What is point of having states if the federal government centralizes every thing at the federal level and tell states what they can or cannot do. Or do you think it is fair if the country majority vote on bill vs state. That’s do away with all the 50 states.If the federal government centralizes every thing there is no point having states. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-change-about-the-us-government-if-you-could-start-from-scratch/713268/78 "2015-02-23T20:28:39Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I would empower Congress to dissolve states, make new states, redraw state boundaries, at any time and without consulting state governments. In most modern democracies, local government is reorganized by the national government every few decades for better efficiency, as a matter of course. Seems rather authoritarian to me. Maybe at the same time pass an act about tea…it could be the Tea Act or something like that. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-change-about-the-us-government-if-you-could-start-from-scratch/713268/79 "2015-02-23T20:30:34Z")
What do you people think of this way of voting for congress Anyone can eligible to hold office can register as a candidate for office and are then assigned a 10 digit number which then any one can enter onto a ballot to indicate their vote for that candidate. Congress is composed of the 435 candidates with the highest number of votes. However, not all Congress members are equal. For determining simple/super majorities the congressman’s vote is weighted according to the number of people who voted for him. I think that this would eliminate the need for political parties, as voting to promote an individual would work just as well as voting to promote a coalition. As an additional bit of fun, what if the entire system was computerized (ignoring the issue of security and fraud) such that anyone could change their vote on a daily basis, with congressional power shifting with perceived performance and candidates getting kicked in and out of Congress if they fall above/below the 435 margin. The problem would be that voting for a person currently not above the minimum needed would be basically mean throwing your vote away, so we may want a system that would allow people to pledge votes for non-members that would be come active as soon as the number of pledges met the relevant threshold. Chances are this would lead to total chaos and barbarians at the gate, but my wouldn’t it be fun while it lasted. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-change-about-the-us-government-if-you-could-start-from-scratch/713268/80 "2015-02-23T20:44:19Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Seems rather authoritarian to me. Maybe at the same time pass an act about tea…it could be the Tea Act or something like that. What? The **entire issue** with the Tea Act was that it was taxation without representation. Rich white merchants didn’t like being reduced to a government level only slightly above the level of their wives and their slaves and their poor neighbors. Brainglutton’s proposal in no way removes representation; it simply places the lion’s share of representation at the federal level. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-change-about-the-us-government-if-you-could-start-from-scratch/713268.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-change-about-the-us-government-if-you-could-start-from-scratch/713268.md?page=5)