You can make 3 permanent changes to the way your country is run--which 3?

[CelticKnot]

@Textual_Innuendo

Well, there goes Mitt Romney’s 47%!

Why not just make it more explicit, and have a “you may only vote if you own and can show proof of at least $100k in assets” or something along those lines?

As though our current system wasn’t kleptocratic enough already.

Believe it or not, not everyone who earns less than the median income collects more than they pay in. $100K in assets? :smack: I don’t think you have a full knowledge of how people in “flyover country” live.
I refuse to call keeping more of the money someone has earned instead of it being taken at gunpoint as taxes a benefit or welfare.
I think part of my poll test will be on basic economics, and of you don’t understand how money really works, such as government doesn’t make money; it only takes it, you shouldn’t have any say in how my money is allocated.

If you read my first post, you would see I didn’t say people can’t vote if they take more than they contribute. I said the vote is reduced proportionally.

[Textual_Innuendo]

@CelticKnot

Believe it or not, not everyone who earns less than the median income collects more than they pay in.

…

If you read my first post, you would see I didn’t say people can’t vote if they take more than they contribute. I said the vote is reduced proportionally.

No, I got that, I just (perhaps uncharitably) assumed you’d be strict about what qualifies as “government assistance.”

Add up the financial value of Social Security, HUD, Medicaid, Medicare, VA benefits, SNAP, education grants, and federal funds for education. If you or your family participate in using any single one of those, with the possible exception of SNAP, your annual financial “benefit” from the government very likely exceeds the taxes you’ve paid entirely for the year, even for median or above incomes. And of course, if you participate in more than one of those, it’s a near certainty.

I don’t really have the time or inclination to go add up how many people each use one at the moment, but 47% sounds like about the right ballpark of people whose vote would be proportionally worth 0 (or some insignificant fraction close to it).

[Northern_Piper]

@RickJay

Canada:
3. All interprovincial trade barriers are unconstitutional.

Just curious what in particular you would define as an “interprovincial trade barrier”?

The phrase has been in the news a lot recently, but I would be curious to hear exactly what is meant by it?

[Textual_Innuendo]

@CelticKnot

Believe it or not, not everyone who earns less than the median income collects more than they pay in.

Oh, and we can make it even more fun by assuming that all US citizens benefit from having a military and a road network - if we add up the annual military and transportation budgets and divide by the number of adults, that’s $2680 per person in flagrant largesse from Uncle Sugar they’ll have to offset before their vote counts. So that excludes everyone making below around $23k annually, which looking it up, looks like 25% of the population.

But then the people making more than that haven’t actually gotten their vote back to 1! They’ve just brought their vote from negatives to zero, and they need to make another $23k to bring their vote up to counting as a single vote. So that’s another 20% or so of the population we’ve disenfranchised!

Then we can cut off the ~15% of the population age 65 or older (because they’re almost certainly using Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid), and we’re at a healthy 60% of the population disenfranchised already!

Hey, I’m liking this plan more and more!

[Gorsnak]

@RickJay

Canada:

1. Abolishment of the Senate.
2. Abolishment of the monarchy, replaced with a elected head of state with very limited powers.
3. All interprovincial trade barriers are unconstitutional.

(2) isn’t worth using a wish on. If we had 10 wishes, sure, but we only have 3. I’m not even sure (1) is worth a wish.

I think the #1 problem with Canadian government is the stranglehold party leaders have over their party, particularly when they’re in power. The PMO should have less power, and backbench MPs should have more. So (these apply to both federal and provincial legislatures):

1. Parties cannot use the whip on votes unless they are matters of confidence, nor can parties expel sitting MPs for voting against the party’s preferences in other matters. The most they can do is attempt to get someone else nominated for the party in that riding for the next election. Otherwise if you want them to vote for your bill convince them it’s the right course of action.

2. Some rule against omnibus bills, both because omnibus bills are a horrible way to govern and to prevent abuse of the exemption of confidence votes from (1).

Possibilities for goals for a 3rd wish, but where I haven’t any idea for a specific means to achieve the goal:

-resolve the whole constitutional mess with Quebec
-reform the Indian Act in such a way that actually provides a foundation for solving the many problems facing First Nations communities

[Northern_Piper]

I’m with you on greater influence for MPs as a whole, Gorsnak, but I wouldn’t take the approach you suggest. Here’s why.

The reason for the importance that the “Confidence” principle has in our system is to ensure stable governments. There are parliamentary systems where there isn’t that emphasis, and it results in unstable governments that are so short-lived, and so focused on maintaining a majority, that they can’t really govern, let alone think about the long term. If you have to put all your emphasis on winning the next vote in the Commons, and then the vote after that, and the vote after that, it can take up all your energy and political capital. I wouldn’t want to see the confidence principle undermined.

Plus, if a party ran on certain promises, and then one of the MPs in that party votes against that policy in the House, why shouldn’t the party be able to kick that person out of caucus? “We promised the people that if they voted for us, we’d vote for X policy. You just broke that promise, so you’re out.”

Personally, I’m a big fan of the leadership review mechanism of the British Conservative Party. It’s a good compromise, in my view, between the need to have a leader elected by the party membership as a whole, and the need to have a leader who has the confidence of the elected MPs.

As demonstrated in the Thatcher episode, if enough MPs filed a challenge, nominating another MP for the leadership, then the first round of the vote occurred. The leader had to win a super-majority at this stage: not just over 50% of the vote, but also come in at least 15% ahead of the challenger MP.

If the leader doesn’t get that firm vote at the first round, then there will be a series of votes where whoever gets an absolute majority of the Conservative MPs will become the leader.

And, once the leadership review is concluded, there can’t be another leadership review for a year, to ensure stability. (Unlike the Aussie “spill” process. To the extent I understand it, it’s like a bar-room brawl that can be triggered at any time. Aussie Dopers can correct me if I’m wrong. )

Thatcher didn’t win at the first round. She had a majority, but failed to get 15% ahead of the challenger, Michael Heseltine. That meant a second round of votes. And, once she had failed to win the first vote, the dam broke: Thatcher discovered that her support was slipping away, in caucus and in her Cabinet.

She withdrew from the race, and two other MPs put their names forward: John Major and Douglas Hurd. Major came in first, at 49%. The rules said there had to be another ballot, but Hurd and Heseltine both withdrew, and Major became party leader and PM.

That UK Conservative arrangement gives real power to the MPs, within the party structure, rather than tinkering with the confidence principle in the House. It means the leader has to pay close attention to the positions of the MPs in the caucus, even if they’re not in Cabinet. But it also doesn’t tinker with the rules of confidence.

By contrast, the Labour Party under Cormyn seems to be moving to party rules that protect Jeremy at all cost, and whittle down the influence of the Labour MPs.

[Northern_Piper]

@Red_Wiggler

@Grey

I’m surprised no one from the US has mentioned an independent electoral system across State and Federal levels. The fact you allow politicians so much leeway in how elections are held/mapped/determined is stupefying.

Could you flesh this out a little for we who are uninformed? I don’t know what an “independent electoral system” means in this context. Thanks.

Here’s another example of what I think Grey is referring to; certainly strikes me as bizarre.

In the Kansas Republican primary for governor, Kris Kobach came in 191 votes ahead of the current Governor, Colyer.

Governor Colyer has the right to ask for a recount, to be supervised by the Kansas Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State is a guy named … Kris Kobach.

Secretary Kobach says he sees no problem with being the official who will supervise the recount in his own race. Nothing to see here, move along…

Kris Kobach won’t recuse himself from a recount in governor’s race. No law requires it.

[elbows]

If the Mueller thing gets to the Supreme Court, didn’t Donald just seat the deciding vote?

[CarnalK]

@Northern_Piper

Just curious what in particular you would define as an “interprovincial trade barrier”?

The phrase has been in the news a lot recently, but I would be curious to hear exactly what is meant by it?

I’m not RickJay but there’s lots of provincial laws on liquor importation:
Supreme Court upholds interprovincial trade law in cross-border alcohol case

Canada has no constitutional guarantee of free trade between provinces, the Supreme Court has ruled in upholding a fine against a New Brunswicker who brought alcoholic beverages from Quebec into his home province.

There’s also interprovincial barriers to cross border labour:
Trade war brews, Ontario vs. Quebec

The government of Ontario has refused Quebec’s request to extend a deadline that could mark the start of an interprovincial trade war.

Ontario says Quebec’s rules on construction make life impossible for Ontario construction workers, contractors and truckers.