[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by MrFlorida

Getting back to majority rules would be helpful. Too many small groups wagging the dog.

The majority will NEVER rule as long as states like Montana with minimal population get 2 Senators just like NY, California, or Florida. That is some Civil War legacy BS.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

I agree. Not all of the eligible voters, vote.

Many countries have compulsory voting. I think America would benefit if we had it also; every eligible voter in America must vote in every election or have a good reason why not. It would go a long way toward restoring confidence in our system.

Agreed. It is one of my favorite things that Australia does that I find superior to the US.

[Tvflguy]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

The tax code should equalize wealth more. Even billionaire investor Warren Buffet agrees with me. There should be NO mega, MEGA wealthy people like Soros, Gates, Musk, and Bezos in America. They can go to Saudi Arabia or Russia with the other Dictators. It is actually NOT their fault personally, just the tax system and brackets that stupidly support such non-productive wealth. People like that are NO longer working for MONEY anyway, they are motivated by their leadership skills in most cases and POWER in some cases. It is the same principle as term limits for politicians - the wealthy need REASONABLE limits.

And with the right tax brackets the EXCESS money that these people can't use personally - it could help the average US citizen get their small share of the TOTAL US WEALTH. It is only RIGHT ! The average US citizen TODAY can NOT afford to own their own home - while Bezos has a BOAT with its own helicopter landing pad. That IS NOT right, it is ALL wrong.

And that will eventually lead the US into being controlled by powerful oligarchs and a Dictator ala Putin !

Sure. Once someone reaches a certain level of wealth have the gvt take the rest away. They will spend it wisely right. Or should I say Left? Omg. Share the wealth. Provide no incentive. And allow folks to take all they want from stores if they need. Yep. Equity.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

The tax code should equalize wealth more. Even billionaire investor Warren Buffet agrees with me. There should be NO mega, MEGA wealthy people like Soros, Gates, Musk, and Bezos in America. They can go to Saudi Arabia or Russia with the other Dictators. It is actually NOT their fault personally, just the tax system and brackets that stupidly support such non-productive wealth. People like that are NO longer working for MONEY anyway, they are motivated by their leadership skills in most cases and POWER in some cases. It is the same principle as term limits for politicians - the wealthy need REASONABLE limits.

And with the right tax brackets the EXCESS money that these people can't use personally - it could help the average US citizen get their small share of the TOTAL US WEALTH. It is only RIGHT ! The average US citizen TODAY can NOT afford to own their own home - while Bezos has a BOAT with its own helicopter landing pad. That IS NOT right, it is ALL wrong.

And that will eventually lead the US into being controlled by powerful oligarchs and a Dictator ala Putin !

So lets not reward anyone for building a better mousetrap and generating lots of jobs.

Lets rely on the govt to take care of all of us.

Guess you think communism and socialism is a good thing.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Two Bills

I would not put too much faith in faith, or good.
Through history, the strong have always triumphed over the weak.
Only negotiations from a position of strength are worth a s**t!

I am NOT sure that is true? The Colonies were weaker than England, but triumphed. The Vietcong defeated the mighty US. And the Taliban kicked both Russia and the US out of their country. (unfortunately for freedom). The US had the watches, but they had the time. And Russia was supposed to take over the Ukraine in a few weeks. So, the stronger country does NOT always prevail.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Love2Swim

Agree. It is ridiculous that people have to jump through such incredible hoops to register to vote. And even more ridiculous that depending on what precinct you're in, and the political party in power, that they can make you wait in line for hours to vote. Anything to corrupt the voting process.

Agreed. And dump all the questionable technology too while we're at it. As Engineer Scott of the Enterprise once said, "the more they overthink the plumbin, the easier it is to stop up the drain".

The best voting "machine" ever invented was and still is a paper ballot and a #2 pencil, used on election day.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Agreed - 50% of Congress should be required to be women. And have 2 out of 5 of my ideal PRESIDENT group be women. Then on alternate terms.......have 3 out of 5 be women. We would have fewer unnecessary WARS.

Sorry. But people should be elected according to what they have between their EARS, not their legs.

[Dr.Butler]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Agreed. And dump all the questionable technology too while we're at it. As Engineer Scott of the Enterprise once said, "the more they overthink the plumbin, the easier it is to stop up the drain".

The best voting "machine" ever invented was and still is a paper ballot and a #2 pencil, used on election day.

And yet, you do almost EVERYTHING else by computer. Even drive your car. But sure, lets go back to paper. The sad and funny part, is even when its done by computer, its backed up by paper. And when recount is done, they count the PAPER. AND EVEN THEN, people still claim the count was wrong.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by fgaba1949

Disagree .....the problem is not the voting but that the candidates running do not make the voter WANT to vote for EITHER ONE

I have NEVER seen a greater difference between candidates than RIGHT NOW today!

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

The majority will NEVER rule as long as states like Montana with minimal population get 2 Senators just like NY, California, or Florida. That is some Civil War legacy BS.

Actually, it is post - Revolutionary War BS. Emphasizing "State", as in the United STATES of America". Our federal government was originally formulated to have very little power: just what is listed in the Constitution per the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It is the advantage of a republic that the states have more or less equal footing with one another. The people are proportionally represented in the House of Representatives, but nothing passes without the consent of the Senate, where all the states are equal.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Worldseries27

he meant that we are a republic. In a democracy 7 jurors could out vote 5 and deprive you of your life and/ or liberty.
In a republic one juror can save you.

Don't quite see the analogy. In a CRIMINAL COURT the defendant must be guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. That is why there is need for all jurors to agree. A CIVIL COURT requires a lessor standard........the preponderance of guilt.

As for as the nation goes, I would prefer that the majority of votes prevails. I would modify the Electoral College to lean more to Democracy.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by NewRealms

One thing is different this time - It's the availability of the Internet and alternative points of view. MSM is losing it's sway. The Internet and the indominable spirit of the American will pull us through. It may get darker before the light comes, but the light ALWAYS comes.

The light of Democracy at this time is a FLICKERING flame at best.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Dr.Butler

And yet, you do almost EVERYTHING else by computer. Even drive your car. But sure, lets go back to paper. The sad and funny part, is even when its done by computer, its backed up by paper. And when recount is done, they count the PAPER. AND EVEN THEN, people still claim the count was wrong.

Heck. Why vote at all?

(Tongue only partly in cheek...) Why not pick our President, Senators, Representatives, Governors....right down to dogcatchers, the way we pick our juries? Each jurisdiction keeps a list of eligible, qualified people for whatever position is being filled, and when "election" day arrives, the name to fill each position is chosen randomly from the list of qualified persons for that position? If picked, you must serve ONE term for the office picked. Oh we can dress it up a little; if you're chosen to be a U.S. Senator, representative or whatever, housing for you and your family along with a guarantee that when your term is up your previous job is yours along with all promotions you could have expected to have gotten during your term, a modest pension upon retirement (tax-free, of course), things like that.

Such a system does three things. It takes the politics out of filling the office(s), it makes political money spent irrelevant, and it assures that only QUALIFIED people fill the positions.

I challenge anyone to tell me how such a system could have a worse result than what we have right now.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

And how do you insure that the person on the registration card is the person who wants to vote, that the person has only one "card" that they will not walk down the street and vote again? honor system?

That is a MYTH that has been disproven over and over.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Tvflguy

OK. Just like the Supreme Court??? Oh yeah that would solve everything, right. Omg.

Agreed that the Supreme Court has problems. It needs term LIMITS of about 7 years. Also, the APPOINTMENT system by the party in power has proven to be corruptible. Maybe it would be better to vote for the Justices? i would say that the Supreme Court is the worst designed part of the US governmental system.

Many of us believe that the US democracy is in a bad place right now. No one throughout US History has said that the US should have an IMPERIALISTIC President. My 3 or 5 person president would just about guarantee against a imperialistic President. I don't like the idea of a ONE person President. It can too EASILY be turned into a King or Dictator. Today in the world for SOME unknown-to-me reason the trend is AWAY from Democracies and TOWARD Dictatorships. I am just trying to fight the good fight by suggesting a method to prevent Dictatorships - and since they are INCREASING then maybe we in the US should NOT just go with the SAME OLD, SAME OLD and HOPE everything works out OK.........because it may NOT. If someone has a better suggestion, then I WELCOME that.