America needs a new political party. Both of the current ones are bad. Republicans are way too reactionary, Democrats are pro-censorship, and both are getting more extreme. Neither appropriately represents an average person.
America needs a new political party. Both of the current ones are bad. Republicans are way too reactionary, Democrats are pro-censorship, and both are getting more extreme. Neither appropriately represents an average person.
A third political party solves nothing. Both parties need to be dissolved and fractured into several (preferably as many as possible) and elections need to be reformed to prevent a two-party system from cropping up again (abandon first-past-the-post and the Electoral College). Congress also needs to be increased in size, at least tripled, since one person representing 800,000 people is absurd.
also, the president should be able to be removed by any time by a simple >50% majority of congress, similarly to how the UK parliament works. This ensures that if the people change their mind, or dislike a president, the president’s decision will still reflect their voices. Same thing with congress. Also helps with accountability (*cough* George Santos *cough* )
no, that would be misused so much. In fact, that’s one of the main things the founding fathers tried to stop when they wrote the constitution.
It would mean that one party could kick out people they don’t like (similar to how republicans kicked out 3 people from the Tennessee house). For example, right now the republicans could kick out Joe Biden and Kamala Harris (because Diane Feinstein is absent right now).
No, it would mean that the president would always represent the people. Look at the UK, in their system, the president is always of the same party as the biggest (not necessarily majority) group in parliament. I agree that in a two party system, this would lead to problems, but when bundled with more parties, it would require much, much more cooperation between political groups, so that the president selection more accurately reflects a combination of many viewpoints, compromises, etc.
Look at when Boris Johnson “resigned”. He knew that, because his own party (and his party’s ally parties) did not support him, he would be kicked out if he didn’t resign. This means that as soon as a president’s popularity drops, they will be held accountable.
In the founding fathers’ era, politics and the interactions between political groups with different motivations was very different and many of the systems that are currently successful in countries like the UK and Canada had not been implemented yet.
If implemented, it would basically mean that the people don’t elect the president, and the congressman would elect them instead
Exactly! But, the congresspeople can also be removed by the members of their parties at any time. Check the Wikipedia page for the British Parliamentary system for more information. many other countries (Canada, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Latvia, the Netherlands, and New Zealand, South Africa) use almost identical systems.
all of that would decrease the amount of say that the people have, and increase bureaucracy. We don’t want either of those. I want a government that has the smartest people in the world who work together to make decisions for the good of the people, not for themselves, then they implement those decisions ASAP.
In the time of the founding fathers, there was more concern about the general political-awareness that ordinary people had (the reason for the electoral college). Today, however, it is inexcusable for politicians to be trusted to a level where "they know best" or "know better than the people do" about issues. Politicians in he US can do anything they like, mostly because of this reason. There is no way to hold them accountable and you just have to "trust them". They can also change their minds about any issue (or lie to voters, cough George Santos cough) and get away with it
@joebiden said it pretty well:
senator joe manchin is a great example of this, look up his pictures with pro-abortion and anti-abortion groups lol, it’s whoever donates
In the UK, politicians cannot be bought by corporations as easily, and their policies have to cater to what the ordinary people actually want. When Liz Truss promised lower taxes, lower inflation, etc. and failed to deliver, she was able to be removed and her party replaced her with someone else. She didn't have another 4 years to cause mayhem/destory the country, which is a good thing lol.
Like I said, we need a new political party with smart, trustworthy people. They should all sign like a contract which puts restrictions on them, like being transparent and not taking donations. If they break the rules, they’re legally required to resign. That’s my personal idea.
Well, in most countries, it’s not up to politicians to “agree” to not take bribes or to not lie, as most would not agree. It needs to be a rule/framework pushed for by the people who should be demanding these types of reforms. Think about it: the president of the United States can campaign and promise something to voters, only to get into office, say “I lied” and do the exact opposite. How is that democratic??
If they signed that contract, it could also include a requirement to publish what you’re going to do if elected, and then do that if elected. If you don’t do it, you’d be forced to resign
It should be every political party (not just one new one). There should be many more than 10, ideally considering that they represent 400 million people with diverse ideas and perspectives. The parties would have to negotiate/compromise more, which would be good 👍
I don’t think any current party would be willing to do that. The GOP and DNC are practically owned by billionaires and companies.
Also, the U.S. political system is set up for two major parties, because it awards seats in Congress and the presidency with a winner-take-all method. Candidates running for Congress need only to get a plurality of the vote to be elected. This makes it hard for small, poorly funded parties to win.
There already is. It’s called impeachment.
Impeachment doesn’t cut it. Impeachement requires that the president has committed “Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” What I’m talking about is a party in Congress being able to get rid of their own president for any reason (as long as the majority agree)
What other legitimate reason is there to remove a president besides having committed a crime? If a president is merely incompetent, then their power has a 4-year time limit. If a president is really incompetent, see Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.
Look up how a vote of no confidence works in the UK and many other parliamentary democracies. Trusting the president to make “the right choices” is simply not an adequate solution for a country. If the people no longer wish for a president to be in office, especially if his own party no longer supports him, he should be removed. It’s about increasing accountability and it works. Look how Liz Truss and Boris Johnson were easily replaced with a (slightly) more competent person. It means that there is no way for a politician to do anything that doesn’t align with what he promised to voters and what his party stands for 👍
I don’t think following the steps of the UK is a good idea considering its politics is an absolute shitshow. A party in power that knows that the populace despises it choosing a PM on their own volition is inheritably undemocratic.
What? That’s the most democratic thing that can be. There, a political party is a collection of the people, who form a group around a set of shared ideals. Members of a political party usually share opinions on the vast majority of issues, unlike in the U.S. which only has two parties. In the two-party system, there is less infighting/arguing by politicians of the same party, and more cooperation. Because the parliament/congress can also be voted out at any moment, the people truly control the politicians at both the lawmaking and executive branches.
The Conservative Party of the UK has 54% of the seats in Parliament despite having a 20 percentage point deficit in the polls behind Labour, and yet they got to decide the next PM by themselves without having to conduct a general election.
Okay, same thing that happens in the US in that regard. But within the conservative party, decisions can be made that actually reflect what’s best for the country/what the members of the party want. You can see that with Liz Truss and Boris Johnson, who were both basically destroying the country. In the U.S., someone like George Santos could even become president, and, because he’s also controlled by corporations, he doesn’t have to keep any of his campaign promises to the people and he can do whatever the corporations tell him too.
You’re vastly overestimating the amount of corruption in the US; the Corruption Perceptions Index places it at 24th between Austria and Taiwan. Also, in an ideal system, Johnson and Truss wouldn’t have become PMs in the first place.
They promised some ideals that were appealing to voters, and didn’t deliver on them. But the point is that systems need to be put in place to improve a country’s democratic function when this does happen. 👍
If only there was something that happened once every two years that allow the people themselves to oust representatives they don’t like. Oh well.
Voting, while an important process, does not solve all problems. Also, senate terms are 6 years! (A senator serves for 8% of your life!) Immediate solutions are often required, as in the U.S. candidates aren’t even expected to stick to their promises. They just don’t have to, here, as even if they get voted out in the next election cycle, corporations will just pay another one to repeat the scam again.
You need the basic accountability aspect that the parliamentary system provides.
About the corruption,
"Nearly 20% of Congress members have been trading shares of companies in industries they are supposed to be overseeing as part of their committee assignments — creating major conflicts of interest, a new report finds." (Source: NYPost, NYTimes).
Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/13/us/politics/congress-members-stock-trading-list.html
https://nypost.com/2022/09/13/nearly-20-of-congress-trades-stocks-that-present-conflicts-of-interest-report/
especially if his own party no longer supports him
No, only the people should make that choice
The people are making that choice, as the party is an organization of the people who vote within the part for what the party stands for. Because there are many political parties, a party is more of a set of ideals, rather than a group of people who practically agree on nothing (like in the U.S.). Also, because there is voting within a party, it means that the representatives chosen by the party actually fit a set of specific ideas (not a garbled mess of arguing and infighting like in the two-party system). A party should be a unified group that pushes one idea.
Also, I just had this same conversation with oren above, but in summary my main points were:
In the time of the founding fathers, there was more concern about the general political-awareness that ordinary people had (the reason for the electoral college). Today, however, it is inexcusable for politicians to be trusted to a level where "they know best" or "know better than the people do" about issues. Politicians in he US can do anything they like, mostly because of this reason. There is no way to hold them accountable and you just have to "trust them". They can also change their minds about any issue (or lie to voters, cough George Santos cough) and get away with it
@joebiden said it pretty well:
senator joe manchin is a great example of this, look up his pictures with pro-abortion and anti-abortion groups lol, it’s whoever donates
In the UK, politicians cannot be bought by corporations as easily, because their policies have to cater to what the ordinary people actually want. When Liz Truss promised lower taxes, lower inflation, etc. and failed to deliver, she was able to be removed and her party replaced her with someone else. She didn't have another 4 years to cause mayhem/destroy the country, which is a good thing.
TLDR: It’s not about choosing the lesser of two evils in that system, as there are many more parties/viewpoints/perspectives to choose from, and you vote for a party or a set of ideals, rather than for a person.
All of that is just a side-effect of a two-party system, not a presidential system as opposed to a parliamentary system.
No, it also has to do with a parliamentary system, as the way in which politicians are held accountable is vastly different. I highly recommend you check out the Wikipedia page for a vote of no confidence. I agree that a multi-party system solves some of these issues in itself, but definitely not all of them. In order to reduce corruption/control of politicians by corporations, you need a more responsive/dynamic system that can react to the current views of the people.
In modern times, the passage of a motion of no confidence is a relatively rare event in two-party democracies. In almost all cases, party discipline is sufficient to allow a majority party to defeat a motion of no confidence, and if faced with possible defections in the government party, the government is likely to change its policies, rather than lose a vote of no confidence. The cases in which a motion of no confidence has passed are generally those in which the government party's slim majority has been eliminated by either by-elections or defections, such as the 1979 vote of no confidence in the Callaghan ministry in the UK which was carried by one vote and forced a general election, which was won by Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Party.
Motions of no confidence are far more common in multi-party systems in which a minority party must form a coalition government. That can mean that there have been many short-lived governments because the party structure allows small parties to defeat a government which does not have the majority needed to create a government. This has widely been regarded as the cause of instability for the French Fourth Republic and the German Weimar Republic. More recent examples have been in Italy between the 1950s and 1990s, Israel, and Japan.
This isn’t quite true, because both Boris and Liz were forced out by the threat of a vote of no confidence because when they saw that one was inevitable, they both resigned. Having this measure in place still affects how politicians behave, but it doesn’t really matter whether they choose to resign or not, as it’s the same outcome anyway. 👍
george santos is SUCH a bad liar it’s crazy 💀💀 how you gonna claim that you did drag as a joke and then imply that you watch rupauls drag race, the GOP got him in such heavy denial
I wonder if America genuinely would be better if it was completely democratic
honestly it would be, but there would need to be some centralized government to make sure it stayed democratic. but that obviously leads to it’s own problems
I wonder if America would be better if it didn’t prevent people from voting too.
You mean people under 18?
No, I mean its non-white citizens… However, a good argument could be made for why a bunch of 70-year-old men are making decisions that affect the future of the country (which they won’t be around to see). 25% of Americans are under 18 btw…
Also, if Marjorie Taylor Greene can vote, I think the vast majority of 16-year-olds should be allowed to too. I personally believe that applying a general rule against all young people, regardless of maturity isn’t fair. There are many 16-year-olds with a better understanding of politics than some >80-year-olds.
teenagers don’t pay taxes they shouldnt vote
billionaires don’t pay taxes they shouldn’t vote
Why is not paying taxes such a problem? There is no organization that wastes money better than the federal government. Evading taxes in every way possible is actually a good way to steward your money.
I didn’t mention taxes, @dood said that people who don’t pay taxes shouldn’t be able to vote and I simply rebutted. 🤷♂️
Billionaires (who usually exploited workers to gain their wealth) benefit from the services that are paid for by the people. The government protects corporations that try to evade paying their fair share. And at every chance they get, these same corporations try to lower wages, decrease benefits, etc. without even considering how this affects employees.
There is also no organization that provides services to the poor/homeless/starving/workers than the government. Without the collection of people “We the people”, no billionaire could make money. They are selling/providing a service to “the people” and the people have the job of keeping their power in check.
What services does the government provide?
Roads, libraries, parks, fire department, police, satellites (GPS), defending the nation from other countries/threats, environmental protection, emergency medical services, courts, they pass laws that protect peoples' rights, Social Security payments help 51 million Americans, they feed 38 million starving people a year, etc. Republicans often try to ignore/pretend none of this stuff exists when talking about government.
They also waste at least $247 billion per year (according to https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/18/heres-how-the-federal-government-wastes-tax-money.html), which could be used as tax cuts. In fact, I think everything the government does could be made a lot more efficient.
Also, that’s only ~200 billion out of the 6.3 trillion they spend every year on really, really important stuff 👍
They only got about $4.9 trillion in taxes in 2022, the rest was borrowed on credit (which they’re never going to pay back). And they make a lot of money through printing new money (inflation). Fixing the government so it doesn’t need debt or inflation to run is one of the main things they need to do. It’s really bloated right now.
And one way to do that is to raise taxes for the ultra-rich and big business (not the middle class)! Instead of focusing on this solution, which only a few politicians (Bernie Sanders) are supporting, most are ignoring it.
Why do we have to raise taxes only on the rich? Just because they’re rich doesn’t mean they’re evil! If someone is super successful, why do we try to take it from them?
Currently, billionaires basically evade paying any taxes (Donald Trump paid less in taxes than the vast majority of Americans) because they have the means to access loopholes in the tax system (that need to be reformed.) No one is saying they’re evil, but they benefit from the services provided by the government, while most of their income is never taxed.
More information:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/taxes/2023/02/21/how-do-rich-people-avoid-taxes/11308215002/
Also, they have the means to pay taxes, and their wealth comes from the country. No ultrarich person in America can claim that the government didn’t help them get to where they are. They are profiting off of the government and the people, so they should pay a fair share of taxes. No one is saying this fair share should be unreasonably high, but it is necessary in order to have a functioning government.
I do think they should pay taxes, but they shouldn’t pay too much
Then we’re in agreement, but many studies have shown that with a remarkably small tax increase for the ultrarich (and also by closing up existing loopholes), not only would the ultrarich stop pushing the “burden” of supporting many government programs on the poor/middle class (even when they receive most of the benefits), but problems like homelessness could be easily decreased.
Not to mention the postal service, Medicare (which gives medical assistance to the elderly), copyright/patent laws to protect your ideas and inventions, public education for every child (PRETTY IMPORTANT!!), OSHA regulations and inspections protect America’s workforce by limiting exposure to toxic chemicals, The federal minimum wage law makes sure every covered worker gets paid a basic wage, The U.S. Weather Service provides storm and hurricane warnings.
Read more things (just the federal government does!) here:
https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/sec-employees/psrw50ways.pdf
Medicare is pretty socialist, ngl. Also the minimum wage is just a law, the government doesn’t do anything with it every year. And public schools are mostly paid for on a county and state level. The other stuff is pretty fair
It is a loose form of socialism, but why is that a bad thing if it reduces deaths of 65 and older people by 20%, people who have been contributing labor to the country’s economy their whole lives? Do you want to abandon people when they’re old and can’t work anymore? 😭
You do realize the government has to enforce minimum wage, right? On an unrelated note, did you know that three-quarters of Americans think the federal minimum wage is too low? In a real democracy, if ¾ of the people want something to change, it should happen. However, when corporations control most politicians…
The more I think about it, the more I realize there really is no good solution to many of the problems we face today. Someone will get mad, and there will be some negative effects, no matter what. There’s always compromises
If this was really true, than why do low-income people (who pay a higher tax rate than the rich) vote at lower rates (because of voter suppression, employers not giving them time off on voting day, lack of transportation, etc.) than billionaires.
A better way to think of this is: Teenagers are affected by almost all laws, and are expected to follow them, but have practically zero say in voting for them, while someone who is elderly, sick, and 6 months away from dying (who will not be around to see the laws take effect, and who will not be affected by them) can vote…
Sources:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/23/americas-richest-400-families-pay-a-lower-tax-rate-than-average-taxpayer.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/us/politics/poorer-americans-have-much-lower-voting-rates-in-national-elections-than-the-nonpoor-a-study-finds.html#:~:text=The%20study%2C%20by%20a%20Columbia,above%20twice%20the%20poverty%20line.
Rich people have been working hard to make the poor, working-class, and young people (all who are typically more progressive) fear talking about politics by making it a taboo. By lowering engagement among these groups, voter turnout becomes low, as people feel less motivated to create actual change in their country, and the billionaires can do whatever they want.
Source/Study:
https://www.sentinelsource.com/news/local/young-voters-see-politics-as-taboo-deceitful/article_d64d1516-9577-5f9b-b977-14383743249e.html
Are you saying that Marjorie Taylor Greene shouldn’t be able to vote?
No, I’m saying that the vast majority of 16-year-olds (who are more aware about / understand politics/science/the world better and who are usually more mature) should.
also, they should put in term limits
for who? congresspeople?
yes, and presidents
Term limits don’t really solve problems, as a party/billionaire can just pay/bribe a new person to support the exact same ideas (ideas that don’t correspond to what the population actually wants). You need to solve the problem at its root, which is that politicians have too much freedom. Their job is to be the voice of the people... The government is supposed to represent “we the people” and in most cases, it isn’t doing that. Politicians shouldn’t be serving their own agendas, and the only way to stop that is to give the people who put them in office the same opportunity to take them out of office if/when they abuse their power.
Like I said, just have new politicians who sign a contract which will require them to resign if they’re paid by anyone. And they have to publicize all of their financials and such
The problem is that politicians are controlled by corporations and lobbies, neither of which care about the problems affecting ordinary people…
that’s what i’m saying
those who do speak out against corporations & congressional daytrading (e.g. bernie sanders), are labeled as “socialists” or dismissed…
Yeah, it seems like only the most extreme members of congress actually do anything good. For example, Matt Gaetz and AOC teaming up on a bill recently
That’s mostly because corporations are unwilling to team up with either of them, so they have less restrictions on what they say/vote on…
Matt Gaetz just wants to improve his image among voters and challenge mainstream republicans (who usually cater to a wider audience of conservatives than him). By claiming that he has the moral high ground and attacking them, he gains an advantage.
Polarisation is the route to violence, and I agree the current American system is everything which is wrong with modern politics. Why strive for a system with a huge elective dictatorship majority? We need collaboration, clarity and choice. Neither the UK or the USA have these, the UK multi party system which in reality is a two party system is just as bad, minority parties voices are dampened to the point we can no longer hear the ones that centre on anything outside of extremism.