It seems as if the legislative bodies of the United States and some other countries of the "West" as well, have strayed into a regime wherein highly funded, vocal interest groups now determine the agenda. In the United States it appears as if the Federal funds can be garnered by any group who can excite the "mob" to a sufficient fever pitch. The Congress responds to the mob by appropriating tax dollars to quixotic activity (reducing CO2 emissions; embryonic stem-cell experiments; etc.) depending on the current fad. The fads are not always based on good science and sometimes (as is the case in the two instances cited) actually surpress scientific evidence that would mitigate against the expenditures entertained by the legislators. What changes might be effective to correct this state of affairs? Here are some that have been suggested to me (all of which seem to necessitate Constitutional change):

1. term limits accompanied by strict limitations on campaign activities and spending
2. restoration of the selection of US Senators to the State legislatures
3. curtailment of Congressional authority
4. elimination of the seniority system as used in the legislatures
5. limitation of jurisdiction on the Federal Court system, even including the Supreme Court (e.g. allow the Federal Courts only the right to remand issues to the legislature, not to direct remedial steps)
6. return to reliance entirely on privately operated education
7. restore suffrage to its original concept (land-owning males, of at least 21 years)
8. elimination of the citizenship-right based on birth on US territory
9. allow tax-payers to "target" the tax they pay to Governmen t branches specified by the tax-payer(e.g. you could direct that none of your tax dollars be spent on defense, or none of your tax dollars be spent on the Dept. of Agriculture)

RE: Reform idea What about removing the party affiliation identification on ballots.  Then at least a voter might have to learn who is running for what party instead of just votign for someone becasue they are Republican or Democratic.

Regards,

Old Sigma

What about proportional voting? (I think that's what it's called.) 10 candidates: everyone gets 10 votes For or Against any candidate. So if there is someone I abhor, I vote 10 votes against them and do not cast any against or for any other.

Regards,

Old Sigma

God loves you . I also think that a ballot entry for 'Let's leave the office empty for one term and see what happens' might be nice. You might call it the 'closet anarchist party' entry - not of true anarchy, mind you, just trying to test the waters of reducing politicians and associated bureaucrats to a sort of 'you just might not 'serve'' status. That I had to satirically highlight 'serve' demonstrates part of the problem. Maybe, too, a ballot slot for 'whoever is willing to serve by paying for the position' so that we really know what we're getting. Whoever so wins by this choice has to pay the price of a package of gum for every voting constituent, collected and set aside to prosecute the 'winner' as needed. That would be the 'cautious simony party' slot. Also, every elected office holder above a certain level in every arena would have to modify his or her wardrobe to put a large bulls eye target on their backs to remind just why the Second Amendment leaves the voters armed. Every time they dress for 'work' - yet another folly - the politician is reminded of potential instant, summary impeachment by citizen action. I had more practical ideas - contra my acid sarcasm above - but I haven't found the Word doc yet. Remember, I love you, too Through Christ, with Christ, in Christ, Pristinus Sapienter (wljewell @catholicexchange.com or ... yahoo.com)

God loves you . Okay - here goes - - - For great part, we simply must realize about special interest groups that they are presumed to be lobbyists, to be guided by lobbyist limitations. It hurts none to presume that all lobbyists come from points of selfishness, greed, and presumptuous arrogance. We should expect lobbyists to prove not merely need and ‘compassion’ but actual need for compassion. We should expect that they provide ‘national and relevant locale environmental impact’ statement: defining how their propositions are of general interest and welfare and to be of general improvement; demonstrating how support of the special interest will not be disproportionate burden upon other community(-ies) for the benefit of ‘their’ community. They should be expected to document options studied and the best available alternative. They should made to anticipate debate and rebuttal of all claims, mediation of recognized conflicts and with formal and resolved loss of credibility and possible loss of lobbying standing where found fraudulent. Of lobbyists’ ‘goodies’, there must be Congressional and bureaucratic offices of authoritative oversight and review for special-interest offers by, requests of and bequests to government personnel. This may seem to burden ‘grass-roots’ groups, but if we do not burden them, we will be unlikely to burden anyone. We should form two federal Committees of One Hundred voters. These committees would be blind-fold drawn from a pool of a few hundred from each state – who so volunteer – every member to serve a six-month stint, with staggered roll-over and new selections of twenty-five members ever quarter. This permits continuity in such community service in the overall committee. Bywords for these committees – diligent, relentless, and relentlessly open and above-board. Maybe, too, there should be state initiatives to petition to dissolve a sitting committee(s) for complete re-drawing. The primary committee would read legislation for comprehension without needing a lawyer, and comprehensiveness of defining nuances of compliance and bureaucratic enforcement. This would entail the primary committee having a large staff to help review tendered legislation. The second committee would serve as citizen ombudsmen; effectively, government paid lobbyists for ordinary citizens. Many things can fall out of these committees, such as less insidious direction of education by the federal government, less power to such as federal-employee unions, etc. The sheer weight of laws would decrease for having to pass legislation through the primary committee. Give the President line-item veto power in all cases. Repeal McCain-Feingold for legislation merely requiring all contributions be publicly recorded for review of all parties; if a party(-ies) uses another’s information for publication, all parties’ lists will be published at the same time at the expense of the initiator(s) of publication; any third-party (e.g., MSM) uses any party’s list, all parties within the scope of the cause for the list (e.g., campaign for a given office) will be similarly published, all at the expense of the third party. There would be definitions of limits such as to group aggregation limits; e.g., ‘2,456 contributors of $101-$500’; all publication list largest contributions and contributors’ identities first; plus, ‘institutional’ contributors note their three primary sources of funds, and have responsible individuals listed to the level of one individual for every ten thousand dollars contributed. Fraud by misrepresentation and/or omission will be prosecuted with defined penalties, including for contributors restrictions of contributions by individuals-responsible for a certain number of years; any and all costs to whistle-blowers about fraud will be doubly matched as reward for their actions, except where judicial authorities authorize greater rewards from out of penalties paid. Term limits – two consecutive sessions, then the politician cannot run for any office again for one more consecutive session – making politics a difficult field in which to make one’s career. Staggered electoral months – over four to six months (June through November), the first Tuesday is election day from most-local earliest in June to most-national offices in November. This supports voters really getting into knowing who is running for what. Rather than curtailment of Congressional authority, which is most diluted and most representative, extend Congressional roles to counter activist judiciary (by amendment, if necessary) and prescribe bureaucratic procedures. Expand the Senate to two hundred four – four for each state and four at-large for D.C. and our territories. Expand the House to eight seats for every one now (3,480 total), giving D.C. and territories proportional representation, giving voters closer representation, and giving many more voices to issues. The ‘seniority’ method of chairing committees, etc., has the advantage of letting us know who is in line for a given position. No other method is really less or more arbitrary, anyway. The voters should be expected to take a test each electoral year, a month before any election day, that demonstrates that they know who are the sitting President and Vice-president, who is Speaker of the House; who is their governor, who are their federal senators and state equivalent(s), who are their federal representative and state equivalent, etc. Additionally, there can be a list of a few hundred questions that might appear about the Constitution of the United States of America. This list, of course, is a study guide. There should be a ‘100%’ section – all right or no voting card – and a ‘75%’ section. I prefer ‘owning the knowledge to vote’ to ‘owning the financial stake’. This ballot test can be written and administered by the two Committees of One Hundred’. A citizen is one who has a recognized permanent right to be here – not just ‘born here’. How the government deals with legislation, ‘pork’, priorities, etc., will be addressed by the two Committees of One Hundred voters. Remember, I love you, too Through Christ, with Christ, in Christ, Pristinus Sapienter (wljewell @catholicexchange.com or ... yahoo.com)