An Ode to American Politics: If I Reformed the System (LAWD HAMMERCY 😱)


DISCLAIMER: This is for those who are interested in a different perspective. I'd like this to be an actual discussion. Yeah, it's long as shit, but what can I say? Β―\_(ツ)_/Β―

It's that time of decade(??) y'all! Election time! I have a love/hate relationship with politics. On 1 hand, I'm generally interested in the subject. On the other hand, almost nothing pisses me off more than it. It magically brings out the the absolute essence of stupidity in virtually every person. It's fascinating, honestly. Combine with that, the system is seeming so broken that we have (I shit you not) Hilary and Trump as the reps for the main partiesπŸ˜‘. I really don't understand how we got to this point

I've been actually meaning to write this take for a really long time. I know a lot of y'all are rolling your eyes and about to rip me for making it propaganda for a side, which I find funny considering I can and have said the same thing to both sides and have been accused of being a "lib-tard commie" or a "fascist"... Suffice it to say, I'm not here to push any political agenda as pertaining to 1 side vs the other. In fact, that's the point. Sort of a reformation idea of our current political climate. Whether it comes off as that is up to you. But if you really want to know, I'm not voting for either of those 2 monkeys. Although, the more I think of it, the more I'm conflicted πŸ€”... But I'm getting off topic, so here goes nothing 😁


My biggest gripe with our system is the duality of it. The purpose of a dual system in its purest form is to highlight the different methods of which to arrive at a solution, which is to improve the current conditions of a country. Simple! As they say, there's more than 1 way to skin a cat. For drivers, do you wanna take the highway, or scenic route? Unfortunately, nearly 250 years of fuckary have turned it from that into 2 sides at odds for political power and credibility. Ultimately pitting people against each other and exponentially dumbing down serious issues into black and white to the point of mere pop culture-like trivia. You're either a democrat/republican, red/blue, big government/small government, pro life/pro abortion, etc. Somehow turning everything into "if you are not for us, you're against us" despite situations that aren't even mutually exclusive or even having to do with each other altogether... Black lives matter, all lives matter, blue lives matter. Y'all triggered yet? 😳

The 1 funny thing I find is that most Americans see our system on a spectrum (there's a reason for that). Politics is actually a grid, or compass, if you will (don't look at the latter 2 if you are easily butthurt when it comes to politics... YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED 😈)

An Ode to American Politics: If I Reformed the System (LAWD HAMMERCY 😱)
An Ode to American Politics: If I Reformed the System (LAWD HAMMERCY 😱)

Here's the more offensive 1 that might get this take reported

For or all intents and purposes, let's adjust it so we work on that scale. As you can see, there are 4 sections. So my proposal is to make it 4 (or 5 parties). For my own amusement and to see mass hysteria, let's go with the Communist Party (authoritarian left), Facist Party (authoritarian right), Socialist Party (libertarian left) and Anarchist party (Libertarian right). A fifth possibly being the Joe Public Party (center). Why 4 or 5? For 1, it's more accurate. It also gets rid of this idea of mutual exclusivity as it pertains to only seeing 1 perspective. And it also gives people a fairer chance instead of picking 2 bad choices (although it can lead to 4 or 5 πŸ˜‘). And I think it will force sides to collaborate more instead of just playing tug of war with 1 another to get things done. Moreover, 1 side can find commonality with at least 1 or 2 other sides instead of constantly being at odds, provided people can be the least bit reasonable (is that too much to ask? Probably)


Let's start with the Senate. Before I get into some mechanics, let's put a 6 term max with 5 year terms (30 years for those mathematically retarded). That's all they get. Some of them are old as dirt and don't need to be there anymore. Not only because of that, but what happens is that some become out of tune with their job and also can't keep up with tech. With that said, lets make it 4 (or 5) reps per state. 1 from each party. Their job would be specifically on federal issues, but do not have any say or authority over said issues like education. And if the majority of the votes vote 1 way (3-2/4-1), the entire state votes that way, not collectively all 500 votes. Is it inefficient? Definitely, but who cares? They can't get shit done now anyways so what's the difference?

And here's a novel idea: How about the people making policies on things like education or healthcare or economics are people in those industries? Let teachers make policies on how education should run in this country, for example. I have a few proposals of how to organize some of them, but it needs tweaking and very length. But I think some sort of arbitration or separate entity not corrupt from political agenda is important

As for the House of Reps, I think it work fairly well. I'd just say we have a max of 5 terms with 4 year intervals (20 year max). But in the spirit of this essay, I think an interesting idea would be to use regions per state (go down to the intrastate portion). Or something along the lines of this dope map showing proposed states and geographically similar areas (there's 124)

An Ode to American Politics: If I Reformed the System (LAWD HAMMERCY 😱)

For a bill to pass, instead of having a percentage, the Senate has to pass by over 50% and the House of Reps has to out-vote the percentage of "yay's" passed by the Senate. I can't exactly articulate why, unfortunately, but trust ya boy πŸ˜›


This is my favorite part and probably where most of the butthurt will come from πŸ˜‚. Just to reiterate, we got 5 main parties; Communists, Fascists, Anarchists, Socialists and the JPP! To start off, we'll go with nominations. I don't know exactly how the makeup will be, but here's a theoretical example: Each party will have a pool of who wants to run, obviously. Whoever is head of the party (people or committee) will then take the pool and they select their top 2 Senators, 2 governors, maybe a mayor, like 4 House Representatives and like 3 wild cards (can be anyone) who wants to run. So in total, that's like 12 candidates. From there, they get grouped into 3. The winners are seeded based on voting percentage 1v4 and 2v3. A few months later, people vote the winner then the winners of the final 2 is the party party nominee... I don't know how complicated that sounds, but think tournament

We got our nominees at this point! Dope! Now what? Well, I want to bring this up. It's 20-fucking-16. There is no reason why we should be using this archaic system of electoral colleges and shit. The reason we have our system in the 1st place is because there was no chance in hell that votes could be counted by hand. The system has also cost a few elections. Despite having the majority vote, because of the system, Bush got the nod over Gore. Before some of y'all jump on me, that's not an opinion, it's a fact. There's literally no reason why we couldn't go to a direct election. But it should probably be noted that we actually aren't a democracy, we are a republic

Because of that, we could do 1 of a few things. I hate the swing state idea that basically puts so much emphasis on a select few states. Or how some being way less important do to lack of population. Or how you could have the vast majority of the state 1 color, but 1 city offsetting the rest of the state. As a result, I think an interesting concept would be to use the map above. Each region being a vote. If not, Here's a pretty interesting solution:

An Ode to American Politics: If I Reformed the System (LAWD HAMMERCY 😱)

As shown, each region is distributed evenly. It doesn't fix all the problems, but it gives each region an equal share of importance. Little ole Rhode Island isn't thrown away like a cheap prostitute for having low area and low population. Why can't we do that? Idk! There's literally a map right above that clearly has graphed it out to the county level, so the software is clearly possible

I'll briefly touch on this, but if we're up to me, I'd put in a cap on election campaigns. A candidate can spend (insert arbitrary amount) total. As well, the candidate can only receive a certain amount of donations and endorsements from PACs, companies and the public. As well, the candidate can only spend a fixed amount from their own pocket as well as the party can only contribut a certain amount. Now, you might say that's fucked up. A candidate should be able to spend what they can get. That's true. But for 1, it gives them a fairer shot as all things being equal, who can do the best with what they got. Not having politicians having to grovel for more money or dropout from being out funded. Also that the amount wasted on campaigning is nauseating if you look at straight numbers. I'd like to control a bit of that. Also, what's real fucked up is the fact that when they take all that money, the 1st job politicians do is try to make up that money... Wanna know where a good portion comes from? I'll let y'all figure it out. Also, it can help slow down inflation. But like I said, this is a brief touch. Comment if you want me to expand πŸ˜›

Also, smear campaigns (official) should be illegal. Not for any other reason beyond the fact that the majority of the time, they are made up and pollutes the public. This goes into media, which I'll leave out


This one is fairly straight forward, you have 5 seats. 1 from each side. None of this bullshit of playing politics by trying to stack like 7 democrats vs 2 republicans and fucking with political agenda. None of this bullshit like with SCOTUS fucking with Roosevelt and him threatening to extend the bench to get his shit done in the New Deal. Just straight to the point


I actually have a lot more ideas, but they get a bit more specific. Some things like tax distribution, urban vs suburban vs rural policies. Shit like that, but I figure it's not completely relevant and more opinionated and debatable in terms of their effects. Also, I want to talk media, however, I can write another essay on that by itself. So I better leave that alone 😬

I think it's fairly obvious, but I don't expect this to go anywhere. Beyond that it being a radical concept, too many citizens would be too inconvenienced. Not only taking the time to more or less learn about the system and educate themselves, but also an objective self evaluation of their own beliefs and I don't think most people are willing (borderline incapable) of doing that. Moreover, the mass amounts of money needed to fund this kind of system and it would cost too many people already in office their power

Just please don't bring in the monotonous bullshit rhetoric that gets constantly brought up. There are fittyleben other questions and takes to do it. I simply like the entertainment of how a country could possibly function under a different template. Like I said, I actually enjoy politics, but people manage to lose all objectivity for many reasons, which turns me off. You know it's bad when people say (someone said this, I shit you not) that he doesn't like Sesame Street because it pushes a liberal agenda on kids...

An Ode to American Politics: If I Reformed the System (LAWD HAMMERCY 😱)

Anyways, like I said in the beginning, I was planning on writing this for a good while. I just finally got around to it. Is it perfect? No. There are many problems that I see with it. There are also many problems that may arise. The point isn't that I'm saying my system is right and the current system is wrong, but anyone who has seen our political system ever knows that it's fairly broken. This is simply a relatively sound solution that I think could feasibly work as an alternative from the shitstorm our government is in, instead of just saying, "both sides suck! We need to fix it!" Kinda like this (Btw, I hate SNL, but this is pretty accurate in what I usually hear)

And to clarify, this is more for me because I have alluded to parts of this in a few opinions, but never the entire thing (or a lot of it) for obvious reasons

That's it! I hope y'all enjoyed 😊. Be sure to say what you liked and/or shit on it if you think it's that bad (but not too much 😰). Tell me some shit you agree with. Tell me what you don't agree with. What would you change and what would you add? Regardless of what you think, if nothing else, I hope my goal was met of being at least somewhat of a stimulating and engaging read πŸ€“

Anyways, this being my second take and all, I think I'll make it a thing to end with a funny meme or few πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

An Ode to American Politics: If I Reformed the System (LAWD HAMMERCY 😱)
An Ode to American Politics: If I Reformed the System (LAWD HAMMERCY 😱)

An Ode to American Politics: If I Reformed the System (LAWD HAMMERCY 😱)
An Ode to American Politics: If I Reformed the System (LAWD HAMMERCY 😱)
Add Opinion
3Girl Opinion
3Guy Opinion

Most Helpful Girl

  • redeyemindtricks
    This stuff is well thought out, for the most part. But, it makes sense that certain things have remained the way they are.

    For instance, the Electoral College.
    The electoral vote, in this day and age, is an absurd concept on its face. But if there were to be an election *without* the electoral college -- a national election based purely on popular votes -- then that election would under-represent all of the smallest states (compared to the current system, anyway), and would put more voting power into the hands of the biggest metropolitan areas.
    So, it's easy to see why there's never going to be a Constitutional amendment getting rid of the electoral college. There are just too many smaller states, whose senators know they'd be fucked by such a change. So, no such amendment would ever get the necessary percentage of votes in the Senate.

    Big-city voters by and large tend to vote for candidates who promote larger government, less individual responsibility, and policies that constrain economic growth, anyway. So, if the electoral college were abolished, there would probably be a (subtle but detectable) long-run trend toward more of these things.


    I think re-drawing state lines is unconstitutional for most of the same reasons why secession is unconstitutional, but, I don't know too much specifically about that kind of stuff.

    I *do* know that Texas technically has federal authority to divide itself into 5 different states. That authority was granted in the joint resolution that first admitted Texas into the union. Text is here, if you are interested: (it's at the end of the paragraph numbered "2")

    If they did that, then Texas would have 10 senators instead of just 2. I wonder what the downsides would be... lol (seriously, I don't know enough about governmental organization to know why the state doesn't break up and enjoy the 8 extra senators)


    If you make official smear campaigns illegal, you'll just end up with more Russian hacks. (:
    Is this still revelant?
    • True. The electoral college vote is something I thought about before. But ultimately, something we could live without if you standardize the votes. That way, instead of California having 50 and Montana having 2, it's equally distributed so everyone has the same population and, thus, the same amount of votes per region

      Say every 15k people is its own district and worth a point for that region, let's say. Then each region is worth, I don't know, 25pts. The nominee with the highest percentage wins of that area gets the 25pts. If there's magically a tie, whoever won the popular vote wins
      As for the redrawing state lines, we'll keep the states the same. Think of them like regions. For election purposes, those would be the proposed lines... Think of it more like gerrymandering in a sense

      That's just 1 suggestion πŸ˜‹

      I don't know why they don't do that. Then we'll finally have 50 states. Actually because then they'll lose political power and some parts like west Texas would be politically useless

    • Well, like I said, if you tried to introduce any form of representation that's proportional to the population, that would decrease the influence of smaller states.
      For example, Texas has 40 times the population of Vermont (about 25,268,000 vs. 630,000, in the last census -- and the discrepancy is definitely bigger now, since Texas is growing so fast), but only about 13 times as many electoral votes (38 vs. 3).

      No way that sort of amendment would ever be approved by the necessary two-thirds of the states in the Senate -- not to mention the necessary 3/4 after going to a vote -- so, looks like the electoral college is here to stay.


      Also, as someone who hates liberal politics like those of yr own state (NJ), it's interesting seeing you push for this sort of thing, anyway. As I was trying to say before, more proportional representation would increase the influence of the largest population centers, and decrease the influence of more "country" places. If that happened, then the

    • politics of the whole nation overall would start trending faster in the direction of NJ and places like it.

    • Show All

Most Helpful Guy

  • Waffles731
    Why don't we just let you have one year of control over this kind of thing.
    Is this still revelant?
    • I'd love to see how well or terrible my plan would be. I just figure a lot of this is common sense and people are just lazy. I don't think I'm remotely skilled enough to pull shit shit off even if I were given the opportunity πŸ˜‚

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

  • OrdinaryGentleman
    Thats all fine and dandy but here is the deal, we need to bring back and institute the ancient right of prima nocta, then elect me as president, after all that we should be fine and the world will know peace.
    Lol good take, that was brutally long, im surprised the other user who commented the same thing actually read it, i had no idea it could read lmao
    While i find it admirable you want the government to change people have said the same thing for a number of years, it is without a doubt that the monotony of local, judicial and country government has pile driven the rest of this country into the ground, I agree with you there. As for the grand election of trump or clitorous i hate both. I would only vote for trump for 2 reasons:
    1. He actually hasn't stated his true intentions
    2. The powers of checks and balances will screw with him all of his presidency
    While compared to Clinton who has "friends" everywhere.
    The amount of wash boarding seen throughout the nation is ridiculous. State and local elections have seen plenty of money and favors switch the hands of local politicians. Not discounting the fact that there are great politicians out there but most have little views encompassing the American values of equality, liberty and freedom.
    Hell, "the land of the free and the home of the brave" needs to be changed. In holland you can smoke weed and fuck a hooker all in front of a cop. While our government is busy circle jerking the rest of the world spins on without us.
    We’re 7th in literacy, 27th in math, 22nd in science, 49th in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, 3rd in median household income, number 4 in labor force and number 4 in exports. We lead the world in only three categories: number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real and defense spending, where we spend more than the next 26 countries combined, 25 of whom are allies.
    Wham. But yeah well written and great my take.
    • Which one, cheergirl? She's actually smart. And I don't throw that term around lightly. Anyways, the local and state level government is too variant to include or write a take about. I actually have a suggestion for that, but it would be a book. Not something I am ready to tackle or explain

      I tried to abstain altogether from my own political views as much as possible. Don't get me started on those 2, although your point was what I was alluding to early in the piece. But most of my policies aren't as ideological as it is trying to fix things by directly affecting and improving some of those issues you mentioned. I will say that fixing like 4-6 issues off the top of my head will be lynchpins to solving a vast amount of problems. I'm also not going to question defense spending... I've seen France get repeatedly shit on... That's kinda necessary. There are also a lot of geographical reasons for that, but I digress.

    • Not gonna say, smart people let their ego get in the way all the time, i think they meant well when we first chat but then they try to boss me around and Im not having it, after that they get bitchy lmao.
      It's fine, over the years i have come to hate books so please don't.
      I had to honestly re-read what you wrote in terms of "policies aren't as ideological". So in your take you don't want to focus on a set of ethics and principles but rather... what? What is your take focusing on if not reformation of government?

    • Buddy... if you plan to start attacking me here on GaG with weak sarcasm an innuendo, you better but your big boy panties on. I assure youx not only can I read, but I'm capable of considering another person's point of view before I stick my foot in my mouth.

      If you still plan to troll and engage me... I'm right here. Man up and do it openly. πŸ‘‰πŸ‘Œ

  • reixun
    the amount of ideas you fit into this was a bit difficult to grasp for my young mind but you pointed out problems and proposed solutions, i like it :) @Other_Tommy_Wiseau for prez,

    where do you fall on the the first spectrum?
    • Kinda hard to say. I don't follow much consistency. I'm generally in favor of which makes the most sense and will fix the problem. I like libertarian and being able to live life, but I'm not going to sit there and pretend the government doesn't matter. But I'm also not going to be hypocritical, which most people are. I can't and won't go through all the reasons why, though

  • HeWhoPonders
    Reported for being honest about politics. Suck a dick. (Not: By dick I mean a little faucet that releases a syrup of your choosing.)
    • It ain't gay to get yo dick sucked, fam... Not that I'm into that sort of thing 😳

  • CheerGirl38139
    Bruh... that was long as fucking fuck. Good luck with the average GaG user's reading comprehension. LOL.

    Very well done. Since I cannot and WILL NOT vote for Klinton, and pretty sure I can't vote for Trump either, I might write you in. ;)

    I laughed and cheered. You spent a shit ton of time explaining your positions, what's broke and how to theoretically fix some of them... many of which I agree are legit ideas. I'm a staunch defender of The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, State's Rights, and the Right of THE PEOPLE to govern themselves as we collectively see fit.
    • Glad you liked it! 12670 character or 2332 words or 10.5 pages worth of content. Yeah, I realize most users won't even attempt this thing. In fairness, I'm usually too lazy to read shit. Then again, most of them are about absolute nonsense

      I didn't know how long this would be, I just wrote. I do find it unintentionally funny that I pointed out most people won't take the time to be open to this, which would involve reading this take to start with

      The 1 thing that I'm good with is that anytime I see some nonsensical question about politics (most questions and takes), I can just say both suck and tag this question instead of regurgitating shit in arbitrary chunks with no context

      I definitely agree with your points about defending the constitution and stuff, although it's a bit more nuanced and intentionally vague, which is part of the issue. I wanted to put address states rights. I personally don't think it's really relevant like it used to be, but I'm not that informed to comment

    • Seriously lol you joke around way too much. I can't tell when you are being serious.

    • @OrdinaryGentleman buddy..."you had no idea IT could read"? Really?

      Is that what you want? To start trolling me? And yet you mention that "smart" people usually let their ego get in the way?

      You might wanna check yourself bro. You appear to me to be one of those right fighting, never wrong, condescending ass wipes that has self deluded into actually believing that you're smarter than most other people. That's a major weak spot in your armour dude. Arrogance is vulnerability.

      I see you're a guru, yet you actually haven't seen enough from me here to think I "can read". That tells me that you're very selective about wherected you choose to lurk, and whom you choose to pick on. If you're planning to come at me, you better have your weapons razor sharp. I'm no easy prey.

      The problem with arrogant right fighters, is theyre typically incapable of listening and giving any reasonable consideration to an opposing point of view. They just ASSUME they're always right. ✌

    • Show All