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―\_(γ)_/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 partiesπ. 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 π€... But I'm getting off topic, so here goes nothing π
POLITICAL SYSTEM
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? π³
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 π)
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 π). 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)
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
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)
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 π
ELECTIONS
This is my favorite part and probably where most of the butthurt will come from π. 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:
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 π
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
JUDICIARY
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
CONCLUSION
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 π¬
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...
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 π. Be sure to say what you liked and/or shit on it if you think it's that bad (but not too much π°). 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 π€
Anyways, this being my second take and all, I think I'll make it a thing to end with a funny meme or few πππ
Most Helpful Opinions