Could a draft-based government replace elections and reduce corruption?

[Sevenpointfive]

instead of a popularity contest with all sorts of outside influence, it would be more like the court's jury duty. we wouldn't let anyone do it of course. there would be eligibility requirements. that way it is someone who is going to care about what happens because they have to go right back to it. i think this would work for the legislative and executive? i'd keep the judicial as pooled from the lawyers that have to serve. it would eliminate a lot of corruption if done right.

that would truly be for the people, by the people!

[goaded]

Not a chance. There was a Tom Clancy book where all the politicians had been killed off, but the lobbying people survived and steered the new politicians into the old ways again. This would be the same, or worse. At least people in the book were chosen for their promises to the voters.

[Sevenpointfive]

well the lobbyists can buzz off. there's a lot of people involved in behind the scenes gov't. that would keep this alive. most politicians don't do the work. they probably don't even read the bills. have you seen how long a justices' verdict is? it takes a lot of people to do it. the politicians today are told what to do. we need that only in functionality. those people would govern honestly in my opinion with a fair salary (possibly a nice one?)

[AviatorTom]

The best way to reduce corruption is go back to basics. Despite what some people are saying, there is no law that says voting should be easy.

If we went back to in-person election day only voting (no early voting, only requested absentee ballots, no other mail-in ballots), people who vote would be those who want to vote (not because someone tells them to vote) and voting would be more intelligent (more voters would do their homework and vote for candidates they believe in , not those that someone else yells them to vote for).

The SAVE act basically does this.

[FreyaRed]

Governments people elect or that has been drafted is just one layer of power apparatus that controls a country. Layer above is untouchable and unchangeable, this is the structure that causes corruption and destabilization.

[Kelley1]

Since most politicians are bought and paid for, that would be better.

[msc545]

You know, what you suggest is just a breeding ground for more corruption. Simple majority voting is better than this. Parliamentary system with frequent elections is an even better idea.

[Sevenpointfive]

yes frequent elections is a must. it is a breeding ground for corruption exactly the same as today, except we'd be holding these people accountable and watching them closely. you have to start from scratch. the corruption wasn't there at the beginning.

[Shiprex]

If it were localised and voluntary it could be workable

[Sevenpointfive]

i really think we need to split up the usa somehow.

[Shiprex]

It could easily split into separate countries BUT there would be some with huge poverty. It could become a large EU type arrangement with collective military and agreements between states. Would give Canada a headache though

[Miristheiss]

Maybe.

I think voting should be curbed.

No one under 25. Only productive citizens who own things and pay taxes. No one leaching off services and taking in more than they produce gets to vote.

[exitseven]

Elections are a way for the people to select their leaders. I think that policies to take money out of the election process and term limits would go a long way towards getting rid of corruption.

[goaded]

Did you know it's possible for states to remove the ability from corporations to donate to political causes without needing a constitutional amendment?

Called the Transparent Election Initiative, it wouldn’t overturn Citizens United — it would negate the consequences of Citizens United. https://transparentelection.org/

It will be on the ballot next November in Montana.

All a state would need to do is enact a law with a provision something like this:
“Every corporation operating under the laws of this state has all the corporate powers it held previously, except that nothing in this statute grants or recognizes any power to engage in election activity or ballot-issue activity.”"

[exitseven]

@goaded Having the Supreme Court give the green light to PACs started this whole mess.

[goaded]

Guess which justices voted against Citizens United and SuperPACs.

Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, & Sotomayor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Breyer

[Snakeyes7]

We just need to get election integrity back in order. Getting rid of illegals and arresting any who try to manipulate the votes will help with that immensely.

[Dargil]

Who decides who was drafted?

[888theGreat]

nope

[888theGreat]

We need a no confidence clause after two years. So like if we get another maniac like Trump , we have a way to remove him. That we need to amend the Constitution with that. I think the people would be for it.

[msc545]

This is a very good idea. I would like it if we switch to a parliamentary system where we can have a new confidence vote any time, like other countries. That way, when somebody or something gets out of control, you can just get rid of them fairly easily.

[888theGreat]

@msc545 Yep, UK and Israel have it

[msc545]

It seems to work fairly well for those folks, certainly better than our shitty system works.

[888theGreat]

@msc545 Well they would recall Bi Bi but the ass wipe uses war to stay in office

[msc545]

We also need a no-conference vote once a year. If we consider all the damage that Trump has been able to do in a year or less, that points out the need for it to happen frequently.

[msc545]

Okay, a no-confidence vote. The site needs the ability to edit.