To make a long story short, the US government sucks, because its institutional structure, especially the balkanization of agencies dealing with most domestic issues, makes it susceptible to business influence at th expense of any other influence. This is how the damn thing was desgned by plantation owners in 1772 and changed very little since then. It therefore matters little what king of people get elected - the US government would suck even if Karl Marx himself were elected president.
My proposed change would be to considerably strengthen federal government in the area of domestic policy and weaken it in the area of defense. Specifically:
1. Abolish local and state taxes and establish a uniform progressive federal tax (same rate for every locality, but higher rates for high income earners and high-value properties) that would be distributed to states and localities based on their population shares. That is, schools would be funded based on the number of students they enroll rather than local property values. Transportation projects would be funded based on population density rather than influence of congressional shysters - and so on. The states would also receive discretionary funds based on statutory formulas (i.e. shares are defined by law rather than negotiated by congressional shysters,) which they can use for any legitimate project, including defense. That would prevent business from playing one jurisdiction over another to get a tax free ride.
2. Institute a proportional representation parliamentary system. That is, abolish the senate and keep the congress in which political parties receve the share of congressional seats proprtional to the number of votes they received nation-wide - as opposed to gerrymandered districts. The chief executive and the cabinet are appointed by congress, based on distribution of party seats.
3. The Congress will have no line item power over the budget. That is, they can either approve or reject the budget as a whole, but they cannot add or take out individual items. This would deprive congressional shysters of their political patronage (aka pork and barrel) power.
4. While the command of the armed forces would be vested in the federal government, the fed would have no authority to raise or maintain the army. All army personnel and funding (save a few command posts) would be supplied by the states, and the states would have discretion how much personnel they provide and for what operations. In other words, the states would have a say in military affairs similar to that wielded by EU states - they can supply troops only if they wish to, and they can restrict thier mission after they are deployed.
5. Limit the power of the judiciary to privatye parties. That is, courts will have no jurisdiction over decisions or actions of government of any level - only over private parties. All government decisions and actions would be subjected only to administrative reviews or the political approval (e.g. through parliamentary no-confidence vote or popular recall vote.) That would prevent sabotaging government policies by organized business groups.
Wojtek
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003060.html
>
> August 18, 2009
>
> Jury Duty Democracy
>
> By: Bernard Chazelle
>
> I suggest that all US senators and representatives should be picked at
> random among the adult population. Like jury duty. Except that if
> you're chosen you can say no. The job will be prestigious and well
> remunerated, so most lucky winners will say yes. I've given this idea a
> lot of thought, that is, as much thought as one can pack in 2.5
> seconds, so maybe there's a GIANT flaw but here are the pros and cons.
>
> PROS:
>
> 1. We'd get politicians of average intelligence: no difference.
>
> 2. We'd get politicians of average honesty: huge improvement.
>
> 3. We'd get the thin Bell curve tail of lunatics, sex perverts, and
> psychopaths: huge improvement. Right now we get a
> "only-the-crazies-join-the-crazies" power-law distribution that
> produces the Joe Liebermans of the world.
>
> 4. We'd get no elections hence no electoral campaigns hence no campaign
> financing hence no lobbyists hence no corporate pimping: huge
> improvement.
>
> 5. We'd get true representation of the American people, and not true
> representation of the super-rich: huge improvement.
>
> 6. We'd get more women and minorities in government. We'd get an
> average of 2 lawyers in all of Congress. Yes, 2! (They'd probably sue
> each other and cause no harm.) Again, huge improvement.
>
> 7. If jury duty is any indication, we'd get people who often take their
> job seriously: huge improvement.
>
> CONS:
>
> 1. You don't get to choose your representatives. Like today. Right now
> you get to choose people but they are not in any way your
> representatives, so there would not be the slightest difference on that
> score.
>
> 2..... I dunno. I am sure there's a second flaw somewhere. You have to
> help me here.
>
> PS: I don't recommend this for the US presidency because the variance
> is too high.
>
> -- Bernard Chazelle
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>