Changes to the US

Um … no. No disrespect intended, mind you. I'm sure the offer is made with good intentions, but no. And I'm afraid that you're a little too big for us to take you on as an 11th province. We'd be glad to give you some pointers on how to run your country though. We are, after all, almost always the most desirable place in the world to live, according to the United Nations Human Development Report.

http://www.undp.org/hdr2001/pr7.pdf

So if you have any questions, ask away. Don't be afraid. We're polite.

 

<b>A) Like the U.S.A. the way it is.
B) More power back to the States on domestic issues.
C) State rights? Federal government should have all the power.
D) Individuals should have more power.
E) Make English the National Language.
F) Expand....ask South and Latin American countries if they want to join. Ask the English speaking portion of Canada to join.
G) U.S.A....Whatever. Texas can handle its own.
H) No Electoral college.
I) Political Parties Outlawed.
J) Campaign finance reform.
K) Turn to parliamentary system
L) Bush for dictator
M) Need to update Constitution a little defining the interstate commerce clause, etc. a little better because the supreme court is doing to much legislation.</b>

a) Everything changes. That is inevitible.
b) Depends on the issue, but generally, yes.
c) Not ALL - that's like choosing "never" or "always" on a multiple choice test
d) Yes
e) I don't care - let people speak however they like - I'll adapt
f) No thanks. We have enough difficulties dealing with ourselves.
g) I love Texas but, like the US as a whole, we don't live in a vacuum.
h) This is tempting. I think that votes and the college should have equal weight.
i) I'll believe it when I see it, but yeah, I'd love it.
j) Absolutely - lobbying is taking away the everyday citizen's voice and replacing it with a big giant corporation
k) Pass
l) Ask Cuba how they like it.
m) Don't know. We'll have to see how it holds up as challenges continue.

 

Maybe we could also have some sort of computer that picks the president on such things as strength of campaign schedule, etc. We could call it by some three letter acronym and refer to it nightly on the political/news channels.

 

I'll pass on Skynet.

The scary thing is that ticking down the list, I agree with Jeff on every point. What is the world coming to???

 

Nahhhhh.......I think a steel cage death match would work better...

 

<b>J) Campaign finance reform</b>

Okay... There are two issues with campaign finance reform...one is that if you limit campaign contributions you are limiting a persons ability to voice their opinion - that limiting campaign contributions limits speech and I buy this argument.

On the other hand, if you don't limit donations there is the issue of people/businesses using campaign contributions to buy access or influence (either real or perceived) and I genuinly see this as a problem.

So... my solution is to allow anyone (person or business) to donate as MUCH money as they want directly to any candidate that they want. No limits or restrictions.

<b>The catch is that the candidate can't know who gave them the money.</b> You would have to have a system in place by which you would give money to an intermediate agency who would then forward the donation to the appropriate candidate anonymously. This way there is no limitation on speech but, at the same time, you've reduced the ability for a person to buy access.

Now, if you donate $10,000 to a candidate there is nothing keeping you from going up to said candidate at a party and saying "You know... I gave you that money." Of course, there's nothing stopping someone who gave NOTHING from saying that they gave money as well.

The net result, IMO, would be that (hopefully) people would stop giving money to campaigns! People would only donate for ideological reasons and NOT for access. This would also make the election period much shorter and more reasonable (as there wouldn't be as much money to spend!).

Of course there are logistical issues with this idea (who would run it, can whoever runs it truly keep who gave what to who a secret, etc...) but I still like it!

 

Interesting idea Chase, I think you hit on the problem--that people really would know how their account got bolstered by that mystery million last week.

In many countries, the companies and lobbyest try to butter both sides of the bread to begin with, then start putting more down on whoever looks to win the election. That way whoever wins they hope to be on their good side. Maybe that is even worse than what we have.