means for changing the system we reside under. I certainly don't enjoy that the 270 rule ends up deciding the Presidency and essentially sets up a 2 party system of power. I think the country would do better with 3 or 4 different parties. I could see how liberals and libertarians would work well together when it came from keeping us out of wars. (As it is now, libertarians have to essentially fall in line with Republicans in regards to taxes etc). There are other time progressives and Republicans would band together, like creating those sin taxes on pot, alcohol, cigs, and now soda. Chips, brownies, and pizza is next.. (Young college kids are going to be screwed out of all their favorite things to do and munch on - maybe it will help pay for the free education everyone very much deserves).
However, where we would end up messing ourselves up on, is the executive branch of govt. Say we have Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats, and Populist Progressives. And CA went Populist, NY and greater NEw England area goes Democratic, the middle states go Republican, and FL and TX go Libertarian... The Republicans win by default because they got most of the middle states... NY/ New England vs CA splitting gives the USA a conservative bent. These are some of the issues we see in European countries under parliamentary systems. And it was how the National Socialist Party (Nazi's) came into power in the 1930's. With a bad economy, fascist rhetoric, and the Reinstag Fire, the country was ripe for the extremism of a mad man. Hitler's party only won 33% of the vote. Perhaps it could be said that Trump would be that person today that could cause a similar rise within America; so, in this very "change", anti-establishment election year, having multiple viable parties trying to garner the most votes for an electoral college, it could be disasterous. Then again, would we pick the President based on state totals, or based on representative votes elected into seats within the House only and then only districts matter? Would we count the Senate input?
Also, I do believe that we would have to increase the number of representatives in the Senate to 3 per state. If we had multiple viable party selections. (On a side note, I think we should increase that number anyway, and make sure that one of the 3 senators that is elected from each state is a "minority" representative, i.e., it has to be a woman, African American, Latino, etc, so that we have a better represented democracy. The country is going to be a majority "minority" country one of these days and already is in some states, and women are highly under-represented, even though we actually have more women than men in this country).
Or would our country be better served to create a middle tier, regional governing body? Our country is extremely large with many different issues of concern, economics, climate, natural resources, historical backgrounds, ethnicities. We literally have states that are larger than many countries in Europe. California, alone, has the 7th largest GDP when compared with economies from around the world. Is it fair for someone in Wyoming to have as much "voting power" as someone from California? Likewise, is someone living in the South East worried about blizzards or earthquakes? Is North Dakota concerned about hurricanes?
So, would we do better for our citizens to have regional governing bodies that enact policies that help regionals concerns, and leave the Federal Govt mainly in charge of distributing tax monies into the regions, taking care of military necessities, overseeing "Medicare for All" (so every citizen has health care as a right), set educational standards, and help foster infrastructure growth across state and regional areas)? Would an idea like this make too much government, or eventually lead to the separation of the Inites Stares as a whole?
We are a very young country as far as experiments if a Demcratic Republic go. When the founding fathers first established a federal govt, there were 13 colonies that signed on and VT became the 14th. The original colonial regions were the first states that signed to ratify the federal govt as a power. Back then, states had more power than a federal governing body did; and it was mainly for protection against foreign countries coming in to pick state by state off after the Revolution War and to rid state to state tariffs from one another. Could you imagine being in the country of MA and shipping goods down to VA or to GA, and the tax rates changing depending on the state one was trying to sell to OR goods traveling between states charged a user fee for acceding travel through their borders? It would have been a costly endeavor... And as we can see by the time we had the Civil War, the state's had quite a it of power and differences of opinion as to how much power they should retain over the federal governing body. And essentially, states lost their independence to succeed... And forever more, the Federal Govt has remained the more authoritative legislative and judicial body (along with the executive branch overseeing bureaucracy and military might). Perhaps, a regional division would allow a valuable in-between; a check on states making idiotic bathroom guidelines (btw, tell me which party is supposedly the "nanny state" party?), and the federal govt unilaterally sending us to disasterous wars or for incompetent political assignments to federal agencies to maintain competency and betterment for the American people.
Anyway, if the system is changed, I'd like to hear and see actual viable plans for these changes. I'd very much like to see money out of politics, verifiable vote counts, and a sensible system in regards to voting (quit the suppression tactics). It would actually be very easy to "enrol" citizens onto voter registrations. Anyone currently a citizen and over the age of 18 is given enrolled automatically, given a voter registration number, and that number follows you wherever you live. If you move to a different address, that number moves with you and is easily moved in a federal voter ID system. If the IRS can keep track of us and social security can ID us, we can automatically register voters at 18. When you move, you have to get new ID's anyway, the Voter database would get updated as well with new precinct and state info and party info can be updated easily. With technology so easily at hand, the ID can sport a picture, address, and part choice... (If you are a college kid, at registration day, your Voter ID could automatically update if you wished to vote in that states elections (some may still choose to vote in their home states), but that is also an easily maintained item, considering the technology we have available to us... Making voting hard, is not democracy. More people participating is a good thing for many of us... Maybe then the two party system wouldn't be quite as bad... Along with money out and not rigging the election totals, would create sanity and perhaps a better selection of candidates?
= new reply since forum marked as read
