D6fer's tags:
There is no way in hell I could ever get elected to anything probably, but if I were running, these would be my positions:
 
Establish a Single Term limit for congress, senate and the president of six years only...no second terms....a person could serve in all three, but for only one term. I believe this would end partisanship for the sake of partisanship.
 
I believe that currently there are too many people that do not seek political office due to the fact that they are over-qualified, and can do much better financially in the private sector.
 
After term limits are established, raise the wage of each office as follows: Congress-1 million$ annually
Senate 2 million$ annually and the president to 5 million$ annually. All positions would be given a bonus equal to 25% of there annual income if the budget is balanced and there is an actual surplus in the federal treasury at the end of each fiscal year.
 
This would attract more qualified candidates to these positions.
 
Make lobbying illegal as we know it....make lobbiests, lobby congress upon appointment, no appointment would be granted without prior public petition. And all sessions would be televised.
 
All campaign donations would have to be made annonymously only through a national campaign finance bank, and would be distributed to the parties or canidates annonymously.
 
 
Immigration: Finish the fence. Take action on all current illegal immigrants while increasing the amount of greencards for those who use the proper legal channels for immigration.
Change the laws of naturalized citizens to exclude those born to illegal aliens, anyone born to illegals under the age of 18 would be deported with their parents.
 
War on Terror: Lift the restraints on our soldiers. If fired upon from a mosque...level it!
 
Trade: Impose tarrifs on all imports from china until they stop cheating.
 
Foreign affairs: Offer all countries a "clean slate" policy address world leaders and advise of our intentions and our boundaries.


del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • silverwhisper said on Apr 06, 2007....
    d6, i think that the partisanship would become even worse if there was so much turnover in congress--how else would people find common cause?

    campaign finance is tied very strongly to freedom of speech, so anonymizing campaign donations would become extremely tricky, don't you think? it would also make it imipossible for candidates to know who did/didn't find their stuff meaningful.

    ed
  • TinSoldier said on Apr 06, 2007....
    I really can't back these as practical suggestions, but I like the sentiment behind them.

  • muckpar said on Apr 06, 2007....
    I like the idea of a single term, but I would put it at 4 years instead of 6
     
    I disagree with your pay schedule, way too high, their job is not that complicated, basically common sense
     
    On lobbying and donations:  take the money out of the equation lobbying would be a non-issue, but it is an expression of free speech, so I would set a limit of 500 dollars for everybody from the kennedy's down to me.
     
    Your plan is really symbolic of what most Americans feel.  Our government is broke and needs a major overhaul.  The only way that is going to happen would be if the government goes bankrupt, when you have millions not receiving those monthly checks things will get nasty very quickly.  And yes it can happen, even to the good ole USA.
  • TinSoldier said on Apr 06, 2007....
    My main problem is that while I do believe in term limits I don't believe in artificially short term limits.

    I would say six terms in the House of Representatives (that's twelve years), two terms in the Senate (that's twelve more years) and of course we've already got eight years for President.

    I don't have a problem with "career politicians", but there needs to be more churn in the system and kind of an "up or out" type of policy, considering a career might follow from House → Senate → Presidency. And then retirement.

    As for lobbying, that's just another way to get things done. People complain about the two-party system, and yet there are all of these organizations which have their own niche interests that lobby politicians for those interests. Unions. The Sierra Club. The ACLU. The NRA. Many hundreds more. People like to complain about "special interests" but they almost invariably mean someone else's interests.

    Not that there aren't some problems with the system, but doing away with it would be throwing out the baby with the bath water.
  • D6fer said on Apr 06, 2007....

    Sw.....I disagree....I think any politician that would want to make a name for himself would want to work to get something done otherwise he would have no chance at political advancement. I also think that making the funding annonymous would take the carrot away from the big business and unions and give it back toi the people where it belongs.

    muck....don't you think we could attract a better quality of people to the job if it actually paid something close to what some are making on the free market? How many Lee Iacocas or Jack Welches (just examples) could we attract to these positions...people who know how to get things done and motivate.

    TS....I used to be a opponent of term limits....it's kinda like babysitting the voting population....but with all of the corruption and lack of voter turnout, I think it's needed.

  • TinSoldier said on Apr 06, 2007....
    And I agree, D6fer. It is needed. I don't think it will end corruption or improve voter turnout though.

    What I would do to increase voter turnout is to turn election days into national holidays.

    Of course here in Oregon we have vote by mail and we usually get pretty decent turnout.
  • D6fer said on Apr 06, 2007....
    yeah...we have that here in Washington too....at first I really liked it, but now I am not sure I trust the results....I mean, how do you really know who is sending in that ballot?
     
    I think that the combination of all of the above plan would clean up the corruption...1st of all, all of the current crooks would be gone.....the higher salaries would open the doors to a better class of people....and the anonymity of the funding would drastically shorten the campaign season and there would be a lot less money wasted on campaigning.
  • KayRoseOrchid said on Apr 06, 2007....
    I am for term limits 100% Your proposed pay...WAY TOO MUCH though. I really am not a fan of career politicians. Some end up corrupt, that's for sure. Lobbying is a part of the legislative process. I agree with TinSoldier on the importance of lobbyists. As for campaigning, I would love to see a change in how politicians raise public awareness for themselves. I don't think there should be commercials. I think candidates should go on a national tour. Go to major cities in every state and speak at colleges, town halls, auditoriums, stadiums, etc. Campaign in the streets. Go old school style. I'd love to be a part of that type of campaigning. Whether one raises a huge amount of money or not, all candidates should have a fair shot. Immigration and trade I don't know much about so it would be unfair for me to comment about those. I am intrigued by your "clean slate" policy! I think it makes sense.

    =)
  • D6fer said on Apr 06, 2007....

    Kay....thanks for droppin by! A fresh young perspective is always welcome!

    I don't think the pay is out of line at all, for what we wish to accomplish...it's way too much for what we currently have though, on that I could agree.

    I don't think my plan would work if it were picked apart and served ala carte though....need the specific term limits, the pay , lobby reform, and campaign finance reform.

  • TinSoldier said on Apr 06, 2007....
    What about the electoral college? Personally, I believe in it but I know that others do not.

    I can't even really defend it except that I think that's the way it should be because that's the way it's always been. I like the idea of states still remaining important entities when it comes to picking presidents, but I do think that instead of winner take all in each state the electoral votes should match the popular vote in that state.

    One of the states already does this, but I can't remember which one.

    I also think the number of members in the House of Representatives should be increased beyond the 435 currently serving. At least twice as many or more, really. Since each representative represents so many people, it gets more and more difficult to pay attention to individual voices in your district.
  • SeeingRed said on Apr 06, 2007....
    D6fer - once in, they would change you. It's extremely difficult to swim up stream for any length of time.  It is a shame that politicians feel as Marx did; "The masses tend to be erratic."  SR
  • husbandhater said on Apr 06, 2007....
    Where do I sign up to vote for you at D? I love your ideas they ALL work for me!
  • KayRoseOrchid said on Apr 06, 2007....
    oohh TinSoldier...I like the idea of expanding the House. There should be more representatives representing the people so all their voices are heard.
  • D6fer said on Apr 07, 2007....

    I think the electorial college is corupt and needs to be done away with. The popular vote would insure that the west coast vote would always matter....I don't know how many elections I've seen when it seems that it is over before I could even get to the polls in the evening after work. Thanks for bringing that up TS!

    SeeingRed...I hear what your saying....seems it changes everyone....There is no way that one single polititian could pull off an agenda like this....it would take a groundswell of support from the American people to make sweeping changes such as this.

    HH....oh thanks! hey look I got 1 vote anyway....look out mike dukakis!

     

  • TinSoldier said on Apr 07, 2007....
    Regarding the West Coast -- the solution to that is simple: the polls across the country should open and close at the same time. So if they have to open earlier on the West Coast and close later on the East Coast, then so be it.

    The same window should be open for national elections across the country.
  • D6fer said on Apr 07, 2007....
    I believe it is a 6 hour time difference between Maine and Hawaii....I don't think you could pull it off.... I also think that it should be illegal reporting results until after polls close everywhere.
  • TinSoldier said on Apr 07, 2007....
    Checking quickly, I see it's about five hours different...

    I forgot completely about Hawaii (and Alaska) but it could still work if Election Day were a national holiday.

    Open the polls from 7:00am until 7:00pm in Hawaii, and from 12:00pm to 12:00am in Maine.  Not that I think this will ever be implemented, but still.
  • KayRoseOrchid said on Apr 07, 2007....
    hmmm...interesting...a voting day holiday! I like that!

    D6fer: I think the electoral college is a bit unfair. If I am not mistaken and if I remember well enough, the electoral college occurs after the election and only restates the voting results based on which candidate won the most votes in each district and those chosen to be a part of the electoral college cannot change the votes. Please correct me if my understanding is a bit off. Also, because of all the districts (or most at least on the west coast) being winner-take-all, or based on which candidate won the plurality of the votes, it seems unfair. Shouldn't people be elected based on the grand total of popular votes? It seems to me that whomever gets the most popular votes should be elected into office because that demonstrates what the people want. Plus, it also signifies that every vote truly counts.

    thanks for getting me to think.... ;P
  • TinSoldier said on Apr 07, 2007....
    Kay: The founding fathers tried to make a balance between populous states and not-populous states. That is one reason for our bicameral legislature in the US. You have the House of Representatives based on population but every state, no matter the population, gets two Senators.

    The electoral college is allocated the same way: one vote for every representative and one for every senator. So populous states still get a larger say in electing the president, but not as much larger than if we went with a straight popular vote.

    Most states allocate all of their electoral votes to whichever candidate who wins the most popular vote in that state. It's called "winner take all".

    So if in California, say that Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote by 2% points. Instead of dividing California's 55 electoral votes almost equally between the candidates, Clinton would get all 55 of them. That's over 20% of the total electoral votes needed to win -- very, very important.

    It looks like Maine and Nebraska are the two states that don't do winner-takes-all. I like their systems (see: Wikipedia).

    Note: the electors are usually party functionaries or whatever but they are not generally required to vote the way everyone expects them to do. Although it is pretty rare for them not to do so.

    I thought that you were a political science major? No offense, but this is basic civics stuff. Unless you're not based in the US.

    Just Google "electoral college" if you want to know more. Wikipedia has a very good article, as usual.
  • KayRoseOrchid said on Apr 07, 2007....
    Wikipedia is considered an UNRELIABLE source by all of my political science professors! Plus, I must admit that no matter how many times the electoral college is explained to me, the more confused I am by it. I think it is a math thing. I am not good at grasping anything mathematical.
    Thank you for your explanation TinSoldier. It sorta makes sense to me but also sorta doesn't. I guess I just don't like studying the electoral college! I am currently more interested in International Relations and hope to study Comparative Politics again next semester. I took the intro to comparative politics over a year ago at my junior/community college and liked it.

    Thanks again =)
  • silverwhisper said on Apr 09, 2007....
    i detest the electoral college. i believe that it artificially inflates the value of votes from sparsely-populated states and discounts the votes in densely-populated states.

    kay: that's as it should be--instructors shouldn't accept wikipedia. but for relatively informal discussion i think it's satisfactory. :>

    ed
  • TinSoldier said on Apr 09, 2007....
    silverwhisper opined:
    i detest the electoral college. i believe that it artificially inflates the value of votes from sparsely-populated states and discounts the votes in densely-populated states.

    We've had this discussion before -- your reason for disliking the electoral college is my reason for liking it, and its whole raison d’être of it in the first place.
  • TinSoldier said on Apr 09, 2007....
    Hey, I'm reading more up on the electoral college now. As pointed out, Wikipedia's article is pretty good with pros and cons of different ideas near the end of the article.

    I'm also reading Federalist papers #39 and #68. The most interesting link I've found, though, is this. I'm only on page 4 of 20, but I think this is going to be a good read.
  • silverwhisper said on Apr 09, 2007....
    TS: very well, then. why force all electors in a state to vote as a bloc, though?

    ed
  • TinSoldier said on Apr 09, 2007....
    I don't like the winner-takes-all system, ed.

    I like the Maine system but again there are pros and cons. I'm still studying...
  • silverwhisper said on Apr 09, 2007....
    i don't think anyone but a certain tolkien fan of our mutual acquaintance does like the winner takes all system. :>

    ed
  • KayRoseOrchid said on Apr 09, 2007....
    thanks TinSoldier, I will read that article when I get a chance!!! Same goes for the Federalist Papers 39 and 68. gotta go! =P
  • D6fer said on Apr 10, 2007....
    I wouldn't mind the electorial colege so much, if they wouldn't constantly be re-drawing the district lines to suit political needs....both parties are guilty of this.
  • TinSoldier said on Apr 10, 2007....
    Well, yeah, D6. I have a problem with that as well. However redrawing districts for political purposes ("gerrymandering") affects the House of Representatives far more than it does the presidential election or the Electoral College.

    In fact, it has almost no bearing on the presidential election or the Electoral College.

    If you read my response to silverwhisper's blog, then you see that I basically agree.
  • D6fer said on Apr 10, 2007....
    yes you are right....but I do think that a popular vote would silence the critics and encourage more voting overall.
    Had the electorial college been done away with years ago....I think the 2000 election may not have been as close as it was, and in fact that gore would not have gotten the popular vote. Just my opinion.

Comment on "When I am elected"

politics law immigration Im in president Congress senate (Click to add tags below)

(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Comment Anonymously

Every week, I delve into our local city entertainment/op-ed/newspaper....
The only human being on the planet that can eject a huge turd, yet somehow dupe the media into thinking it's a golden egg that smells like roses....
He didn't even try to answer it. What would be your answer? Were we right in dropping the bombs on Japan?...

Sarah Palin would be a disaster for the Republicans,
in my humble opinion.

...