To be honest, that idea is stolen from Star Wars, where Queen Amidala calls a no confidence vote on the Chancellor. Doesnt matter, Lucas is genius.

And yes, the idea is Swiss cheese, but damn it you gotta dream a little once and a while.

In all seriousness, if we could get the financing squared up, we would be in a much better place than we are now.

Also, what would a “no confidence” vote do for you? To me it’s what you cast for an incumbent who’s doing a bad job, like to trigger a new election or something. If you don’t like any of the instant runoff candidates you could write in your own name and not vote for any others.

One’s audience has to be earned or purchased – and I’m fine with that.

Yes, you make interesting points. But as a practical matter, it’s too often the deepest pockets that write our legislation. I’m not fine with that. If you can come up with a different way to make Washington more responsive to the public interest instead of being skewed toward the interests of a wealthy minority, I’m all ears.

Have you seen how many cable TV channels there are now?

I’m not really talking about popular culture. I’m talking about the political realm. Rich people don’t put all TV shows on that interest them (investment shows, vacation home shows?). Instead they put on whatever’s going to make them the most money. I’m good with that. What I’m objecting to is that they use their money to buy political influence that you and I do not have.

Also, I’m all about the democratizing influence of the internet. I teach this very phenomenon to my students. Low barriers to entry, skinny tail gets served, all of it. But it doesn’t change the fact that when Cargill wants a corn subsidy they get it. And it doesn’t change the fact that when the Romney’s of the world want lower capital gains taxes, they get them. And it doesn’t change the fact that when the oil industry wants tax breaks, they get them. And so on. Think of the Buffet rule. It’s very, very popular. 9 in 10 Democrats, 7 in 10 independents and even 56% of Republicans favor it. But it’s a complete political nonstarter. Never stood a chance in Washington. Dead on arrival.

On this response:

…those with the most money get more speech. And with wealth disparities like ours, it results in basically rich people talking and everyone else listening.

The problem with your view on this is that you’re attaching a right to an audience to the right to free speech. There is no constitutional right to an audience. One’s audience has to be earned or purchased – and I’m fine with that.

But I would also counter your claim that it’s “basically rich people talking and everyone else listening”. Have you seen how many cable TV channels there are now? Next time you have the urge to drink, go to someone’s house with cable TV and watch an hour of the TLC network instead. You’ll destroy just as many brain cells (if not more) than you would have with the booze. People with all sorts of education, intellect and ideas have relatively easy access to mass media in this country – and they can be quite influential without much money. A few more examples:
- In 1998 a guy using a 486 computer on a dial-up connection in a dumpy LA apartment posted a scoop that lead to the impeachment of a sitting President.
- Last week a guy with a cell phone camera and access to YouTube basically put the final nail in the coffin of Romney’s campaign.
- Justin Beiber: discovered on YouTube
- This past summer a woman was verbally assaulted on a bus by a bunch of kids. Video was posted to Facebook and a few weeks later her retirement money got a bolus of over $500k from sympathizers.
- Even me: I was a dyed-in-the-wool card carrying Republican seven years ago. Now I don’t envision myself ever voting GOP again in my life. It wasn’t NPR that changed me. It was blogs with alternative views, hidden camera scoops by enterprising young activists, exposure of financial records and funding sources of special interest groups, and online whistle-blowing about details of the use of torture during the Bush years. And in some cases, it was well produced documentaries funded by (horror!) rich people. It all made a big difference in my views. Under your rules, it would be illegal if those people pooled their money together to get their message broadcast to certain targeted audiences. All I would be left with is your proposal that everyone’s sources for information on candidates & issues be limited to the gatekeepers of a tax-payer funded and highly regulated process – an unaccountable bureaucracy that we could the Ministry of Election Media. My own political views would not have evolved this far this fast under that scheme.

There are lots more examples of the little guy getting a big audience. It’s not rich people making the only difference.

Test to have kids? Or vote? I’d rather go at the problem from the other direction: educate everyone better rather than simply weeding out the ignorant.

Well, the number one reason politics is so fucked right now, is because of parties. It causes massive division within the country. They lead people to seek more power rather than to accomplish more good. They lead people to take political “revenge.” (This is all in George Washington’s farewell address, which American promptly ignored and immersed ourselves in party politics. We’re so stupid sometimes). Perhaps the biggest problem with parties, and one that could be somewhat curbed by taking party affiliation off the ballot, is that they lead to incorrect assumptions and terribly inconsistent political philosophies. Our current parties don’t make any sense in their basic platforms. Let’s look at the issue of free trade, for example. The argument in favor of free trade is basically that it leads to lower prices of consumer goods. The argument against free trade is that leads to foreigners taking American jobs overseas. These EXACT arguments also apply to immigration. Easy entry to the country leads to lower prices of services, but it also leads to foreigners taking American jobs. Yet the two political parties SWITCH SIDES on these issues. And it’s been this way so long that people thing it’s rational. “I”m a Republican so I want free trade and closed borders.” They don’t even THINK about the issues long enough to say “wait a minute, that’s fucking retarded. I should like free trade AND open borders!” Taking party affiliation off the ballots would force people to actually learn about the candidate, and accept that you don’t have to vote straight down some nonsensical party line.

“A voting test… sometimes I feel ya on that one…but, no. Of course not.”

There should also be a test to have kids. You may sayyy I’m a dreamer… but I’m not the only one.

Today some people’s votes are more important than other people’s votes. Today people and organizations with vast amounts of money are favored by government simply because they fund the campaigns. Today we are locked in a two party system where third party candidates and ideas are usually locked out. I could probably go on. My ideas would address these concerns.

it’s a gigantic step away from the concept of the US being a republic of independent states.

Is it? In what way does it make the federal government more powerful than it already is? In what way does it make states less powerful? And besides, we still apportion senate seats two per state regardless of population. We’re not doing away with federalism by any means.

fine for primaries and local elections, but it would make zero difference in a Presidential election

I disagree. It would let Gary Johnson supporters actually vote for him, register the appeal of his ideas. Even if he didn’t win, the world would be put on notice: appeal to these voters by adopting his ideas. And also, once American voters see someone getting 20% of the vote, more of them might actually consider voting that way in the future–especially since it would be risk-free.

If someone has something valuable to say, they can use their own flippin’ money to spread the word and influence people – not MY money.

The problem, as you well know, is that those with the most money get more speech. And with wealth disparities like ours, it results in basically rich people talking and everyone else listening. Look at the things which have high popular support but absolutely no support among our so-called representatives. This happens because a minority is paying the bills there, a minority with a distinct point of view and a distinct set of interests. It’s undemocratic.

Laws enforcing that would violate the 1st Amendment.

Maybe, maybe not. And if so, screw it. Let’s amend the Constitution. This is a dream wish list.

Amend the constitution to limit the president to a single six-year term in office

I’m definitely not in favor of term limits for legislators. But this? I might go for it. I’m not sure how it fundamentally helps the deep systemic problems in American politics, but it could be ok.

#1: I disagree with this because it’s a gigantic step away from the concept of the US being a republic of independent states. The US is too large and complex to be 100% centrally managed from D.C. I’m happy leaving the states to decide individually how they wish to apportion their electoral votes.

#2 is fine for primaries and local elections, but it would make zero difference in a Presidential election – unless a 3rd party candidate was polling at at least 30%. My idea: Encourage serious 3rd party presidential candidates by using scored voting. On the ballot you rank your picks 1-5. with your #1 pick getting 5 points, #2 gets 4 points and so on. The candidate with the most points wins the election. This allows for a true representation of who most voters are willing to have in office. The way we do it now, the more people who run, the greater likelihood that the “winner” has convinced less than 40% of the people that they should be in office – meaning 60% of the people DIDN’T want that guy. Not a very “just” outcome in what’s supposed to be a democracy.

#3: Why? Is there some financial hardship among politicians and their wealthy donors I don’t know about? If someone has something valuable to say, they can use their own flippin’ money to spread the word and influence people – not MY money.

#4-5: Laws enforcing that would violate the 1st Amendment.

#6: See my response to #3

#7: Just like unicorns, leprechauns, and (in your view) Jesus: there is no such thing as a “non-partisan”.

Here is my proposal: Amend the constitution to limit the president to a single six-year term in office (I might even be willing to allow eight years). You get one shot in life so you better make it count. Focus on governing, not on getting re-elected. I’ll add that I only support this kind of one-time term limit with the President, not with Congress. They enacted term limits in the California legislature. It has had zero net benefit. All that we get now is a new set of bozos to replace the old ones. But with the President I think it would be different because he’s in an executive position.