There are some simple ideas which are simply genius and others which are just simply dumb. This is one of the latter; the idea of choosing posts of responsibility within the public administration randomly is laughable. It's like you don't realize some type of preparation is necessary for someone to occupy the administration. An average american is just as easily corrupted by private interests. An idea like this, if implemented, will only make the current situation more unstable, duh.
@SurferRosa79 This video isn't without comic merit though. When it states, "We would start small, running an experiment in one state".... it's like you actually believe a community will obey to this rant? LOL How pretentious! I mean, even the libertarian project in New Hampshire was proposed as a doctoral thesis in politics and it's light years away from running smoothly still. I bet you figured out this is the only way you'll ever get to be leader of something, reality check, it won't work!:P
I'm way too shy and socially awkward to be a leader. But thanks for considering me ;)
But I totally agree that such an experiment would be nearly impossible to enact. I'm just throwing out ideas. I mean, if we want to improve our society, shouldn't we also indulge in thinking outside the box a bit?
Nice to hear from you. I think showing/finding corruption would be a lot easier with common people. If your neighbor won the lottery and suddenly he starts raking in cash or buys a mansion... odds are there is some corruption there.
I'm not saying it would be a perfect system. I don't think such a thing exists. I am looking for a system that would have checks and balances on the State and Corporations... and I think placing common people in positions of power is probably the best.
Similar to Richard Dawkins bringing awareness to the immorality of religious indoctrination of children, society needs a consciousness raising concerning social justice.
A couple of years ago, I was at a film festival watching movies about Global Warming. I became furious because they all said the same things, raising awareness of the problem, but none of them had any realistic kind of plan on what to do about it.
I think there is a lot of awareness of problems. The thing is, we lack a leader and a plan towards fixing those things.
There's not any ONE thing that's going to correct ALL the injustices in our system. You have some good ideas for balancing the injustices in our political system, but as long as society allows individuals to hoard money and resources, there will inherently be an unfair advantage for the elite, those who currently wield power over others. Why should anyone have any advantage over others???
We live in a world with finite resources needed for survival. This inevitably leads to conflict.
As to why some should have an advantage... because most want to live and spread their selfish genes. Those who prepare for disasters (by hoarding) have an advantage, not just in society, but in physical survival.
Well one thing that might help is laws should be passed that politicians must disclose who and how much money they've received from special interests.
The problem is, they've already meta-gamed this. Corporations fund special interest groups with names that sound benevolent or positive... but really represent things that are harmful for the American people.
I LOVE IT! At least an experiment, I think it's worth trying. I've had thoughts along the same lines, but I was thinking of something more akin to jury selection. Same concept, though.
I agree. The other option is to attack the corporate personhood ammendments of the 1800s which give rise to the practice of lobbying. You touch on something much more important with education though- and I would say that you should do a video about "how to fix politics"- the root of course being the general ignorance/ lack of education. Not just ignorance, but the fact they consider themself knowledgeable. I would say that's the underlying problem. Your thoughts?
I totally think we should attack corporate "personhood", but I fail to see that being fixed unless we change other things first. The SCOTUS & other branches are firmly in the hand of corporate interests and we don't have an avenue to effect change.
I agree that ignorance/lack of education is a problem, but I don't have any decent ideas on how to fix that right now. We are being hit with information overload/media saturation combined with tons of distractions and misinformation.
That is a pretty good idea, far preferable to what we have now. The other thing I was thinking about was coming up a meritocracy based legislating branch to replace the senate. Their appointment would be from leading institutions for research, economics, and think tanks within each state. Then there would be the balance from the common man, and the intellectual portion as well.
I've wondered about how to do something like that. I worry that it might lead to science becoming even more politicized... also, I think the odds of something like that passing make it impossible. Nearly half our population doesn't agree with evolution, not to mention climate deniers. Basically, I think the mistrust of science will keep anything like that from happening.
I don't think a neo-Nazi would represent a minority group in the same way that an Atheist or a person of color would. Racism and white privilege is systemic, and while neo-Nazis are extremists, their thinking ultimately upholds the status quo. Also, I think identity politics don't get us very far--just because you're a person of color (or a woman) doesn't mean you're going to advocate for social change (Condaleeza Rice isn't doing women of color any favors). Hegemony is way too strong, sadly.
I think that a random selection would certainly be better than voting. As someone mentioned below, almost anything is superior to a popularity contest. However, I would definitely say that it's not the BEST solution by a long mile. That's uphill. And underwater. Someone mentioned that they wouldn't want their brain surgeons elected or randomly selected, and I think they have a point. But it's always nice to see people actually suggest solutions. Good to see you making videos again Bri!
Evangelical Conservatives frequently represent my economic interests. For example, I'm sure I could get the vast majority of them to agree against corporate welfare and protectionist corporate legislation. They would also be against regarding corporations as "people".
If you talk with people 1on1 without resorting to insults and derogatory remarks, it's amazing how close even fundies are to atheists in many topics. I personally blame the media for much conflict & ignorance
@imrational There is more to "my" interests than merely economic interests. I am not willing to sell out my core principles for my economic interests.
@imrational My core principles are: 1) commitment to a secular republic and the separation of church and state, 2) commitment to a reality-based science education and 3) commitment to human and civil rights, including the rights of gays, women, and atheists.
The Evangelical Right stands diametrically opposed to me on each of these issues.
Many of the things you mention deal more with the SCOTUS than with representatives of Congress. Don't forget that elected officials like the Senate and President should stop any potential legislation that was opposed to your goals. At least with my suggestion, atheists have better odds of serving as representatives.
@imrational "Don't forget that elected officials like the Senate and President should stop any potential legislation that was opposed to your goals."
They should. But they don't. Many in the evangelical camp consistently demonstrate complete disregard for my stated core principles. Every day. Bottom line: Evangelical Conservatives do not represent me better then others. Or you. Or anyone who doesn't want to live in a Christianist theocracy.
@imrational I dunno. Most people are pretty stupid. I basically think we should pick our politicians the way we pick out scientists, engineers, astrophysicists, doctors, and anybody else who needs their head screwed on straight in order to do an important job. As you've pointed out, just about anything is better than a popularity contest. I want my leaders selected randomly or by popular vote about as much as I want my brain surgeon selected that way.
I entertain the thought of anarchy from time to time, however, it is fantasy. Without a governmental system, we would quickly see a return to slavery, debtor's prisons, and a ton of human rights abuses.
Btw, everything appears to eventually fail and their is no true utopia. One man's utopia is another man's dystopia.
I certainly won't claim that I know how to create a utopia, or that such a thing can even exist(like you say, the term is (highly) subjective).
However, I am convinced that with time and further social enlightenment(which I think is inevitable, even though there seem to be many people that try their best to create another dark age of sorts) social order and prosperity without coercive bodies(read: governments) is possible.
I consider myself a Libertarian and did have leanings towards anarcho-capitalism. Unfortunately, I don't think we have safeguards from the tyranny of the wealthy. I think in anarcho-capitalism, we would quickly be reduced to slavery.
Okay, when you (or any group) gives money to a candidate, they expect a return on their investment. Imagine if a candidate took money and turned on his backers. What special interest group/lobbying firm would ever invest in that candidate again? He would never be trusted and would lose any future funding of his campaigns.
Flaws in your idea: Just because someone signs something saying you're of sound mind doesn't mean you are. There are plenty of crazies who lose every time, yet still have 25 or more votes. You'd be giving those people the same chance to win as someone who is legitimately able to run the place.
Don't forget that there is more than one representative from a state. Even if one madman was selected, he would be checked and balanced by his fellow representatives, by the Senate, the Pres, and the SCOTUS.
Also, look around. We've elected madmen throughout our history. Heck, right now madmen & women are our only candidates on the Republican ticket for 2012 President.
@imrational But we have an opportunity to stop them. We can learn from our mistakes & vote against them next time. Under your idea, a neo-nazi gets 25 other neo-nazis to sign for him and he has as much chance as a learned professor of political theory who has actual good ideas. Limiting contributions from big business is the best way. Appeal that when Scalia & Thomas are gone and you'll probably overturn it.
Okay, so what if a neo-nazi becomes a representative? What damage could they do? Propose legislation that would be shot down by the other reps? Vote for some other bad legislation? His votes would still be in the minority.
Also, so... a neo-nazi gets 25 of his friends to sign for him. I hope you understand that this is actually beneficial in that minorities will be allowed true representation. Yeah, the Nazi thing is ugly... but what if it were atheists? Or an ethnicity that is under-served in government?
@imrational Do atheists or minorities need representation? What we need is people who do the job right, who look out for everyone.
What about nomination box flooding? The first person to figure out "if 26 of us decide to run on the same ideals, we'll have the seat" will win every time until they're caught. Get you & your 25 friends to all run & sign each others' forms, and you essentially buy the seat. If enough extremists organize something like that nationwide via the internet, we're fucked.
and what's to stop everyone else from doing the same thing? The extremists would still be limited to just the 26 candidates whereas the majority of level-headed people would still outnumber them.
I would also like to point out some possible benefits to such a system: it would encourage discourse as people would talk to one another to try and sway them to their beliefs. It would benefit education because people would want to ensure that people would have the best education possibl
Seems like a good plan. But I want to talk also about cap on funds. It is not written in stone that there will never ever be a cap on funds. First the idea has to be known as a solution by the general public and an understanding of why such a cap would do tremendous good. Then what is left is courage to protest and some day there might be that cap on funds. New ideas shouldn't take away this goal of permanently fixing this rigged system.
A cap on funding would have to be a federal law... I don't see anything like that passing, what with the corruption already in existence. Special interest groups/lobbyists would fight caps tooth and nail. With my plan, a state could have their Constitution amended/changed by voters alone, without the law being warped and weakened by riders.
I thought of 25 signatures because that is a number that I think most decent citizens would be able to acquire. The idea is not to make it about popularity... but about putting common men in government.
On top of that, term limits and the preferential voting system would certainly help, I think we can change that at the state level. The random lottery sounds really interesting, the Athenian system ran something similar to that.
I don't see how term limits would be beneficial. Good politicians would be forced out and new candidates would still be bought and sold before being elected.
I'm not sure if 25 signatures would eliminate the possibility someone of an unsound mind being able to run, which as I understand is the purpose of that part. But it's defiantly an interesting idea. I'm willing to try anything over the current corrupt process.
Don't forget that the state would have more than that one representative. In other words, the odds of someone insane winning the lottery are low, but if one made it thru, they'd still be checked and balanced by the other representatives, the Senate, the President and SCOTUS.
Not to mention the fact that we have insane candidates elected all the time. ex. Michelle Bachmann.
Public funding, no kind of private funding is allowed or heavily regulated. Everything should be transparent.
Multi-party system, the two party system is completely broken.
Don't allow politicians to take jobs in the sectors they have been regulating or legislating for or against for at least 10 years after quitting politics.
i like ur idea!!
Super1911Bobby 3 months ago
wolf[dash]pac[dot]com for a 28th amendment
hoosiergambler 3 months ago
There are some simple ideas which are simply genius and others which are just simply dumb. This is one of the latter; the idea of choosing posts of responsibility within the public administration randomly is laughable. It's like you don't realize some type of preparation is necessary for someone to occupy the administration. An average american is just as easily corrupted by private interests. An idea like this, if implemented, will only make the current situation more unstable, duh.
SurferRosa79 3 months ago
@SurferRosa79 This video isn't without comic merit though. When it states, "We would start small, running an experiment in one state".... it's like you actually believe a community will obey to this rant? LOL How pretentious! I mean, even the libertarian project in New Hampshire was proposed as a doctoral thesis in politics and it's light years away from running smoothly still. I bet you figured out this is the only way you'll ever get to be leader of something, reality check, it won't work!:P
SurferRosa79 3 months ago
@SurferRosa79
I'm way too shy and socially awkward to be a leader. But thanks for considering me ;)
But I totally agree that such an experiment would be nearly impossible to enact. I'm just throwing out ideas. I mean, if we want to improve our society, shouldn't we also indulge in thinking outside the box a bit?
What ideas would you suggest?
imrational 3 months ago
@SurferRosa79
Nice to hear from you. I think showing/finding corruption would be a lot easier with common people. If your neighbor won the lottery and suddenly he starts raking in cash or buys a mansion... odds are there is some corruption there.
I'm not saying it would be a perfect system. I don't think such a thing exists. I am looking for a system that would have checks and balances on the State and Corporations... and I think placing common people in positions of power is probably the best.
imrational 3 months ago
Put all the cock suckers on an island and start over.
OORah4life 4 months ago
Nice video, I especially liked the point ( 3:14 ) about the integrity that you have versus the money you could have.
vaev 4 months ago
@vaev
Thanks! It's nice to know people watched more than the first 30 seconds ;)
imrational 4 months ago
You speak the truth sir. I approved this video as a response to the OWS One demand one. Hope it helps you to make your voice heard.
CaruntuHoria 4 months ago
Similar to Richard Dawkins bringing awareness to the immorality of religious indoctrination of children, society needs a consciousness raising concerning social justice.
a0eoj 4 months ago
@a0eoj
A couple of years ago, I was at a film festival watching movies about Global Warming. I became furious because they all said the same things, raising awareness of the problem, but none of them had any realistic kind of plan on what to do about it.
I think there is a lot of awareness of problems. The thing is, we lack a leader and a plan towards fixing those things.
imrational 4 months ago
There's not any ONE thing that's going to correct ALL the injustices in our system. You have some good ideas for balancing the injustices in our political system, but as long as society allows individuals to hoard money and resources, there will inherently be an unfair advantage for the elite, those who currently wield power over others. Why should anyone have any advantage over others???
a0eoj 4 months ago
@a0eoj
We live in a world with finite resources needed for survival. This inevitably leads to conflict.
As to why some should have an advantage... because most want to live and spread their selfish genes. Those who prepare for disasters (by hoarding) have an advantage, not just in society, but in physical survival.
imrational 4 months ago
Well one thing that might help is laws should be passed that politicians must disclose who and how much money they've received from special interests.
JamesJimRaynor 4 months ago
@JamesJimRaynor
The problem is, they've already meta-gamed this. Corporations fund special interest groups with names that sound benevolent or positive... but really represent things that are harmful for the American people.
imrational 4 months ago
I LOVE IT! At least an experiment, I think it's worth trying. I've had thoughts along the same lines, but I was thinking of something more akin to jury selection. Same concept, though.
RabidApe 4 months ago
I agree. The other option is to attack the corporate personhood ammendments of the 1800s which give rise to the practice of lobbying. You touch on something much more important with education though- and I would say that you should do a video about "how to fix politics"- the root of course being the general ignorance/ lack of education. Not just ignorance, but the fact they consider themself knowledgeable. I would say that's the underlying problem. Your thoughts?
hannonja 5 months ago
@hannonja
I totally think we should attack corporate "personhood", but I fail to see that being fixed unless we change other things first. The SCOTUS & other branches are firmly in the hand of corporate interests and we don't have an avenue to effect change.
I agree that ignorance/lack of education is a problem, but I don't have any decent ideas on how to fix that right now. We are being hit with information overload/media saturation combined with tons of distractions and misinformation.
imrational 5 months ago
That is a pretty good idea, far preferable to what we have now. The other thing I was thinking about was coming up a meritocracy based legislating branch to replace the senate. Their appointment would be from leading institutions for research, economics, and think tanks within each state. Then there would be the balance from the common man, and the intellectual portion as well.
hannonja 5 months ago
@hannonja
I've wondered about how to do something like that. I worry that it might lead to science becoming even more politicized... also, I think the odds of something like that passing make it impossible. Nearly half our population doesn't agree with evolution, not to mention climate deniers. Basically, I think the mistrust of science will keep anything like that from happening.
imrational 5 months ago
I don't think a neo-Nazi would represent a minority group in the same way that an Atheist or a person of color would. Racism and white privilege is systemic, and while neo-Nazis are extremists, their thinking ultimately upholds the status quo. Also, I think identity politics don't get us very far--just because you're a person of color (or a woman) doesn't mean you're going to advocate for social change (Condaleeza Rice isn't doing women of color any favors). Hegemony is way too strong, sadly.
missytenny 5 months ago
I think that a random selection would certainly be better than voting. As someone mentioned below, almost anything is superior to a popularity contest. However, I would definitely say that it's not the BEST solution by a long mile. That's uphill. And underwater. Someone mentioned that they wouldn't want their brain surgeons elected or randomly selected, and I think they have a point. But it's always nice to see people actually suggest solutions. Good to see you making videos again Bri!
- Solomon
Krayorik2point0 5 months ago
Comment removed
Krayorik2point0 5 months ago
Evangelical Conservatives represent you better then others? Really? What century do you live in?
FreeThoughtCrime 5 months ago
@FreeThoughtCrime
Evangelical Conservatives frequently represent my economic interests. For example, I'm sure I could get the vast majority of them to agree against corporate welfare and protectionist corporate legislation. They would also be against regarding corporations as "people".
If you talk with people 1on1 without resorting to insults and derogatory remarks, it's amazing how close even fundies are to atheists in many topics. I personally blame the media for much conflict & ignorance
imrational 5 months ago
@imrational There is more to "my" interests than merely economic interests. I am not willing to sell out my core principles for my economic interests.
FreeThoughtCrime 5 months ago
@FreeThoughtCrime
So what core principles would you not be willing to compromise on?
Besides ensuring fair trade practices, what should a government be responsible for?
imrational 5 months ago
@imrational My core principles are: 1) commitment to a secular republic and the separation of church and state, 2) commitment to a reality-based science education and 3) commitment to human and civil rights, including the rights of gays, women, and atheists.
The Evangelical Right stands diametrically opposed to me on each of these issues.
FreeThoughtCrime 5 months ago
@FreeThoughtCrime
Many of the things you mention deal more with the SCOTUS than with representatives of Congress. Don't forget that elected officials like the Senate and President should stop any potential legislation that was opposed to your goals. At least with my suggestion, atheists have better odds of serving as representatives.
imrational 5 months ago
@imrational "Don't forget that elected officials like the Senate and President should stop any potential legislation that was opposed to your goals."
They should. But they don't. Many in the evangelical camp consistently demonstrate complete disregard for my stated core principles. Every day. Bottom line: Evangelical Conservatives do not represent me better then others. Or you. Or anyone who doesn't want to live in a Christianist theocracy.
FreeThoughtCrime 5 months ago
You know it's broken when people start seriously considering randomly selecting candidates a better solution.
Ormaaj 5 months ago
@Ormaaj
Such a system worked in ancient Greece and also embodies the core concept of Democracy, that people can govern themselves.
imrational 5 months ago
@imrational I dunno. Most people are pretty stupid. I basically think we should pick our politicians the way we pick out scientists, engineers, astrophysicists, doctors, and anybody else who needs their head screwed on straight in order to do an important job. As you've pointed out, just about anything is better than a popularity contest. I want my leaders selected randomly or by popular vote about as much as I want my brain surgeon selected that way.
Ormaaj 5 months ago
Why not get rid of the corrupt system completely?
What you want to do is fiddle with the knobs, trim the claws of the beast that is the government.
If you look at it empirically(i.e. at the last 2000 years of history) governments always failed.
How many other things do we use that have been invented millennia ago, and haven't worked properly since?
amulware 5 months ago
@amulware
I entertain the thought of anarchy from time to time, however, it is fantasy. Without a governmental system, we would quickly see a return to slavery, debtor's prisons, and a ton of human rights abuses.
Btw, everything appears to eventually fail and their is no true utopia. One man's utopia is another man's dystopia.
imrational 5 months ago
@imrational
I certainly won't claim that I know how to create a utopia, or that such a thing can even exist(like you say, the term is (highly) subjective).
However, I am convinced that with time and further social enlightenment(which I think is inevitable, even though there seem to be many people that try their best to create another dark age of sorts) social order and prosperity without coercive bodies(read: governments) is possible.
Have you ever looked into anarcho-capitalism?
amulware 5 months ago
@amulware
I consider myself a Libertarian and did have leanings towards anarcho-capitalism. Unfortunately, I don't think we have safeguards from the tyranny of the wealthy. I think in anarcho-capitalism, we would quickly be reduced to slavery.
imrational 5 months ago
@imrational
Even though I disagree, I can live with that. America - and the world - could use more people thinking like you.
I appreciate you taking time to spread your ideas. :)
amulware 5 months ago
I love ur videos man... ur very intelligent person. Keep them coming.
canbuyu 5 months ago
@canbuyu
aw shucks... you're gonna make me blush. ;)
imrational 5 months ago
Why is it that once you receive money from X company/organization that you have to be in their interest? Their is no obligation as far as I know.
asg102 5 months ago
@asg102
Okay, when you (or any group) gives money to a candidate, they expect a return on their investment. Imagine if a candidate took money and turned on his backers. What special interest group/lobbying firm would ever invest in that candidate again? He would never be trusted and would lose any future funding of his campaigns.
imrational 5 months ago
Flaws in your idea: Just because someone signs something saying you're of sound mind doesn't mean you are. There are plenty of crazies who lose every time, yet still have 25 or more votes. You'd be giving those people the same chance to win as someone who is legitimately able to run the place.
BENY0HAMA 5 months ago
@BENY0HAMA
Don't forget that there is more than one representative from a state. Even if one madman was selected, he would be checked and balanced by his fellow representatives, by the Senate, the Pres, and the SCOTUS.
Also, look around. We've elected madmen throughout our history. Heck, right now madmen & women are our only candidates on the Republican ticket for 2012 President.
imrational 5 months ago
@imrational But we have an opportunity to stop them. We can learn from our mistakes & vote against them next time. Under your idea, a neo-nazi gets 25 other neo-nazis to sign for him and he has as much chance as a learned professor of political theory who has actual good ideas. Limiting contributions from big business is the best way. Appeal that when Scalia & Thomas are gone and you'll probably overturn it.
BENY0HAMA 5 months ago
@BENY0HAMA
Okay, so what if a neo-nazi becomes a representative? What damage could they do? Propose legislation that would be shot down by the other reps? Vote for some other bad legislation? His votes would still be in the minority.
imrational 5 months ago
@BENY0HAMA
Also, so... a neo-nazi gets 25 of his friends to sign for him. I hope you understand that this is actually beneficial in that minorities will be allowed true representation. Yeah, the Nazi thing is ugly... but what if it were atheists? Or an ethnicity that is under-served in government?
imrational 5 months ago
@imrational Do atheists or minorities need representation? What we need is people who do the job right, who look out for everyone.
What about nomination box flooding? The first person to figure out "if 26 of us decide to run on the same ideals, we'll have the seat" will win every time until they're caught. Get you & your 25 friends to all run & sign each others' forms, and you essentially buy the seat. If enough extremists organize something like that nationwide via the internet, we're fucked.
BENY0HAMA 5 months ago
@BENY0HAMA
and what's to stop everyone else from doing the same thing? The extremists would still be limited to just the 26 candidates whereas the majority of level-headed people would still outnumber them.
I would also like to point out some possible benefits to such a system: it would encourage discourse as people would talk to one another to try and sway them to their beliefs. It would benefit education because people would want to ensure that people would have the best education possibl
imrational 5 months ago
Seems like a good plan. But I want to talk also about cap on funds. It is not written in stone that there will never ever be a cap on funds. First the idea has to be known as a solution by the general public and an understanding of why such a cap would do tremendous good. Then what is left is courage to protest and some day there might be that cap on funds. New ideas shouldn't take away this goal of permanently fixing this rigged system.
Censeo 5 months ago
@Censeo
A cap on funding would have to be a federal law... I don't see anything like that passing, what with the corruption already in existence. Special interest groups/lobbyists would fight caps tooth and nail. With my plan, a state could have their Constitution amended/changed by voters alone, without the law being warped and weakened by riders.
imrational 5 months ago
I would use more then 25 signatures, other then that it is a good idea.
TheUnmaskedMagician 5 months ago
@TheUnmaskedMagician
I thought of 25 signatures because that is a number that I think most decent citizens would be able to acquire. The idea is not to make it about popularity... but about putting common men in government.
imrational 5 months ago
some great ideas. some great ideas in the other comments as well.
curiouschem 5 months ago
On top of that, term limits and the preferential voting system would certainly help, I think we can change that at the state level. The random lottery sounds really interesting, the Athenian system ran something similar to that.
anubis2814 5 months ago
@anubis2814
I don't see how term limits would be beneficial. Good politicians would be forced out and new candidates would still be bought and sold before being elected.
imrational 5 months ago
@imrational Not if public funds were used.
anubis2814 5 months ago
I'm not sure if 25 signatures would eliminate the possibility someone of an unsound mind being able to run, which as I understand is the purpose of that part. But it's defiantly an interesting idea. I'm willing to try anything over the current corrupt process.
It's great to see you back imrational!
TheEyesOfSelassie 5 months ago
@TheEyesOfSelassie
Don't forget that the state would have more than that one representative. In other words, the odds of someone insane winning the lottery are low, but if one made it thru, they'd still be checked and balanced by the other representatives, the Senate, the President and SCOTUS.
Not to mention the fact that we have insane candidates elected all the time. ex. Michelle Bachmann.
imrational 5 months ago
Public funding, no kind of private funding is allowed or heavily regulated. Everything should be transparent.
Multi-party system, the two party system is completely broken.
Don't allow politicians to take jobs in the sectors they have been regulating or legislating for or against for at least 10 years after quitting politics.
Politicians should have fairly low wages.
GigaBoost 5 months ago
@GigaBoost
The vast majority of the time, the moment a candidate joins any political party, they must compromise something about themselves.
imrational 5 months ago
That's a weird idea..it's not necessarily a bad one, but keep in mind that people will find loopholes in the system if they look hard enough.
Homer177 5 months ago
@Homer177
Hopefully with a system allowing common men to govern themselves, loopholes will be more easily closed and harder to put in place.
imrational 5 months ago