Federal Government Reform

Feb 2019
24
12
Houston
#1
Still pretty new, but I thought I'd post how I believe the federal government could be reorganized to create a more equitable, and democratic system, to both eliminate the two-party framework, as well as many of the problems people have with the government today.

For the purposes of this post, I will define specific concepts at the beginning.

Instant runoff voting: A method of voting for a single-person office. Voters rank their choices for this office from first to last (depending on the cutoff point). If not candidate for this position receives a majority of the vote in the first round, then the last place candidate is eliminated. The votes of said last place candidate are then re-routed to their second choice. This process continues until one candidate has a majority of the vote.

Proportional representation: The concept of allotting representatives in a legislative body based on the proportion of the population who support a given party's platform. For instance, if 25% of voters support Party A, then said Party A should receive 25% of the seats in the legislative body. This can be achieved through multiple methods, but primarily through list voting.

List voting: A method of voting for multi-person office. Voters select a party list (closed-list), or a candidate from a party list (open-list). This vote is attributed to the party as a whole for the purposes of representation. When voting is complete, votes are tallied, and the percentage of votes a party received of the whole translates to the percentage of seats said party holds in the legislative body. This, of course, ensures a multi-party system.

D'Hondt method: A method of allocating remainders for the process of list voting. It routinely benefits larger parties more than smaller parties, and is friendlier to stable coalition governments, as opposed to the Saint-Lague method, being the opposite.

Presidency

1. The President shall be elected at-large, by popular vote, using the instant runoff voting method.

2. The President shall be elected every four years, with no restriction on number of terms.

3. The powers of the President within the cabinet shall be restricted to what Congress has explicitly allowed the President to perform.


House of Representatives

1. There shall be 601 seats in the House of Representatives.

2. Members of the House of Representatives shall serve for 4 year terms.

3. All states will be granted a minimum of 3 Representatives, with the remainder being allocated based on population.

4. All Representatives shall be elected by way of party-list proportional representation, using the D'Hondt remainder method. No district shall contain fewer than 3 Representatives, or more than 5 Representatives. Districts shall be created to be as evenly distributed, with smallest number, as possible. (Ex: 3, 3, 3...or 3, 3, 3, 4, or 3, 3, 3, 3, 4....or etc.)


Senate

1. Every Senator shall be elected by way of instant runoff voting.

2. Senators shall serve for 8 year terms.

3. Terms for Senator shall be staggered by 4 years, meaning that all 50 states will have an election for Senator every 4 years.



Maybe more thought to come out of it, but I think this would fix a ton of shit, alongside some seriouos campaign finance reform.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2014
16,268
6,203
south
#2
Still pretty new, but I thought I'd post how I believe the federal government could be reorganized to create a more equitable, and democratic system, to both eliminate the two-party framework, as well as many of the problems people have with the government today.

For the purposes of this post, I will define specific concepts at the beginning.

Instant runoff voting: A method of voting for a single-person office. Voters rank their choices for this office from first to last (depending on the cutoff point). If not candidate for this position receives a majority of the vote in the first round, then the last place candidate is eliminated. The votes of said last place candidate are then re-routed to their second choice. This process continues until one candidate has a majority of the vote.

Proportional representation: The concept of allotting representatives in a legislative body based on the proportion of the population who support a given party's platform. For instance, if 25% of voters support Party A, then said Party A should receive 25% of the seats in the legislative body. This can be achieved through multiple methods, but primarily through list voting.

List voting: A method of voting for multi-person office. Voters select a party list (closed-list), or a candidate from a party list (open-list). This vote is attributed to the party as a whole for the purposes of representation. When voting is complete, votes are tallied, and the percentage of votes a party received of the whole translates to the percentage of seats said party holds in the legislative body. This, of course, ensures a multi-party system.

D'Hondt method: A method of allocating remainders for the process of list voting. It routinely benefits larger parties more than smaller parties, and is friendlier to stable coalition governments, as opposed to the Saint-Lague method, being the opposite.

Presidency

1. The President shall be elected at-large, by popular vote, using the instant runoff voting method.

2. The President shall be elected every four years, with no restriction on number of terms.

3. The powers of the President within the cabinet shall be restricted to what Congress has explicitly allowed the President to perform.


House of Representatives

1. There shall be 601 seats in the House of Representatives.

2. Members of the House of Representatives shall serve for 4 year terms.

3. All states will be granted a minimum of 3 Representatives, with the remainder being allocated based on population.

4. All Representatives shall be elected by way of party-list proportional representation, using the D'Hondt remainder method. No district shall contain fewer than 3 Representatives, or more than 5 Representatives. Districts shall be created to be as evenly distributed, with smallest number, as possible. (Ex: 3, 3, 3...or 3, 3, 3, 4, or 3, 3, 3, 3, 4....or etc.)


Senate

1. Every Senator shall be elected by way of instant runoff voting.

2. Senators shall serve for 8 year terms.

3. Terms for Senator shall be staggered by 4 years, meaning that all 50 states will have an election for Senator every 4 years.



Maybe more thought to come out of it, but I think this would fix a ton of shit, alongside some seriouos campaign finance reform.
an interesting mixture of systems. mostly parliamentary, with democracy thrown in for some offices. not too bad I must say. it's not a full democracy (which is my agenda), but does introduce many of the same concepts of a democracy. alas, if you want a democracy, then why not just have a democracy.
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
73,743
42,144
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#3
Most of the things suggested by the OP are not mere changes to the Constitution, but in effect would require an almost entirely new constitution. Only #3 listed under "Presidency" already exists, and so needs no change.
 
Likes: bajisima
Sep 2014
2,408
548
Barsoom
#4
The entirety of the list was rejected by the Connecticut Compromise, the debates over War powers, the debates over the election of the president, the seperation of powers doctrine, and the federalism doctrine of the Constitution. The list is pretty much everything that the monarchical Hamilton proffered and was rejected at the Philadelphia Convention thanks to Governor Clinton sending Yeats and Butler to the Philadelphia Convention to put the kabash on Hamilton's anti-state's designs.
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
73,743
42,144
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#5
The entirety of the list was rejected by...
Sure, but that does not have any bearing over whether any of those proposals have merit today, on the one hand; or could reasonably be part of the public debate, on the other hand.
 
Sep 2014
2,408
548
Barsoom
#6
Most of the things suggested by the OP are not mere changes to the Constitution, but in effect would require an almost entirely new constitution. Only #3 listed under "Presidency" already exists, and so needs no change.
I do not believe number three exists in the Constitution. The president's powers are derived from Article II, not Article I. That would be a direct violation of the seperation of powers doctrine. I may have misread your post. Are your referring to the legislative powers granted to the president by Congress such as the contested declaration of emergency powers regarding the border wall?
 
Jan 2014
16,268
6,203
south
#7
Most of the things suggested by the OP are not mere changes to the Constitution, but in effect would require an almost entirely new constitution. Only #3 listed under "Presidency" already exists, and so needs no change.
well, based on the tone of the suggestions, it appears even #3 would require narrowing the scope of executive orders.
 
Likes: Ian Jeffrey
Sep 2014
2,408
548
Barsoom
#8
Sure, but that does not have any bearing over whether any of those proposals have merit today, on the one hand; or could reasonably be part of the public debate, on the other hand.
They have absolute merit today. The deviation from those principles is why the country is divided: attempting to convert a compact between sovereign states, other than a very limited scope of powers ceded by the states to the new federal government, not a national government, into to unitary national government.
 
Jan 2014
16,268
6,203
south
#9
Most of the things suggested by the OP are not mere changes to the Constitution, but in effect would require an almost entirely new constitution. Only #3 listed under "Presidency" already exists, and so needs no change.
looks like another citizen proposing a constitutional convention of the states. while risky, it's probably the only way to make such a dramatic change.
 
Likes: Ian Jeffrey