Our Government is broken, what to do?

[SoutherDem]

Ok, I am not a constitutional lawyer so maybe I am wrong. But, I did get an "A" in high school Civics and college Political Science and our government seems broken to me.

In general I understood we work from a majority rules system and from the philosophy the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few. True, occasionally there may rise a situation where the SCOTUS may say even if the majority want something the rights of the minority will over rule but overall majority rules.

It seems over the last 3 or 4 decades the "rules" in the two division of the legislature have brought the law making process to a near complete halt. As it is now 20 - 25% of the 54% of the house has closed the government and threatening to not raise the debt limit because the Speaker of the House (tea party) won't allow a vote.

Also, the way the districts are drawn many have given outcomes in the general elections, the representatives are more worried about the primary so they must support the extreme. As I understand from what I heard on NPR, even though in total more Americans voted for Democrats we have a house with a Republican majority.

Lastly, we have one party which doesn't understand what it mean when you loose an election. If they don't win the White House they spend the next 4 or 8 years attempting to get that president out or stop everything they do. Compromise means you do what they want even if they don't represent the majority of Americans.

I call this a broken government.

What do we do?

[AgingAmerican]

1. Get rid of the electoral college

The electoral college dooms us to the two party system.

[dkf]

2. We need to toss them all out and start fresh with people who want to fix things, who can cooperate.

We need the leadership of sane and practical legislators to put together a list of common goals and common purpose.

Two numbers we should look at: growth and full employment (with the larger goal of lessening inequality).

Maybe we even need a viable third party to swing the votes towards the practical and non ideological.

[cali]

3. no. just no. that is not judicious, critical thinking. at all.

try being discerning. not to mention the House and Senate are governed by rules that take time to understand. What a recipe for (more) disaster. As for a viable third party- get to work in YOUR state on the local level. that's the only way a third party will eventually figure nationally.

[dkf]

4. Pah the rules are half the problem.

Better to have those who won't use shenanigans.

You know I used to like politics but I'm just getting sick of it, all of it. There's no joy in gridlock and stagnation when so much needs to be fixed.

[SoutherDem]

7. How do you toss them out?

In my state we vote about 60-40 Republican in all elections. However, we have 85% Republicans in the U. S. House because of the way the district lines are drawn (and without the voters right act that may change). As to acting locally we are 60% Republican so it would take changing the voters from Republicans to Democrats and there are somethings which Democrats believe in or don't believe in which many here are deeply devoted to so I don't see that happening. Sorry that I sound so pessimistic but I know my neighbors.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

5. Parties need a more strict process to keep Tea Party types from polluting the water. nt

[Igel]

6. Government by the people.

The problem is that neither side wants to acknowledge. this.

It's government by "we the people"--carefully leaving out a lot of those who are apparently "non-people."

Or it's government "by the winners"--carefully leaving out that minorities also have rights, and the maginalized a minority the louder they protest. As one DUer put it, "No minority has every gotten anything by asking nicely." At least I think I'm quoting correctly. This leads to ambush politics. That's what we've had for a while. Now, it's one thing to have that on the surface while behind the scenes, once the spotlight's off the politicians, they can work together. It's another thing for this kind of politics to not only be how things work from top to bottom, but to be lauded as cooperation and liberal democracy. It's not. It's an attempt at majoritarianism.

Every massive new project that obligated the country to a reworking of how things are done that was accomplished under non-emergency conditions along straight left/right votes has lead to problems. Both sides only see that they're right and that it's the other side causing the problems--either by forcing something unpleasant on a country that's not willing to accept it unanimously (when that side's in the minority) or by creating problems for what is obviously an excellent program (when that side's in the majority).

The side that wants the initial change, upsetting the status quo, can never see that change, that rewriting of the social contract, as a problem.

[hooverville29]

8. If we cliff-dive on 10/17, ask again on Nov 1. *Nobody* will like the answer we'll get then

[Posteritatis]

9. Well, we've established that turning it off and on again probably won't help.. (nt)