If you could change one policy with the aim of improving your country in the long-term, what would it be?
I'll throw my own opinion in after this thread has gotten a few replies but I want to see what other people suggest first.
If I offer to help you in a post, PM me to get it. I often forget to revisit threads.
Want 180+ free PSP games? Try these links! - Flash - Homebrew (OFW)
Difficult to pin down just one. The policy I would change would be the campaign finance laws that the conservative Supreme Court neutered with their Citizen United decision, which pretty much aided corporations, and the wealthy, by allowing them to give unlimited amount of campaign contributions in aid of political candidates, effectively buying them off and making them beholden to their special interests over the people.
My next two policies would focouse on ethics and lobbying.
willful or knowledgeable government waste or fraud would be seen as treason.
"some people who believe they're smart do nothing but talk incessantly. if they didn't, how else would they let you know how smart they are?"
At 6/28/18 08:20 AM, billybobthwarten wrote: willful or knowledgeable government waste or fraud would be seen as treason.
Not a bad call, actually.
Personally I'd say making elections publically financed, either through a voucher system of sorts or by other effective means, and as a part of this remove all private citizen money from the election process.
Need some music for a flash or game? Check it out. If none of this works send me a PM, I'm taking requests.
At 6/28/18 08:20 AM, billybobthwarten wrote: willful or knowledgeable government waste or fraud would be seen as treason.
I do agree that something like that should be a crime, but treason is too harsh of a punishment. High crimes like treason and murder need substantial evidence along with intent, and any legal expert can point to that, plus treason generally involves another country, particularly one with a bad relations with the U.S.
On topic, it’s hard to answer because there are so many ills that need to be fixed, although a lot of them are connected to them in one way or another. If I had to pick only one, I would make all elections (federal, state and local) transparent when it comes to financing the candidates. It may not necessarily solve the problem fully in the short-term, but anything that makes elections balanced is a huge step in the right direction.
Failing that, (and this would be cheating on this conversation, I know) I would have a mandatory federal K-12 standard on general civics and how the government works in general. How many times do we hear stories about people being totally ignorant about political candidates and the electoral process in general and doesn’t vote, or throws their vote away based on arbitrary factors? Maybe if people actually cared a little bit more on civics in general, we probably wouldn’t have institutions that keep our democracy stable be under threat by the ignorant and short-sighted post-election, that shouldn’t be too much to ask for, right?
Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.
Only one? There are so many policies I'd change in this shithole country I live in called the United States. Implementing universal healthcare is the most important. Everyone should get the best possible health care and not have to worry about getting fucked up the ass by medical debt. We only get one shot at life and we shouldn't have to die from treatable problems because greedy ass fucking health insurance companies won't cover the costs.
At 6/28/18 06:12 PM, orangebomb wrote:At 6/28/18 08:20 AM, billybobthwarten wrote: willful or knowledgeable government waste or fraud would be seen as treason.I do agree that something like that should be a crime, but treason is too harsh of a punishment. High crimes like treason and murder need substantial evidence along with intent
like a lot of crimes, guilt has to be established. provided that happens, full on trial for treason.
plus treason generally involves another country
generally, but that's not the only definition of the word. and i'd argue, being a public employee and wasting public resources is quite a betrayal of duty and country.
"some people who believe they're smart do nothing but talk incessantly. if they didn't, how else would they let you know how smart they are?"
Interesting responses so far. My idea is kind of out there, since it doesn't directly address a lot of the more urgent issues going on today but would have a good shot at affecting things 20 years down the line.
Reform the public education system so that it's federally funded and includes logic as one of its major subjects. Since many history and social studies programs are manipulated specifically to discourage discourse, this subject could be replaced by logic, or the two could be fused (however the latter comes at a risk of a politically motivated curriculum.)
The reasoning here is twofold. First, I have a very strong belief that racism and class inequality stem from inequality in education, especially in grade school. Federal funding would level the playing field for low-income households in a more substantial way than welfare or affirmative action (which are decent, but really just mask the symptoms of a larger issue.) A better education for these people would mean better chances of landing a better position and ultimately cause slums, along with their respective problems of drugs and crime, to shrink.
Teaching logic is something for which my reasoning is slightly more indirect. Lobbying is the biggest thorn in America's side right now, but I think that problem (among others) was allowed to get as bad as it was due to peoples' ignorance. Logical fallacies are quantifiable and demonstrable chinks in major political positions, and I think if they were a part of the cultural lexicon, representatives would have to run on more policy-driven campaigns.
That being said, a big issue with the federal government is that people aren't taking enough responsibility for their local government, and it's local representatives that need to be replaced before we can start seeing decent candidates running for federal positions. There's also no guarantee just teaching logic would allow people to connect the dots between deregulation and lobbying.
The reason my opinion stands is that teaching logic should, in essence, make people more willing to reconsider positions that are supported by good evidence. Seeing lobbying for what it is, the causal relationship between local and federal elections, and cutting out distractions should generally be easier when people take an x-ray to political beliefs that are flat-out wrong. Again, this doesn't necessarily stamp out evidence that has actually been tampered with (usually by publication bias) but I think it's a good start.
Side note, if anyone DOES know how to fight publication bias, the sensationalism of strong headlines over nuance, or the tendency for common sayings to be short and catchy rather than well-supported and nuanced, these would be massive, long-term improvements to society as well.
If I offer to help you in a post, PM me to get it. I often forget to revisit threads.
Want 180+ free PSP games? Try these links! - Flash - Homebrew (OFW)
At 6/27/18 09:08 PM, EdyKel wrote: The policy I would change would be the campaign finance laws that the conservative Supreme Court neutered with their Citizen United decision
I'm aware that in spirit, Citizens United is a massive blow in favor of corporatocracy, but I'm very curious as to how effective it's been. To be sure, the Tea Party movement grew suspiciously fair after the ruling, but money can only take you so far, right?
Generally speaking, only a small portion of people vote. Of those people, most are already set on voting for members of the party they identify with. Only the minority of the minority is actually turning the tides in our elections. Effectively this means all of that campaign money is going toward bombarding a very small population with massive amounts of advertising as if the sheer quantity of ads they see will determine who they vote for. Am I naive for thinking this small percentage of swing voters can probably make up their minds without being told who to vote for by an interest group?
That aside, the idea that roughly 5% of the population determines federal elections (maybe less for locals, since turnout is lower) sounds like the bigger problem. If voting were mandatory, or if we could circulate better news about who's running (sample ballots, easy to access information about candidates' policies,) I feel like the issue of campaign finance would matter a lot less. Let the politicians waste millions on their campaign for all I care. The real problem is that people are susceptible to it.
The cynic in me would point out that we can't really prove the elections aren't completely fabricated anyway, though at least as far back as Kennedy I'm willing to believe he won fair and square since we had to kill him to get him out of office.
If I offer to help you in a post, PM me to get it. I often forget to revisit threads.
Want 180+ free PSP games? Try these links! - Flash - Homebrew (OFW)
At 6/29/18 02:51 PM, Kwing wrote:At 6/27/18 09:08 PM, EdyKel wrote: The policy I would change would be the campaign finance laws that the conservative Supreme Court neutered with their Citizen United decisionI'm aware that in spirit, Citizens United is a massive blow in favor of corporatocracy, but I'm very curious as to how effective it's been. To be sure, the Tea Party movement grew suspiciously fair after the ruling, but money can only take you so far, right?
Generally speaking, only a small portion of people vote. Of those people, most are already set on voting for members of the party they identify with. Only the minority of the minority is actually turning the tides in our elections. Effectively this means all of that campaign money is going toward bombarding a very small population with massive amounts of advertising as if the sheer quantity of ads they see will determine who they vote for. Am I naive for thinking this small percentage of swing voters can probably make up their minds without being told who to vote for by an interest group?
That aside, the idea that roughly 5% of the population determines federal elections (maybe less for locals, since turnout is lower) sounds like the bigger problem. If voting were mandatory, or if we could circulate better news about who's running (sample ballots, easy to access information about candidates' policies,) I feel like the issue of campaign finance would matter a lot less. Let the politicians waste millions on their campaign for all I care. The real problem is that people are susceptible to it.
The cynic in me would point out that we can't really prove the elections aren't completely fabricated anyway, though at least as far back as Kennedy I'm willing to believe he won fair and square since we had to kill him to get him out of office.
Well, money does help. It's also interesting to note that most Republican campaign money comes from wealthy individuals/corporations, while most of Democrats money come from individual donations. And don't forget, Republicans spent big following the Citizen united decision, with the tea party, which took over the house in 2010, and the Senate in 2012. And Sheldon Abelson gave almost 200 million to help Trump, and to keep Republicans in power, in the 2recent elections. and that was mostly through the use of Super PACS to get around the campaign limit to to anyone candidate.
The way things are going, I'd add a constitutional amendment that excludes those with an IQ of minus 50-or-so from becoming president.
Cartoonist lad, occasional BBS poster and all-round human hailing from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
NOTICE: Anyone caught posting A.I. 'art' on Newgrounds.com will have their balls ripped off and flushed down the toilet.
I would apply standards of civil rights universally, to everyone in the world.
So, say, you have workers in a country working unsafe and inhumane sweatshop conditions, being paid dirt wages, denied sick leave, etc.? Those products and services are not allowed in this country, and we don't do business with them until that changes.
Detaining someone in wartime? They are entitled to a speedy trial and a lawyer and may not be detained without probable cause or subjected to cruel or unusual punishment.
Foreign policy undertaken with the notion that everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; if anyone in the world is deprived, then we consider ourselves to be failing in our duty to uphold our values.
Yes this would require a dramatic shift in the mentality of my entire country and a tremendous and costly upheaval in terms of politics, but that's my magic wand wave idea.
also abolition of the party system and a new voting system, maybe IRV?
At 6/24/15 11:11 PM, TheGamechanger wrote:
: CorpseGrinder is the Undertaker of the Portal.
At 7/4/18 06:01 AM, DragonLimbo wrote: I would end all immigration.
On the risk of starting a flame war, how the fuck do you want to accomplish this? It's not like anyone has the necessary logistics for an impenetrable dome like in the Simpsons movie.
Teacher, goth, communist, cynic, alcoholic, master swordsman, king of shitpoasts.
It's better to die together than to live alone.
Sig by Decky
At 6/27/18 09:08 PM, EdyKel wrote: Difficult to pin down just one. The policy I would change would be the campaign finance laws that the conservative Supreme Court neutered with their Citizen United decision, which pretty much aided corporations, and the wealthy, by allowing them to give unlimited amount of campaign contributions in aid of political candidates, effectively buying them off and making them beholden to their special interests over the people.
My next two policies would focouse on ethics and lobbying.
This would fix so many things. US government now represents corporations with every law it makes.
Don't like what your government is doing? Don't call your senator, call the big corporation in your state. That's who tells your senator what to do and how to vote.
Had a DA in our state who got caught copy pasting letters from an Energy company, onto state letterhead. Did he get in trouble for this? No, he did not. He got appointed the head of the EPA. True story.
Corporations govern the US.
