Quote (JessiWan @ 3 Mar 2022 16:36)

Hello. I know that I don't have the power to change anything in the states, however I sometimes like to think about what changes I would implement, just for fun. I will list them below to see what you think.

1. Take money out of politics. As it stands now, elections of any kind are expensive, and require a lot of money to finance a campaign, especially presidential campaigns. So what results is that candidates need to find wealthy donors to have a shot, and indirectly, this means rich people control our political system. Presidents, once they get elected, are beholden to the donors and will pass laws that are favorable to them or their businesses. I am sure we are all familiar with this phenomenon. So, to combat this, I propose that we have presidential candidates write down their platforms, their campaign promises, anything that they say to persuade the readers to vote for them, and compile a book out of it. Then this book is freely distributed both online and in paper-form in real life, so that anybody can access these writings very easily. This requires very little money (websites and paper are cheap). Then, we move to ban TVs, newspapers, radio, any other form of media, from mentioning any candidate at all. I want to do this because if we don't, then candidates that have wealthy backers will be able to buy tv time or spaces in newspaper to promote themselves and this will give them an edge over the other candidates who can't afford buying TV/radio spaces. So the end result would still be big money unfairly influencing the outcome of our elections. Another bonus with having candidates write their stuff is we get to weed out the dummies. We expect our presidential candidates to be able to write. And to prevent them from simply hiring ghost writers to ghost-write for them, we make extremely harsh punishments for the candidates and writers who conspire to deceive the public like that.

2. Currently, there is absolutely zero recourse for the public if their presidents did not fulfill their campaign promises, or otherwise did a poor job as a president. I propose that we have this system whereby, once a president is retired from his position, there be an account with all the banks in the country. We ask people whether they think the ex-president did a terrible job or not, and if they think yes, they put 300 dollars in this account. Then, if we get over half the population of the country putting in this 300 dollars, the ex-president goes to jail for an certain period of time. If the percentage of people who put the money is 60%, he goes to jail even longer. And the rate at which his jail sentence lengthens goes up exponentially. And if the percentage of people who are unhappy with him is over 90%, the ex-president goes to jail for life. My reasoning is that with any president, there will also be some people who are dissatisfied with him. However, if over 90% of people want to vote him into jail, then this is a very clear sign that he truly did a terrible job, and an extremely harsh sentence is justified. And the 300 dollars is set at such a level that it requires a not insignificant amount of money, so that people won't put an ex-president in jail lightly. But it's low enough so that most people can still realistically afford it.

I want to do this because I remember talking to someone online. He was extremely unhappy with a certain law that a lawmaker in his state passed. He said he wanted said lawmaker to think, "if I pass this law, will I make it home alive tonight?" Apparently he was so dissatisfied that he was willing to commit acts of violence. Even though I shared his anger, nevertheless I don't believe that violence is the solution to bad politicians. It's not realistic to expect people to take up arms and violently punish bad political leaders. There needs to be a way, a legal, non-bloody way for people to punish politicians for doing a poor job. Currently, there are zero consequences that politicians have to face for not carrying out the will of the people, so they do whatever they like. They know that they won't be punished in any way. I want people's anger and dissatisfaction to mean something. Stewing in anger, complaining to other people, writing angry letters, making anger phone calls are currently all that we can do, and trust me these things don't mean shit to a bad politician. This has to change.

3. Conversely, if a president did a good job, he should be rewarded. I propose that there be an account with all the banks in the country that's called the ex-president's account. Anybody can put money in this account. If they think an ex president truly did a good job, they can put in any amount of money to show their appreciation for him and to reward him for a job well done. Currently, not only are there no consequences for presidents when they did poorly, there are no rewards for them for doing well, either. This is very bad and creates a situation where presidents are pretty much guaranteed to be shitty. However, if they now know that not only will they go to jail for being a bad potus, they will also be given lots of money for a job well done, this creates an incentive for them to do a good job and generally to things that benefit the people. I mean, right now what do we people do for a good ex-potus? We might write books about him, praise him in newspapers, maybe sing songs about him, all of these things, though nice, do not benefit him in any tangible, meaningful way. And this makes it very tempting for potuses to sell out the people and to cozy up to rich donors, who can and do benefit them in tangible ways, in other words, give them money. I want to change this.

Anyway, these are my humble suggestions. Your thoughts are welcome.

Quote (JessiWan @ Mar 3 2022 11:22am)

Another change I would make is to make sure that money, and all that power that comes with it, is not concentrated in a few hands. I move that we put a cap of 50 million USD as the maximum amount of wealth any individual can have, and 500 million for a business. I want to do this for two reasons: 1. when someone has an extreme amount of money, he can start to wield too much power over others. He can use his wealth to buy up newspapers, radio stations, or even TV stations. And he can then staff them with whoever he pleases, usually people who agree with him politically, who will advance his political agenda. These media outlets are used by the wealthy to influence how the public thinks, and in some cases weaponized to defame those that he doesn't like. He can also contribute to political campaigns generously, thus supporting candidates who advocate policies that favor him, typically ones that help him make even more money, or if he has some sort of manufacturing plant, policies that will make it ok for him to pollute the environment at the expense of the public, just so that his business interests can be advanced. I set the cap at 50 million, which I think is very reasonable, because 50 millions is still a lot of money. He can still enjoy the many wonderful things that come with being rich, for example, he can dine at fancy restaurants to enjoy delicious food, he can fly first-class, he can hire maids to clean his house, he can hire a chauffer, he can hire a housekeeper to keep his home tidy, he can put a couple of Mercedes in his garage...etc. However, he won't be so rich that he can buy up newspapers or unduly influence the outcome of elections. Another reason I want to place a hard limit on how much money people can have is that, resources are finite. When some people have so much money, it very likely means that they are taking existing wealth from others. One example I can think of is Trump's son-in-law's family, the Kushners, who own 9000 properties. I mean, how many houses does one family need? Like I can imagine and understand if a family is very smart and hardworking and they make excellent financial decisions, and they own a couple of properties that they rent out, so that they live very comfortably. But 9000 properties is simply too much. The Kushner family literally is taking resources that could have gone to others. Imagine all these properties, they could house thousands of people. And before you say the Kushner family "earned" these properties, I will point out that they haven't done anything to contribute to the community in any meaningful way. They don't generate jobs, they don't create services, they don't work, they just get rich through rent money, which buys them more properties, which in turn generate even more money, which allows them to buy up even more properties. And the cycle continues. I understand that a lot of us believe in capitalism, and resent any kind of government intervention in the financial sphere, we call it by the slur, "wealth redistribution". But I need to ask you, at what point, is having a lot of wealth too much. I am not saying we should go full Jewish communist and have the government dole out money to the masses. I am just saying that we should put a limit on it so that the extremely wealthy will not get even wealthier, and that the rest of the society gets a chance to make some money for themselves. Keep in mind that for a large segment of the masses, they are no less smart and no less hardworking than the super-wealthy. The latter simply have the benefit of having existing wealth that gives them an edge and helps generate even more money and at a much quicker pace. If we make sure the mega-billionaires can't get any richer, then the excess money will go towards those who are smart and willing to work, meaning the middle class. This way, we make sure money is not concentrated in too few hands, and we build the middle class. It's a win-win situation.

Quote (theCrossbones @ Mar 3 2022 12:25pm)

So your a communist.
good to know

Quote (Vastet @ Mar 3 2022 12:32pm)

I've had some thoughts on the subject. A sample:

Rule #1: If less than 50% of the eligible population votes, all candidates are barred from politics for life and a new election is scheduled.

Rule #2: Referendums to eligible voters are required for any significant change in policy.

Rule #3: A passing grade on a test is required to be eligible to vote. That test covers knowledge of current local, national, and/or global events (depending on the office being determined by the election). Test to be re-administered every 10 years at the latest. Test also includes some basic geographic, mathematic, historic, and scientific questions. None of which are on subjects that are yet to be solidly understood or are in dispute. However, ability to recognize that a subject is in dispute would also be part of the test.
-addendum to Rule #3: Actually running in an election requires passing a much more strenuous test that covers every subject mentioned above. To be administered on every attempt to run for any office.

Rule #4: No fundraising of any kind is permitted. No advertising is permitted. All funding is capped and supplied by the government. All use of funding must be transparent.

Rule #5: All candidates and their platforms are required to have equal access to media distribution. If any candidate is interviewed by any media source, all candidates must be interviewed by that media source. All news based media are required to give x amount of time to each platform seeking election during multiple time slots. Funded by the government.

Quote (Kuggergug @ Mar 3 2022 02:02pm)

If you took the money out of politics, then political organizations would build up supermassive war chests and then buy TV networks or cable channels or newspapers and use those to get their message out with ads, plots in tv & film, or yellow journalism. they dont have to mention a candidate but the plot of avengers 4 might be an SJW with blue hair trying to kill all good christian children.