Can The Us Political System Be Fixed For The Better?

A supposedly common sense notion I don't understand is why one would want to make an effort to change it. If people can't explain why they want to change it then what chance do they have in implementing action that they might follow through long term?

 

If the constitution is changed, it will be by those that vote, and the apathetic will not have a say.

 

I dont inherently see anything wrong with the constitution or any reason why it would need to be rewritten. The govt already has the ability to amend it. The right to bear arms isn't really clear in meaning or interpretation but otherwise I think the constitution itself, with amendments, is fine. The problem is not the Constitution, it is the money and power struggle involved in politics.

 

The only new Constitutional amendment I want to see is one overturning the Supreme Court decision against campaign finance reform and contribution limits.

 

Inherent - existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute

The big problem is that from the very beginning the United States of America was set up with the interests of wealth in the forefront.

It began as a property owning democratic republic that is that in many places only those of a certain property qualification could vote or hold office (only about 10% of the population). The Electoral College system was also there as a block on the popular vote (the mob) and the Supreme Count which was to be appointed by and from the political establishment was presumed to always favour that political establishment and therefore be a check on radical change.

Things could be done to limit the influence of wealth in the US political system, but there would have to be a major shift in public opinion for them to be given an airing - but let us say by some miracle they were voted for by a great majority of the US electorate and made into law, there is the possibility that the political establishment would have them declared ‘unconstitutional’ by the Supreme Court (as many things that would limit the influence of wealth could be said to violate ‘freedom of speech’)

It seems to me that it is not a matter of just getting the right person/people in government since the system itself is the problem so the question is what needs to be done to ‘mend’ the system.

 

Only if he has some impact. I don't think he's the only reasonable politician or person that wants politics to change for the better. Hell, even Obama is/was a politician like that. But if Bernie is just the new hype like a certain Ron Paul was some years ago then no, people like that could be a step in the right direction but the system will not get them to make such a step.

Not by definition The problem of a monarchy is of couse that even when you have an excellent monarch the next one can be a complete turd. Which would especially suck in an absolute monarchy. But there are also constitutional monarchies that are subject to a more progressive form of democracy than the one the US happen to have now.

 

Yeah, I know, I was just being my noxious self and poking fun at Balbus.......

 

Poking fun at me – you should know that as a left winger I don’t know what fun is and I definitely don’t have a sense of humour.

 

^
You're german?

 

Well, the Constitution allows for periodic constitutional conventions. There was on in 1876, in Phila., w/ elected delegates. They got drunk & did nothing: Congress's spent the past 40 yr tryna emulate that.

 

That is the question – what might be done to ‘fix’ the system to make it ‘better’.

A few things have been highlighted such as money in politics and a biased media but how could such things be tackled without them coming up against ‘freedom of speech’ instance?

 

The question is wrong. It is not so much the system that needs fixing than the people who are in it.

Power corrupts.

 

Interesting thought . So just or mainly the people who are in power? What about those who they are supposed to represent?

 

So the system is at fault for either allowing in the corrupt or in corrupting the people going into it – either way the fault would seem to be in the system so the system is the thing that needs fixing.

 

What about them? Also, you answered your own question: you said "supposed to represent".

Have you heard any campaign speeches lately?

This is like saying people drive like shit so we need better cars.

The system is just the system. It doesn't do anything without people working it. If people were inherently good you could put them in whatever system and it would work out just fine. Unfortunately that's not the case.

 

We have media organizations supporting both major parties, and now there is the internet, with unlimited points of view represented.

 

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]But that is exactly what has been happening not only with cars but the rules and regulations aimed at car use.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]We have gone from someone walking in front of the car with a red flag to sophisticated laws and regulations governing how a car can be driven. Once anyone could just get into a car and drive it no testing, no insurance or not even a license required. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]In the UK the testing is reasonably vigorous and people do get rejected and then there are the rules of the road, speed limits, traffic lights and traffic calming and of course punishments for transgressing those rules (to the point of losing the license to drive). [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]On the other side car manufactures, bring in new safely features as technology allows because cars can be sold on their safety (and I believe it reduces the insurance premiums) A new safety feature I’ve heard about is proximity braking systems that apply the brakes if the cars gets close to something even if the driver doesn’t. But a certain level of car safety is regulated for. New cars have to pass safety tests before being allowed to be sold and in the UK existing cars have to pass a yearly MOT and that certificate has to be valid for the car to be allowed on the road. Then there are other things like safety belt laws and baby car seat regulations etc. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I could go on, but the point is that the system is there to try and lessen the impact of shitheads who wish to drive and shit drivers are very likely to end up breaking the rules and being punished for it, even been told they cannot drive any more.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Are you saying that all people drive like shit or just some of them? I know a lot of drivers and some are better than others but none want to cause accidents, and anyway the system is there to try and limit the harm of those that are purposely driving like shit and those to whom shit sometimes happens. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]A political system should be the same in excluding shitheads or lessen their impact or meaning that they are very likely to end up breaking the rules and being punished for it, even been told they cannot go into politics again.[/SIZE]

 

Both major parties - so you basically have a right wing view and a further right wing view.

And we all know that many people find their comfort zone and never leave it so never have their ideas challenged.

Also money talks (it also shouts) even in this new media age the background noise that money can generate is still there.