Problem 1: fiscal corruption and pork-barrelling among members of Congress.

Solution A: give the President line-item veto.

Solution B: all spending bills can only be submitted by the President, and cannot be amended by Congress except if 2/3's of both Houses approve.

Solution C: have term limits of 12 years for members of both Houses.
--
Problem 2: the Senate sits on nominations made by the President

Solution: implement a 90 day yes/no vote for Senate. If the Senate sits on it, after 90 days the nominee is automatically appointed.
--
Problem 3: the partisan Presidency and electoral college.

Solution A: prevent political parties from nominating candidates, and replace it with a citizen petition system. The top 7 person are nominated as President. Each candidate must cut off ties with their political party and stand as an independent.

Solution B: give an equal amount of funding to each candidate, to be taxpayer's dollars. Private donations over $1000 are banned.

Solution C: allow all candidates to participate in televised debates.

Solution D: divide the States into single-member districts, each one electing a single Elector, chosen by first past the post. Voters choose their elector directly, but the Elector may have printed next to his name the person to whom he pledges.

Solution E: President elected for a single non-renewable term of six years; but subject to recall election by the voters.
--
Problem 4: Supreme Court

Solution A: implement mandatory retirement ages at 70 years.

Solution B: the court must have 8 judges; not more, not less.

longweekend58 wrote on May 11^th, 2017 at 5:54pm:


More what power? Please be specific.

longweekend58 wrote on May 11^th, 2017 at 6:19pm:


Ok. So, in Australia it's the executive that determines where the money goes. The senate can't amend spending bills but only approve them or reject them.

In the solution I've given, the executive determines where the money goes and the houses can approve it or reject with a simple majority but they can't AMEND the bill except with a two thirds vote.

Auggie wrote on May 11^th, 2017 at 7:09pm:


You are applying Westminster System thinking to a Presidential System and not realising the significant differences. The Prime Minister has no actual power and he/she can be sacked at any time. A president cannot easily be removed and has considerable personal power. They dont need MORE power. IN some cases, they need less.

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 11^th, 2017 at 7:29pm:


Do you mean in New Zealand dollars, Sprint?

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 11^th, 2017 at 7:29pm:


Make it a vote for every $5K tax paid then.

If you have paid $20K, you get 4 votes.

If you are on the dole, you get 0 votes

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 11^th, 2017 at 9:01pm:



the strong can do that if they wish.

longweekend58 wrote on May 11^th, 2017 at 8:13pm:


Yes you're right about the first part. That's the issue with American system is that congress too much power over the purse. It's the executive that should determine where the money goes. Don't forget congress doesn't have to pass the bill; they can effectively shut down the government.

I just don't think that individual congressmen should determine where the money goes. They're two separate roles.

Third the president doesn't actually have that much power. I would argue that the French president is more powerful.