give the president MORE power, most of it unscrutinised????


Maybe you havent been following the last 106 days in Washington.

Auggie wrote on May 11^th, 2017 at 5:58pm:


try Solution B for starters.

Problem: decisions are made with invalid consideration to the votes of people in society who do not financially contribute to society .

ie, effectively the useless people of society decide on how much useful people give them.



Solution: Only those that pay a net tax can vote.
Everyone gets 1 vote for every $10K net tax they paid since the last election.

ie, those that pay the pollies decide on who the pollies are.

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



what a stupid idea. $10K is a high starting point. It entirely eliminates stay-at-home wives, part-time workers and of course, every retiree.

Who does that leave?  The 'ruling class'.


you are an idiot with no idea. And I bet you pay more than $10K in tax. How would you feel if you lost your job AND your right to vote?

dumbass

longweekend58 wrote on May 11^th, 2017 at 8:15pm:


Hard to disagree with your assessment of our dopey little cycling friend.

He really does have no idea whatsoever.

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 11^th, 2017 at 8:58pm:

Not very Christian of ya!

Don't the strong have a 'noblesse oblige' to protect the weak?

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 11^th, 2017 at 9:04pm:

You don't think, as a Christian, that the strong are morally obliged to protect the weak?

Auggie wrote on May 11^th, 2017 at 5:16pm:


We are Australians, theoretically, so why are you telling us this?

Auggie wrote on May 11^th, 2017 at 11:04pm:




Thats because you're a pseudointellectual.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 12^th, 2017 at 12:49pm:


According to the definition of a pseudo intellectual 'a person who claims in scholarly or artistic activities while lacking in-depth knowledge or critical understanding. A person who pretends to be of greater intelligence than he or she in fact is."

First, I have a legitimate claim in scholarly activity on this issue because I have spent over a year researching this issue, and drafting my own constitutions for a hypothetical Australian Republic.

Second, I have in-depth knowledge and critical understanding because I am able to identify where errors exist and how to solve these problems. These solutions are currently practised and implemented in various jurisdictions around the world.

Third, I am intelligent because I have travelled the world, speak several languages, and have two university degrees.

You only claim that I am a pseudo-intellectual because you have no idea what I'm talking about.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 12^th, 2017 at 3:01pm:



No, severall of your posts here seem vague and not accouting for various factors.

Secondly, research is more than just google. Why not try publishing your findings?

Thirdly, I understand everything you say and the inherent flaws. As many others here have pointed out. The last thing the US needs is more power in the president. The whole point of the US system is to have the checks and balances to prevent the pres getting out of control. A lot of Trumps frustration seems to be about not just doing what he likes, as he was used to in his bricklaying industry.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 12^th, 2017 at 3:03pm:


They're vague for the purposes of simplicity. I'm happy to elaborate in more detail, if you care to know more. What factors don't they account for?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 12^th, 2017 at 3:03pm:


I have thought about it.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 12^th, 2017 at 3:03pm:


What flaws?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 12^th, 2017 at 3:03pm:


Let me explain in detail the specific suggestion about appropriation of moneys. The executive's role is only to estimate the money and determine where it goes. I think that the executive branch is the best department of government to understand the pecuniary wants of the nation, rather than individual legislators who have constituent interests.

I think that the executive branch would be more fiscally responsible than the the Congress.

Second, the Congress still has to approve the Bill; if it doesn't then they can shut down the Government. This power gives them bargaining power over appropriations; they just can't amend the Bill unless two-thirds agree. Why two-thirds? Because this ensure broad consensus across the political landscape.

Also, for simplicity sake I didn't include the other provision, which is that the Congress can initiate appropriation bills with a two-thirds vote of both House independently of the President; but given the difficulty in mustering such a majority, it's likely that this won't often happen. As it stands, the Executive has to go begging to Congress for money. In my proposal, it's the other way around, the Congress has to begging to the executive.

I think the notion that the President is too powerful already is misguided. The American President actually isn't that powerful, in my view. The reason why Trump is frustrated is because he doesn't have the political acumen to compromise, like Bill Clinton did for e.g. I think also you're referring to executive orders. These orders are powers delegated by Congress to the Executive branch, and are limited in scope.

When the American system was designed, because it was a first, they didn't have any previous examples to work on. The system was theoretically designed to be a separation of powers (much like we in Australia are theoretically a separation of powers) but in practice, this can vary significantly, particularly if the Executive and Congress are of the same party. True, they are more separate than we are. The Framers didn't anticipate nor want a growing centralized government, nor did they realize that the Federal budget would be so large and used for local purposes. Even if they did, they failed to realize the additional checks needed on Congress over the purse strings. In my view, Congress has too much power over financial matters. Why should the head of the appropriations committee and a few other legislators determine where Federal money goes? Surely the respective departments are in a better position to determine how to best spend the money for their respective programmes? Also, putting appropriation in the hands of individual legislators only creates a situation in which they will abuse that power to spend money in their own constituency, even if the project isn't of a national importance.

Don't forget: the details of the proposal would state that the heads of departments would estimate money needed and then the bill would be submitted to Congress for approval. Congress has to approve the estimates/appropriations but can't amend them. They could make recommendations to the head of department and the latter could include them or reject them as he/she thinks fit. This would create a more fiscally responsibly Federal government in which Federal money is used more for federal matters. Along with the line-item veto, pork-barrelling projects would be reduced (if not eliminated).

Quote:


You're the only one who has commented on the proposal. No one else has.

Auggie wrote on May 13^th, 2017 at 10:53pm:



Longy did several times.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 16^th, 2017 at 3:05pm:


The entire problem with utopian or other grand political system ideas is that people are greedy, corrupt, stupid and worse. Any system has to be able to defend against that. For instance, the checks and balances that have annoyed american presidents for a century are now being used to hold a corrupt Trump in check.  And he is not the only one around who would do the same.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 16^th, 2017 at 3:05pm:


Communism was theoretically flawed from the beginning.

longweekend58 wrote on May 16^th, 2017 at 5:23pm:



Thats my point, if people werent greedy corrupt etc.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 16^th, 2017 at 3:05pm:



you commo 

John Smith wrote on May 17^th, 2017 at 8:03am:


That's another way to do it. I didn't include it because the list is obviously exhaustive. In absence of this however (since there aren't going to be citizen-initiated referenda all the time), there should be rules about bills and what can go in them to mitigate corruption.

How to make America's political system brilliant..

I doubt it but who cares anyway.