From: mece3d@judy.uh.edu (Chris Struble)
Subject: Re: A Proposal For Reforming the US Government
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:46:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.051908.20142@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes...

>In recent years, one of the problems with the US government has been
>the perpetual deadlock between Republican Presidents and Democratic
>Congresses.  While the system of "checks and balances" is usually
>a good thing, the current situation is getting a bit ridiculous.
>Both sides try to prevent the other side from getting anything done, and
>then both sides have a perfect excuse for why they haven't been able to
>do what they promised they were going to do.
> 

  On the contrary, they are doing plenty - spending over a third of the
gross national product employing millions of bureaucrats (who now have
higher average salaries than citizens employed in the private sector) to
regulate us to death, and often, to work at cross purposes.

>The solution is to move towards more of a parliamentary-style system in which
>the President would be selected by the House of Representatives.
>Presidential primaries could remain as is, and the congressmen would
>have to support their party's nominee on the first ballot.  This would
>virtually guarantee that the President's party would control the House
>(at least for the first two years; the President might still be opposed
>by the House for his last two years, or by the Senate at any time). I
>am not sure whether this would lead to more Democratic Presidents or more
>Republican Congressmen -- probably a little of both.

  In other words, make us more like England - a lot of good their parlia-
mentary system does them - the Scots don't seem to be thrilled with it,
which is why they want autonomy. And let's get ourselves a king while
we're at it, I suppose...

  If you want to break the deadlock in Washington between the two major
parties, how about this:

1) Repeal all restrictive ballot access laws which prevent third parties
   from getting on the ballot in many states. If the major parties are 
   doing such a great job serving the American people, what are they
   afraid of?

2) Require media coverage of third parties at least in proportion to 
   their % of votes in previous elections, and allow participation
   in debates. The Libertarian Party candidate Ed Clark got a million
   votes in 1980 (at least 1% of the vote total, I would guess), yet
   subsequent campaigns have gotten <<<1% of media coverage. WHY?

3) Require media to report vote totals of all registered candidates,
   no matter how small their total. The media service used by the 
   major networks not only does not report third party numbers, it
   recalculates vote totals so that DEMO + REPUB (+ PEROT) = 100.000%
   If you vote for anyone but the 'official' candidates, (i.e., whoever
   the media decides they are going to talk about) YOU DO NOT EXIST! 
   Is this Democracy???

4) Require as a condition for federal matching funds that a candidate
   participate in at least one debate with ALL candidates from ALL
   parties, with no pre-screening of qeuestions allowed. This will
   create a BIG incentive for the major parties to face the real issues. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Christian Struble	   |  To shield people from the consequences   |
|  Mechanical Engineering  |  of their own folly is to fill the	       | 
|  University of Houston   |  world with fools  		       |	
|  mece3d@jetson.uh.edu	   |    	Herbert Spencer		       |	
------------------------------------------------------------------------	
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17337 soc.men:8169 soc.women:8735 alt.rush-limbaugh:1091 alt.politics.correct:3605