From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: A Proposal For Reforming the US Government
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 08:18:56 GMT

In article <9APR199216460064@judy.uh.edu> mece3d@judy.uh.edu (Chris Struble) writes:
>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.

Yes, the point is that they are working at "cross purposes."  You didn't
expect government deadlock to lead to deregulation and lower taxes, did
you?  Perhaps I should rephrase: they are not doing anything in a
principled or coherent fashion; and what they do get done often has little
relation to what they promised they were going to do.

>>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 -

It does a lot of good!  When a party wins an election, it is able to
try out its ideas.  If its ideas are popular (Thatcherism), then the
party tends to get elected again.  If the ideas are bad (Labour socialism),
the party tends to get repudiated.  (Unfortunately, the Brits were for a long
time  more inclined to socialism so they have a lot of catching up to do!)

>the Scots don't seem to be thrilled with it which is why they want autonomy.

I don't see the relevance of this comment.

>And let's get ourselves a king while we're at it, I suppose...

I don't see the relevance of this comment.

>  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. 

The point of all your proposals seems to be to make it (slightly)
easier for third parties to win.  I fail to see why this would be
helpful.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss