Should the USA Re-Organize The Legislative Branch?

[Wintermute]

I say keep the states. But re-organize representation into something like the FBS (college sports conferences). Regional, multi-state conglomerates. Force Reps and Senators to vote and work remotely from their home state rather than working from D.C.

Streamline the whole process.

Thoughts?

[GuerrillaUnReal]

What would the benefits to your proposed system be and why do you feel the need to restructure it?

[Claudius]

I say keep the states. But re-organize representation into something like the FBS (college sports conferences). Regional, multi-state conglomerates. Force Reps and Senators to vote and work remotely from their home state rather than working from D.C.

Streamline the whole process.

Thoughts?

That would do the opposite of "streamline". That would result in blocks of states pushing bills which only help themselves and hurt other blocks. Also it would consolidate power into blocks as opposed to states and the Federal government which would simply create the same problem you wish to solve. Having the states represent themselves within a larger federal government allows for a limited amount of uniformity of laws, (especially particularly important ones) and creates a more coherent governmental structure than simply having provinces which are run basically by independent pro-consuls with pro-praetors beneath them.   

[GravitySucks]

Just implement term limits, make it so they cannot exempt themselves from any statute, and make them liable for fraud if they do not live up to their campaign promises.

[Juan]

How about have all laws apply to members of Congress and the Senate for two years before they apply to citizens.  Or, for every law they pass, they have to repeal two existing laws.

[Wintermute]

Maybe I am just looking to federate the USA... I don't know. Just tossing an idea out there. Top-level fed regulation for a lot of things is ok. But for a lot of other things it's stupid.

The USA is a very large geographical area. Lots of different cultures. Lots of different needs. Might be time to look this from a "regional" perspective rather than "states rights". Keep the overall federal gov out of the picture more.

[albrecht]

Maybe I am just looking to federate the USA... I don't know. Just tossing an idea out there. Top-level fed regulation for a lot of things is ok. But for a lot of other things it's stupid.

The USA is a very large geographical area. Lots of different cultures. Lots of different needs. Might be time to look this from a "regional" perspective rather than "states rights". Keep the overall federal gov out of the picture more.

So just substitute "regions" for the States but keep the model that, supposedly, we have of Federalism? I think we should just go back to the original model of allowing the States, Counties, Cities etc to handle more things and save when in conflict, national defense, etc for the whole Federal level. Many, if not most, of our States are better than many Countries so no inherent reason this could not work. Really, there would be no reason that the States could be given even MORE autonomy and devolve even more power, except that many States now rely on Federal money to operate things and have proven not to be able to be trusted with budgets etc any more than the Feds. Not that we shouldn't try though. Maybe, like N.Dakota have State banks to encourage investment, bonds, etc in that state and operate in the interests of its citizens; not outside investors?

[NowhereInTime]

Maybe I am just looking to federate the USA... I don't know. Just tossing an idea out there. Top-level fed regulation for a lot of things is ok. But for a lot of other things it's stupid.

The USA is a very large geographical area. Lots of different cultures. Lots of different needs. Might be time to look this from a "regional" perspective rather than "states rights". Keep the overall federal gov out of the picture more.

In this vein I believe the US Senate should be proportionally representative rather than by state. It would force some states together that are currently over represented and give states like California a stronger voice due it's importance to our country.
I also agree with term limits.  This is a complete 180 for me but we need something to break the grip of gerrymandering and forfeiture of elections to incumbents.  3 terms House, 1 term Senate.
I like the idea of "working from home" ; reducing time in DC would force lobbyists to expend greater effort to work influence on elected legislators.

[NowhereInTime]

So just substitute "regions" for the States but keep the model that, supposedly, we have of Federalism? I think we should just go back to the original model of allowing the States, Counties, Cities etc to handle more things and save when in conflict, national defense, etc for the whole Federal level. Many, if not most, of our States are better than many Countries so no inherent reason this could not work. Really, there would be no reason that the States could be given even MORE autonomy and devolve even more power, except that many States now rely on Federal money to operate things and have proven not to be able to be trusted with budgets etc any more than the Feds. Not that we shouldn't try though. Maybe, like N.Dakota have State banks to encourage investment, bonds, etc in that state and operate in the interests of its citizens; not outside investors?

The biggest reason this doesn't work is because too many states have shown easy access to corrupting influence and no commitment to protecting the rights of all people.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

[NowhereInTime]

Intriguing!  Funny (but true) how Miami was slivered off as part of the Islands. And Quebec it's own temperamental region.
I wonder if this wouldn't be a more appropriate organization of the country (assuming Canada into the US but not ceding Texas, Arizona,  and Southern California back to Mexico)?
Great find!

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Intriguing!  Funny (but true) how Miami was slivered off as part of the Islands. And Quebec it's own temperamental region.
I wonder if this wouldn't be a more appropriate organization of the country (assuming Canada into the US but not ceding Texas, Arizona,  and Southern California back to Mexico)?
Great find!

It's from an old book I picked up a long time ago, The Nine Nations of North America.  I thought it was a pretty interesting idea.

[nooryisawesome]

The English Monarchy should appoint senators and congressman on the basis of the old stalwart system.

[Juan]

We voted in term limits in Florida.  We got rid of few pols.  They simply ran for a different office.

[albrecht]

The biggest reason this doesn't work is because too many states have shown easy access to corrupting influence and no commitment to protecting the rights of all people.

There are much smaller countries that do a fine job "protecting the rights of all people" and sure, others that don't. But there is no inherent reason why the USA on the Federal level needs to have such a large, corrupt, top-down management and control over every aspect of our lives. Certainly that was never intended. Arguably the danger is, like with small countries, there would be a defense issue but even places like Switzerland survive ok- without allying even during some serious wars. Other countries don't as well when it comes to a big war without larger allies but still do just fine in normal times. And I'm not suggesting that each State would be a separate country- just a sovereign state in much of their affairs. And there would be free travel of people and capital between the States so, like today, businesses and people would self-segregate to areas, climates, taxation schemes, people, that they prefer- so maybe even less social discord.

There could still be common national defense. In fact that defense could be used much like the corrupt Federal spending is used today- if Georgia, which wouldn't happen but to use an egregious example- said "we are bringing back slavery" than the USA would withdraw any future military defense, stop enforcing immigration and allow a flood of "refugees" in, or stop trade from that region and ban travel to/from it. Or even invade, I guess.

But the nation is "diverse" why should one area (and a small one) called DC, often via non-elected officials in various agencies or semi-public agencies control all regulation, social mores, laws, spending, etc? Or oddball Hollywood values determine how everyone else must run their lives? I thought "diversity" and "democracy" was good? 

[Wintermute]

California flies in the face of my concept actually. California has more agriculture production output than some of the Midwestern states. Just southern Cal alone has a larger material handling market than the entire state of Texas. Manufacturing has been strong in SoCal continuously as the Rust Belt ebbs and flows with the economy. NoCal... tech industry, second to none.

So you take those things into account + the Hollywood factor, and for a small area it is extremely economically diverse. So imposing even a small, regional gov on Cal would not make anything better. Might make things worse. 

Who knows.

[paladin1991]

In this vein I believe the US Senate should be proportionally representative rather than by state. It would force some states together that are currently over represented and give states like California a stronger voice due it's importance to our country.
I also agree with term limits.  This is a complete 180 for me but we need something to break the grip of gerrymandering and forfeiture of elections to incumbents.  3 terms House, 1 term Senate.
I like the idea of "working from home" ; reducing time in DC would force lobbyists to expend greater effort to work influence on elected legislators.

There should be a draft for our 'representatives.'  A minimum wage salary.  The leadership of this nation was not intended to be road to enrichment. It was a call to service.  A duty to be borne and relinquished.  Those lifer gravy sucking pigs up on 'the hill' are ripe for the harvest and I do love my bacon.

[DanTSX]

In this vein I believe the US Senate should be proportionally representative rather than by state. It would force some states together that are currently over represented and give states like California a stronger voice due it's importance to our country.
I also agree with term limits.  This is a complete 180 for me but we need something to break the grip of gerrymandering and forfeiture of elections to incumbents.  3 terms House, 1 term Senate.
I like the idea of "working from home" ; reducing time in DC would force lobbyists to expend greater effort to work influence on elected legislators.

I'm looking forward to Texas and Florids working together under your model.

[DanTSX]

Maybe we should just hold our legislators accountable, and streamline the process that ensures reinforces an enforced two party system....


Or just give the states more control over their affairs....

[GravitySucks]

Maybe we should just hold our legislators accountable, and streamline the process that ensures reinforces an enforced two party system....


Or just give the states more control over their affairs....

Maybe we should follow the Constitution and restore states rights to their original intended state.

[NowhereInTime]

I'm looking forward to Texas and Florids working together under your model.

I'm looking forward to not letting the minute populations of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have stronger representation in the US Senate than Florida, Texas, and California.

[NowhereInTime]

Maybe we should just hold our legislators accountable, and streamline the process that ensures reinforces an enforced two party system....

Dream on.  We can't even hold Ben Carson "accountable" for misrepresenting his past; all he has to do is call reporters "liars" and half the country accepts him hook, line, and sinker.

Or just give the states more control over their affairs....

Right, because so many states have shown themselves to be paragons of virtue protecting the rights' of their citizens, administering funds, or ensuring a decent election takes place. 

Seriously, you live in CT, are you copacetic with Joe Ganim getting state funds for projects in B-PO?  You think Dan Malloy has a clue how to manage a budget? He gets into public spats with Denise Nappier when she tells him his figures suck, then two months later, he has to cut $250 million (goodbye medical benefits for seniors)!  Do you want the next John Rowland running pay for play, or Eddie Perez?  Good Lord CT alone justifies a Federal Bureau of Investigation!

Next door in NY, how about the decades of corruption from Speaker Sheldon Silver? How about Bob McDonnell getting locked away in VA? 

Here's some reading on those trustworthy states managing their own affairs:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/01/22/the-most-corrupt-states-in-america/

[NowhereInTime]

Maybe we should follow the Constitution and restore states rights to their original intended state.

We are too far along as a society to revert to provincialism.

[albrecht]

We are too far along as a society to revert to provincialism.

Better than the tribalism Obama and others of his ilk seek to promote with the BLM, and other divisive political movements based on race, religion, class, gender, etc, the wide open-border, taking in of unvetted "refugees," and desire to Balkanize the country to destabilize into a single-party system with top-down management and control over all aspect of our lives- or just to diminish the economic and global "western hegemony" because whitey is always the bad guy. Hence the attack on Europe countries and near-suicidal immigration policies there.

Besides aren't we all supposed to "think globally, act locally?"

[NowhereInTime]

Better than the tribalism Obama and others of his ilk seek to promote with the BLM, and other divisive political movements based on race, religion, class, gender, etc, the wide open-border, taking in of unvetted "refugees," and desire to Balkanize the country to destabilize into a single-party system with top-down management and control over all aspect of our lives- or just to diminish the economic and global "western hegemony" because whitey is always the bad guy. Hence the attack on Europe countries and near-suicidal immigration policies there.

Alice!  Oh, Alice!  Time to come home from Wonderland!

Besides aren't we all supposed to "think globally, act locally?"

I'd be satisfied if you and your team would just "think".

[albrecht]

Alice!  Oh, Alice!  Time to come home from Wonderland!

You mean like one the tax-payer funded shin-digs Obama had (as reported by that evil right-wing press HP?)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/08/obamas-alice-in-wonderland-white-house-party_n_1192884.html
Or his Syrian policy, as described by the CFR member did in CFR's magazine "Foreign Policy" (yes, that CFR?)
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/06/25/obamas-alice-in-wonderland-syria-strategy/
Nice to see him fiddling while Rome USA and Syria burns.

[VtaGeezer]

To the basic question; yes and more.  The system has become separated from reality and from the people. Our shoelaces are tied together by an irrational fixation on a political entity created by 17th Century Euro monarchs, an 18th century social order, and 19th Century political/financial deals; the American "state".  We began with a reasonable thirteen but somehow ended up with ungovernable fifty, and had one devastating Civil War based on some exercising an anachronistic notion of sovereignty.

The notion that the original delineation of the individual states must be eternal regardless of current realities of population and economics has become a straight jacket for a nation of a third a billion highly mobile people.  There are too many states, providing too many points of entry and leverage for Federal special interests. They have too many electoral differences and idiosyncrasies, insane population differences, and far too much raw money influence; especially out-of-state money. That Wyoming with 600K people and California with 39 million have equal Senate representation is a farce.  That 50% of the US Senate comes from states totaling 15% of the US population is even nuttier.  But it's a pipe dream that anything significant be fixed in time to prevent its collapse or worse since, Justice Jackson notwithstanding, the Constitution in fact appears more and more to be a suicide pact.

[albrecht]

To the basic question; yes and more.  The system has become separated from reality and from the people. Our shoelaces are tied together by an irrational fixation on a political entity created by 17th Century Euro monarchs, an 18th century social order, and 19th Century political/financial deals; the American "state".  We began with a reasonable thirteen but somehow ended up with ungovernable fifty, and had one devastating Civil War based on some exercising an anachronistic notion of sovereignty.

The notion that the original delineation of the individual states must be eternal regardless of current realities of population and economics has become a straight jacket for a nation of a third a billion highly mobile people.  There are too many states, providing too many points of entry and leverage for Federal special interests. They have too many electoral differences and idiosyncrasies, insane population differences, and far too much raw money influence; especially out-of-state money. That Wyoming with 600K people and California with 39 million have equal Senate representation is a farce.  That 50% of the US Senate comes from states totaling 15% of the US population is even nuttier.  But it's a pipe dream that anything significant be fixed in time to prevent its collapse or worse since, Justice Jackson notwithstanding, the Constitution in fact appears more and more to be a suicide pact.

Absurd. Many countries are smaller than some of our states, some far smaller, and, usually, get-by ok. The problem is that people in DC, or California, tell people in Wyoming how they need to act, farm, ranch, do business, marry, etc. And we have an insane immigration policy post '65 but especially now.

And that we feel, as a country, that we need to be the world's policeman, moral authority, and funding mechanism. If we lowered, I won't say completely eliminate, our "global footprint" militarily, money to international institutions, and our foreign aide and assistance and left our own people, states, and businesses more alone (and no more bailouts or corporate welfare and no-bid contracts,) we would be just fine. Nobody is going to invade us (except by us wanting it officially as policy- as with the illegals) because we still have technology (nuclear and otherwise) to deal with them if needed.

[VtaGeezer]

Absurd. Many countries are smaller than some of our states, some far smaller, and, usually, get-by ok. The problem is that people in DC, or California, tell people in Wyoming how they need to act, farm, ranch, do business, marry, etc. And we have an insane immigration policy post '65 but especially now.

And that we feel, as a country, that we need to be the world's policeman, moral authority, and funding mechanism. If we lowered, I won't say completely eliminate, our "global footprint" militarily, money to international institutions, and our foreign aide and assistance and left our own people, states, and businesses more alone (and no more bailouts or corporate welfare and no-bid contracts,) we would be just fine. Nobody is going to invade us (except by us wanting it officially as policy- as with the illegals) because we still have technology (nuclear and otherwise) to deal with them if needed.

What's absurd is having two Senators representing 600,000 nullify the two Senators representing 39 Million on general legislation.

[albrecht]

What's absurd is having two Senators representing 600,000 nullify the two Senators representing 39 Million on general legislation.

No, defending a minority against a majority is not a bad thing. It is the reason that, just about anywhere in the 'free' world, we don't have pure democracies. What is absurd is that people think some politician or bureaucrat thousands of miles away needs to dictate how one runs their lives, property, and businesses.