19 points

I’d be okay with keeping the senate. I think the founding fathers had a good idea, Senate was meant to be more “Long term sustainability” while the House was meant to deal with the needs of now.

However, Term Limits. They didn’t see senators sitting on their seats until they were over 90 years old. In their day if you made it to 40 you were apparently doing really well.

permalink
report
reply
7 points

If you made it to 25 or 30 (age requirements for congress), 40 was not a surprise. A person then was considered old at 65-70, so younger than now, but not much

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points
*

Police reform. Abortion protection. Web neutrality. Data privacy. Gender affirmative care protection. Legalized weed. Minimum wages tied to inflation, on top of UBU. If we’re getting crazy.

permalink
report
reply
0 points

You can cover a lot of gender and abortion issues, with a right to elective medical care.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

substitute inflation with CPI: that’s what we do in australia… inflation is a finance term that kinda doesn’t represent cost of living: you’re seeing that in the US right now i believe where your inflation is actually not terrible, but your cost of living is crazy

CPI does introduce some BS though because it’s not exactly a specific set of rules… we had an issue recently where the govt set CPI lower than what people thought it should be and everyone was pretty outraged

permalink
report
parent
reply
94 points

Why would you merge the Senate and the House, especially in the direction of the House? The Senate, being a statewide race, has a tendency to attract moderates as they need to appeal to a much broader group. The House, being significantly more local, more easily allows extremist views on both sides of the aisle. Expanding the seats and ensuring representatives represent roughly equal number of constituents as each other will itself go a long way.

The term limit of SCOTUS seems low. That almost syncs with a double run of a president allowing some to get potentially multiple appointments while others get none. That leaves the stability of the court left in some part to chance. Expanding the courts and setting the term limit in a way that each president generally gets an appointment per term would help deradicalizing the courts.

There should probably be some incentive to actually encourage domestic job production. In a global economic environment without such incentive there will continue to be job losses and even with UBI an unnecessary burden will increase over the years. That can threaten stability and lead to cutting life saving services. A CCC program can help a lot, but we also need private industry to seek domestic labor more broadly.

Municipalize infrastructure and health production. The government should actually own some factories and produce goods itself rather than the bloated bidding contractor stuff.

Don’t let public employees leave their positions only to be immediately hired back as a contractor at a much higher rate. If you want to work for the public sector, work for the public sector.

Pay public sector workers (including academia) enough to allow people that actually want to pursue those careers to live comfortably and to entice more people to transition into those careers.

Fund education for all for as long as they want it. Educating your populace means you will have a more skilled and more innovative workforce which will lead to better outcomes for everyone.

Significantly reduce copyright protections. They should not let anywhere near a lifetime, and they just serve to hamper derivative innovation.

permalink
report
reply
19 points

Here’s my Supreme Court fantasy:

Every president appoints one justice, but only in their second term if reelected. Fuck cares how many justices there are at any given time.

Here’s the catch: There’s no term limit and technically no age limit… but in order to qualify, any nominee must have served at least 20 years as a federal judge and have another 15 years in the legal system (as a judge, attorney, whatever), for 35 years total experience. Oh and they should have a law degree, since that’s not a requirement right now lol.

This way you get someone with a judicial record to consider at confirmation hearings, and make sure they’re incidentally old enough that they’ll die or retire relatively soon in case they turn out to be fucking horrible.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

second-term presidents having expanded power seems scary. otherwise this all seems cool. any ideas about reforming lower federal judge appointments by the president?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

What happens if you have a streak of single term presidents, with no new judges appointed?

I would rather see a lottery system implemented. Every year, the oldest standing percentage of judges gets retired and replaced with randomly picked judges out of a pool that meets certain requirements (these can be debated). No election, no appointment, using an auditable system, and participation is compulsory, with strict restrictions of what activities the judge is allowed to participate in while serving so that they’re discouraged from staying on term too long.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Jury duty for judges. Interesting thought!

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

What if we turned it into a virtual supreme court like that?

Every case gets heard 2-3 times, Judges are randomly assigned from the pool of federal judges that meet qualifications.

This body could vote to impeach their members, and courts are randomly assembled for a few months at a time

The idea being, the supreme Court has one job - to decide matters of law, meaning they decide edge cases and conflicts. They need to understand the law, not have power - the goal is consistency in applying the law. A method to find consensus among top judges seems a lot more stable and effective than individuals

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

The problem with the Senate is that it gives land more power than people. The weight given to a Senate voter in a less populated state like Montana is like 40x that of a voter in a state like California. Abolishing the Senate would move the power of each voter closer to equality. Anti-gerrymandering measures would get you the rest of the way there.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

You can still expand the seats and ensure that reps have roughly an equal number of constituents for a state wide race.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

You understand, I appreciate you. Realize you are thinking for yourself and you represent an individual who would make the world a better place if you speak loud.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Fund education for all for as long as they want it. Educating your populace means you will have a more skilled and more innovative workforce which will lead to better outcomes for everyone.

This needs to be more.

Fix the education system to promote children. Feed and nurture them. Give them healthy foods to fuel their minds. Feed them 3x a day if needed. Stop allowing the people to decide if this should be covered by taxes.

Eliminate grade blocks (tiers, years, whatever) so kids that excel and not be hampered by kids that don’t want to be there. I was so bored until grade 5, then someone recognized my abilities and fostered them. I was the class clown and acted out because i was bored until I was shifted into a different class which was advanced in every way. If I show top grades, maybe I shouldn’t be held back because little Tommy the bully is a dipshit (he deserves to learn at his own pace).

In later years, remove redundant classes and replace with trades for students that are not excelling. Teach them viable skills. No one needs to have history classes in high schools, unless it serves a purpose. The only option for someone with zero skills should not be military school.

And for the love that is all wholly educational, pay our teachers so much better. Promote teachers that show drive (regardless of student year). Also mandate continuing education for them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points
*

I’ve always heard that abolishing corporate personhood would make them untaxable. I don’t know for sure, but I imagine you’d have to be very careful with that one. That said, I understand the general goal, and I’m for it.

Edit: That was a lazy comment. Wikipedia:

Treating juridical persons as having legal rights allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions that would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association.

permalink
report
reply
9 points

“I’ve always heard…” followed by “I don’t know for sure…” are the hallmarks of a comment that should have never been written in the first place.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

See edit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Whoever you heard that from knows even less about tax law than I do.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I see the value in an odd number of branches. That’s the only one that I don’t support. Can’t have two branches fight. We need an odd number for a tie breaker.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

They don’t really directly “vote” like that though

permalink
report
parent
reply

General Discussion

!general@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to Lemmy.World General!

This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don’t seem to fit in any other community, or don’t have an active community yet.


🪆 About Lemmy World

🧭 Finding Communities

Feel free to ask here or over in: !lemmy411@lemmy.ca!

Also keep an eye on:

For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse and Feddit Lemmy Community Browser!


💬 Additional Discussion Focused Communities:

Rules

Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.
  1. See: Rules for Users.
  2. No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  3. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  4. Be thoughtful and helpful: even with ‘silly’ questions. The world won’t be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
  5. Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
  6. Posts concerning other instances’ activity/decisions are better suited to !fediverse@lemmy.world or !lemmydrama@lemmy.world communities.
  7. No Ads/Spamming.
  8. No NSFW content.

Community stats

  • 764

    Monthly active users

  • 555

    Posts

  • 11K

    Comments