The System Isn’t ‘Rigged’ Against Sanders

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel - PO; Short, cogent, and highly likely to be correct.

Spot on brother! This exercise in democracy is showing how it really works. Sen. Sanders has been ignored until he ignited the soul of the people. The world that used to control the people easily is over. I'm praying everyone gets through this alive...

COL Ted Mc - "I also agree that Baseball is rigged in favor of the teams with the best pitchers, fielders, and batters."

Okay; but what does that have to do with Hillary? She's not the best ANYTHING?

SSG Pete Fleming - Staff; It isn't "the system" that is nuts - it's the way that "the system" has degenerated from the way that it was Originally Intended to function.

You might want to take note of the fact that many other countries (Republics as well as non-Republics) have systems of representational democracy where the Head of Government IS NOT elected directly, but rather is chosen by the political alignment that has effective (or at least theoretical) control over "The People's Chamber" (by whatever name it is known) and the Head of State is chosen completely separately from the Head of Government.

If I had absolute power to change the structure of the US government, the first thing that I would do would be to sever the Head of State and Head of Government functions. The second thing that I would do would be to change the way that Senators are elected so that there was no DIRECT election for Senators but rather Senators would be chosen (on a proportional representation basis) from "Party Lists" and with the proportions being determined by the results of the last (for example) three State and Federal elections. [To be workable, this would mean that each State would have to have 10 Senators (each serving a 10 year term, with the terms staggered at 1 year intervals, and no one being eligible for more than two terms). With a 10% threshold this would provide for representation of even small regional parties/interests and would also provide for a gradual change in Senate makeup that would lag behind the sudden changes that might take place in the House of Representatives. Since the Senators would be taken from "Party Lists" then there wouldn't be any need to consider how "electable" someone with extensive knowledge and ability was (and there wouldn't be any need to "contribute to a Senator's campaign" - since the entire "campaign" would be taking place inside the political grouping that the Senator selected). I might go even further and suggest that the whole of a Senator's living costs would be paid by the Federal government and that 80% of any income/benefits which the Senator received for anything outside of their actual "Senatorial Work" would have to be surrendered to the Federal government, but we won't go into that now.]

COL Ted Mc - I fear your system would create more issues. It would be reminiscent of the old world aristocratic system. Though we are not a democracy, we are a Republic. If you take the vote away from the people then they no longer matter. Which is how most of feel now. One hand you speak of reducing the size and scope of the government while advocating giving the rise to a true establishment. This would guarantee a new revolution/civil war. No one would win from that.

Why not remove all the non-sense, go to a straight vote by the people and instill term limits. As for you issue with senators, that is why we have representative, a form of checks and balances within the Congress... We need to cut the federal government and go back to the Constitution as the key law of the land. Furthermore, give back the powers to the states that were guaranteed in the Constitution.

Maj Rob Drury - Major; Correction. Ms. Clinton is VERY good at what she does.

You may not LIKE what she does, and I may not LIKE what she does, but you should - in all honesty - admit that she does it well.

SSG Pete Fleming - Staff; A "Republic" is merely a form of government where the "Head of State" is NOT "hereditary". On that basis, the United States of America is as much a "Republic" as are France, Botswana, Russia, and the PRC.

The United States of America is ALSO a "Representative Democracy" and has always been so since that is the system of government that the Founding Fathers set up and Originally Intended should be in place. To say "The United States of America is not a 'Democracy'." is technically correct but it flies in the face of the reality that the Founding Fathers WANTED "The People" to have a "democratic voice" in their own government.

If you had looked closely, you would have seen that no vote was taken away. Proportional representation is one of the two major systems of selecting members of governing bodies in countries where "The People" have a "democratic voice" in their own government. [If applied across the board it tends to be fractious and unwieldy, but applied judiciously it can ensure that the smaller voices in society actually get heard.] The hybrid system of using the same electoral results to select a "first past the post" lower level of government and a "Proportional Representational" upper chamber allows for the benefits of both to work in tandem. [Face it, if 60% of the voters support "Party X" and 40% support "Party Y" which would provide fairer representation for ALL of the voters 100% "Party X" representatives and 0% "Party Y" representatives ("First Past The Post" system [the way it works now]) or 60% "Party X" representatives and 40% "Party Y" representatives ("Proportional Representation" system [very similar to the way that the Founding Fathers envisioned the system operating when the membership of the Senate was determined by "the right people" locally deciding who would BEST represent them WITHOUT the intervention of political parties])?

I oppose the grossly overly simplistic "Term Limits" solution for the simple reason that no one is proposing terms long enough for the elected representatives to actually learn how "The System" actually operates and become proficient in working with it. This would leave the (effective) control of government in the hands of the professional Civil Service - and you might note that "The People" have NO SAY whatsoever in the appointment of Civil Servants. "Term Limits" also removes the right of "The People" to chose the person that they want to represent them.

PS - The House of Representatives was NOT installed to created a "check" on the Senate. The "checks" are between [1] the Executive Branch (Originally Intended to be selected by and from the ranks of "The Right People", [2] the Judicial Branch (Originally Intended to be selected by and from the ranks of "The Right People", and [3] the Legislative branch composed of [3a] the Senate (Originally Intended to be selected by and from the ranks of "The Right People" and [3b] the House of Representatives (Originally Intended to be "The Voice of Those Who Weren't 'The Right People'" - but who couldn't be ignored and which was going to be kept very carefully under the thumbs of the Senate, the Judicial Branch, and the Executive Branch).