Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

Image and video hosting by TinyPic







Image and video hosting by TinyPic


Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Image and video hosting by TinyPic




[The Last Pures IRC Channel]
#TLP

[The Last Pures - Quick Links]
[The Last Pures - Rules]
[The Last Pures - Introduction]
[The Last Pures - Junior Application]
[The Last Pures - Member Application]

[Public Clan Chat]
TLP CC

[Community]
Runescape Community
Pure Warfare


Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
The Outdated Legislative Branch
Topic Started: Jun 3 2011, 12:38:07 PM (205 Views)
Null
Member Avatar
You're a Queer!

I understand most of you have really tiny brains and wouldn't be at my level. So just get your +1 and leave if you're planning on it. To everyone else, I anticipate what you have to say :)

If you want a tl;dr skip to the -------------, this is an introduction to the idea. If you skip it you'll probably come up with a lame counter-argument.

In governments all over the world, one of the most popular governing strategies and political system is the legislative body; congress, council, convention, club, caucus, assembly, senate, parliament, committee, union, whatever you'd like to call it, and whatever you can imagine it as. Whatever else the government is based around can interact with that legislative body in ways that effect different parts of said country in a variety of ways. How that legislative body interacts with that country is dependent on the system and the people running it.

Now let's take a country like the US for example; I'll make it easy enough for 4nrs to understand.
---3 Branches of government: legislative(dese hoes), judicial(courts), executive(obama).
---The way each of these run are based on what makes up the government: the laws(judicial), the people(legislative), the government as an institution(executive).

I'mma break this down for you right quick man. Legislative bodies are made to represent large masses of people over vast amounts of land. The idea originated before methods of mass-communication. Utilizing it was an easy way to operate a large government that had no means of mass-communication. In fact the slower the world operated for this type of legislative body, the better - because then the members could go home more often.

Would you call the pace of the modern world slow? People live competitively in a way that makes the world update all sorts of things daily, hourly, at any and all paces.

Now let's think of what groups of people are and what they're capable of. For starters, two heads are better than one. It's an old saying, the idea of it probably goes back to when ur grandma used to ride my cock. When enough people get together, they can better brainstorm solutions and possibilities. What they brainstorm about may take different turns depending on what the focus of their group is about.

Now if the same small[in relation to the number of people they represent] group constantly got together, with differing beliefs and varied areas of expertise, over ways to run a country there would be several side effects:

---Small amounts of people means that it's easy to place blame. Scapegoats are used all too often, and in the end results in repeated mistakes because no one can stick around long enough for them to learn from it. And those that do, are more tightly kept by being 'politically correct'.
---People in powerful positions- you have a vote? I have some money. 'Corruption' and people controlling votes who were not meant to. When votes that are suppose to benefit the people go to benefitting whoever can pay their way through government , the government becomes inefficient. By favoring those who pay, it's unfavoring those who are at the bottom. Common theme repeats -> common downfall of most systems.
---With all the fanfare surrounding it, making it an exclusive group, the legislative body becomes a too tightly knit group over things that wouldn't need to be tightly kept if it were a more publicly accessible commodity. How can people be fully represented when a new issue comes up?- If all the lawmakers, bribe-payers, and experts that all concentrated from the same place are trying to fit laws that work for people everywhere else, where do the people come in and voice their opinion? It shuts them out completely. There are more creative solutions, but they don't rest in the minds of aristocrats. Aristocrats don't invent things, they severely lack on a creative mindset, the closest they come is innovating their lives with expenses. Not utilizing the public to its full potential makes the outcome lack the best possible solutions.

In the United States for example, we have these shit brains vote on stuff, while they actually bring in other people to do all the deciding for them. Whether it be "experts", or the businesses that pay for their campaigns. Doesn't much help people, does it?

-------------

My idea is this; an expansive congress, represented more by the actual people and less by politicians. We have all these retarded levels of government that don't do enough in the US thanks to divisions of power. It branches down from federal, to state, to county, then to city/town and some bigger cities have more divisions. Why does the elected congress of people need to act at a higher level than all the rest when it's such an exclusive group to get into? Why shouldn't it be more vastly represented now that we have the means of mass-communication. Isn't this system outdated?
I imagine it would work like this:

---You have a certain number of representative per whatever amount of people in places. There would be a shit ton more of them than there are now.
---These representatives would be more local than any nationwide-senator seems to be. And could bring their ideas to a national, local, or in between level. If they write up a useful bill, it could be supported by others, and voted on to go to a larger level, then voted on by the rest. They would also be able to take care of local issues. It would place importance on the creativity and talent of the writer more than the pressure from the public. The aim of this is so that elections would focus more on what the person can do, instead of what the person stands for, or what their beliefs are.
---The most important aspect of this idea is that discussion would start at a lower level. People would bring it up in local meetings, with other representatives from around the area. If someone has a good idea, they go bigger with it. As more and more ideas are created, the better ones can either compete or combine at the higher level. There's less competition because the people who are pushing for these laws to be enacted are the writers. When you find other people at the same national level that you are, you can combine ideas with whoever else and re-write something that turns out to be the most beneficial idea. - Now let's think, a single local guy thinks up a genius idea for the entire government to function off of: He get's reelected, other people try to do the same thing or paint the same image = people profit?
---With people more directly involved in government, it's easier for other people to be approving of it. Because right now I don't know what the **** happens with any of this shit. I can guarantee I would have a few good ideas on how to run this shit hole, but not that they care about my opinion because I ain't wasting my time getting elected. The people would become represented in a legitimate way that involves people actually running the government instead of some exclusive group. When there's no exclusive group to shit all over and unfavor the public, the public should become a better place.

That's how I think it would work in the US, if you're country had a system like this with mass-representation in government(hopefully from an educated public) from the people's side, do you think this would be a positive thing for the country? And do you think it would work in my example?
Edited by Null, Jun 4 2011, 09:28:14 PM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
I Love Crank
Member Avatar
give me elder

glad you included from an educated public at the end

first, I think that as the times change the government should also change, albeit rarely. The government formed in the United States is debatably the greatest government formed to date, judging by the remarkable foresight the drafters had. But yer, what worked then doesn't mean it's sublime now.

I would like to see a more favorable representation of the people; figuring out how to make such a large group effective would be difficult. First of all, I have always wondered where they came up with the number of 435 people in the House. 435 people was passed in 1909 when there was ~90 million citizens, now there are over 300 million citizens. 435 people representing the country with a minimum of 1 from each state and as much as 53 in 1 state (Cali); it's funny to see that it takes 20 of the lowest states to account for the same amount of reps as California has. If you click the wiki answers link below, it says to reapportion the House as they did it originally, there could be a maximum of 10,000 members. Obviously this wouldn't be the case because that's dividing the total population, but by changing it I think the people would call for a large representation and we'd see a drastic increase. I don't really know what to think about the senate

http://www.1930census.com/1910_census.php
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_there_435_elected_members_in_the_house_of_representatives
http://2010.census.gov/news/pdf/apport2010_map1.pdf

Yes adding more people as local representatives could benefit their respective voters. Also I'm a bit confused; are you suggesting a sort of new style where there are different people on say, different rungs of the ladder? Lowest going for his community, next with supervisors of those meetings (of some sort) that are more worried with state/regionwide, and last nationally, a group that is looking at the big picture? If not, before I really go on to argue how long these meetings would be and how difficult it could become to get shit accomplished when each person is arguing only for his/her own community, whereas others are possibly sacrificing the help to said community for the welfare of the country. Matters will really depend on the increase in size of the Senate/House.

As far as corruption goes, just because I elect somebody I know from around town doesn't mean he is incorruptible. When it comes to passing ideas, even locally, there are always 2 sides to the coin that can be argued indefinitely... and there will always be rich people corrupting politicians to get the outcome they want.

Also, the people can never be truly represented. We elect people by majority to represent us, and there will always be half of the people that constantly gripe about who wins, and those elected that don't exactly do what they preached while running.

brain is a bit muddled because of the time of day but I'll be back later
Edited by I Love Crank, Jun 3 2011, 02:00:56 PM.
Its inhabitants are, as the man once said, 'whores, pimps, gamblers and sons of bitches,' by which he meant Everybody. Had the man looked through another peephole he might have said, 'Saints and angels and martyrs and holy men,' and he would have meant the same thing.

cannery row

[img]http://4gifs.com/gallery/d/182178-3/Cat_plays.gif[/img]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Null
Member Avatar
You're a Queer!

I'm changing the light of a politician a little from someone who wears a suit every day and tries to impress his peers to suck up to them, to someone who tries to impress anyone and everyone but through action.

After watching this ridiculous game of American politics for years, I've learned to just say "shut up and do it", watching them talk about things accomplishes nothing. The race for presidency has become such a gameshow.

I would like to see an idea like it implemented in America, but I'd settle for anywhere. If it were in the US:

-reps generally everywhere, fuck the senate it's a useless idea-begone senate

-local reps pick which ones organize the local madness. Like in a city council type of way. One has no more power than the others, just is chosen to organize how they work; organize the meetings and such. Like a leadership role, then the heirarchy can go up from there but none of these reps would be any more powerful than the next, they would just provide the stepping stones for legislature to go larger.

-I don't see it fitting with the current levels of government, state boundaries are really just random lines, we could do a lot better organizing people by population and geography like a cartographer would. The ideas of it would really just interfere with state laws and such. I like the idea of a state persay for local organization but I don't like one state differing in advantages like the house of reps because of laws.

-What it would stand in place of would be levels of government, they would still exist but the reps could take care of local and larger problems. Not everyone will have a solution for larger problems, but surely with more people offering their assistance it creates a better outcome. A problem it would cause is that if too many people try to throw in their 2 cents, then you're flooded with shit. But that's why discussions would be held at a local level first, to filter out good and bad ideas, then bring the good ones to a larger level. If the people writing their own ideas aren't idiots, they'll see the potential in other people's writing and work with the others from there. Collaborations would most definitely happen. I don't think it would be the kind of 2-way fighting and arguments that you see in politics today.

-I think they would be less corruptable: It's easy to buy out a senators vote persay, because it's easy to find the person with the vote, their vote makes them exclusive. If there's a lot more votes to be given, their worth goes down. Let's say someone attempts to bribe a vote, if the idea isn't legit enough then it probably won't go far through a system of people looking for creativity. If it benefits someone directly enough it will be noticed because of the number of people in the system. Plus I think this system would act in a different way, people would say "Wait do this, it's a better idea", instead of "This is what we wrote".
--or everyone gets bought out, but then the general population would be rich. Which technically helps the people, as to make it not such a bad thing. Even though not nearly enough people would hold the wealth still, but the specifics of that part aren't really important to this debate.

About the community levels, if something is on a national level it would go out to all particpants. If it's on a local level it would go out to the local participants. Having large groups of people from everywhere would filter out the kind of bills that would try to benefit one community from something at a national level. Although not trying to hurt them, just playing favorites doesn't help anyone-this keeps more of an equilibrium.

I'm trying to suggest something that's similar to the house of reps but at the same time combines with state and local level government for smooth operating. I think it would make this whole branch of government itself less exclusive and unreachable to the public than the way it is now, hopefully it would cause more involvement. It can represent the people in a better way because this is more of an innovator's position than a debaters. I wouldn't label it a high paying job but I don't think it would be time consuming either until you have a piece of legislature to put up. There would be enough reps all over the place that one missing in an area because he's out promoting his idea to other places(that he's trying to pass larger legislation in) wouldn't be a problem.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
M 3 1 E E
Pew Pew

In theory it would work well, but the problem is that if you had too many representatives then ridiculous bills would get brought up and voted on and end up taking up way too much time. Congress barely gets things done now much less if they were any bigger.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Null
Member Avatar
You're a Queer!

M 3 1 E E
Jun 3 2011, 10:08:01 PM
In theory it would work well, but the problem is that if you had too many representatives then ridiculous bills would get brought up and voted on and end up taking up way too much time. Congress barely gets things done now much less if they were any bigger.
I think you missed out on some parts of what I wrote. And the US congress gets jack shit done because there's a small amount of people trying to do a large amount of work. With the natural divisions of small/larger scale bills tell me how my shit wouldn't be tight.

Plus one of the reasons our congress gets shit done so slowly is because people have speeches, EVERYONE has to give their god damn bullshit over some matter. And 90% of it A) isn't listened to by most, or B) Is meant to stall time if in the Senate or piss off other reps if in the house. Consists of 99.999999232% garbage.

With this - Write it, send it out for others to read, others will send back input if they have something to say over it. If not: approve/disapprove. If large scale: It gets sent out, this shit can happen within a day and get more than a majority of votes returned within that time if on a national scale thanks to the internet or other forms of communication. If small scale, 1 meeting, no planning, it just happens, bang, done, over with.

Plus we're not talking about the senior citizens of the senate, I wouldn't want some retarded age cap on something that supposed to be widespread, it would only hurt it more. Elderly are not swift at all in their decision making.
Edited by Null, Jun 3 2011, 10:56:35 PM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sh0ot


really want to read
[img]http://www.robotvsbadger.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Iraqi-Gangster-Kid.png[/img]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Null
Member Avatar
You're a Queer!

I know you can do it pal :) Be back later awaiting your response <3
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adobo
#1 P2p Noob

what shoot said.
[img]http://i42.tinypic.com/34qo6qg.jpg[/img]

[img]http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/6284/adobosig2.jpg[/img]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
I p0tt3d 4 u
Member Avatar


Agreed,I'd love to read this but politics isn't my cup of tea anymore,I've grown sick of everything to do with politics from Judicial to Legislative, especially the legislative
Posted Image
I'm not going to handicap myself with a whip or some shit to please a few retards that think they're still in '05 - Hot Cyberinq
Posted Image

Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sexy Hiden
Member Avatar
I enjoy the shaft.

i read it all
Posted Image

A Hiden Soul
R.I.P
#1 Gs Pure

New Gs Pure : The Gift

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Null
Member Avatar
You're a Queer!

if u read it u might know its not exactly about politics l0l, knew i shouldn't have posted it in this forum of kids who don't even take care of themselves. All brainless soz for excess bandwidth tlp
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kenyan Kush
Member Avatar


+1 lol
Posted Image

Member Since 1/12/2011
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sir Janis
no im not

Estonian politics have been fucking downright retarded for quite a long time now, noone ever gets anything done, the promises are getting fucking ridiculous and never done. I dont even go voting anymoer cause it doesnt even matter who runs this shit country.
Posted Image
Ty Null <3. Much love.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
M 3 1 E E
Pew Pew

Null
Jun 3 2011, 10:53:14 PM
M 3 1 E E
Jun 3 2011, 10:08:01 PM
In theory it would work well, but the problem is that if you had too many representatives then ridiculous bills would get brought up and voted on and end up taking up way too much time. Congress barely gets things done now much less if they were any bigger.
I think you missed out on some parts of what I wrote. And the US congress gets jack shit done because there's a small amount of people trying to do a large amount of work. With the natural divisions of small/larger scale bills tell me how my shit wouldn't be tight.

Plus one of the reasons our congress gets shit done so slowly is because people have speeches, EVERYONE has to give their god damn bullshit over some matter. And 90% of it A) isn't listened to by most, or B) Is meant to stall time if in the Senate or piss off other reps if in the house. Consists of 99.999999232% garbage.

With this - Write it, send it out for others to read, others will send back input if they have something to say over it. If not: approve/disapprove. If large scale: It gets sent out, this shit can happen within a day and get more than a majority of votes returned within that time if on a national scale thanks to the internet or other forms of communication. If small scale, 1 meeting, no planning, it just happens, bang, done, over with.

Plus we're not talking about the senior citizens of the senate, I wouldn't want some retarded age cap on something that supposed to be widespread, it would only hurt it more. Elderly are not swift at all in their decision making.
Think about this though. I mainly agree with what you have said I think it could work better then the system in place. However..

You are talking about moving bills through quickly to increase productivity. As a citizen I understand I voted the person in to represent myself and my district but I still want to know what bills are being voted on and if it's something I disagree with I want to be able to voice my opinion and hopefully sway their vote. If bills are passed in a days time or even a couple days I feel like things could be steamrolled through without discussion?

Granted my opinion isn't going to probably make a difference in their mind but if you had your whole district calling you saying they didn't agree with a bill you were potentially going to vote yes on then perhaps it might change their mind. This would only work though if your representative wasn't a selfish bitch and realized he represents the people and isn't in office to give his opinion.
Edited by M 3 1 E E, Jun 4 2011, 04:05:46 PM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Subaruspeed
Member Avatar
2011 wrx

tl;dr
I BUY ALL BULK MILLS .40 CENTS EACH /QUERY MAZDASPEED



[img]http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/6788/110925142410.png[/img]

maxed.jpg


[img]http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/338/tomlaiddd.png[/img]

IN MY CAR i GOT 2 VTEC I CALL IT DUBTEC

[img]http://i.imgur.com/S1gJz.png[/img]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Null
Member Avatar
You're a Queer!

M 3 1 E E
Jun 4 2011, 04:03:32 PM
Null
Jun 3 2011, 10:53:14 PM
M 3 1 E E
Jun 3 2011, 10:08:01 PM
In theory it would work well, but the problem is that if you had too many representatives then ridiculous bills would get brought up and voted on and end up taking up way too much time. Congress barely gets things done now much less if they were any bigger.
I think you missed out on some parts of what I wrote. And the US congress gets jack shit done because there's a small amount of people trying to do a large amount of work. With the natural divisions of small/larger scale bills tell me how my shit wouldn't be tight.

Plus one of the reasons our congress gets shit done so slowly is because people have speeches, EVERYONE has to give their god damn bullshit over some matter. And 90% of it A) isn't listened to by most, or B) Is meant to stall time if in the Senate or piss off other reps if in the house. Consists of 99.999999232% garbage.

With this - Write it, send it out for others to read, others will send back input if they have something to say over it. If not: approve/disapprove. If large scale: It gets sent out, this shit can happen within a day and get more than a majority of votes returned within that time if on a national scale thanks to the internet or other forms of communication. If small scale, 1 meeting, no planning, it just happens, bang, done, over with.

Plus we're not talking about the senior citizens of the senate, I wouldn't want some retarded age cap on something that supposed to be widespread, it would only hurt it more. Elderly are not swift at all in their decision making.
Think about this though. I mainly agree with what you have said I think it could work better then the system in place. However..

You are talking about moving bills through quickly to increase productivity. As a citizen I understand I voted the person in to represent myself and my district but I still want to know what bills are being voted on and if it's something I disagree with I want to be able to voice my opinion and hopefully sway their vote. If bills are passed in a days time or even a couple days I feel like things could be steamrolled through without discussion?

Granted my opinion isn't going to probably make a difference in their mind but if you had your whole district calling you saying they didn't agree with a bill you were potentially going to vote yes on then perhaps it might change their mind. This would only work though if your representative wasn't a selfish bitch and realized he represents the people and isn't in office to give his opinion.
I give you effort for trying. I'm not aiming to increase 'productivity' of bills I'm aiming to increase the quality of what goes through the system. Bills can pass be voted on in a day in any already existing form of congress. It doesn't mean things wouldn't be planned out and revised before hand. You're kind'ove missing the point.

But what the rep is in office for can be arguable. How do you know the opinion of all of those you represent when only some of them are calling you. Of course some people will disagree. But my aim is to get rid of the 2-way arguments that these legislative bodies are given to by increasing the quality of the bills. Increasing the quality of them hopefully means making a better solution that would fix all problems in ways that are already easily realizable, just not implemented - instead argued over to make politics a game for power.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hi Im Simp
Member Avatar


k sick.

[img]http://i42.tinypic.com/24g8zus.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i39.tinypic.com/e713b9.png[/img]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
I p0tt3d 4 u
Member Avatar


Null
Jun 4 2011, 10:09:17 AM
if u read it u might know its not exactly about politics l0l, knew i shouldn't have posted it in this forum of kids who don't even take care of themselves. All brainless soz for excess bandwidth tlp
It's politics regardless, and that a broad thing to say and rather discriminatory, because an individuals interest do not include debating upon representation,voting and the constitution doesn't mean they aren't intelligent

I could pull theroms and complex equations out of an angle the sun makes against crystal,with a pen and paper while simultaneously finding the pH level and chemical equation of an unknown acid after I had developed a derivative of a similar acting acid to base my theory upon.

But this topic does NOT interest me anymore, I used to be all for these conversations but seeing how this country has been ran in the past 12 years it just bothers me to the core to even try and comprehend ANY form of politics, whether direct or not

I did read it, and that is just my opinion

Don't assume or presume
Edited by I p0tt3d 4 u, Jun 5 2011, 04:35:19 AM.
Posted Image
I'm not going to handicap myself with a whip or some shit to please a few retards that think they're still in '05 - Hot Cyberinq
Posted Image

Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Woa | Zach
Member Avatar


ow
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Null
Member Avatar
You're a Queer!

I p0tt3d 4 u
Jun 5 2011, 04:34:28 AM
Null
Jun 4 2011, 10:09:17 AM
if u read it u might know its not exactly about politics l0l, knew i shouldn't have posted it in this forum of kids who don't even take care of themselves. All brainless soz for excess bandwidth tlp
It's politics regardless, and that a broad thing to say and rather discriminatory, because an individuals interest do not include debating upon representation,voting and the constitution doesn't mean they aren't intelligent

I could pull theroms and complex equations out of an angle the sun makes against crystal,with a pen and paper while simultaneously finding the pH level and chemical equation of an unknown acid after I had developed a derivative of a similar acting acid to base my theory upon.

But this topic does NOT interest me anymore, I used to be all for these conversations but seeing how this country has been ran in the past 12 years it just bothers me to the core to even try and comprehend ANY form of politics, whether direct or not

I did read it, and that is just my opinion

Don't assume or presume
that's why it should interest you. Even though this topic has nothing to do with whatever government you're talking about, it's an alternative form of a congress meant to not suck as much and cause less shitheadedness in a government.

politics has become more about the people running the gov, this is technically philosophical with a twist of modern ideologies.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Old Debate · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1