I am sure that most people here in the United States would agree that we have a great Federal Governmental system. However (there's always a but) it is not perfect because no system is. I propose that if we were to make a few minor changes in the way that we do a few things, much improvement would be made. Here are my propositions.

1) Limit the terms for all elected positions in the Legislative branch similar to the present limit in the Executive branch.

2) End Federal Income Tax Withholding.

3) Have Federal Income Tax pay day on the same day as election day and have it to be paid at the same locations as our polling locations.


It is my opinion that these three alterations to the way we do things would not harm our nation in any way but would force the citizens to watch the elected officials. When people actually wrote a check for their taxes at the end of the year they would care about them more and about what the government was doing with the money. If congress was limited to a set number of terms they could serve in an office they would actually serve the people and the nation and make a carrier out of staying in office and keeping the status quo.

I can only add, "Same Day Registration" and "Make Election Day a National Holiday" to your list.

Also some campaign finance reform and allowances for third parties to give them an equal chance for the canidacy race.

How would you "reform" campaign finances to make it fair for all candidates and keep freedom of speech for all people?

Interesting ideas. Might work.
I do think that you need to connect voting with another activity, such as paying taxes, in order to both raise it's profile, and make people think about what it is that they want to prioritise.

As for te main problems with the US (and uk) systems (dislocation from people, confusion over purpose, career politicians, etc..) I'm not sure a lot can be done without a complete shakeup of the system, which neither of the current majot parties are likely to consent to as it would loose them influence.

I'd like more transparency and openess... which i'm sure the web could go some way to providing.

As for campaign funding, i'd remove the ability for ANY organisation to fund a party, and maybe also any individual over a certain amount (10,000?)
That way it would be the people you had to listen to, not the few big interests that control both parties. Give all parties free mandatory airtime, with an independent fact checking organisation that puts disclaimers at the bottom like they do with medicines. ANd that is just the start...

I think that I would like to bar private companies from "donating" to campaigns. Keep it in the hands of the citizens. I'm not sure about a cap to the amount because that is , in my opinion, a violation of free speech. You are correct in that the major parties that are in control now would never go for major change because that would mean that they would loose their power and influence. That is why they never do any thing while they are in office because something might actually get done and something then might actually work.

I'm not sure how donating money would be covered by free speech.
The reason i'd suggest a cap is that if everyone was donating the same ammount then everyone's opinion would count equally. If i can donate $100 but donald trump can donate $1,000,000 then who do you think they are going to listen to most.

In the UK one politcal party (UKIP) was just MADE and then effectively BROKEN within a few months by the donation and then withdrawl of donations of a multimillionaire. Another political party (conservatives) changed their whole policy to something he liked to counter this.

So ONE RICH GUY has basically changed te whole political scene in britain simply through large donations (or lack of).

IF you don't like the idea of a cap, how about a tax free donation of up to $1,000 and then an exponentially increasing tax on donations after that. So you and I can donate and not be taxed, but if donald trump (just the only rich US guy i know) donated $1million then he might pay 100% tax and end up paying another million to the treasury.

That way, at least those who are buying the most influence would be providing something back to the people.
(at the current time most of the 10 biggest businesses in the US pay NO TAX, i would expect the richest guys would be similarly clever).

This is the way I see capping the amount of donations. Its a no win situation I think. If I (or anybody else) is fortunate enough to be able to donate thousands or millions of dollars to a political fund then I have the right to voice my opinion, or free speech. If I can't afford to, it's not anybodies fault, its just life. Is it fair? Not to the less financially well off it isn't. But is capping the financially well off fair to them? If they have the ability to speak with their money shouldn't they be allowed to? Isn't that a form of discrimination? I'm trying to look at both sides here and I think I can see problems with not having a cap and with having a cap. I can't justify having a cap because of the rights of individuals. It is at a potential cost that one wealthy person can heavily influence things, yes I agree. What that means is that many not as wealthy people must unite to counter that one person then. It is difficult no doubt, but it can be done.

Democracy isn't about freedom to speak via money. It is about the freedom to express an interlectual idea, whether you be a pauper or a billionaire. The validity of your ideas shouldn't be means tested, or influenced by how much you can donate.

Why not cap all donations at one $10,000 per person/business, within 1 month of the next election (with any 'mass donations' via multiple accounts/people/syndicates investigated).

Any ammount donated after the $10,0,00 limit can be given via a bank. In other words, people could still claim "I've donated $1 million", but there would be no viable way for them to prove it.

Realistically, why do parties need multi-million dollar funds to travel the country persuading people they're better than the rest? Potentially, the higher your fund, the bigger your exposure, the more likely you get elected.
That way, dumbasses like Bush get into power, whilst legitimate politicians of whom we've never heard of struggle to run their Ford Galaxy to work and back each day.

Truth be told, money is a form of speech, unfortunately. Money talks. Meaning, that if I want to talk to the public I need money to "buy" air time, ad space, etc. If I don't want to advertise my ideas in the mainstream media then I have to do the printing myself and that takes money to. Money is freedom of speech in an awful way. Speaking is a right that we all enjoy, and unfortunately it takes money and time to get your ideas across.

The only way to make politics a fair playing field is to take the money out of it completely. Stop paying politicians, stop paying the media. The problem is money and the fact that everybody wants more of it, that's why they call it money. The problem with taking out all money is that you change our system from a democratic-republic government with a capitalist financial system to a communistic government with a socialistic financial system. I don't want that because history has proven that they typically fail quicker than a democracy does.

If you remove pay, then you completely remove the chances of poor people gaining power (even more than already).

I suppose you could rid politicians of any shares/privately owned firms/businesses or any other interests. Give a flat rate of pay, at say $200,000 pa as an incentive.

capitalism is an economy, not a government process. Even as far as a democratic government goes money SHOULDNT talk. THat is the whole point of democracy. A guy with a billion in his pocket should have exactly the same say as a guy with a fiver.

Of course, in business (capitalism) the rich guy will have a lot more say, but in democracy he shouldn't. (but at the moment unfortunately does).

In the UK tv ads are controlled by law, each party (over a certain size) gets a set number of ads that means no party can buy itself into power.
I think things like billboard advertising and the rest arent covered, so raising money is still a factor, but not on anywhere the same scale as in the US.

The more i think about it, the more i like the idea of HUGE taxes on political donations....:D

I never said that capitalism was a form of democracy, reread the post. Maybe I wasn't clear. The two do typically go hand in hand and do work well together, usually. In a democracy every person does get a chance to speak and that is through their vote we are all equal there no matter what.