a new federal government
we (the "united states of america") need a new federal system. one body (“the fedreps”) instead of the president, senate, and house of representatives. 100 officials elected in a nationwide election (one vote per citizen). the top 100 form the government. the majority rules on regular governmental decisions, super majority for changes to basic rules and other more important issues. like a single-bodied parliment, hopefully without the crutch of party politics.
census.gov (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/elections/votingage_population_and_voter_participation/) reports that there were 142 million registered voters in 2004 (72 percent of the 197 million citizens of voting age), and 125 million voted (63.8%). it was a presidential election so the numbers were high. one percent of registered voters would be around 1,420,000 (one percent of voters might be as low as 1,250,000). any group that could find that many voters, nationally, would be represented in the government. get one vote. with 100 representatives, the majority would hopefully balance into an effective representative government.
you would see a lot more women (67 million women voted in 2004, 58 million men). national-issue candidates (ralph nader, the greens, the aclu, the nra, aarp) would have a shot at proportional representation. as would local and regional candidates. we might get some television personalities. film stars. religious leaders. academics. authors. queers. republicans. democrats. independents? libertarians?
we might see voting blocks. the 2004 census data shows that we had 14 million black voters that year. and, voter drives might empower the 9 million additional black citizens of voting age. or the 13 million immigrants who were naturalized citizens eligible to vote but did not (7 million did vote; another 19 million are not u.s. citizens). 17 million voting veterans. 108 million voting non-veterans. we might see more mothers. maybe some school teachers?
urban areas would get proportional representation. big cities like ny (manhattan, brooklyn, queens and the bronx) and los angeles - with over 2 million voters each - would have significant voting power. as would the bay area (alameda, contra costa, san francisco, san mateo, santa clara) with 1,703,000 voters in 2004. washington d.c.’s 204,000 voters would finally get representation. (statistics by county: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/PresidentialByCounty.aspx?oi=P&rti=G&sp=Ca&tf=l).
we could increase the number of representatives (with 150 representatives, it would take 1 million voters to elect a representative; with 300 representatives, it would take 500,000 voters to elect a representative). try to find a workable balance.
the current system clearly isn’t working. people distrust politicians. a number of people are not represented because the group they belong to has insufficient local numbers (but sufficient national numbers): greens; libertarians?; librarians?; goths?; major religions; geologists?; minor religions (depending on size); pagans who vote?; atheists?; welfare recipients?; vegetarians? small states currently have disproportionate power. urban areas are underrepresented. density is discriminated against.
census.gov (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/elections/votingage_population_and_voter_participation/) reports that there were 142 million registered voters in 2004 (72 percent of the 197 million citizens of voting age), and 125 million voted (63.8%). it was a presidential election so the numbers were high. one percent of registered voters would be around 1,420,000 (one percent of voters might be as low as 1,250,000). any group that could find that many voters, nationally, would be represented in the government. get one vote. with 100 representatives, the majority would hopefully balance into an effective representative government.
you would see a lot more women (67 million women voted in 2004, 58 million men). national-issue candidates (ralph nader, the greens, the aclu, the nra, aarp) would have a shot at proportional representation. as would local and regional candidates. we might get some television personalities. film stars. religious leaders. academics. authors. queers. republicans. democrats. independents? libertarians?
we might see voting blocks. the 2004 census data shows that we had 14 million black voters that year. and, voter drives might empower the 9 million additional black citizens of voting age. or the 13 million immigrants who were naturalized citizens eligible to vote but did not (7 million did vote; another 19 million are not u.s. citizens). 17 million voting veterans. 108 million voting non-veterans. we might see more mothers. maybe some school teachers?
urban areas would get proportional representation. big cities like ny (manhattan, brooklyn, queens and the bronx) and los angeles - with over 2 million voters each - would have significant voting power. as would the bay area (alameda, contra costa, san francisco, san mateo, santa clara) with 1,703,000 voters in 2004. washington d.c.’s 204,000 voters would finally get representation. (statistics by county: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/PresidentialByCounty.aspx?oi=P&rti=G&sp=Ca&tf=l).
we could increase the number of representatives (with 150 representatives, it would take 1 million voters to elect a representative; with 300 representatives, it would take 500,000 voters to elect a representative). try to find a workable balance.
the current system clearly isn’t working. people distrust politicians. a number of people are not represented because the group they belong to has insufficient local numbers (but sufficient national numbers): greens; libertarians?; librarians?; goths?; major religions; geologists?; minor religions (depending on size); pagans who vote?; atheists?; welfare recipients?; vegetarians? small states currently have disproportionate power. urban areas are underrepresented. density is discriminated against.
posted by billy ocallaghan at 12:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home