5 ms·

so what, then let's offer solutions and try to get them enacted? why all the armchair bitching on this site as if everyone is an expert just because they write

so what, then let's offer solutions and try to get them enacted? why all the armchair bitching on this site as if everyone is an expert just because they write code? what he did is nothing short of monumental and he WANTS to help America. If everyone is so damn smart then get involved and suggest changes. It's not like he's a fucking robot that is going to sit back and count how many marble statues he has in his garden!

SMUx 10y ago
I understand the sentiment but comments like this detract from the value of this community.
- postcarnival 10y ago
  actually I just read the replies and I see quite a few productive ones! just saying...
legodt 10y ago
He wants to help white, cis male America. Trump has demonstrated great disdain for anybody who isn't that
- r_smart 10y ago
  Yes, for example one of the first things he talked about in his victory speech was helping out the inner cities. He must not know that there are high populations of black people in those areas.
ubernostrum 10y ago
Want money out of presidential politics? Make everybody run using only the presidential-campaign fund. You know, that one that you check the box on your tax return to give a couple bucks to? As for Congress, we also already have a good fix, we just never got around to passing it. Congressional politics are full of money because the districts are too large, on average. The districts are too large because in the 50 states, with 320 million people, we have only 435 voting members in the House of Representatives. The solution is more Representatives and smaller districts; when you don't have to run a campaign in multiple expensive markets across a broad area, you don't need as much money (and can get to know your constituents better). And it turns out... there's a constitutional amendment for that. Way back in 1789 when Congress met for the first time after the Constitution went into effect, they submitted twelve amendments to the states. Ten of them were ratified quickly and became what we know as the Bill of Rights. The other two were not ratified by enough states, and were mostly forgotten. Today, it's common for Congress to put a time limit on an amendment, saying it has to be ratified within X years or it's dead. But back then they didn't do that. So in 1992 a random university student discovered one of the two "forgotten" amendments and that it was still legislatively "live" -- it would take effect if enough states ratified them. He campaigned hard and got the amendment (which says any increase in salary for members of Congress doesn't take effect until after the next House election) ratified, as the 27th amendment. The other one is still sitting out there, and would become part of the Constitution if enough states (currently, 27) would ratify it. And it changes the formula for how many Representatives there are, and how they're apportioned. The original text of the Constitution set a cap on the size of the House of Representatives, at one Representative per 30,000 people. The apportionment amendment would raise that to 1 per 50,000, and the version passed by the Senate would require increasing the number of Representatives as the population of the US grows. So if you want real change in Congress, campaign to get the House of Representatives enlarged. There's even already an amendment available to help you, if you can get it ratified.
- hossbeast 10y ago
  Can you give a link to more information about this?
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    Google "Congressional Apportionment Amendment". Wikipedia has a decent summary, and several other sites campaign for it to be ratified.
- piotrkaminski 10y ago
  I applaud the principle, but I think having 6400 (320M / 50K) members of the House of Representatives may be a little much to get actual work done.
  - mixedCase 10y ago
    >may be a little much to get actual work done. Sounds like a good thing then to filter out non-universally good ideas and a great measure to make it harder to buy politicians. Gov needs to do less, not more.
    - piotrkaminski 10y ago
      It'll definitely make it harder to buy (a meaningful number of) politicians. It'll also filter out bad ideas, but I'm afraid it'll also filter out the good ones. After all, there is research (which I'm too lazy to look up right now) that shows that as the size of a committee grows, their output tends towards mediocrity. But I dunno, perhaps mediocrity is what we actually want in government? (Not being sarcastic.)
- JadeNB 10y ago
  > So in 1992 a random university student discovered one of the two "forgotten" amendments and that it was still legislatively "live" -- it would take effect if enough states ratified them. He campaigned hard and got the amendment (which says any increase in salary for members of Congress doesn't take effect until after the next House election) ratified, as the 27th amendment. A minor correction to this fascinating story: according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_th...), Gregory Watson, a UT Austin student, discovered it in 1982. The significance of the year 1992 (in this connection) is that that's when it actually became part of the Constitution.
vehementi 10y ago
Are you under the impression that campaign finance reform is a new issue brought up minutes ago on this forum, and hasn't been extensively researched with proposals before?
r_smart 10y ago
In the spirit of your comment, I'd like to suggest a massive income raise for elected federal officials. The leader of the free world makes something like $400k / year. If we were willing to give them more, it might reduce the temptation to take so much from lobbyists, and perhaps save us a lot of money in the long run. If I'm wrong, it won't cost much in the scheme of things anyway.
Roverlord 10y ago
https://www.greatagain.gov/ https://www.greatagain.gov/ He's actively seeking suggestions on his transition site. Share your ideas.
- loisguthrie 10y ago
  Gary Sinise for seretary of Veterans Affairs.

SMUx 10y ago

I understand the sentiment but comments like this detract from the value of this community.

postcarnival 10y ago
actually I just read the replies and I see quite a few productive ones! just saying...

legodt 10y ago

He wants to help white, cis male America. Trump has demonstrated great disdain for anybody who isn't that

r_smart 10y ago
Yes, for example one of the first things he talked about in his victory speech was helping out the inner cities. He must not know that there are high populations of black people in those areas.

ubernostrum 10y ago

Want money out of presidential politics? Make everybody run using only the presidential-campaign fund. You know, that one that you check the box on your tax return to give a couple bucks to? As for Congress, we also already have a good fix, we just never got around to passing it. Congressional politics are full of money because the districts are too large, on average. The districts are too large because in the 50 states, with 320 million people, we have only 435 voting members in the House of Representatives. The solution is more Representatives and smaller districts; when you don't have to run a campaign in multiple expensive markets across a broad area, you don't need as much money (and can get to know your constituents better). And it turns out... there's a constitutional amendment for that. Way back in 1789 when Congress met for the first time after the Constitution went into effect, they submitted twelve amendments to the states. Ten of them were ratified quickly and became what we know as the Bill of Rights. The other two were not ratified by enough states, and were mostly forgotten. Today, it's common for Congress to put a time limit on an amendment, saying it has to be ratified within X years or it's dead. But back then they didn't do that. So in 1992 a random university student discovered one of the two "forgotten" amendments and that it was still legislatively "live" -- it would take effect if enough states ratified them. He campaigned hard and got the amendment (which says any increase in salary for members of Congress doesn't take effect until after the next House election) ratified, as the 27th amendment. The other one is still sitting out there, and would become part of the Constitution if enough states (currently, 27) would ratify it. And it changes the formula for how many Representatives there are, and how they're apportioned. The original text of the Constitution set a cap on the size of the House of Representatives, at one Representative per 30,000 people. The apportionment amendment would raise that to 1 per 50,000, and the version passed by the Senate would require increasing the number of Representatives as the population of the US grows. So if you want real change in Congress, campaign to get the House of Representatives enlarged. There's even already an amendment available to help you, if you can get it ratified.

hossbeast 10y ago
Can you give a link to more information about this?
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  Google "Congressional Apportionment Amendment". Wikipedia has a decent summary, and several other sites campaign for it to be ratified.
piotrkaminski 10y ago
I applaud the principle, but I think having 6400 (320M / 50K) members of the House of Representatives may be a little much to get actual work done.
- mixedCase 10y ago
  >may be a little much to get actual work done. Sounds like a good thing then to filter out non-universally good ideas and a great measure to make it harder to buy politicians. Gov needs to do less, not more.
  - piotrkaminski 10y ago
    It'll definitely make it harder to buy (a meaningful number of) politicians. It'll also filter out bad ideas, but I'm afraid it'll also filter out the good ones. After all, there is research (which I'm too lazy to look up right now) that shows that as the size of a committee grows, their output tends towards mediocrity. But I dunno, perhaps mediocrity is what we actually want in government? (Not being sarcastic.)
JadeNB 10y ago
> So in 1992 a random university student discovered one of the two "forgotten" amendments and that it was still legislatively "live" -- it would take effect if enough states ratified them. He campaigned hard and got the amendment (which says any increase in salary for members of Congress doesn't take effect until after the next House election) ratified, as the 27th amendment. A minor correction to this fascinating story: according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_th...), Gregory Watson, a UT Austin student, discovered it in 1982. The significance of the year 1992 (in this connection) is that that's when it actually became part of the Constitution.

vehementi 10y ago

Are you under the impression that campaign finance reform is a new issue brought up minutes ago on this forum, and hasn't been extensively researched with proposals before?

r_smart 10y ago

In the spirit of your comment, I'd like to suggest a massive income raise for elected federal officials. The leader of the free world makes something like $400k / year. If we were willing to give them more, it might reduce the temptation to take so much from lobbyists, and perhaps save us a lot of money in the long run. If I'm wrong, it won't cost much in the scheme of things anyway.

Roverlord 10y ago

https://www.greatagain.gov/ https://www.greatagain.gov/ He's actively seeking suggestions on his transition site. Share your ideas.

loisguthrie 10y ago
Gary Sinise for seretary of Veterans Affairs.