Would we be better off without congress?

As much as I rail against Congress and the idiocy of many, if not most, of their decisions, it’s better to have that than to have laws passed by an Executive, no matter how well-intentioned.

In fact, I wish that Congress would go back to its actual function of “making laws” instead of making Executive groups that make “regulations with the force of law”. That’s where I think we’ve really gone off the rails.

Having a king rule over us would be so way better.

Was Germany better off after Hitler dissolved the Reichstag?

@gondwanalon I know you don’t really mean it, but that’s the only reason the UK has a monarchy now: because the political parties were deadlocked, and it was decided that they needed a kick in the pants.

Personally I feel like we should be able to vote on everything. If we have to pass 2 tests to get a drivers license, why can’t we do the same to get a voting license? It would be nice to actually have our votes count for something since we are the ones footing the bill and dealing with the consequences.

We need to preserve our traditional system of checks and balances. We just need to abolish the current system of checks and checks.

First of all, “Congress” is capitalized. Second of all, it’s Congress that represents the people. A government without representation is called either a “monarchy” or a “dictatorship”.

@Rarebear Are you actually arguing that the current Congress represents the people of the USA?

I think the idea that every citizen of the United States can way in on every decision for the United States is a very idealistic one. Citizens of New York don’t know what it’s like in California, nor do those in Boise, Detroit, or Staunton. How would those in rural towns have a voice compared to large cities? How would a less populous state, such as Alaska, compare with a very densely populated state, such as Texas?

The United States is so massive that I don’t think giving citizens an individual right to vote on federal laws would be feasible. I don’t think that we would have accurate representation.

Now, I don’t believe that we necessary have accurate representation now, either. I would like to see more people like me in Congress—people who might actually have my rights and interests at mind when voting on bills that will have major and minor impacts on my life. That’s why it’s so important for people to go out and vote for their representatives and senators.Not only that, but to vote smartly. Far fewer people attend elections when only representative and senatorial seats are up. And those that do attend aren’t always the most informed about the views of the candidates. They typically re-elect who was already in office, because those are the names they recognize.

I don’t think we would be better off without Congress. I think some changes in access to information / education in political science is necessary. I also think it might good to re-examine how long a Representative or Senator is allowed to remain in office (Though I am sort of a fence-sitter on making alterations to this as well. I don’t really want to lose Feinstein’s voice in the Senate.)

@Rarebear First of all, the autocorrect on iPhone doesn’t seem to think so, maybe you should notify Apple…
Second, Congress only represents the wealthiest Americans.

Yes. If we could trust everyone to read every bill and vote according to the needs of their perspective areas than congress would be moot. We could do it online. I say lets give a go!

We’d be better of having a Congress again. This one has a Tea Party House of Representatives that only votes to kill the Affordable Care Act 42 times now), privatize Social Security, and make abortion illegal—things they know are going NOWHERE in the Senate and would meet a Presidential veto if they miraculously did win Democratic approval in the Senate.

Somalia is a good example of what you get with a weak to nonexistent national government. There’s a lot that infuriates me about what government does, but those things can later be put right. The absence of a strong central is far worse than its occasional lapses into stupidity.

@cheebdragon So you’d rather have a dictatorship. Got it.

If we have a democracy I support a parliamentary structure, or keep the Senate and get rid of the House.

I think it would be best if the 17th amendment was abolished and we went back to the state legislators selecting the Senators.

Originally the House of Representatives was to protect the people, the Senate was to protect the States and the Executive branch was to do the work of the Country.

Agreed, @WestRiverrat. The beauty of the system as it was designed was that the Representatives in the House, having terms of only 2 years, were a populist sort of representation. They had to appeal directly to the voters – their constituents – every two years, so they were swayed by “the passions of the moment”. The Senators, being once removed from the voters by virtue of the fact that they were selected by the State Representatives and had terms of six years, could focus on longer-range national goals and those that appealed (or oppose that dismayed) their state house “masters” (who themselves were answerable to voters according to their own state constitutions). And that made for a House – Senate balance of power in the legislative body between long-range and short-range, and between populism and statesmanship.

It was a sad sellout to populism to modify the way Senators were chosen, even if the state governments that appointed them were (and still are) often corrupt. The corruption of appealing directly to voters (and lying to imbeciles) is worse, I think.

@Pachyderm_In_The_Room
I agree. That is exactly right.
It would be best to get rid of the hold both corrupt parties have on the US.

@cheebdragon California has Propositions every election where the people get to vote on new laws. I think every proposition that was passed was later revoked because they were unconstitutional.
Was it Churchill who said democracy is the worst thing ever, except everything else that’s been tried?
Legislation is not just about voting. It is about compromise. Legislators compromise on the wording of a bill, to win votes for revised versions. A lot of you scratch my back stuff, but this is the way things actually happen.
I think if congress was replaced by internet polling compromise would be replaced by internet comment boards. Because there’s some constructive discussion.

Perhaps we should return to our original form of government before the US Constitution.

The Articles of Confederation were far simpler. I like simple.

Maybe we should just turn the clock back to DIckensian England, now that Conservative no longer means wanting to preserve the existing order, but now means wanting to tear all current institutions down and go back into a distant past the American Revolution was fought to escape.

@Rarebear Yes, a dictatorship of voters, fucking brilliant!.....~

maybe you should go color for awhile.

Actually, @cheebdragon, the primary reason that we have a republican democracy is precisely to avoid a “dictatorship of voters”. We often say without thinking about it much “majority rules”, but the fact is – and a good fact it is, too! – that very often and on many principles the majority does not rule. Nor should it.

Better off without big corporation messing with congress.

@mattbrowne
The fact is that the corporations and drug companied dictate American policy.
The House voted last week to extend the Monsanto Protection Act. The Senate will vote this week. Republican Blunt attached the act to the government finance bill again. The act places Monsanto above the Judicial System. Monsanto has the right to plant and sell genetically modified food to US citizens. If people become ill or die families can not sue Monsanto. Monsanto can continue to sell and plant GM food even if, American’s become ill.
There is No long term testing of GM food.
Both parties are corrupt and we need to vote them all out.

@CWOTUS nailed it in one. Well done!

@philosopher – I think it’s companies from almost all sectors: finance industry, fossil fuel industry, food industry… these companies own the elected representatives because of large campaign donations.

The reasons for corruption in our system are far more complex and varied than simply “large campaign donations”, @mattbrowne. Nepotism, cronyism, the revolving door between some industries (notably law) and Congress, quid pro quo legislation and regulation, payoffs in kind and a list of other forms of corruption that I haven’t even dreamed of yet.

What do we call it, for example, when the Treasury Secretary comes from Solomon Brothers to take a job in the public sector, where he earns far less than he could (and with much more privacy!) in his investment banking job, and then returns to the same job after his “service”, with a hefty premium because of his much greater worth after he has made the right friends in the White House? It smells like corruption to me.

@mattbrowne
I am truly outraged that both parties voted for the Monsanto Protection Act. It places Monsanto above the law. These Politicians are all corrupt. Monsanto is using American’s like lab rats. When American’s become ill from genetically modified food or die families can not sue Monsanto.
The act expires on 9/30/13 but the House just extended it.
Republican Blunt is attaching it to a government finance bill. Obama has not vetoed it.
This is a betrayal of all US citizens.
For details go to organiconsumers.org
Everyone should call and email Congress about this today.
They get away with this because people have blind loyalty to the corrupt parties.

Attention anyone who cares about what they eat and does not wish to be used as Monsanto’s lab rat. Please call your Senators now.

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/stop_the_monsanto_protection_act/?akid=985.913655.ouTkzm&rd=1&t=2

http://m.ibtimes.com/monsanto-protection-act-killed-senate-controversial-provision-removed-spending-bill-1412160
Organiconsumers.org is also posting about it on Facebook.