Would you support a Fourth Branch of the U.S. Government?

[FreakyLocz14]

Why or why not?

The Fourth Branch I am proposing would be a "People's Branch". It's purpose is to allow everyday citizens more say in what goes on in Washington D.C.

It would consist of giving the following powers to American voters:
1) The power to referendum any piece of legislation that is passed by Congress.
2) The power to recall federal elected officials by their constituents.
3) The power to place ballot initiatives on the ballot for a national vote as a way of creating federal laws.

We have a system like this here in California.

P.S.
Would you support term limits on Members of Congress and federal judges? One but not the other?

Why or why not?

 

[Mahtale]

In response to the fourth branch of the federal government, I would not support it. I believe that a "People's Branch" wouldn't function in the way that we all wish it would (just like every other branch of the government) mostly due to the fact that the "People" can never come to a decision on important issues to begin with. I believe that it would, in the end, become just another House of Representatives; therefore, it wouldn't be necessary.

In response to your second question(s), I honestly wouldn't care either way. I believe it functions relatively well as it is. I don't think adding term limits would increase nor would it diminish the functionality of either organization.

 

[The Trotsky]

Dumb, unnecessary. We live in a republic, not a total democracy.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Dumb, unnecessary. We live in a republic, not a total democracy.

Are you saying that the Republic of California isn't a republic, but a total democracy?

In a total democracy, we wouldn't have a Congress or a President; we'd just vote on everything popularly.

 

[aruchan]

Why or why not?

The Fourth Branch I am proposing would be a "People's Branch". It's purpose is to allow everyday citizens more say in what goes on in Washington D.C.

It would consist of giving the following powers to American voters:
1) The power to referendum any piece of legislation that is passed by Congress.
2) The power to recall federal elected officials by their constituents.
3) The power to place ballot initiatives on the ballot for a national vote as a way of creating federal laws.

We have a system like this here in California.

P.S.
Would you support term limits on Members of Congress and federal judges? One but not the other?

Why or why not?

I live in Cali and I don't think this is a good idea. Having a popular vote on any important legislation just leads to a mobocracy, since face it... people are stupid. It just hurts progress. I was under the impression that initiatives can be passed from any state, and that recall is also in every state.
Plus, more bureaucracy is NEVER a good thing. :o

I don't think federal judges or Congress members need term limits; if they are the best person for the job, I don't think they should be stopped just for being there a long time.

 

[Mika]

Nope. There's enough bickering in the three groups already.

The House of Reps is supposed to be the voice of the people. If you want more of a say, get lobbying. It's how everything gets done. :P

Also, Schoolhouse Rock says nothing NOTHING about this fourth branch >:<

Three Ring Circus Lyrics

Spoiler:

Gonna have a three-ring circus someday,
People will say it's a fine one, son.
Gonna have a three-ring circus someday,
People will come from miles around.
Lions, tigers, acrobats, and jugglers and clowns galore,
Tightrope walkers, pony riders, elephants, and so much more...

Guess I got the idea right here at school.
Felt like a fool when they called my name,
Talkin' about the government and how it's arranged,
Divided in three like a circus.
Ring one, Executive,
Two is Legislative, that's Congress.
Ring three, Judiciary.
See it's kind of like my circus, circus.

Step right up and visit ring number one.
The show's just begun. Meet the President.
I am here to see that the laws get done.
The ringmaster of the government.

On with the show!

Hurry, hurry, hurry to ring number two.
See what they do in the Congress.
Passin' laws and juggling bills,
Oh, it's quite a thrill in the Congress.
Focus your attention on ring number three.
The Judiciary's in the spotlight.
The courts take the law and they tame the crimes
Balancing the wrongs with your rights.

No one part can be
more powerful than any other is.
Each controls the other you see,
and that's what we call checks and balances.

Well, everybody's act is part of the show.
And no one's job is more important.
The audience is kinda like the country you know,
Keeping an eye on their performance.

Ring one, Executive,
Two is Legislative, that's Congress.
Ring three, Judiciary.
See it's kind of like my circus, circus.

Gonna have a three-ring circus someday.
People will say it's a fine one son,
But until I get it, I'll do my thing
With government. It's got three rings.

SEE. /winnar

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I live in Cali and I don't think this is a good idea. Having a popular vote on any important legislation just leads to a mobocracy, since face it... people are stupid. It just hurts progress. I was under the impression that initiatives can be passed from any state, and that recall is also in every state.
Plus, more bureaucracy is NEVER a good thing. :o

I don't think federal judges or Congress members need term limits; if they are the best person for the job, I don't think they should be stopped just for being there a long time.

Do you support no term limits for the President as well? Imagine, Bush's third term (shrugs).

 

[Livewire]

I fully support term limits. I loved Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd and Associate Justice Stevens, but terms limits for all elected officials in this country should be the norm and a necessity.

A fourth branch would unseat the current checks and balances system and complicate things further. Also, who exactly would be in this fourth branch? I don't want some total random idiot making governmental decisions. Although that already happens The masses are asses.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I fully support term limits. I loved Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd and Associate Justice Stevens, but terms limits for all elected officials in this country should be the norm and a necessity.

A fourth branch would unseat the current checks and balances sytem and complicate things further. Also, who exactly would be in this fourth branch. I don't want some total random idiot making governmental decisions. Although that already happens

Everybody who is eligible to vote would be in this fourth branch. This would enhance the checks and balances system to make sure it is in-tune with We The People.

 

[Livewire]

Everybody who is eligible to vote would be in this fourth branch. This would enhance the checks and balances system to make sure it is in-tune with We The People.

It would be a train wreck. A governmental body of somewhere around 100 million people? Any motion or bit of legislation would take weeks to handle, not to mention that the average American can barely recite the National Anthem from heart, let alone make real governmental decisions. It looks good on paper, certainly, but bad in practice.

 

[Nick]

Everybody who is eligible to vote would be in this fourth branch. This would enhance the checks and balances system to make sure it is in-tune with We The People.

I find the general population to be full of rather unintelligent and willingly ignorant people. I wouldn't really feel comfortable with decisions being made by people who don't know "their ass from a whole in the ground" (that's how that saying goes, right?) when it comes to political decisions. I just don't have faith in the people in general. I know this is a bad example, but considering what happens on shows where America votes for something to happen and the wrong / undeserved happens, I'm just not certain important matters like that should be tossed into the direct hands of the people. 8(

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I find the general population to be full of rather unintelligent and willingly ignorant people. I wouldn't really feel comfortable with decisions being made by people who don't know "their ass from a whole in the ground" (that's how that saying goes, right?) when it comes to political decisions. I just don't have faith in the people in general. I know this is a bad example, but considering what happens on shows where America votes for something to happen and the wrong / undeserved happens, I'm just not certain important matters like that should be tossed into the direct hands of the people. 8(

Disenfranchising the general population to any degree is dangerous. We had literacy tests required for voting before they were banned. Unwise decisions are made even today in who gets elected to office. Would taking away popular election of these officials remedy this?

 

[Livewire]

Disenfranchising the general population to any degree is dangerous. We had literacy tests required for voting before they were banned. Unwise decisions are made even today in who gets elected to office. Would taking away popular election of these officials remedy this?

The elected officials we have now, you know, were elected by the general population too.

 

[Nick]

Disenfranchising the general population to any degree is dangerous. We had literacy tests required for voting before they were banned. Unwise decisions are made even today in who gets elected to office. Would taking away popular election of these officials remedy this?

So you're suggesting that we throw in millions of other potential unwise decisions to balance that out? No thanks.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

So you're suggesting that we throw in millions of other potential unwise decisions to balance that out? No thanks.

No form of government is perfect, but a government where the citizens decide the issues is preferable to an elitist system.

 

[Nick]

No form of government is perfect, but a government where the citizens decide the issues is preferable to an elitist system.

But that just leads me to the statement Live_Wire had. "The elected officials we have now, you know, were elected by the general population too." So, the way I see it, the citizens are the root of it - since we choose people who best represent our personal beliefs on various subjects, but they have something that most people don't. An education around the subjects. I don't think you can really convincingly say otherwise that the American population (as a whole) is more concerned with reality television and sports compared to politics. I'm sure the majority of Americans know more about Snooki than what's going on in Congress..., after all.

 

[The Trotsky]

Are you saying that the Republic of California isn't a republic, but a total democracy?

In a total democracy, we wouldn't have a Congress or a President; we'd just vote on everything popularly.

I am well aware of what a total democracy is thanks. And by using a system where the people vote directly on issues, there is no point in having a representative government. We're just throwing our hands up and saying "LOL NO MORE REPUBLICAN EXPERIMENT, GUESS AMERICAN REVOLUTION WAS FOR NOTHING". There's a reason why we have elected officials voting on officials, and it's to at least try to stem the tide of ignorant populism. The people's voice should always be heard, but also reasoned. If you have a pure, total democracy extremism can be just as prevalent as in a autocratic dictatorship.

No form of government is perfect, but a government where the citizens decide the issues is preferable to an elitist system.

Elitist in the sense that those more fit to govern than their peers come forward? Yes. A republican government is elitist in that the elite should rise to the top. Obviously, it doesn't work every team, but I trust Ivy League-educated men and women over Joe Sixpack

 

[FreakyLocz14]

But that just leads me to the statement Live_Wire had. "The elected officials we have now, you know, were elected by the general population too." So, the way I see it, the citizens are the root of it - since we choose people who best represent our personal beliefs on various subjects, but they have something that most people don't. An education around the subjects. I don't think you can really say convincingly that the American population (as a whole) is more concerned with reality television and sports compared to politics. I'm sure the majority of Americans know more about Snooki than what's going on in Congress..., after all.

The problem with Congress is the House of Reps causes unequal representation. The number of members is supposed to to divided by population, and the chamber's size would change if necessary after a census until federal statute set the size of the House to 435 members after the 1910 census. This means that for all the population growth we've had since then, we still have the same number of House Reps as we did in 1910.

 

[The Trotsky]

The problem with Congress is the House of Reps causes unequal representation. The number of members is supposed to to divided by population, and the chamber's size would change if necessary after a census until federal statute set the size of the House to 435 members after the 1910 census. This means that for all the population growth we've had since then, we still have the same number of House Reps as we did in 1910.

Representation is still relative in terms of size. The number may have been capped, but proportionally it's still the same.

 

[Nick]

The problem with Congress is the House of Reps causes unequal representation. The number of members is supposed to to divided by population, and the chamber's size would change if necessary after a census until federal statute set the size of the House to 435 members after the 1910 census. This means that for all the population growth we've had since then, we still have the same number of House Reps as we did in 1910.

Personally (and I'm saying this admitting that I have ignorance on this matter), I don't really mind the fact that the house hasn't increased in size as long as they represent the people with their beliefs on various matters. I trust them a lot more than I trust my next door neighbor making a decision. Earlier you stated something about the majority opinion making decisions instead of having the system we have today.

As far as I'm concerned, the general population of America will make their decisions without looking into the subject matter. They won't take the time to educate themselves on things that are being tossed around everyday by politicians. They'll just go with whatever one looks best for their needs without looking any further. That's just how most humans are, instinctively.

But giving every single person in America who can vote a say in how America pulls out isn't a very keen replacement for the "lack of representation" that the House provides due to size. I mean, it's nice and all to believe that everyone has a direct say in what happens in every issue, I don't see that as the proper approach for decision making that will affect the country as a whole, since - as stated - a good portion of the people will be more concerned about what they'll have to sacrifice in order to make it happen, and that will lead most of them to voting for the wrong thing.