Design your own political party

[Imran Siddiqui]

PR is a more democratic way to overcome any gerrymandering in the house. Much of the concessions to states' rights in the constitution are now archaic and undemocratic. like our current way of amending the constitution. It should simply be a referendum with 66% voting yes to enact the amendment, not the archaic process we have right now. new communications technology has rendered a lot of federalist ideas obsolete and redundant.

Just because you think it is 'archaic' doesn't mean it is bad . The 'undemocratic' parts are GOOD. Do you even see the crap that the House of Representatives passes on a daily basis? We need the adults in the Senate to put the kibbosh on them.

And your 'refendum' amendment idea would have resulted in ban on homosexual marriage already.

It was a republican form of government because while the people should have a say, they shouldn't have too much a say because people are dumb .

States Rights, baby! .

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
States Rights, baby! .

Where?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, as a goal..

And they have SOME rights..

Oh, and those who are for proportional representation in the Senate should back my goal to eliminate the amendment that provides for direct election of Senators, and go back to the state legislatures deciding Senators .

[Odin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[It was a republican form of government because while the people should have a say, they shouldn't have too much a say because people are dumb .

It is because we have a crap education system. people need to be properly educated, especially in civics, so they can make good decisions. And since they would be properly educated and taught tolerance in school from an early age, they wont be racist, or homophobic, or whatever. Better science education would also make people more resistant to bible thumper BS.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is because we have a crap education system. people need to be properly educated, especially in civics, so they can make good decisions. And since they would be properly educated and taught tolerance in school from an early age, they wont be racist, or homophobic, or whatever. Better science education would also make people more resistant to bible thumper BS.

So you basically want people have no individualism and be willing slaves to your ideology. How... communist .

And better education doesn't necessarily make people less dumb, look at the Finns .

[Odin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It is because we have a crap education system. people need to be properly educated, especially in civics, so they can make good decisions. And since they would be properly educated and taught tolerance in school from an early age, they wont be racist, or homophobic, or whatever. Better science education would also make people more resistant to bible thumper BS.

So you basically want people have no individualism and be willing slaves to your ideology. How... communist .

Oh so, informing people equals indoctrination, riiiight.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh so, informing people equals indoctrination, riiiight.

If you are in change of it... then yes, it probably does .

[Drogue]

Imran: If you have a flat tax with a ceiling, it is slightly regressive. If SS tax has a $65k ceiling, then compare the percentage that somone on $20k a year spends, and someone on $2million a year. The latter will pay a lower percentage, because of the ceiling.

Most taxes in the US are progressive, but many here seem to want a more progressive system.

Odin: Except for the proportional representation of the Senate. Personally, I'd prefer a completely appointed upper house, like the UK has, but their would need to be limits on controls, and ways to remove them, in that case.

Maniac: Will reply when I have time

[MrFun]

MOMMY!!!!

Imran's being mean by sticking his tongue out at us!

[JellyBean]

I thought that a tax that was neither progressive nor regressive would be a poll tax - everyone pays the same amount. If you tax on a percentage of income, people with greater incomes pay more, which makes it progressive.

A couple of things I'd do, in no particular order:

Change tariffs to mirror those of other countries. If Elbonia imposes an average 20% tariff on goods exported to it, impose a 20% tariff on imports from Elbonia. An exception: if the other country has an identical policy, cut tariffs entirely so that they do so too.

Impose a truly representative democracy. Anyone can vote at any time, for anyone. Their vote is passed along to the person they voted for, and then along to the person that person voted for, and so on. Eventually you end up with a selection of the top (say) 50 people, each with a proportion of the population directly or indirectly supporting them, with the ability to cast the votes of their supporters on each issue.

(Note some of the outcomes: if an issue comes up on which the people and the leaders disagree, they can be ousted overnight by a swinging faction of re-voters. Representatives are no longer regionalised - rather than standing for regions, they would probably end up representing factions of the population, such as aging hippies or disgruntled nerds.)

Impose some sort of basic eugenics system. Nothing too fancy - just getting rid of inherited disease, and limiting family size. Even allocating children by lottery would be better than the current system, in which humanity is being selected for the inability to use birth control.

[Whaleboy]

Could someone translate this to non-Luddite? Is super-human technology anything more advanced than using fingernails to dig up delicious roots?

I mean technology capable of surpassing humans in mental capacity. Technology should be our tools, not the other way around.

[Whaleboy]

And no Sky, I wasn't talking about genetic engineering. That's bad too!

[Drogue]

Originally posted by JellyBean
I thought that a tax that was neither progressive nor regressive would be a poll tax - everyone pays the same amount. If you tax on a percentage of income, people with greater incomes pay more, which makes it progressive.

No, a progressive tax is one which has a larger effect on richer people, where they pay more as a percentage than poorer people. Income tax is progressive in most nations, because the percentage gets higher the more you earn. Poll tax is regressive, because it took a higher percentage of a poor persons income. Road tax is also regressive (in the UK). A flat rate income tax is neither, it is between the two.

The grey area comes for things like UK council tax (the bigger your house, the more you pay). I would consider it the equivilant of a flat rate income tax, because you pay proportionally more the bigger your house, but it is not tied to income. So, for instance, my parents pay a large amount of council tax, because we have a large house, but they receive less than £25000 per year (joint income) because my dad is retired. So it hits us a lot more than our next door neighbours, who have a similar size house, but who earn ~£75000 per year. But it is mostly a flat tax, as income is generally proportional to house size.

[Sava]

BTW, if I had my druthers I would totally erase state borders and reorganize the country. At least that way, Texans couldn't get made fun of anymore.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Odin


PR is a more democratic way to overcome any gerrymandering in the house. Much of the concessions to states' rights in the constitution are now archaic and undemocratic. like our current way of amending the constitution. It should simply be a referendum with 66% voting yes to enact the amendment, not the archaic process we have right now. new communications technology has rendered a lot of federalist ideas obsolete and redundant.

Oh, I would chainge the FICA tax and make it progressive. That would cure the Social Security buget woes.

still why not just dissolve the senate, Wouldn't it eventually become corrupt(heh) and gerrymandered as well?