Anybody support the idea of giving U.S. "administrations" Congressional representation?
405526
yes I support that idea and that those should have voting power. I dont know about VI and Guam but PR gets 1 resident commisioner in the House but he gets no voting power.
719617
They're called "Term Limits" and they can be voted on. The way politics work is that one builds their reputation by acheiving different levels of office until they reach their goal. Some people want to be President, so they run for treasurer, then Mayor, then Govenor, then Representative, then Senator, and then finally President. Maybe not that extensive, but that's what they do. Term limits are there so that incumbents don't hold a position until they die. Some states have term limits, some don't. I support term limits, thus, I will vote yes on term limits on a ballot whenever I see them. Tell congress to pass term limits on Congressman! We need it!
90656
By "us gov" I assume you mean the current administration.  Or do you mean to include congress?  In either case, the answer is generally, no.  I'm terribly disappointed.  Or rather, not really disappointed, because I did not expect much from GWB.  But the structure of our government is still pretty good, and our Constitution is just fine, thank you.  Don't you wish the current crop of idiots paid attention to it once in awhile?\n\nThe problem I see in this country is that the vast majority of voters figure their choices are limited to the two largest parties.  Problem is, they have been trading off power trips and making back-room deals between them for so long, that does not give us much in the way of a choice.\n\nBut we have a strong and promising third party coming up fast: the Libertarian Party.  We libertarians believe that a government should be small enough to fit inside the Constitution.  We would disassemble the beaurocracy, stop butting into other countries' business, and trust the individual adult citizen to make his or her own choices about private matters.  We believe market forces would solve many of the problems that protectionism and favoritism only make worse.  And we believe that taxes should be eliminated if possible, or at least reduced to no more than it would take to run those operations that cannot be accomplished any other way.  \n\nIf the state can do it, then the feds should let them.  If the county can do it, the state should let them.  If the individual can do it, then let him alone.  If the individual cannot do it, let voluntary organizations and other structures at the local level help.  Because the larger the unit set with the task of solving a given problem, the less efficient it will inevitably be.  Perhaps the coordination necessary for defense operations would require a federal structure, but I personally cannot think of anything else that needs to be done on such a scale.  Can you?
1087481
Why not, politics is basically a popularity contest anyway... would be nice to see them have to work at what they 'choose to do'.
762728
It was put in place so that smaller states would have a voice in government. It is working as designed.  It was and is a brilliant idea to handle a complex problem. The distribution of electoral votes is based on the same formula as the distribution of seats in the Congress and Senate. The United States is a Republic and not a Democracy.
1141857
Not just our president, but all of our elected officials should support equal rights and protection under the law for all citizens. (If we aren't all equal, none of us are.)\n\nTo do anything less is to fail at upholding the founding principles of our country.
1150764
But if the people don't even know about an issue, how can they have an informed opinion about the bill?  The actions of congress are online, and you can keep up with them, and email your opinion to your representative at any time of day.\n\nWho would propose laws in your scheme, without representatives?  All 298,444,215 of us?  That could lead to a lot of votes.\n\nDo I think our countries laws should be decided as snap-decisions by inattentive members of the public - like American idol? NO
1147071
It sure would, go propose it to congress. Good Job!!
317094
No, I would not because of the electoral college system.  The electoral college system already skews democratic votes into a system that favors smaller states (the "Great" compromise).  As such, DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands would then complicate an already skews the system for electing national representatives.  Thus, you would have to come up with a way the electoral college handles US territories with representatives. \n\nMoreover, the constitutional makes clear that senators can be no fewer than 2 and must come from a state.  Thus, the only way to limit them (assuming that they become a state) to 1 senator is to amend the constitution.\n\nHowever, keep up the big thinking as it is the only way improvement happens.  As Bobby Kennedy used to say, "Some people see things as they are and say 'why'.  I dream things that never were and ask 'why not'."
455116
Before we can throw support in your direction, we really need to know where you stand on issues, and even more than that, your proposed plan for bringing about these changes.  I really like your spunk and the idea of `a man of the people' being on the ticket.....but, and I hate to throw water on your fire, there are some hurdles here:\n1) A Lone Ranger president is going to have an near impossible time of building a constituency among the congress, remember, you are going into the arena of politicians, so you have to play their game....to a certain extent.\n2) I do not believe one man (President) can truly be expected to handle the Executive Position....so I would want to know as much about the people you plan on running your Cabinet as I do you.  \nThese are my first questions for you, however, as I said, I like your moxie, come up with a plan and let's see what we can do.
1165861
I am very much in favor of term limits.  Our congress saw fit to limit the term of the presidency.  I strongly feel the same limits should applied to all elected offices at all levels. Yes, even the dog catcher if he is elected.  This will be the only way we can ever eleminate the professional politician.  Look at the mess we are now in because of these people.  Examples: Byrd of West Virginia, Kennedy of Mass., Graham of Florida, and last but not least Harry Ried.  They have been there so long that they think it is their right.  They have made our congress their Kingdoms.  We are, in essence, being held hostage by uncompromising professional politicians who never say "I support this issue because that is what my constiruents wish me to do." No it is "I feel that" or in "MY" opinion, or "I" this or that.  Why are they hollering about the national debt and actively seeking a pay raise for themselves. No one holding elective office should be allowed to receive a pay rasie during the term they were elected for.  They knew what the pay was before they campaigned for the job.  I have got a little of the subject of limiting the terms of office.  However, we must clean our government if we are to survive.  The initial step should to throw out the lot now there and institute a system that will not allow them back and will instead put people there who are everyday people with the disire to help everyday people.  What we now have is a very exclusive club which only admits the "haves" and continues to develope methods and means to exclude the "have nots."  Three things describe our current legislators. to many, to much, to long.
270915
They already are, but it takes a long time for alternate parties to gain the momentum required to win higher offices.  There are many local and state offices being filled by members of alternative parties.  Ocassionally a third party candidate manages to get the majority of votes for a congressional seat.  It will be a long time before we see a third party president.
320834
I think the government could be useful if people like us would just stand up and start doing something.  America needs to start by cutting out this two-party bullshit.  There are only two major parties that get funded by people who get personal favors.  Then, basically we as Americans have few choices when it comes to our leaders.  There just needs to be a shift in national political theory...
874290
Not in this time and era. I would like just one person to be for the people that was elected by the people. Great leadership is non existent in today's America. All I have left to do is pick by party, and pick the lesser of the two evils. Good question.
946334
This is a good question. This is how the ancient Greeks in Athens participated in civic affairs. The reason the Framers of our Constitution created a Republic(elected Representation) was first and foremost that they realized people are influenced by their whims. (the media could really capitalize on this) They made great effort in our Constitution to avoid this happening.\nIN direct answer to your question,  I say no. However I have never looked at the issue too closely. This is the difference bt. a Republic(Indirect democracy) and a Direct Democracy. The US is a Republic
313533
I think that a parliamentary form of government is better than the Congressional system we use in the U.S.  It gives points to 2nd place so a multi party system would develop making a more Representative government.
503216
No. The congress is full of self-serving re-election whores. Presidents are a hit-or-miss proposition, and even they can't do anything without compromising on principle with the Congress.\n\nFor example, Social Security is a disaster waiting to happen, but because it is solvent now, no Congressman will touch it, lest they lose the next election because of upset voters. So they kick the problem down the road. They will only do the right thing if it aligns with their polls.\n\nSame with agricultural welfare. Same with the Cuba embargo. Etc.\n\nThey also curtail our rights, like eliminating our political voices by the Campaign Finance reform.\n\nThey also illegally spend the public monies. The Constitution is very specific on the limits of what the government can and cannot do. Charitably taking money from my pocket to give to another (and get their vote) is clearly unauthorized and illegal in any but the most distorted interpretation of the Constitution, but there it is.\n\nSo, no, I do not trust my government.