As I continue to bask in the dwindling sunlight of these last few minutes as UOTD (and being only moderately impaired from the celebratory drinks proferred in Rocky's Cafe), I thought I would take this opportunity to start a discussion thread on a subject near and dear to my heart:

The end of single party control of the legislative and executive branch of our government, now in 2006 and for all time.

This will probably only be of interest to those who consider themselves fiscal conservatives, deficit hawks, and/or limited government advocates.

Some setizens have already found their way to the blog linked from my sig and profile. In that blog I outline the case for divided government, and describe a voting strategy to accomplish that goal.

Relevant posts on that blog:

The first post lays down an intellectual foundation by linking to former Reagan economic advisor William Niskanen's work showing that single party control of the executive and legislative branch always results in big increases in big government spending and deficits and overall worse governance than a government split between the parties.

The second post outlines and advocates a voting strategy showing how a relatively small group of committed voters could effectively secure better more fiscally responsible government by always voting for divided government.

The fourth post is evidence supporting William Niskanen's work, by linking to hard number documentation showing that the Republican single party control under the leadership of GWB has actually surpassed LBJ as the biggest spending, most fiscally irresponsible, biggest of the big government growth administrations in the last 80 years.

The fifth post speculates that libertarians could be that swing voting block, if the electorate is polarized and evenly divided and if one could actually organize libertarians.

Interested in all comments, suggestions, debate.

---

- Skeptic - "... and there is no intelligent life in Washington D.C. either."

With both parties goal of power and control, and their nasty habit of adopting the other party's methods and tactics, I really don't care who is in there. I just pray the current state of elections continues to keep competent people out of office.

We'd get better governence from a lottery. Just randomly select tax returns ( this assumes it done honestly). Barring that, I think simply removing 1) straight ticket boxes and 2) party designations, from the ballot would do wonders.

It might be a good idea, but it would take considerable discipline for it to work. There will always be an issue like Abortion, a truely blinding issue. Brains shutdown, all thought ceases, and the old guard takes the day again. They (a.k.a. the evil order of they) know it too... Beware Gun Control, Abortion, the Enviroment, and Education; they are the four horsemen, harbingers of the government eroding your rights or protections.

---

Still looking for something profound or inspirational to place here.

Skeptic, I'm sure you are familiar with the Libertarian party of the US. Why not that? Of course, I would suggest that the forwarding of ideas is of more important than the nominal party that carries them....

I've visited your blog a few weeks ago and did find it interesting....

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

"With both parties goal of power and control, and their nasty habit of adopting the other party's methods and tactics, I really don't care who is in there... We'd get better governence from a lottery..." - ghost

I am sympathetic, this is an idea shaped by the same frustration. The fact is, if you believe that liberty shrinks as government grows, there are no good answers. We've just experienced the biggest increase in the federal government in US history by any measure (budget growth, deficits, spending, growth in bureaucracy, increasing entitlements, increasing earmarks, increasing power over citizens lives, you name it). This while under the single party control of the Republican Party. They talk the talk, but are actually worse than Democrats in their actions. It is a documented fact that split government restrains that growth. Nothing else at the ballot box will accomplish that.

"It might be a good idea, but it would take considerable discipline for it to work." - ghost

If it takes discipline, then it probably won't happen. If the idea gets wide grass-roots distribution, If it is a close partisan polarized election then it might be possible to get enough true fiscal conservatives and libertarians to cast a tactical vote for the objective of limiting government growth rather than vote for their incumbents or their party. If all that happened we could get a split and better government in '06. Yes, that is a lot of If's.

"I'm sure you are familiar with the Libertarian party of the US. Why not that?" - rb

Because the Libertarian Party draws fiscal conservatives from the Republicans and social liberals from the Democrats. Since it draws more or less equally from both parties, it is a completely impotent and irrelevant political force in a national election. The ideas are important, and through the party and the Cato Institute, those ideas have made significant inroads into the national dialog and political process. That's great and I applaud both entities for that reason alone. But as a political force to be reckoned with, as a political party ,they are nothing.

Interestingly, if Libertarians were to vote as a block for the objective of limiting government growth by voting for split government and voting democratic in '06, they would immediately become an important political force to be reckoned with. Libertarians could actually swing some real political power in Washington that is far out of proportion to their actual numbers. But they would have to prove they could vote as a block by voting Democratic in '06.

"Still looking for something profound or inspirational to place here." - ghost

I suggest that for next few months you try the very stylish and cool "Divided We Stand" banner you see right here in my sig ... no charge.

---

- Skeptic - "... and there is no intelligent life in Washington D.C. either."

Give me ur email and delete it soon after for guard of trolls.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Its on the profile on the blog.

What US needs is:

1) Preferential voting.
2) Move the president back to congress.
3) Make the office of president an appointment of the house majority.
4) Call the house minority the opposition.
5) Give both sides access to each other.
6) Include open and frank discussion in to the house (yelling and sceaming).
7) Make the position of president open to the public (yelling and sceaming).
8) Allow TV cameras in to the upper and lower houses (less yelling and sceaming).
9) Make a new non-political appointment for the position of Commander-in-Chief.

---

Click here to join the #1 Aussie Alliance in SETI

What US needs is:

1) Preferential voting.
2) Move the president back to congress.
3) Make the office of president an appointment of the house majority.
4) Call the house minority the opposition.
5) Give both sides access to each other.
6) Include open and frank discussion in to the house (yelling and sceaming).
7) Make the position of president open to the public (yelling and sceaming).
8) Allow TV cameras in to the upper and lower houses (less yelling and sceaming).
9) Make a new non-political appointment for the position of Commander-in-Chief.

1. Mike, what do you mean by 'preferential voting'?
2. You wish that the president is elected by congress?
3. This is obviously a move toward a parliamentary system...
4. I like this idea, but is cultural, not procedural.
5. I don't know what that means....access to eachother? Carnally?
6. ibid
7. ibid
8. We have cameras on all of congresses actions now. It's on C-Span. Almost every American has that but of course few view it.

9. How would choosing a President be 'non-political' exactly?

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

What US needs is:

1) Preferential voting.
2) Move the president back to congress.
3) Make the office of president an appointment of the house majority.
4) Call the house minority the opposition.
5) Give both sides access to each other.
6) Include open and frank discussion in to the house (yelling and sceaming).
7) Make the position of president open to the public (yelling and sceaming).
8) Allow TV cameras in to the upper and lower houses (less yelling and sceaming).
9) Make a new non-political appointment for the position of Commander-in-Chief.

1. Mike, what do you mean by 'preferential voting'?
2. You wish that the president is elected by congress?
3. This is obviously a move toward a parliamentary system...
4. I like this idea, but is cultural, not procedural.
5. I don't know what that means....access to eachother? Carnally?
6. ibid
7. ibid
8. We have cameras on all of congresses actions now. It's on C-Span. Almost every American has that but of course few view it.

9. How would choosing a President be 'non-political' exactly?

1. Preferential Voting -> Voters give every candidate on the ballot a number in order of preference.
2. You wish that the president is elected by congress? A member of congress & appointed by his elected party members.
3. This is obviously a move toward a parliamentary system... Ah! Yes ;-)
4. I like this idea, but is cultural, not procedural. Clear debating (like a court, adversarial)
5. I don't know what that means.. (Carnally? <- That's a given) Debate along congressional divides.
6. ibid <- I don't know what that means.
7. ibid <- Ditto.
8. We have cameras on all of congresses actions now. It's on C-Span. Not so much for the public as the media to keep an eye on what they do.
9. How would choosing a President be 'non-political' exactly? No popular vote. Pick someone everyone likes and appoint them (Say, Gen. Schartzkoph). The position becomes a part of the checks and balances.

Here's the gist. If the Pres. is an elected member of the people’s house, he is accountable directly to the people. Any suspect actions will be torn apart by the opposition. When he stuffs up he has no place to hide and you'll see it on the news that night.

If it's appointment by elected party members, they can change their minds at any point in the term. Bingo, old bad leaders out, new good one in.
The above sets up a separation of State and Government.

---

Click here to join the #1 Aussie Alliance in SETI

Instead of this 'democracy' let's move toward the Bowland amendment where Senators are elected by the state legislatures...we have too much 'voter input' and soap opera nonsense as it is...

They should be independent entities according to the Constitution.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Instead of this 'democracy' let's move toward the Bowland amendment where Senators are elected by the state legislatures...we have too much 'voter input' and soap opera nonsense as it is... They should be independent entities according to the Constitution.

I think our electoral college system confuses many non-Americans - correction: it also confuses many Americans - because there is not an adequate appreciation of it's historical derivation. The "United States" was initially conceived with more of an emphasis on "States" rather than "United". "States" being used in the same meaning as the word "countries". For that is what we were when we cut the apron-strings with England, a confederation of 13 "United Countries", ultimately bound federally for mutual defense and to establish baseline rules for individual freedoms within the confederation (codifying an individual's Bill of Rights that superceded the State's law).

The anachronism of the Electoral College is a direct consequence, as the President was not really the leader of a United Country, but an Executive in charge of administering a Confederation of semi-independent States, and elected by those States, and not by the population of the confederation as a whole. Of course it has been a non-stop process of increasing Federal Government accretion of power since the founding, so that the States today are independent countries in name only.

Conceptually I think this is analogous to the EU. The President of the EU Commission is selected by consensus among members of the European Council and approved by the European Parliament and not elected by a majority of the popular vote in the EU.

Of course, the EU really is a confederation of Independent Countries, while the United "States" are really just states (lower case).

yes, but that is the case now isn't it? History would suggest that europe may wind up the same way. It may become one great nation with one overbearing governmental body.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

yes, but that is the case now isn't it? History would suggest that europe may wind up the same way. It may become one great nation with one overbearing governmental body.

Yeah... the ebb and flow of power between the federation and the states never does seem to get around to "ebbing" does it?

I have a somewhat unorthadox idea for selecting the president.

1) Establish guideline charectaristics for a president (charectaristics a president must have to be effective).

2) Draft the three or four best suited individuals from the corporate, educational, scientific, medical, and governmental sources.

3) Give each equal media exposure opportunities and campaign funds.

4) Let the voters decide which of these qualified individuals they want to do the job.

5) Winner becomes President, #2 becomes Vice President.

Think about it.

---

Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.
Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

I have a somewhat unorthadox idea for selecting the president.

1) Establish guideline charectaristics for a president (charectaristics a president must have to be effective).

2) Draft the three or four best suited individuals from the corporate, educational, scientific, medical, and governmental sources.

3) Give each equal media exposure opportunities and campaign funds.

4) Let the voters decide which of these qualified individuals they want to do the job.

5) Winner becomes President, #2 becomes Vice President.

Think about it.

1. Who would set these guidelines outside of what is already prscribed by the Consituion?
2. Who decides who is 'best suited' ?
3. Who will force these media outlets to 'give equal exposure'
4. this is clear, no question from me here...
5. We have this already.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

I have a somewhat unorthadox idea for selecting the president.

1) Establish guideline charectaristics for a president (charectaristics a president must have to be effective).

2) Draft the three or four best suited individuals from the corporate, educational, scientific, medical, and governmental sources.

3) Give each equal media exposure opportunities and campaign funds.

4) Let the voters decide which of these qualified individuals they want to do the job.

5) Winner becomes President, #2 becomes Vice President.

Think about it.

1. Who would set these guidelines outside of what is already prscribed by the Consituion?
2. Who decides who is 'best suited' ?
3. Who will force these media outlets to 'give equal exposure'
4. this is clear, no question from me here...
5. We have this already.

1.a The same governmental entities that thought it so critical to try to push through a constitutional amendment to define marriage. If it's appropriate to revise the constitution to dictate conditions for personal relationships it should also allow for improvement in the selection process for the country's highest office. With the current system the candidate with the biggest campaign fund wins.

2.a See 1.a

3.a Tax incentives could be offered to newspapers, radio stations, tv statations, etc. who allocate appropriate time for use by candidates.

4.a The voter doesn't decide the winner. That was the problem with the last two elections. For one the supreme court decided the winner. For the other there are investigations still in progress.

5.a No we don't. The presidential candidate selects his running-mate, and the voter has no influence on the process. Look at Cheny. He was hired by Bush to find him a vp candidate and decided to take the position himself. What was his motive. Hmm...halliburton...no bid contracts...

The process is broken. It needs to be fixed.

---

Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.
Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

I think our electoral college system confuses many non-Americans - correction: it also confuses many Americans - because there is not an adequate appreciation of it's historical derivation. The "United States" was initially conceived with more of an emphasis on "States" rather than "United". "States" being used in the same meaning as the word "countries". For that is what we were when we cut the apron-strings with England, a confederation of 13 "United Countries", ultimately bound federally for mutual defense and to establish baseline rules for individual freedoms within the confederation (codifying an individual's Bill of Rights that superceded the State's law).
.... [big snip] .....

The whole "electoral college" thing, you got that right. That and grand jury's are things I know just a tad more than I would like (the same could be said for Bill Colinton’s sex life 8-).

The creation of the US federation sounds none to dissimilar to Australian's federation of the 6 independent and autonomous colonies that considered themselves nations. Fortunately we skipped the war part. We still ended up with a house of reps. not unlike the US and a Senate based on the US blueprint, without the electoral college or anything similar.

I was also going to write "no president" but as I did, I realised we do have a president, the senate chair or speaker.

I do sometimes wonder if the US Presidents power doesn't to closely parallel that of an elected absolute monarch. Perhaps it only seems that way from afar.

---

Click here to join the #1 Aussie Alliance in SETI

"I do sometimes wonder if the US Presidents power doesn't to closely parallel that of an elected absolute monarch. Perhaps it only seems that way from afar." - mm

It certainly is not supposed to be that way, but I can understand how it might look that way from afar, because it is starting to look that way from up close.

Our constitution calls for checks and balances on power between executive, legislative and judicial branches. In wartime our presidents have a history of stretching the power of the executive branch (Lincoln suspending Habeus Corpus as an example). In the past these abuses have ultimately been rolled back by congress or the judiciary over time. But if we are in a "forever" war ... who knows? I think we are facing a fundamental question here. Does fear trump liberty for Americans?

Some feel that the Congress abrogated their war-making powers under the constitution by essentially handing GWB a blank check on Iraq. This all argues in my mind for the electorate to impose another level of check and balance on the government by removing single party control as we have with the Republicans now.

There is a great (but long) article written by the editors at the Cato Institute (Libertarian Think Tank) called "Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of Geroge W Bush'" (link to a pdf here).

Executive Overview of the article:

"In recent judicial confirmation battles, President Bush has repeatedly—and correctly—stressed fidelity to the Constitution as the key qualification for service as a judge. It is also the key qualification for service as the nation's chief executive. On January 20, 2005, for the second time, Mr. Bush took the presidential oath of office set out in the Constitution, swearing to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." With five years of the Bush administration behind us, we have more than enough evidence to make an assessment about the president's commitment to our fundamental legal charter

Unfortunately, far from defending the Constitution, President Bush has repeatedly sought to strip out the limits the document places on federal power. In its official legal briefs and public actions, the Bush administration has advanced a view of federal power that is astonishingly broad, a view that includes

* a federal government empowered to regulate core political speech—and restrict it greatly when it counts the most: in the days before a federal election;
* a president who cannot be restrained, through validly enacted statutes, from pursuing any tactic he believes to be effective in the war on terror;
* a president who has the inherent constitutional authority to designate American citizens suspected of terrorist activity as "enemy combatants," strip them of any constitutional protection, and lock them up without charges for the duration of the war on terror— in other words, perhaps forever; and
* a federal government with the power to supervise virtually every aspect of American life, from kindergarten, to marriage, to the grave.

President Bush's constitutional vision is, in short, sharply at odds with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution, which authorizes a government of limited powers."

Hmmm. I think I have a topic for a blog post.

---

- Skeptic - "... and there is no intelligent life in Washington D.C. either."

I have an idea for a new voting machine design.

Any voting machine designers out there have my permission to steal the idea and make zillions of dollars with it. Just put a little green octagon on it somewhere inobvious :-)

The machine consists of a large LCD touchscreen. For a general election, each position has a list of candidates with NO party affiliation markings, no incumbency markings, etc. The list is in a different order for each voter. There are no party slate buttons.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

What US needs is:

1) Preferential voting.
2) Move the president back to congress.
3) Make the office of president an appointment of the house majority.
4) Call the house minority the opposition.
5) Give both sides access to each other.
6) Include open and frank discussion in to the house (yelling and sceaming).
7) Make the position of president open to the public (yelling and sceaming).
8) Allow TV cameras in to the upper and lower houses (less yelling and sceaming).
9) Make a new non-political appointment for the position of Commander-in-Chief.

1. RANK voting.

I'm libertarian and I vote only 3rd party unless they will represent me.

In San Francisco, there is rank voting. You vote for your #1, #2 and #3 choice. If #1 does not have the top 2 ranks, your vote falls to #2 choice, and if #2 choice is not in the running #3 choice is your final vote.

This system allows for people to support 3rd party candidates so we can get new blood and bypass possible power protecting hogs of a 2 party system. A 2 party system encourages uniformity in competitions where the differences is nil. Over the last month, I've had many politicians (reps of) call asking if they can count on my vote. I say if "I vote 3rd party only but if (s)he will push for rank votes, then I'll vote for them. The standard response is "I don't know where they stand on that issue." And my response is "too bad".

Rank voting on the national level would probably bring the Democrats into power for the first couple rounds until 3rd parties really swing into action. But in the long run, it could have a role in power management.

For those who think it's too much work to have rank voting. Tell me how many cycles your CPU churned in the time it takes to type your response and tell me it's not logistical.

---

TEAM
LL