It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A new form of government

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 07:26 PM
With the recent "revelations" that the worlds governments are severely flawed whether they are dictatorships, republics, "democratic" monarchy's, oligarchies or whatever I think its time for a dramatic new line of thought into creating a new form of government. So i issue this challenge to whomever takes part in this thread lets start from the ground up we can make it whatever from we think works best and provides a way to prevent corruption and abuse.

For starters i say we keep the 3 branches of government that originally made up the US government since when used effectively it did provide a great setup of checks and balances. But lets build off of that shall we

The house of reps is meant to represent the people but it has been corrupted by the powers that be with the invent of redistricting i say this is stopped and once district lines are drawn they stay that way unless the population changes, to keep it fair the lines should be drawn so as close to an equal number of people should live in them but follow natural boundaries like roads or river or county lines

As far as pay wise i think that they should be paid the median income of their representative district so if your district average income is 32000 dollars then that's how much you make regardless of how many committees your, on this will lead to the people meant to represent us trying to get us lucrative jobs and fighting harder to keep our jobs safe because it will actually affect their pay also this will weed out career politicians who do more harm than good and this will pave the way for an average citizen to be able to actually run since the rich would be insulted to earn this much meaning the middle class can rebound.

The senate is meant to represent the states interest in the government not the peoples, we should have no vote in the senate races. The representatives, county legislators and governor should pick our senators this way the states interest are sought after and....

Pay-wise i stand by my previous thoughts the senators should make the median income of the state they represent this will help them fight harder for government contracts, saving our jobs and looking out for our best interest

The Supreme court.... Enough with the president stacking the court in his favor/beliefs the judges on the nations highest court should be elected by the people not appointed. I say a 10 year term limit this way they keep in touch with the fast pace of today's society instead of being appointed and serving until they die or retire. the median age of the US population is 35 so how does a group of 60 year old (and up) decide what is best for people who average 3 generations below them. I'm not saying that cannot tell the difference between legal and not because of their age but what i am saying is that they tend to represent the old way of thinking instead of the newer ways. The only way to keep the country modern is to have modern thoughts and actions.

Pay wise they should earn the median average of the US income since their job is vital to keeping our government in check. Also every bill passed should go before them to debate the legality. Judges should have an education of at least a doctorate in constitutional law to keep out the idiots and make sure we have people educated in the laws of the constitution to protect our given rights. This will also hopefully stop the government from becoming a runaway train like we currently have.

The President... we need a huge revamp on the election process. Immediately dismiss the electoral college and go to a system of popular vote to rule. In today's world we have the ability to count every vote instantly with the electronic voting system so its time to move forward and utilize it. I also see the need for an independent monitoring system to make sure it is not tampered with. Votes should be published the second they come in and i know most people wont like this idea but i believe we should have to punch in our SS number to vote and the system would check instantly to make sure the number was valid and not a dead persons or a fake number then you could record your vote however your SS number would not be recorded with your vote it would only be used to verify you can vote anyone found using another persons SS would be mandatory sentenced to 3 years in prison.

The president would also earn the median income of the US. I honestly think this would foster a culture that would protect American interest and fight to keep the jobs in the US.

The running for election changes.....Zero and i repeat zero donations from corporations also i think there needs to be a limit on money you can spend 100's of million spent on elections are just plain silly and keep the common man or economically challenged man (or woman) from running. Some of the smartest people i know are teachers (ironic huh) and they could run the country well but cannot afford to even think about running so instead we get a group of millionaires who run basically to further enlarge their bank accounts and not work in our interest. i say if you want to run for president you need to have a petition of 100k people signed backing you then you get your war chest of 2 million to use in the election and you can fund raise another 2 million tops i think this will help even the field up better than we have now and get people to run who may actually do some good.

Bill introduction..... bills must be less than 10 pages long and only cover one yes one proposal for example a bill to open the Alaskan refuge for oil drilling would in plain terms state the Alaska reserve is open to oil drilling from this point to this point it would be allowed to adjust it as long as it was on topic say changing the designated points but they could not add an addendum to finance a bridge in Ohio or allow the hunting of whales. Do you get what i am getting at? Putting the bill into common terms, limiting its length and not allowing add ons with no relation to the topic would help more people see what is going on in government and stop the government from hiding things or voting no on a good bill because of a stupid add on.
Also i say if it is a matter that the public is heated on like legalizing marijuana or prostitution or laws about abortion or home defense then the public gets to vote and popular vote wins. To determine this i say when public outcry or surveys show a close public debate a vote is scheduled on the topic let the masses rule itself. this will provide a final check for the government this way things like SOPA will not happen

Lobbyist....No more of this at all, no more buying our government ever! Yes lobbyist have done great things but they have done more harm than good. Corporate America has no place in government.

Ok ATS its your turn how can we fix the system and devise a government to represent the people i laid out some of my thoughts and ideas now its your turn build off what i wrote or build your own but lets hammer down a form that will actually work.

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:21 PM
Excellent thread. I have made a few threads and posts along the same lines.

I agree that the pay of the representatives, senators and the president should be pegged to averages. My concept was to have representatives get the average for their districts, senators their states, and the president would get the average of the salaries of the governors.

I think that reps should have 6 year term limits, 12 for senators.

I am not decided on the supreme court justices. I think that what you have suggest regarding age differences is tricky. When someone starts talking modern thinking, that's about the same as saying whats in fashion or trending. When it comes to simply interpreting the constitution, it should be timeless in interpretation, when or if something becomes dated to where it doesn't fit into the operation of the nation, then it need be amended by the congress.

With regards to the office of the President: I think the electoral college should be gone. I disagree with the idea of a popular vote, but I support something near to it. The Presidents role is to represents the collective union, or states, not the individual. As such, each state should get a single vote, determined by popular vote. Each state is weighed equally, as it should be represented equally by the President.

I don't necessarily agree on all your campaigning rules, but I do agree with ending corporate donations. The only donations that should be allowed are individual. No unions, organizations, or corps. Additionally, such groups should be barred from endorsing or campaigning against any specific elected official via advertisements.

Lobbiests and campaign bundlers would also be prohibited. Prostitution should be legal long before lobbying as a profession.

I don't mind bills being lengthy, but their should be some requirements or expectations. First a bill should not be able to be voted on until after it is made available to the public for at least 3 days per x pages, lets say 50. Also, it should be written in a clear and concise enough for the average US reader. That is around an 8th grade reading level. Additionally, all legislation must be directly topical. This would mean no slipping in pet projects and pork into unrelated legislation.

I can come up with hundreds of other ways to improve on the way things are being done, but that covers what you have already brought up.

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:34 PM
Look here:

The Venus Project

The Venus Project offers a comprehensive plan for social reclamation
in which human beings, technology and nature will be able to
coexist in a long term, sustainable state of dynamic equilibrium

I like this much more than what you are proposing!

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:41 PM
reply to post by Wolf321

I see your point on the Supreme Court and stand corrected your point makes complete sense constitutional law shouldn't change just because of the popular thought of the moment and i had neglected to take that into account.

I am also swayed on the presidential voting and in theory your idea of the using the popular vote of the state to determine how the states one bid is used is a good idea. This would quell the mob rule aspect of a direct vote democracy however we do have 50 states thus a tie is a remote possibility so how would be able to settle this? Another vote would not be feasible so we would need to figure this out. I have no idea how to settle it other than a coin toss so i'm open to some input on this.

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:45 PM
reply to post by nedined

In a perfect world the Venus Project would work wonderfully but in a real society mans greed and quest for power will corrupt any Utopian society, hence my proposal including checks and balances which is required to keep man from corrupting everything he touches

not to mention the Venus Project requires a huge social change and if history has taught us anything it is that social change on the level required to setup this system will not happen. It takes decades for good social changes to occur but only days for bad ones to. Look at the end of segregation even today this type of thinking is still occurring decades after its end.
edit on 2/29/2012 by Immune because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:46 PM
reply to post by Immune

That is an interesting point I had not considered. While I wont say it is my final answer, I suppose you could let territories in on the presidential vote, since his role as commander-in-chief would be in their interest from a defensive standpoint.

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:51 PM
My last post made me recall another aspect of a constitution I had expressed once before.

I think if the President is going to be tasked with the role of Commander-in-Chief, then prior service should be a requirement. If not, then the role of Commander-in-Chief would fall on the Secretary of Defense, whose position would have to be filled by a prior service member. The President could still have control over the final use of WMDs, but not on other tactical matters.

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:51 PM
reply to post by Wolf321

Actually we could utilize DC as the 51st this way their votes are not divided into Maryland and Virginia but actually a district with one vote

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:57 PM
reply to post by Wolf321

Agreed throughout history rulers with a military background were better rulers not all of them but the great ones all had military service in their background. Alexander the great, Cyrus the great, George Washington, all great rulers with great military records. I would not trust our military and technology to someone who has never been even in the presence of a gun. So i agree Commander in chief must have military background or the secretary of defense will take it over but with congressional and presidential oversight to stop a coup or abuse of power.

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:58 PM
reply to post by Immune
This is a great post,however,we need to realize where we stand Constitutionally first ! We have been under a constant state of Marshall Law for 100 years. In other words the Constitution does not apply ! One of the most obvious symbols that verify this is "THE GOLD FRINGED FLAG" . Here is a link that explains the definition of said

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 09:05 PM
reply to post by ScroodeMcDuck

I agree, hence this post. We all know the system is flawed, it is fatally wounded and bleeding out however we cannot change the system if we don't have a plan of what we are going to replace it with. When the system finally dies if we have nothing to utilize as a road map then we will just end up in the same mess again eventually. This thread is meant to get people thinking of whats next, we need a plan B and in it we need to include the lessons we learned from the past and try to modernize our way of thinking and the way we are governed.

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 09:08 PM
reply to post by ScroodeMcDuck

In line with the thread topic, assuming we are getting a reboot of American government, or as I have called it America 2.0, I have addressed the flag issue once before.

The Colors:
Blue- strength
White- purity and freedom
Red- sacrifice and bloodshed
Black- oppression and tyranny

A golden Phoenix rising (continually) to become a shining example (star) to the world.

-The triangular field of blue: a three sided shape is the most simplistic stable a shape can be. Much the same way, the three branch government (executive, legislative and judicial) should remain in balance and simple.

-From the bottom, a field of black represents the oppression that a people must have experienced to inspire and lead them to freedom. The red is the blood that is spilled to gain freedom, and sacrifices that are made. The white is the ultimate freedom achieved, and centered in the flag for it is the path and way to be strived for. Above that is the red of blood that is spilled often preceding a coming oppression, which is displayed above as a warning that things may repeat unless care is taken to stay on the path of freedom and righteousness. edit: The red fields are wider than the black, because (for the bottom) more blood is spilled and greater sacrifice made compared to the narrow band of black (the few elite) who oppress. The above field of red is larger because the people will often tolerate a great many evils before realizing they are lost and action must be taken.

edit on 29-2-2012 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 09:18 PM
While i am glad to see a few participants in the thread, with all the hatred and disdain for the current government i am surprised more have not piped in. I think i committed threadicide by making the original post to long for most to bother with which saddens me.

To the posters on the thread brilliant work so far especially wolf321 its nice to finally have an intelligent discussion on government without being called names or having a troll pop in with their infinite wisdom. Already some of my ideas have been changed all for the better and through the Socratic method of dialog i believe we can separate the ideas we each form into a one common idea we all share and use to the betterment of mankind in general.
edit on 2/29/2012 by Immune because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 09:32 PM
reply to post by Immune

Thank you. I have encountered some of the problems you mentioned when trying to discuss reform here and IRL.

i am a veteran, and I support the constitution. However, all to often, people confuse talk of reforming the constitution as an assault on the freedoms of the bill of rights. Most of the constitution is about organization and operation of the government. It was the lack of guarantees of certain freedoms that brought about the bill of rights.

The components that refer to the operation are to blame for some of the issue we have now, such as a lack of term limits, etc. The bill of rights would be integral to any new version of the constitution I could conceive, and strengthened. The way the bill of rights is now, has allowed for the government to trample on those rights and control the people.

Do we really have freedom of speech now? Do we really have the right to peaceably assemble? Do we really have the right to keep and bear arms? Do we really have the right to unreasonable search and seizure? Not to mention eminent domain or speedy trial.

At best we only have the illusion and propaganda of those rights.

posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 09:50 PM
Another aspect of reform I have considered was in regards to the military. I mentioned it before in another post, but I think it is worth mentioning again here.

Finally, the standing army as it is too easily abused. Since we are a union of 50 sovereign States, each should have its own “militia”, as initially intended. A federal requirement for the states to maintain a certain level of full time (National Guard) and part time/stand-by (militia) would be included.

The Federal Government would be responsible for financial appropriations of the defense budget as needed to ensure as a whole we have the resources to defend our nation. The primary role for a national level of military would be to centralize and standardize training for the branches of military of all the states, as well as R&D and acquisitions. The federal level would also have control of overseas bases and forces, the Navy as a whole (not the Marine Corps as a whole though,) ICBMs, nuclear weapons, space assets and one continental based Division, Group or whatnot for use in emergencies internally or in accordance with the newer War Powers Resolution. For territorial defense or a declaration of war, all states could be activated up to 75% of a states force, more with governor approval, and coordinated from a central, federal command.

top topics


log in