You must log in or register to comment.
- Democratize the workplace.
There are probably many ways you could go about this: Requiring that employees have a representative on the board of all corporations, forcing companies to give a certain amount of equity to employees, all businesses have to be worker co-ops, maybe some kind of automatic unionization? The point is to give workers more say in how businesses are run and a fairer cut of the value they produce, which would probably end up fixing some of the other things on this list as a byproduct.
- News reporting must be factual and clearly distinguishable from opinion and other non-news programming.
Something needs to be done about deliberate propaganda and misinformation. I’m not sure what the answer is here, but maybe having some rules for what can be called “news” would be a start.
- Enumerated right to bodily autonomy
This would cover abortion, prostitution, and marijuana consumption, and would also cover many forms of trans healthcare that are currently under attack. Speaking of which…
- Strengthened protections for minorities, including legal recognition of trans and intersex people. Something like the Equal Rights Amendment but for all minorities. Let’s explicitly get it into law that you can’t discriminate based on something people are born with.
I don’t agree with merging the House and Senate; uncapping the House fixes the proportionality issue and the Senate is a useful check to ensure that smaller states still have a voice.
Adding 5% to the highest tax bracket seems way too low. There should be a new top bracket with a rate so high it’s almost confiscatory; anyone earning that much is a resource hoarder and should be made to share with the rest of society. We used to have a top tax rate of 95%, so this isn’t unrealistic.
Banning tax prep is redundant if the IRS is calculating it for you, and I wouldn’t want to outright ban it for those whose financial situations may be complicated enough to actually need it.
Why are we including a ban on tipping? I feel like we’re getting lost in the details here. This should be a shorter list of high-level changes. If you don’t like tipping, wouldn’t it be better to do something about employers not giving fair wages in general?
Amerikkka should not exist. It must be abolished. There are concessions the State & capital will adhere to when we mobilize, but revolution will never be on the ballot.
Domination is a byproduct of coercive hierarchy. To free ourselves from domination we have to be strategic in how we interact with systems of power. Non-reformist reforms can improve our material conditions in the short term, but true liberation is only achieved when we abolish all States, abolish Capitalism and abolish hierarchy.
We don’t have to bargain for our humanity. We have the capacity to collectively organize and care for ourselves and the environment.
Perhaps this is just my European wallet talking, but $50k/y income = rich people. I’m sure there are states in USA where this is also true.
That sort of a change would totally crash tax income?
The last one could just be “free education”
Could? I think it should be.
There is a case for having some cost otherwise people go to university for absolutely worthless degrees just to do something.
All the points are nice but the plan does not “make sense” in the sense that it will probably never happen (at least within our lifetimes).
deleted by creator
I don’t really see “new countries” being a thing in that way ever again. The USA was new because a “new” piece of land was literally found (well obviously it was already found by other people but you get what I mean).
There is no new land to find today. You can’t just set off and create a new country - all of the land is already taken. You’ll need to work within the confines of the current countries and try your best to improve them gradually.
At least, any other approach would probably be very bloody…
Don’t worry, World War 3 will leave vast swaths of uninhabited land.
Uninhabitable*
I mean, the US was just a colonial state that broke ties to the british monarchy, and that shit happens all the time, so I think through that method, there’s still a pretty good chance. If you’re talking more about like, the establishment of the US as a state through the genocide of the native peoples, intentional or otherwise, I’d say, sure, yeah, that’s hopefully never gonna happen again, but general independence movements happen all the time.
If you arent dying, dont overestimate capitalism’s remaining lifetime
Merg Senate in house: no: checks and balances.
Checks and balances would be the executive and judicial branches, not the senate.
You think the executive has power? Haha
No senate has powers beyond policy, inquiry committees to reviel corruption ect list goes on. Checks Nd balances
No, that is the original meaning of having three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. If any of them are not doing their job the other two branches are supposed to hold them accountable (supposed to being the operative term here). I was just saying that the senate was not established as a system of checks and balances against the house of Representatives, but rather as a compromise so that smaller states wouldnt necessarily be completely beholden to one’s with much larger populations.
What positives would merging them accomplish?
That person didn’t suggest it, it’s in OP’s list.
There’s no benefit to that. Removing the limit on house representatives, that’s huge and real, but merging Congress is dumb. There’s a few dumb things on the list (eg “abolish gerrymandering” is like saying “abolish speeding”). Choose your favorite!
Edit: Now that I’m not trying to hurry to get ready for work:
Chapter One: the HoRs.
For those that aren’t aware of how it works:
There’s are two lawmaking bodies with two different purposes. The Senate is equally split among states. There are 2 senators for each state – as a result, those seats are elected by their entire state (more people voting on each person), and the seats are more competitive (more people want to be elected to that seat). So Senators tend to be more serious politicians, more “universally appealing” (aka centrist). This also makes the Senate the one that gives smaller, or less populous states, more power, because both California and Wyoming get 2 senators, no matter what. These factors contribute to the Senate being a more deliberative body.
The House Representatives are determined by population – so California has many more senators than Wyoming. They’re elected in their district, which can be quite small, so the profile of voters in a district is often very different than in an entire state. (This is why all the crazies are in the House.)
There’s a minimum, obviously – the smallest state will always have at least 1? Or 2? I don’t remember. But you can’t have a state with no representation, that’s not ok.
The problem is, our national population is very very different from what it was. The difference between New York and Maine is much more drastic than it was 200 years ago. But we haven’t increased the number of Representatives. And there’s a minimum. As the oopulation grows, and the House doesn’t, it’s becoming more and more unbalanced, in favor of smaller states.
Imagine trying to get smaller states to vote in favor of decreasing their power.
(Also: electoral college votes are on the same system. The electoral college was intended to give smaller states more power, but because there’s a minimum, and we haven’t reduced the total, it’s become super imbalanced. It was a mediocre idea to start with, and now it’s even worse. Abolishing the EC is pretty popular, but it might be easier/better to just follow the rules and increase the total number of EC votes. But, again, small states won’t agree to it.)
The Constitution says we’re supposed to increase the total number of Representatives (and EC votes) but at some point (1929 to be specific) Congress was like nahhhh
Chapter two: why we can’t Abolish Gerrymandering.
First of all, it’s already illegal.
Secondly, it’s hard for outsiders to tell the difference between appropriate “gerrymandering” and actual gerrymandering. If you look at Chicago, where I’m from, there’s a weird vote assignment on the west side of the city, it looks manipulated and weird. But if you live here, you know, there’s a huge highway that cuts through there that’s very hard to cross, so populations on one side are very different from on the other. One side of the highway is there a bunch of Latino immigrants and settled, and on the north side are more affluent (white) people.
(The fact that a highway cuts through a neighborhood isn’t an accident, but that’s just regular systemic racism, unrelated to Congress.)
If you made the voting map a simple grid, the Latino voters might be split up in a way that reduces their voting power. So the map is weird, but it’s actually good that it’s weird.
(This is why I said it’s like speeding: one, it’s already illegal, but two, it’s something everyone is doing (and traffic would be super shitty if everyone followed the speed limit), but some people are taking it to an illegal extreme.)
If you look at a state, calculate a percentage of the minorities, and check that number (those numbers – since there are more than one minority) against the number of districts that vote the way those minorities vote, then, that’s what we’ve decided is “fine” – and, for real, what else are you going to do.
Illegal gerrymandering is when those blocks of voters (“blocs,” is you want to get into Gramsci), are intentionally divided so as to reduce their power. The voting rights act of 1965 made this illegal, and every ten years, after the census, districts are often redrawn. In 2010, we ended up with a lot of gerrymandering. Now,finally, were starting to see some corrections to badly gerrymandered maps, like Alabama, Florida, New York, Wisconsin, Georgia… Louisiana…idr the others, but it’s a lot. 2024 is going to have a very very different House of Representatives than the one we have now.
This last point is worth underscoring. The current Republican house majority is due to illegal distract maps. It is, technically, an illegal Congress. So all these ridiculous shenanigans the House Republicans are up to shouldn’t be happening. (And, in fact, one could easily make the argument that the high percentage of insane and stupid Republican Representatives is because of the maps – because the the “depressurization” caused by fair maps would have dialed Congress back to a more centrist stance.
If you want to learn more, check out Democracy Docket, which is a news source from a group of people (lawyers) who are taking bad maps to court.
I feel like the whole gerrymandering debate is missing the point. Why are our elected officials representing land rather than people? The majority of voters in my district are ideologically opposed to my existence, so they elect people who actively try to harm me. No other representatives are allowed to speak on my behalf because I’m not on their patch of land. I have no one representing my interests in the House of Representatives or my state’s equivalent. This will be true for someone no matter how you draw the lines.
It would be better to abolish the idea of districts entirely, and come up with some way to award representatives proportionally.
You have done a good job of beginning to outline why things are going to break rather than change.
Imagine trying to get smaller states to vote in favor of decreasing their power.
None you lose thr checks and balance
This is the only one i cant figure out.
Ranked choice voting
I agree. However, I’m curious exactly what type of ranked voting system you would advocate for — Instant Runoff, Single Transferable Vote, etc.
Mandatory Voting
I disagree. The right to vote also encompasses one’s right to not vote. Even if one ignores the freedom aspect of it, an argument could be made that mandatory voting would actually have a negative effect — forcing people to vote, who otherwise wouldn’t’ve, will likely cause them to choose whoever they are the most familiar with — essentially this means that the person who can afford the most advertising is the most likely to win. Furthermore, as pointed out in this comment, there are potential privacy risks associated with tracking voters.
Universal vote by mail
I disagree. There is too much potential for abuse.
Voting day national holiday
I agree.
Legalize marijuana
I agree — granted, I would legalize all drugs. However, I’m of the opinion that selling it to minors should still be illegal. I’ve also been considering the idea that any entity that wants to engage in the sale of addictive substances must also provide, proportional to their sale volume, rehabilitation centers. There would also need to be strict regulation, such as there is with the sale of food, on their production, and composition.
Legalize prostitution
I agree. Of course, this would then mean that prostitutes would be entitled to the same employee protections, and rights as anyone else.
Revert Citizens United v. FEC
I’m not very familiar with this court case, so my answer isn’t thoroughly thought out, but, if I understand it correctly, that ruling overturned a previous ruling that prohibited some forms of election spending. If so, I would agree with such a ruling — I believe that people have the right to spend their money where they see fit. It is the voter’s duty to determine whether the person should be elected.
Abolish corporate home ownership
I disagree. I’m not sure I understand your rationale behind this one. Why don’t you think this should be allowed? As long as the land-value taxes are being payed, the people are being justly compensated for the ownership of that land.
Abolish the electoral college
I haven’t come to a firm decision on this matter. Would you mind elaborating on your rationale?
Abolish gerrymandering
While I agree with the sentiment that gerrymandering is bad, what would you suggest should be done to “abolish” it?
Abolish filibuster
I disagree (I don’t disagree with the idea that filibustering is bad. I disagree that it should be prohibited). It is the duty of the voters to hold their representatives to account.
Merge senate into house
I disagree (from the perspective of the U.S. Congress). I would like to know your rationale for why you want them merged. The intent of a bicameral legislature is to act as a sort of “check and balance” on new legislation — it plays an important role in a federation. Do you disagree that this is the case? If so, why?
Remove house rep cap
I’ve never thought about this. I’m inclined to agree. I can’t think of, nor can I find, any good reason for why there is a cap beyond the arbitrary.
Universal healthcare
This a tricky one. I’m not yet convinced that it is as cut and dry as many people make it out to be — there are many caveats. I, at the very least, am strongly inclined to favor a hybrid system. There are also certain circumstances where a free market is simply not compatible (e.g. emergency departments).
Universal basic income
While I understand the rationale that it would effectively cover one’s right to life, I have economic concerns. Primarily, I am concerned that it would lead to runaway inflation. I have considered other options like breaking down the necessities for life into categories and apportioning them equally (e.g. foodstamps). I have not yet come to a conclusion on this matter.
Income up to $50k untaxed
I’m more of the thinking that income taxes should be abolished.
Ban tax preparation companies
…why? I suppose there is some lobbying risk, but, beyond that, I don’t understand this one. However, even if there was lobbying risk, they are within their rights, imo.
IRS files taxes for citizens
This may only be possible for simple taxes. Anything more complicated than simple income tax would not really be feasible, I think. Also, it is important to note that the IRS does already offer this, to an extent. I could be mistaken, though. In all honesty, I think the solution is to just simply taxes, rather than trying to obfuscate away their unnecessary complexity. This, most likely, will just lead to more bloat, and money wastage.
VAT for luxury items
Generally, I would disagree with the implementation of a VAT. The only tax on products that I would support is one that is in the form of compensation to the public for damages (e.g. environmental taxes).
Supreme court 15 year term limit
I’m not certain on the exact number, but I am in favor of the idea of term limits for non-elected officials.
Increase highest bracket tax (+5%)
Again, I’m more in favor of abolishing income tax.
Collateral for loan is realized gain
I don’t understand the rationale for this. Would you mind elaborating?
Abolish PACs and lobbying
This is similar to the point about Citizens United v. FEC. It is the voter’s job to hold elected officials accountable.
Politicians banned from stocks
I think this is sort of missing the point. What you’re effectively getting at is that insider trading should be illegal, which it is. The real question is why the SEC, or related government agencies in other countries, doesn’t seem to go after some people when it seems obvious that they are engaging in insider trading.
Municipalize internet service
Hm. I’m generally against adding any more government bloat unless absolutely necessary. One of the main issues with how ISPs are structured is that they somewhat currently function as an monopoly — due to intrinsic factors. This is the main reason, in my opinion, why prices are high, and why the service is often bad. Intrinsic monopolies are a tough issue to solve. I’m not sure that creating a government run ISP would make the problem any better. If anything, it might actually get worse. A cooperatively owned ISP may work, though.
Abortion constitutional right
This will always be a tricky issue. In my opinion, both sides of the debate have fair arguments. The main question is “whose rights trump whose?” Is it the baby, or the mother? Whichever one that one chooses, I would like to know their rationale. It is not an easy question to answer, imo. It most likely will always lie more in the realm of philosophy than in hard fact, which, of course, doesn’t lend itself well to legislation. If I were pushed to side with a group, I would most likely side with the mother.
Ban restaurant tipping
I disagree. That being said, I certainly would like for tipping culture to die. It is not my job to ensure that an employee is payed well — that is between them and their employer.
Free financial education
I’m more in the camp of wholly restructuring how education is done, but that is out of the scope of this comment. I agree that economic literacy is important, but my beliefs on the matter of education go far beyond only that — I believe that we need a fundamental restructuring of the education system.
Dude I’m voting for you
Mostly good stuff. I don’t think I’d merge house and Senate. Some of them need more constraint, like I’d legalize prostitution, but only if it’s regulated like restaurants (health inspectors, workers rights, etc.).
What is your solution the massively disproportionate representation in the senate then? There are currently around 66.7 Californians for every Wyomingite. Do you think Wyomingites deserve 66.7 times the representation in the Senate? And yes, legalization would occur with reasonable regulations which would make sure the industry is safer for all those involved. I tried to keep the list as concise as possible for each issue reformed.
The Senate isn’t intended to be a representative body, it’s just two per state. They aren’t doing things like setting funding/budgets. Congress (the house of representatives) is designed to do that, though that needs some tweaking.
The Senate isn’t intended to be a representative body
Both the house and senate vote to pass bills. The disproportionate population increases have led to less representation of citizens in more populated states.
But the original states didn’t have balanced populations, the founders knew that, but they still set it to be two senators per state. The house is scaled by population.
They did that for as part of a negotiation though. The less populous states refused to join the union without something like the Senate.
To me it’s an outdated concept because states are much less independent now than they were back then. And we have a national identity that didn’t exist during the revolution.
There are other proposals to solve the Senate’s disproportionate nature, such as apportioning Senate seats by state population. Most proposals I’ve seen for that would leave the Senate with a little more than a hundred seats (with a minimum of 1 seat per state), which would (mostly) solve the problem and make it closer to the house in terms of proportionality. Of course, it all depends on the exact implementation.
What’s the purpose of the senate at that point? Seems redundant, like having two house of representatives.
That is in fact the point. It’s about checks and balances to stop bad actors from completely changing all of the rules the moment their party is in power. Of course, that’s completely pointless in a 2 Party system anyways and we should really reform campaign finance and election laws surrounding how to get on the ballot.
There’s no solution needed, since there isn’t a problem to begin with. Individuals (should) have proportional representation in the House, and states have proportional representation in the Senate, which is how it should be.
Do you think Wyomingites deserve 66.7 times the representation in the Senate?
Yes.
There’s no solution needed, since there isn’t a problem to begin with.
This is funny, it’s like an self soothing mantra. I’ll try to repeat this to myself as things get worse.
Beyond what you’ve stated about the disproportionate nature of the Senate, what exact legislative problems are you attributing to the existence of the Senate, and its disproportionate nature? And why do you think a purely proportional body will solve said issues? I’m also curious what you believe the purpose of the Senate, or a bicameral legislature in general, is.
I’m not trying to be accusatory in my probing, I’m simply curious what your exact rationale is ☺️.
The senate exists to maintain an artificial balance and make sure that only the approved things are actually voted on. That is why popular things like marijuana legalization are never voted on.
The senate exists to maintain an artificial balance
What do you mean by “artifical balance”?
and make sure that only the approved things are actually voted on
What do you mean, exactly? Bills are debated as they are presented [See 7.6 and 8.1 of the Senate Manual].
That is why popular things like marijuana legalization are never voted on.
I don’t understand this point. If you want a senator to introduce a bill regarding the legalization of marijuana, then vote in a senator that will present such a bill.
I don’t understand this point.
Yup, you don’t.
then vote in a senator that will present such a bill.
🤡
Do you think wyoming deserves to be a state? Every state gets the same representation in the Senate and I think that’s fair. I don’t think it’s fair that the proportional side of the legislature isn’t proportional anymore, though, and fixing that goes a very long way.
States don’t deserve equal representation. American citizens deserve equal representation, they are the ones who create value.
Then what you’re really saying is abolish the concept of states and have a single federal state.
No, states still would elect a number of representatives based on their population. Just no 2 senators per state.
Why even have states? Good way to get rid of jerrymandering would be to get rid of imaginary borders. No states, no senate necessary.
Because state legislatures should continue to exist. If less populated conservative states want to go down a rabbit hole of far right shit then let them. Just don’t give them 2 senators per state to gridlock the states that continue to produce and provide for their population.
Something something…. Redraw state lines every 10 years…
It is federally legal to prostitution. Just every single state outlaws except nevada.
Interesting, I never really thought about it, but of course that must be true for it to be legal anywhere.
You could pay for a whole bunch of that with a Land Value Tax.
- internet listed as an essential utility like water, power, and phone services
Yes, that would be included in “Municipalize internet service”.
Oh. Right, lol
I’m 90-95% on board, which is astounding considering the current options. Now fleshing out the legislation to make this transition possible…
Exactly my thought. This may as well be a list that has one bullet point “* fix America” without a lot more detail on most of these
Would you have commented on a post that just had an image of “* fix America”?
There’s the gerrymandering thing though. When done in good faith it can give a voice to minorities. When done in bad faith… well, you’ve seen what happens. Point is it’s a double edged sword.
so find a solution that is sharp on neither side and checks itself. here is one.
The America patch notes of our dreams
Just dont call it by its real name and muricans are ok
I’d suggest a “universal basic income” be labelled something like “American Citizen Permanent Fund” or something like they did in Alaska with the “Alaska Permanent Fund”.
Seize the means of production and call it “freedom eagle burguer act” and everything is fine
I like a lot of your proposals,but I don’t think they will fix everything. Certainly an improvement though.
I don’t think the supreme court changes would fix issues with the court, and I think a 15 yr. limit could make it worse.
Each presidential term would get 2-3 nominations per term, allowing them to establish a majority if elected for 2 terms. Considering how powerful the court is, allowing a president to establish a majority simply by being in office for 2 terms isn’t great.
Increase the seats to correspond to the number of federal districts, currently 13.
