English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

39 answers

Publicy funded elections so that noone can buy the government and debates with every candidate hooked to a polygraph.

2007-09-15 15:28:11 · answer #1 · answered by Guardian 3 · 2 1

The political polarization.

United We Stand, Divided We Fall!

2007-09-15 13:24:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

That we don't have Question Time like they have in Britain for the Prime Minister. If you watch an episode of Prime Minister's Questions on C-SPAN you will understand. Any member of parliament is allowed to ask the leader hard-hitting questions, to which he responds right away, using the facts and figures he has prepared. Bush doesn't know nearly as much about the policies as would be necessary to handle a question session by Congress on his policies.

2007-09-15 13:17:42 · answer #3 · answered by MrPotatoHead 4 · 3 0

To incorporate an annual review for the public to ascertain - kind of like an annual review your employer would give you.
Only this review would be for all engaged in employment in both Congress, and at the Presidential state whom are to be held accountable for every action they take, every word, every promise, every veto, and every action they pass. If they are found to have committed a wrongful act then they would be held accountable for their actions, which could include treason, and duly accountable impeachment. The people would take back their power as it should be if this were implemented.

2007-09-15 13:26:21 · answer #4 · answered by kymeth 3 · 0 0

Campaign reform. As it now stands, only the extremely rich and powerful stand a snowball's chance. And the contributions from large corporations make the candidates, once elected, beholden to their agendas. This is exactly why America is no longer of the "people", but of the Corporations.
Each and every candidate should have X amount of dollars to work with; not one cent more.

2007-09-15 13:08:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 6 0

night court; where average to low income persons, as well as everyone else has the choice as to when they can access the Judicial system.
Too often, to attend court or register for a case, the hours cause persons to miss days of work and this can certainly affect a limited income with severe consequences.

It is not necessarily double jeopardy; but it most certainly is an aspect of access that was different hundreds of years ago when the rights were established. While modern society advantages are just that--the so called "authorities" need to pay attention to the fact that not all persons can afford the Judicial system that was designed to maintain and protect individual rights

2007-09-15 13:06:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

The apathy and ignorance of so much of the public. If people would get actively interested and involved in civil affairs that would take care of most of the rest of the problems. The only way to have government that is truly "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is for the people to be knowledgable on the issues, informed on current events, and willing to make their voices heard. The only way public officials will ever really be held accountable (not only for crimes and moral transgressions, but for their positions and votes) is if the public takes an active role in watch-dogging them.

2007-09-15 13:27:56 · answer #7 · answered by Heather D 3 · 0 3

bush administration.
whipe it clean.

As for policy/procedure.
a new law requiring every highly public service position to mandatory annual questioning.
This way you have at very least some accountability.

A simeple open forum, consisting of both sides of the aisle, asking questions, and looking to provide accountability honesty and reponsible government from every politically elected official. As wel as immediate investigations for impropriety, if found would be mandatory ail time for intentional corruption and misuse of powers and purjery, which cannot be pardoned or commuted by anyone.

If we had this, then yes there would be a higher turnover of positions but our political leaders would be forced to understand that they are a function in our government intent on serving the american people responsibly ethically and morally.
As it appears now, all positions seem to live with the get away with what you can mentality, because there is absolutely no accountability tothe american public in us government anymore.

ALSO, I am in favor of lesser service terms, for elected official. Becuase if you get one or two bad apples, they can mess things up severely.
BUT, if annually they are required to earn the publics vote, more focus would be on working hard to earn and keep the trust of the american people.

2007-09-15 13:07:13 · answer #8 · answered by writersbIock2006 5 · 5 4

Greetings. make ever public official responsible for their actions or inaction. Make them subject to the same laws that the rest of us peons are required to obey or suffer for it as we are required to do. No more war crimes or crimes against humanity and they get rewarded with huge retirement benefits instead of being hung in public.

2007-09-16 00:08:04 · answer #9 · answered by Rich M 3 · 1 0

I would disallow congressmen from serving consecutive terms, because to much of their time is wasted on raising money to be elected another term. Worse than the waste of time is the fact that the system we have now makes them so beholden to big money.

2007-09-15 13:17:11 · answer #10 · answered by spaintola 1 · 5 0

fedest.com, questions and answers