Our government, once seen as the best in the world, a fusion of democracy and a republic, borrowed great governmental features from other governments throughout the centuries. Our House of Representatives and Senate is borrowed from Britain’s House of Commoners and House of Nobles. Our three tier government system is borrowed from France. And our democracy and republic is borrowed from ancient Athens and Rome. For nearly 240 years, our government has been a wondrous experiment that has been refined again and again. We started with the Bill of Rights, and now we have twenty-seven amendments to our Constitution that have been added over the years.
The twenty-seventh is one that should be erased however. A twenty-eight should counter that dreadful amendment.The twenty-seventh amendment essentially says that Congress can pass themselves a raise at any time, but the change will not take effect until after the next election. This is an awful amendment that allows the Congress to constantly increase their wages while the rest of us must wait for their filibustering to sign even a simple document that allows other wages to be increased, decreased, taxes to be implemented or erased, or even laws to be implemented. Lawmaking, is that not what Congress is supposed to be doing? Not politicking against one another because over half the House and Senate despises the President. And this has not happened just recently, but time and time again. Even during the time of Lincoln, the Congress was controlled by the opposing party until the outbreak of the Civil War.
This bipartisan, two-party system that the government has perverted itself into has been a reason for decades of why this country continues to fall into decadence. This two-party system was not even implemented until after Washington left office when the Federalists, under John Adams, and the Antifederalists, or Jeffersonians, under Thomas Jefferson, came into existence. Now, the first problem the experimental government refined was that in the early elections, there were no vice presidential candidates. The candidate that won the most votes became president, John Adams in this case. And the candidate with the second most votes became vice president, Thomas Jefferson in this case. The two men constantly bickered over policy and how big the government should be. Adams was in favor of a looser interpretation of the Constitution as well as bigger government. While Jefferson was in favor of a stricter interpretation of the Constitution as well as a smaller government. You can imagine how many times the two men butted heads.
And this trend has continued ever since. The Democrats and The Republicans have flipped their views a few times over the decades, the Democrats now are the Republicans of yesteryear while the Republicans now are the Democrats. It is all very confusing, but even in the past, various third parties, such as the Whig party, sprang up to challenge the two-party system. The Whigs were evens successful in having presidential candidates win the presidency. But, inevitably, the Democrats and the Republicans came to dominate the two-party system yet again.
Now, the time to change the experiment has come again. The first variable that must be changed is this dreaded two-party system that only plops out candidates that forces us to choose the lesser of two evils. How can we progress if we do not trust either candidate enough to actually do anything besides argue with an opposing Congress and attempting to assuage the bitter feelings of the country. The votes could be very simply divided amongst the candidates that ran for any position. For instance, say there are three candidates, A, B, and C. A wins 37% of the vote, B wins 25% of the vote and C wins 38% of the vote. Obviously, no candidate outright won the election. However, as Maine and Nebraska, this election is based on the Congressional District Method in which each candidate receives the number of votes equal to the percentage the candidate wins. Therefore, let us imagine there were one hundred votes to receive in this particular district. So, A would have 37 votes to add to his/her total, B would receive 25 votes to add, and C would win 38 votes to add to the total. All these votes would add to the total of the votes in every district and then and only then would the candidate win with the greatest number of collective votes. This system can work for every position of office including Congress.
Imagine there were five parties, a much broader spectrum of interpretations of the Constitution and also much more similar views for greater cooperation amongst the five parties. Say five candidates for a position ran. Candidate A received 25% of the vote, B 22% of the vote, C got 13% of the vote, D took 17% of the vote, and E received 23%. So, out of 100 total votes, A had 25, B 22, C 13, D 17, and E 23. Now, A won this vote, not in a landslide as the mainstream loves to portray in our actual elections, but in a fair, broad spectrum. A now has a position in congress, but based on this spectrum, it appears that party A, B, and E received most of the votes and so, three parties would dominate Congress as parties C and D provide the “Independent Slot” but on a much grander influence for 17% of the vote is 68% of A’s won percentage, proving that the five party system is a much broader spectrum that appeals to a great many more people than the two-party system we have now where we have fake politicians aiming to appeal both sides of radical liberals and conservatives. Yes, there are minor parties even amongst the parties, the most recent being the Tea Party, but because of the winner take all mindset we have in elections, the Tea Party will never truly have a strong voice.
Now for the second variable to be changed in the experiment, based on the election system at the very end, the Electoral College. This final voting should be obliterated for it now serves no purpose in the modern age. Yes, when the Electoral College was first established, current information was incredibly difficult to travel throughout the states. A month could pass before a letter from Maine could arrive in Georgia. So, the Electoral College was actually a necessary evil. Gather a group of prominent government officials or close great party supporters, and have them vote for the president supposedly based on their states that voted for the president. Nowadays, with our modern technology of constant mainstream media that is incredibly biased towards the highest bidder, the internet that has more false information that sends one on a treasure hunt for correct information, and even word of mouth based on the former two, information can be easily obtained. Now, I have just argued against myself for saying how biased and unreliable the information is in the media and on the internet, however, is it still ethical to round up people that have “donate” egregious sums of money to one party or the other to “vote” for the candidate that is assuredly not their friend? Or, should we scrub the Electoral College from our election system and allow the people’s vote to truly elect the president? I find it very surprising and somewhat ingraining that people know nothing of the Electoral College. Reminds me of a video I saw recently that showed young adults in college could not answer simple history questions such as who won the American Civil War. Yet, other questions such as who is Snooki, the young adults could answer without hesitation. Yes, I realized I argued against myself yet again, showing that even though the information that is actually critical to the future of this country, young adults would rather bother themselves with the knowledge of what is “trending” whatever that means. But again, I bring attention to the fact that those selected for the Electoral College are essentially rewarded for “donating” great sums of money to candidates that are assuredly not their friends to vote for the lesser of two evils that the people loathe to initially and only perceive their vote to truly count.
For the third and final variable that should be changed in this experiment of our government, is to grant the Supreme Court more power. Now, when a law is passed that is possibly unconstitutional, the Supreme Court can say nothing until a case is appealed over and over again until the case is brought to the attention of the Supreme Court where finally the Supreme Court can rule that the law that was passed is unconstitutional. Imagine the law that was passed stated that whosoever spoke out against the president elected, was cast into iron clamps and shown to the world on public television. Obviously, this law would be riled against quite quickly, easily making its way to the Supreme Court. But even then, it could take years to be appealed, and in that time, more and more people are being shackled. Obviously, the Supreme Court would strike this law down immediately but only after the case was appealed to them. If the Supreme Court could review the law passed as it was legislated, the law would never have even been enacted nor enforced. No American citizens would have their dignity shamed. No American would suffer for speaking his/her mind which is protected by our very first amendment in the Bill of Rights.
So, in our experimental government, only established for nearly 240 years, it is our responsibility to constantly refine our government to fit our modern needs. We have aged, archaic minds in all branches, in many offices, minds that think of the world in the past, not of the future. For our young, flexible minds, we see certain issues vastly different from our “elected officials.” We see medical marijuana as an okay idea (even though I personally do not because I feel our mind is the only drug we need; our mind is so powerful, why would I ever want to hinder its performance). We see marriage equality as an inevitability (which, honestly, we have much, much bigger concerns to debate over such as renewable resources and energy, foreign terrorists, and the future of our planet.) We see the old days, though romantic, glorious, whatever, as just that, old days filled with glorious, heroic stories. Stories. We look to the future, of living our lives, of adding life to our years, not years to our life, of working for our passions, not working for our next paycheck, of expanding our minds, not expanding our power, of aiding the world, not aiding the powers that destroy the world.