Is our political system obselete? And if so, what's the alternative?

[Graeth]

System is fine, the people are broken.

 

[Grindstone]

IMHO, that problem would've been corrected regardless of who won; it was no longer a sustainable macroeconomic proposition, even by then.

Yet it was still deeply rooted at the time and was not near on it's way out.

Lots of "ifs" as concerned the freed slaves; Lincoln was supposedly for the idea of repatriating them (or some of them) to Africa; Mr. Booth put an end to that. It was thought to be a shaky proposition monetarily, but was supposedly discussed. Had he not been assasinated, who knows how things would have turned out. If the CSA had won, who knows how things would have turned out. The actual results certainly put the clamps on state's rights, regardless of the effects on any demographic.

You mean like the right for states to legalize slavery? Some things just shouldn't be left up for states to decide. Like civil rights.

Just love the Confederate apologists around here.

 

[JonDough]

The CSA could've abolished slavery and let mexicans and central american displaced unaccompanied children come do the work and recieved housing, medical, etc...for free...the northerners would have been fine with that.............. wait......wait..............

 

[JB Books]

One has to wonder at the fairness of being conscripted to fight for the rich landowners. The slave owners were exempted from the draft, while impoverished sharecroppers had to get out there and fight. The Southern Gentleman sipped mint julips from a rocking chair on the veranda, listening with concern to the cannon and rifle fire in the distance.

Actually, that's not quite true. Southern land owners often raised and equipped their own units at their own expense. Among the Southern "elite" a man who would not fight was not considered a man, and immense social pressure was brought upon these people. Initially, plantation owners were exempted because they were vital to the South's economy. However, by mid war, all able bodied Southern men were called upon to fight.

In the North, it was the wealthy Yankees who hired "substitutes" to fight in their place or paid $300 to get out of the draft.

 

[farmerbyron]

As I see it, one of two things would've happened: either the Confederacy would've ended it, or it would've destroyed their economy and the states would've been forced to abolish it as they re-entered the Union. Either way, it would've been ended.

Slavery was profitable on the microeconomic scale, but it was already having a negative impact on the South's economy as a whole, even before the Late Unpleasantness Between the States. (IMHO, one major reason that the North's industrial-driven economy was so far advanced over the South's primarily agrarian economy was that a lack of free labor forced innovation in manufacturing.) It certainly killed any possibility of the South winning, as was well explained in the movie Gettysburg--the European powers could not support a country that had legal slavery.
. "

Pretty bold statement considering it took a century after the civil war for equal rights to be protected by law.

 

[Junior Bonner]

Actually, that's not quite true. Southern land owners often raised and equipped their own units at their own expense. Among the Southern "elite" a man who would not fight was not considered a man, and immense social pressure was brought upon these people. Initially, plantation owners were exempted because they were vital to the South's economy. However, by mid war, all able bodied Southern men were called upon to fight.

In the North, it was the wealthy Yankees who hired "substitutes" to fight in their place or paid $300 to get out of the draft.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...4NzkApjhKcjI-dZfDDt3qmw&bvm=bv.71198958,d.aWw

The Twenty-Slave Law, passed by the Confederate Congress on October 11, 1862, during the American Civil War (1861–1865), created an exemption to military conscription for the owners of twenty or more slaves. The law was controversial in much of the South, where it served to exacerbate certain social rifts and led to claims by drafted soldiers that they were fighting a "rich man's war."

 

[SoonerP226]

Pretty bold statement considering it took a century after the civil war for equal rights to be protected by law.

Civil rights and slavery are two separate discussions. The Yankee industrialists didn't give a flip about civil rights--they only cared about the unfair competitive advantage of free labor. Economics would've driven (and, in reality, did drive) the end of slavery, not any 20th century notions about civil rights.

 

[Grindstone]

Civil rights and slavery are two separate discussions. The Yankee industrialists didn't give a flip about civil rights--they only cared about the unfair competitive advantage of free labor. Economics would've driven (and, in reality, did drive) the end of slavery, not any 20th century notions about civil rights.

I don't think you understand what civil rights are if you think that slavery is separate.

 

[uncle money bags]

I dont think your picking up what hes putting down. Slavery may be about civil rights, but civil rights are not always about slavery.

 

[Glocktogo]

And this thread isn't about slavery or civil rights, so take that discussion somewhere else please.

The fix? First, eliminate money from the political process. I don't mean the bogus campaign finance reform that was McCain/Feingold, I mean take ALL the money out. Let's say you want to contribute to the political process. You send your donations into the independent local, state or federal commission and it goes into a fund. Based on the registered voter population of the district for a particular political office, require a percentage of signatures on a ballot access petition (don't make it prohibitive, just enough to assure you have a valid, viable candidate). Once your signatures have been verified, you're assigned an amount of campaign funds that is equal to any other verified candiadate for the office. That's all you get to spend. Campaign funding may not come from any source other than the candidate. Any excess funds will be turned over to the general fund to go towards reduction of the taxpayer burden.

For the Founding Fathers, serving in office was considered a hardship in service to the country. That was time spent away from their businesses, farms or jobs. That was lost wages. These days you frequently see candidates spending more money than they will make for the entire term of the elected office. Shouldn't that raise a serious question? What's their motive for securing that office? It damn sure isn't in service to their constituents!

Next you need to eliminate lobbyists. One citizen, one vote, one voice. If you're the CEO of a business, you should receive the exact same consideration as the guy making minimum wage working for you when it comes to running the government. You can articulate that your concerns are the most imortant, but you shouldn't be buying a louder voice to bully the elected representative into seeing your needs above everyone else's. You should have a voice, not your money. If you can convince others of the merits of your case, THAT will magnify your input on the process.

After that, we need to institute transparency in government. If there's any critical use of technology, this is it. Every elected office in government should have a public access website, with optional email alerts. All the websites should be regulated, simple, functional and have identical layouts. That way it wouldn't matter whether you're checking on your city counselor, county commissioner, state house representative or member of the U.S. congress. You log in and immediately find what you're looking for. Every vote should be posted within one business day, regardless of whether it's a committee or floor vote. Have a comments box next to each vote for the elected offical to state why they voted the way they did, if they choose to do so. There should be a section listing each bill, along with information on where the official stands (author, co-author, sponsor, for, against, etc.). Each website should have a section where the registered voter (with authentication feature) has the option to comment as a constituent. There should be a separate area for non-constituent comments.

Excessive and undue influence in politics has crippled the system. The power must be returned to the individual citizen. Most don't want it and that's fine. Those of us who do want it, should have it. There's no excuse for the mess we have now.