(09-30-2015 09:34 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 09:49 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(09-26-2015 12:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  What we NEED is a multi-party system where coalitions must be formed. Although most politicians in our current system agree on spending more, they disagree a lot on 'where'.... so although individual compromises may have winners and losers, in aggregate, everyone spends more.... because that is the only thing 60% of them agree on.

Without some sort of PR electoral system at minimum, and probably a switch to a parliamentary system, we probably aren't going to see it.

But I would absolutely support both of those changes.

And they may be more achievable than you might think. Conventional wisdom has it that in order to switch to a parliamentary system, we'd have to amend the Constitution. But we know that it's really a living document which evolves with society to address contemporary needs as they are perceived. As long as five justices believe in their hearts that a law is a good idea, the question of whether it comports with the language of some musty old document is easily finessed. "Amendments" are so 20th Century!

We just need both parties to agree on a pro-PR/pro-parliamentary "litmus test" for new SC judges and we're set!

One reform I've long supported is moving at least the House to four year terms elected in Presidential years. (Personally I'd also do the same for the Senate, but would accept just the House. See, totally willing to compromise!) Not strictly speaking a move to a parliamentary system, but it gets rid of the two year terms - just too short for the modern world, IMHO -and more importantly they know and voters know they are stuck with each other for four years and theoretically voters will hold them accountable if they spend four years bickering and pointing fingers.