LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksAs many people know, our government has many holes. Any ideas how to fill them?
To appease all of the people asking which government, IT IS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT I'M TALKING ABOUT!
7Likes
December 28th, 2013, 01:17 AM
As many people know, our government has many holes. Any ideas how to fill them?
To appease all of the people asking which government, IT IS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT I'M TALKING ABOUT!
Last edited by sabodriver17; January 16th, 2014 at 03:08 PM. Reason: Typo
What country? What holes?
thescienceforum.com is an international forum.
Responding just because this thread isn't accessible through "today's posts" link. (Even though made today.) Makes me wonder what other posts I've missed by clicking that link thinking it shows them all...
If you've got a problem with holes, you can usually find the right kind of filler at your local hardware store.
For holes in gyprock or dry wall, caulk or spackle will do the trick. If it's a big hole, you might need to shore it up a bit at the back with some cardboard first.
Wood is often marked with nail holes, but you can get some wood putty. If you get the white stuff, you can mix in tiny amounts of iron oxide powder until you get just the right colour to match your wood.
If it's in an area that handles water, then you'll definitely need a silicon based filler. It won't look too good in the middle of a surface, particularly ceramic or metal, but it'll do the job.
If the holes you're dealing with is of the arse variety, I'm sorry, you're on your own, mate.
Bloody revolution!Originally Posted by sabodriver17
(ninja'ed by Karsus!)
Just allow the people elected to write the bills, 8th grade level and no more than 2000 words, then have the people vote on those bills to enact them. So we vote for people who write bills but we are the ones who will pass them and if we do not pas a bill it is discarded and another one written until they get it right. The citizens then have the final say in what is done by those they elect. The bills can be posted on government TV, newspapers, internet and magazines.
I can see that going 2 ways.
1. Complete deadlock, as popular opinion shoots down basically every single bill that does not have immediate tangible benefits and no drawbacks. The ever-present "not in mah back yard!" mentality will see to that.
2. The government operating exactly the same way it does now, except a lot slower, since it would need to introduce all of its policy in smaller chunks, in order to slip whatever they want to do under the radar.
cosmic
the bills in this country(usa) are normally written by lobbyist(and lawyers).
What's wrong with slowing things down? We can't even see the bills that Congress passes now. All that would be needed would be a 51 % margin to pass the bills. I do not think that the general public could deadlock on anything seeing that no one knows the voting until It Is over. True there would be problems but they could be worked out over time just as Obama's healthcare act is getting updated daily due to its faults. Since the people would vote on EVERY bill how can Congress slip anything by the citizens. With the advent of more people attaining computers this type of voting on bills could be even quicker as time goes by.
Nothing wrong with slowing things down, but by having every law broken into 50 2000-word laws, complexity increases a lot - and you end up with a lot of partially passed, useless laws.
As a famous guy once said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible - but no simpler."
People can barely get themselves out to vote once every two years. Do you really think anyone will read, say, 40 2000 word bills every bill cycle? At most they'll skim the top, see "A Bill to Lower Taxes" and vote "yes" - only to find out later, after it passes, that it lowers aviation fuel taxes by 1% but raises income taxes by 25%.I do not think that the general public could deadlock on anything seeing that no one knows the voting until It Is over. True there would be problems but they could be worked out over time just as Obama's healthcare act is getting updated daily due to its faults. Since the people would vote on EVERY bill how can Congress slip anything by the citizens.
As you said above, there is value in slowing things down. Passing laws based on transient public passions might not lead to good laws in the long run.With the advent of more people attaining computers this type of voting on bills could be even quicker as time goes by.
Nothing wrong with slowing things down, but by having every law broken into 50 2000-word laws, complexity increases a lot - and you end up with a lot of partially passed, useless laws.
Or better yet it would make Congress think about the bills and how to phrase them in a much shorter and simpler way so that EVERYONE can understand them. I'm certain if Congress wanted to make bills with fewer words they could but because there's no mandate as to making them do so they will continue their onslaught of more and more words.
If given to opportunity to actually vote on bills that affects citizens I'd think that more and more citizens would be reading them which would also improve the reading habits of everyone.As you said above, there is value in slowing things down. Passing laws based on transient public passions might not lead to good laws in the long run.
Popular Democracy? The internet does provide the infrastructure to make it possible on a large scale, think VoteBook.gov. It would be an interesting experiment.
The fact that you're English adds several layers of difficulty in determining what you mean by "bloody" revolution.Bloody revolution!
Popular Democracy leads to tyranny by the majority, bankruptcy, and even worse gross incompetence for solving complex problems.
It works ok for deciding whether to replace the street lights in front of the local middle school (as they did for two hours at a town meeting I once attended), it's terrible for solving complex problems at higher level.
That is sometimes possible and sometimes not possible. When trying to overhaul a decades-old law that indirectly prohibits gay marriage, for example, you might have to show all the changes. It would do no good to change only the first 2000 words worth of the old law. Likewise, a law that attempts to limit campaign spending is going to have to be worded carefully (and include a great many cases) so as to not cause undesired effects, like banning any parent from giving money to their local school for football equipment.
Also think about what you would have to leave out. Really want to pass a law that provided for transportation improvements without knowing how much it would cost, because even a simple financial analysis would go over the word limit?
Sometimes they could, sometimes they couldn't.I'm certain if Congress wanted to make bills with fewer words they could
Believe it or not that's not, in general, a desire to just put more words in bills to confuse them. Often all that text is the result of the compromises that allow it to be proposed in the first place.but because there's no mandate as to making them do so they will continue their onslaught of more and more words.
But again, people don't even read their own candidate's positions - or even the few laws that are passed purely by democratic vote. Here in California, for example, Proposition 8 initially got passed because people thought that if it wasn't passed, teachers would be required to teach gay sex practices in grade schools. (It would not - but an ad campaign made people think that.)If given to opportunity to actually vote on bills that affects citizens I'd think that more and more citizens would be reading them which would also improve the reading habits of everyone.
Does Popular Democracy preclude a constitution and an elected body with emergency powers? Has there ever been an example of Popular Democracy on a large scale?
I'm afraid this is a fallacy. Changing laws into "plain English" has only ever resulted in more words per paragraph, clause or enactment. The individual words may be more familiar but complex concepts that have their own jargon become more wordy, not less, when you try to express them in ordinary conversational language.Or better yet it would make Congress think about the bills and how to phrase them in a much shorter and simpler way so that EVERYONE can understand them.
And there's another really basic problem about writing law. All law - every law - is about setting boundaries. Whether it's granting a benefit of some kind or condemning or penalising action of some kind, .
The most important function of a law is to be quite clear about who and what it does not apply to. It's easy enough to say that families of disabled children are eligible for certain kinds of support. You then have to define what does and doesn't count as a "family", what does and doesn't count as a "child", what does and doesn't count as a "disability", what does and doesn't count as "eligible", what does and doesn't count as "support". And that's before you get into describing when, where and how much support is on offer and how it will be funded. If you intend that support to be means tested so that people will get less or no such support in certain circumstances, you have to describe that accurately too as well as describing who will be responsible for making those determinations. If the "support" to be provided is from professional persons or organisations, you also have to describe who and what persons and organisations qualify and who and which don't meet the requirements.
Get that into easily understood plain English if you can. Then try and reduce the number of words.
They'd slip things by the same way they do it already: using riders. They'd present us with a finance bill that includes all the essential spending for the year. It would be the only bill of its kind that gets offered to us that year. If you shoot it down, the government shuts down. If you vote in favor, then all the riders go into effect.
So you have to let 27 different states have their pork barrel Federal grants, or .... shut down everything. Which way would we vote?
9/10 of what happens in congress is just getting the details of a bill sorted out so that both houses can vote on it. Every bill has to be passed with identical wording in both houses. If Congress is still able to come up with the wording and present the bill to us, then Congress still has 9/10 of its power.
While making the bill itself 2000 words is probably unrealistic, it might help if we required every bill to have a 2000 word official summary, and that the summary must be voted on at the same time the bill is voted on, and pass with the bill.
Then citizens could always read the summary to know what had been done.
The Supreme Court would verify the summaries to ensure they are accurate, striking down any bill that did not, in its judgement, have an accurate summary.
This is essentially how the ballot measures work in California. A quick summary on the first page, then a legislative analyst's 200-500 word summary (including financial impacts) and then four ~250 word summaries - one for, one against, one rebuttal to the for, one rebuttal to the against. Total of about 1000-2000 words. It is clear and easy to read - but again most people don't.
Don't all your enactments have a "preamble" or whatever you want to call it saying what the bill is intended to do? Ours do. The preamble (or whatever it's called) is not part of the law itself, but it does provide guidance. It's very often the reason why courts will say that a law is defective, the legal drafting and the words eventually enacted do not have the effect that the preamble says the law, or a subsequent amendment, is intended to have.it might help if we required every bill to have a 2000 word official summary, and that the summary must be voted on at the same time the bill is voted on, and pass with the bill.
+1
a fan of de Tocqueville I see
$100. dollars or @20 dollars? maybe we can lobby some.
That is why Unions are useful.$100. dollars or @20 dollars? maybe we can lobby some.
The OP states their location as Ohio, U.S. and did say " our government ", but yes, a poorly versed question.
Last edited by Dave Wilson; January 16th, 2014 at 02:58 PM. Reason: Spellling
| « Presidential Pardon Loophole | Hawking demands pardon » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
