When Mehdi Hasan sat down with Jon Stewart last month, the roles were reversed. This time, the Emmy-winning host of The Daily Show was the one asking the questions — about corporate media, Gaza, Do…
I mean for a country that fought the monarchy you have sure been making the president the king. Your ceremonies for them have always reminded me of monarchy.
Personally, I think that the USA should be divided up into four regional blocs - West Coast, Middle America, East Coast, and all of the external territories like Hawaii, Alaska, and others as an Outer Region. Each of them can have their own president elected by popular vote, and those four presidents select a previous president from one of the regions as a Figurehead President, who represents the nation as a whole - such as diplomacy with the EU, making public national policies the regions have agreed upon, and so forth.
This divides up the executive into branches. Each region can have their own house and court, with a supreme court & senate drawing an equal amount of members from the four regions. This means we get regional laws, and then a national version when 3 out of 4 regions manage to agree on something.
I feel that the root of America’s issues comes from too few people representing too many people, which also means the few have too much power and no incentive to really care about folk.
Doesn’t sound too different from the parliamentary system we have in Canada, except we divide things much more finely than into 4 quadrants.
Basically, we’re divided into “ridings” that can be a small section of a city if you’re in a dense city or multiple towns where population is sparse. Each riding votes in someone as a member of Parliament (MP). The MPs then select someone to be the figurehead that represents us (i.e. the prime minister).
I figure that states would regulate their region - for example, if a president wants troops from their region, the individual states have to agree to supply the troops. This puts an onus on a regional president to negotiate terms with states and other regions if they want to do stuff. Mind, I think there would have to be an exception for natural disasters like hurricanes and forest fires, with a footnote that deployed troops have to be unarmed.
We want a certain degree of gridlock, where no one has too much authority, but not so much rigidity that nothing can be done. Kinda like how traffic lights and road layouts dictate how a city operates. Political divisions and systems are architecture designed to address chaos.
Trade. A state that is troop poor or reluctant to let them be borrowed, can instead offer money or some other assistance to get help from another state. The training standards would presumably be per state…but the regional government can hold a program. For example, “we train 6,000 of Colorado’s state guard for 7 months, we get to rent them for X dollars, and for up to Y months at a time.”
The important thing is to give states enough agency to say no, or to have fair terms with their regional president.
The problem with this is you are screwing over liberal bastions (e.g. Chicago) in conservative zones. Or what about somewhere like New Mexico? We’d be grouped with Arizona and Texas? New Mexico is liberal and that’d kill us. The arrangement also gives even more power to sparsely populated sections of the country vs highly populated sections. It is almost like you are suggesting gerrymandering at a regional level.
Keep in mind that we already have regional representation - state governments. They don’t work great because of the lack of attention they get vs presidental elections. The here part is that states need to have power, but there are things they are insane to declare as “states rights” issues. How do we divide them up? I don’t know. We even have “majority agree” as you suggested via constitutional amendments.
I figure the division would resemble this picture. States with a fair chunk of territory straddling the dividing lines between regions can hold a popular vote, to decide which side they belong to. This roughly carves up the contiguous nation into 1/3rd portions, each having major centers in California, Texas, and New York. Obviously not perfect, but this should give all three some access to global trade and enough landmass to be useful. The important thing is for all three regions to be jockeying to be #1, but not quite succeeding, pushing each other to do better for their citizens, science, freedoms, and so forth.
In any case, my proposal makes a big assumption: that the current Constitution and Bill of Rights are replaced by a new version. It is my belief that it is likely for the United States to have a 2nd American Civil War. If that is the case, the political board as we knew it would have been overturned. Our Constitution is about 250 years old, invented in a time where the horse was the fastest mode of communication, and only 13 states existed. The framers were intelligent, but there was limits to their knowledge, simply because there wasn’t much precedent for the political order they engineered. After all, they tossed out the Articles of Confederation because they weren’t fit for purpose. The fitness and purpose of our current Constitution isn’t good enough for today’s world.
Rules to eliminate gerrymandering and the electoral college, formalizing popular voting, reworking the powers and limits of each branch, and so forth, would be needed.
I definitely think the US needs to split up. What’s the point of having another president though? Won’t we just end up with the same problem over time?
I do not believe so. As I said, “Figurehead President”. The way I figure, if the four regional presidents are in a deadlock about something, the Figurehead Pres can cast a tie-breaking vote. Seeing as that figurehead is elected by the four regional presidents, the figurehead should be relatively neutral. Impeachment of a bad Figurehead can be done through either popular vote of the entire nation, or three of the four regional presidents agreeing to remove the Figurehead.
IMO, the purpose of a Figurehead President is to give the appearance of a unified mission to people.
Personally I don’t support any electoral system where leaders have any more or less support than the votes they receive, so I’m not sure how that would be workable in your system. For example, the outlying group would have way more electoral power per person if each leader gets one vote.
The vote is for cooperation between executive branches, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the Regional Houses, Courts, or the National Senate would agree to cooperate with executives. In any case, there is a 4th President - the Outer Region, which consists of Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Djibuti, and other small yet significant territories. I am of the mind that with a lack of raw land and people, the Outer Regions should get some sort of outsized advantage to compensate. A president’s vote being equal to their peers is probably simple enough to do the trick.
Or, hear me out: we abolish the presidency. There’s absolutely no need for so much power to be vested in one person.
I mean for a country that fought the monarchy you have sure been making the president the king. Your ceremonies for them have always reminded me of monarchy.
Even the constitution agrees with that. Just over the decades more and more powrr has been ceded to the president
Personally, I think that the USA should be divided up into four regional blocs - West Coast, Middle America, East Coast, and all of the external territories like Hawaii, Alaska, and others as an Outer Region. Each of them can have their own president elected by popular vote, and those four presidents select a previous president from one of the regions as a Figurehead President, who represents the nation as a whole - such as diplomacy with the EU, making public national policies the regions have agreed upon, and so forth.
This divides up the executive into branches. Each region can have their own house and court, with a supreme court & senate drawing an equal amount of members from the four regions. This means we get regional laws, and then a national version when 3 out of 4 regions manage to agree on something.
I feel that the root of America’s issues comes from too few people representing too many people, which also means the few have too much power and no incentive to really care about folk.
Doesn’t sound too different from the parliamentary system we have in Canada, except we divide things much more finely than into 4 quadrants.
Basically, we’re divided into “ridings” that can be a small section of a city if you’re in a dense city or multiple towns where population is sparse. Each riding votes in someone as a member of Parliament (MP). The MPs then select someone to be the figurehead that represents us (i.e. the prime minister).
I figure that states would regulate their region - for example, if a president wants troops from their region, the individual states have to agree to supply the troops. This puts an onus on a regional president to negotiate terms with states and other regions if they want to do stuff. Mind, I think there would have to be an exception for natural disasters like hurricanes and forest fires, with a footnote that deployed troops have to be unarmed.
We want a certain degree of gridlock, where no one has too much authority, but not so much rigidity that nothing can be done. Kinda like how traffic lights and road layouts dictate how a city operates. Political divisions and systems are architecture designed to address chaos.
That would never work. So each state has their own army? What are the training standards? What about not giving any troops but then wanting help.
Trade. A state that is troop poor or reluctant to let them be borrowed, can instead offer money or some other assistance to get help from another state. The training standards would presumably be per state…but the regional government can hold a program. For example, “we train 6,000 of Colorado’s state guard for 7 months, we get to rent them for X dollars, and for up to Y months at a time.”
The important thing is to give states enough agency to say no, or to have fair terms with their regional president.
Personally I think all nation states should be dissolved
The problem with this is you are screwing over liberal bastions (e.g. Chicago) in conservative zones. Or what about somewhere like New Mexico? We’d be grouped with Arizona and Texas? New Mexico is liberal and that’d kill us. The arrangement also gives even more power to sparsely populated sections of the country vs highly populated sections. It is almost like you are suggesting gerrymandering at a regional level.
Keep in mind that we already have regional representation - state governments. They don’t work great because of the lack of attention they get vs presidental elections. The here part is that states need to have power, but there are things they are insane to declare as “states rights” issues. How do we divide them up? I don’t know. We even have “majority agree” as you suggested via constitutional amendments.
I figure the division would resemble this picture. States with a fair chunk of territory straddling the dividing lines between regions can hold a popular vote, to decide which side they belong to. This roughly carves up the contiguous nation into 1/3rd portions, each having major centers in California, Texas, and New York. Obviously not perfect, but this should give all three some access to global trade and enough landmass to be useful. The important thing is for all three regions to be jockeying to be #1, but not quite succeeding, pushing each other to do better for their citizens, science, freedoms, and so forth.
In any case, my proposal makes a big assumption: that the current Constitution and Bill of Rights are replaced by a new version. It is my belief that it is likely for the United States to have a 2nd American Civil War. If that is the case, the political board as we knew it would have been overturned. Our Constitution is about 250 years old, invented in a time where the horse was the fastest mode of communication, and only 13 states existed. The framers were intelligent, but there was limits to their knowledge, simply because there wasn’t much precedent for the political order they engineered. After all, they tossed out the Articles of Confederation because they weren’t fit for purpose. The fitness and purpose of our current Constitution isn’t good enough for today’s world.
Rules to eliminate gerrymandering and the electoral college, formalizing popular voting, reworking the powers and limits of each branch, and so forth, would be needed.
yeah, texas is never gonna agree to be in club with minnesota or michigan or wisco.
it’d be cool if they did, but yeah, no.
I definitely think the US needs to split up. What’s the point of having another president though? Won’t we just end up with the same problem over time?
I do not believe so. As I said, “Figurehead President”. The way I figure, if the four regional presidents are in a deadlock about something, the Figurehead Pres can cast a tie-breaking vote. Seeing as that figurehead is elected by the four regional presidents, the figurehead should be relatively neutral. Impeachment of a bad Figurehead can be done through either popular vote of the entire nation, or three of the four regional presidents agreeing to remove the Figurehead.
IMO, the purpose of a Figurehead President is to give the appearance of a unified mission to people.
Oh just as a tiebreaker. Interesting.
Personally I don’t support any electoral system where leaders have any more or less support than the votes they receive, so I’m not sure how that would be workable in your system. For example, the outlying group would have way more electoral power per person if each leader gets one vote.
The vote is for cooperation between executive branches, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the Regional Houses, Courts, or the National Senate would agree to cooperate with executives. In any case, there is a 4th President - the Outer Region, which consists of Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Djibuti, and other small yet significant territories. I am of the mind that with a lack of raw land and people, the Outer Regions should get some sort of outsized advantage to compensate. A president’s vote being equal to their peers is probably simple enough to do the trick.
Abandon presidents, return to monarchy