Open Government Dialogue
« Back To OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

scott

User Profile Image scott
Member since : May-29-2009 (Verified)
1 Ideas, 9 Comments, 9 Votes

User Activity Stream

Ideas Posted

Reform elections so that, if no one gets 50% of the vote, the third party candidate can throw their support (votes) behind his or her choice. This way people would actually feel more free to vote for the candidate they really want, knowing that even if the candidate has virtually no chance of winning, the vote will ultimately be passed along to the most compatible of the front-runners, and it will not be a wasted vote, or create a spoiler situation where the less popular major candidate can win because the more popular perspective's supporters are split between more candidates. Ultimately, this may break the stranglehold the two parties have on our current system... which is why it will be nearly impossible to get any Democrats or Republicans to support this kind of idea... but it would be a big move toward a more open and democratic government.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 4205 Ideas
12345678910….168169Next »

Comments Posted

scott 9 months ago
Good point, Cherold. In fact, this problem illustrates another way government can be improved... they should avoid creating bills written like this, with a whole bunch of elements tossed in to one package, including pieces that really aren’t germane to the primary issue, forcing our representatives to vote up or down on a bill that has elements that should really be considered independently!
scott 9 months ago
I wasn’t thinking in terms of a blanket pardon, but rather immunity in exchange for testimony, so that we can not only fully understand what happened, but also then in place the appropriate rules and oversight to make sure it can’t happen again. The goal is, as this topic is titled, ending the imperial presidency, and preventing it from returning.
scott 9 months ago
re: "Who in their right and sane mind would ever allow a criminal to go free just because they told the TRUTH? "

It happens a lot... that is why immunity exists in the first place. It's done when there is a perceived greater benefit.

I'm not saying I'd *prefer* to give immunity to the previous administration for these things. I'm just of the opinion that, if prosecution is not going to happen for whatever reason, offering immunity in exchange for information would be better than nothing, if it would reveal truths that would lead to additional laws or new monitoring or enforcement mechanisms to prevent such abuses from happening in the future.

In short, while I am absolutely not excusing Bush et al of anything, I am more concerned with making sure that such things don't happen again than I am with putting these people in jail, which, honestly, I feel is unlikely to happen anyway. And I'm more worried about what another president might do in the future if we don't put more protections in place. I think that's a greater threat than the possibility of Bush/Cheney doing more of what they've done, since they are now out of office.
scott 9 months ago
Tax simplification, with something closer to a modified flat tax with very limited deductions, has another benefit... it eliminates a major source of government corruption, as companies try to buy favors, i.e. they arrange for large contributions and such in exchange for trying to get certain teax breaks. Eliminate the concept of all these tax breaks, you eliminate a lot of potential corruption, and government both appears and actually becomes more open and honest.
scott 9 months ago
dbaker has practically turned this into a spam list. how do I unsubscribe?
scott 9 months ago
Yes, interface issues are important, and this very site is rather poorly implemented. Poor organization and navigation (it's hard to find what you're looking for), poor user controls (for example, how do you turn off email notifications for a topic?)... there isn't even a Help link.
scott 9 months ago
Robert said "Voted for your idea but it has already been put up" -- I was looking for another suggestion on the topic, but couldn't find it. What search should I use?

Part of Openness needs to include true investigation of the kinds of things that lead to government mistrust. There are still too many unanswered questions about 9/11.
scott 9 months ago
Panther, I think there are certainly enough valid questions, that a more thorough investigation of 9/11 would contribute to the openness this site is trying to get at!

Personally, I wonder how a huge, lumbering jumbo jet could get through what is probably the most heavily protected airspace on the planet, when the military was presumably on its highest alert (it was an hour after the government knew we were under attack), and still manage to get through and hit the pentagon. It kinda makes you hope there was some nefarious explanation, because otherwise, our defense system appears to be worthless!
scott 9 months ago
I agree with most of the principles expressed but...

(a) I think that getting at the truth about the past, and passing laws to prevent similar abuses in the future, is more important than punishment. You want prosecution of Bush, Cheney, et al. I would gladly offer them immunity from prosecution in exchange for full cooperation in revealing exactly what was going on. (Remember, if they perjure themselves, immunity is revoked.) This approach might yield better information, and be more politically palatable as well.

(b) You're asking for 8 constitutional amendments? These are not easy things to pass...