Hacker News Reader

>even if Warren were to be the president (a far off prospect, even though she is what the US needs)

There's little evidence that Warren wouldn't just continue the current policies of the Obama administration, perhaps with a few extra low-benefit bureaucratic programs on top.

She talks a good game, but so did Obama.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, though. The problem here is the entire political system. It's nothing an individual can effectively change (because the system selects for individuals who won't change the system).

The current policies of Obama are not necessarily the policies he would like to implement.

He voted for the cromnibus' because it keeps government open and funds a few of his signature policies, but that doesn't imply its the budget Obama wanted to pass. Obama has to be pragmatic.

Obama and Warren 'talk a good game' as you put it but I'd bet that in a different political system, say Britain's, they'd be execute on their talk.

Why was I down-voted?

I strongly disagree with you, but I didn't downvote you. There are people on HN who downvote things they disagree with.

  The American political system is broken....

  ...even if Warren were to be the president...
  ...little real and effective change would come about
  because she'd be stymied at ever corner...

So the system is broken because the people you like aren't elected and when they are elected, they don't have enough power?

I suspect there are more profound social and structural issues at play here. I really don't think this is a purely political problem.

The political system and Senate reflect the division in the country. There is no easy fix. The problem is people do not trust their government, which is reflective of the current political environment and is the primary reason these problems are not addressed.

> The political system and Senate reflect the division in the country.

I'd argue that, with voter turnout barely hitting 55% for the most important election in the land, the political system does not reflect much except a view of politics as media-driven spectator sport.

Mixing cause and effect. The fundamental cause is how the constitution allocates power to the three branches. Power has a logic all of its own; each actor in the system acts in line with their power and this leads to the division and gridlock that you see.

It is impossible to fix the US constitution under the current political system. There has to be a fundamental realignment of power and that will most likely only happen via a major external shock, like a world war.

I would think the cause of the ridiculous and nasty political divide stems more from campaign finance laws and media punditry masquerading as journalism rather than how the constitution allocates power to three branches of government. It seems to me that many Americans are taught daily to vilify anything that is put forth by an opposing party simply on the grounds of whether or not they have the correct letter prefixed to their title. I think the start of any fix would have to be campaign finance reform and a push for publicly funded elections.

> merely the symptoms of the deeper problem which is the US constitution.

I think the history of the US clearly shows that The Constitution isn't the source of our problems. We're not following it! Our elected leaders have stretched its definitions past the breaking point, and our judiciary has allowed those stretches to become law.

You allude to states having a veto because of the Senate, but that's precisely what was _supposed_ to happen, when the state nominated their own Senators. The popular election of Senators effectively took states out of the equation. A particularly awkward situation, given that the UNITED STATES was FOUNDED to be a nation of sovereign states. But that was the question answered by our Civil War: we became a single nation with what are effectively a bunch of local bureaucracies, instead of a federation of states, with a federal government that existed for the "common defense" and international relations. The relatively-recent show on Lincoln (I forget the name) was good at illuminating the Constitutional crisis created by the Emancipation Proclamation, and the authority ceded to the Executive branch has done nothing but snowball since then.

And don't get me started with the abuses of the "Commerce Clause." I defy anyone reading to give me ONE area (of SIGNIFICANCE) in their personal, DAILY lives that isn't legislated by the FEDERAL government. I've thrown this question out before, and one person gave me a good answer, but those examples are tough to come up with.

Two things are killing the US political system: our 2-party system, and campaign contributions. First, let's break up the DNC and the GOP into sub-factions to get the ball rolling. There's plenty of room in both parties. This should allow other folks from the Green and the Libertarian and the Rastafarian parties to run on more-even footing.

Second, all elected officials should get a set amount of money from the government itself to run a campaign. The money should vary according to state or federal levels, and on which seat is sought, but it should be the same for everyone seeking that seat. It can even be a lot of money! They don't even have to be particularly accountable for it! It still wouldn't even budge the budget needle. And then just get rid of PAC's entirely.

The money-for-votes system we have now has got to go. I'm like a desperate used car salesman on this point. "Any offer will be considered!" Any idea how to get special interests segregated from our system would be good. When you have top-level politicians admitting that they spend 80% of their time trying to raise money for the next election, starting on the first day of the term, you know something has to change. But, since "they" control the system, "they" are not going to allow anything to disrupt the process.

You seem to be praising "the Dems" for their efforts, and the ACA in particular, but you can't point to a better example of the inmates running the asylum that that piece of legislation, written by Congress-owning health industry lobbyists, and passed by a Congress without anyone having even read it. That's NOT how it was supposed to be done. That's as un-Constitutional a "thing" that has happened as anything in recent memory, and another perfect example of how campaign contributions (or the threat of their discontinuance) has broken our system.

If those who currently wield the power use it to repair the proper function of the political system, we might use it to take the power away from them. I think that there are now enough beneficiaries of the status quo who are unwilling to allow their power to peacefully escheat back to the people, that no reasonable reform proposal will ever be seriously considered.

So stop trying to be reasonable and start being stubborn and obstreporous.