Forms of Government
 

Actually to all of you, but initially to

MM, KORIMYR, and DONKEY LEFT. A week ago, (more or less) MM and Korimyr were having an almost exculsive discussion about forms of government. in fact, one or the other had suggested that it remain a two way conversation. I was glad to oblige at the time but broke in just to say that I had become interested, and would check up on the various forms described

Also, today, Donkey Left sort of suggested a new thread about forms of government. I agreed,

I did check out Technocracy, and was surprised to learn that it was no more, no less than the form of government predicted by Science fiction stories (plus the form of government fictionalized for Atlantis). Basically this government would be nearly Communistic wherein each person would have a job (primarily in arts and sciences ), with the humdrum requirements all performed by machines. All persons would share equally in the fruits of the community. Of course, there would always be the overseers, elected no doubt by the citizens and therefore being some what authoritarian. While I beleive that this sort of government Could come to pass in the future, We are far from being capable world-wide of embracing it at this time. Even the most capable of countries (us) could not do so. Thus, a new interim form of Government might be indicated.

Now, My described form of government is basically a Democratic-Republic (as our's presently is), with a smattering of Parlimenaryism.thrown in. (is there such a word??) Tho the idea is complete, I will need some time to compose it, as it has many components Later, in my next post, I will outline what I beleive would be a reasonable alternative to our present form

I hope some of the rest of you will start the ball rolling with your own ideas for the perfect government

AS a second appology for past disdeeds:

Please note that I am NOT downplaying the fact that I also must contend with a great deal of egg-on-my-face as a result of a horrendous mistake and mis-statement on my part (See appology in Post 109 of "What is the best form of government") Hopefully you folks will realize it was not intentional and forgive the error.

The platform of the Falconist Party incorporates some features of the Parliamentary system into the US Constitution such as having the House and Senate both elected by Proportional Representation.

The House will have its seats apportioned among the political parties on the basis of the percentage of the popular vote won by each party. The Senate would have its seats apportioned among all political parties in proportion to the percentage of states won by each party. In both houses, bonus seats will be awarded to the party that has won the pluarity of votes as well as the Presidency.

The President will be elected every five-years by the direct popular vote. Whomever wins 50.1% of the direct popular vote will be elected President. If no candidate wins the minimum vote, then a runoff will take place between the top two candidates and whomever wins the most states wins.

Senators, Congressmen, and the President will be elected co-terminously every year ending in "5" or "0".

In addition, the people will be able to amend the US Constitution, set aside Supreme Court decisions, and make and invalidate laws and treaties through national refferundums.

As far as the Falconist party goes...

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/foru...ad.php?t=14530

I have many many problems with this Falconist Party you sporadically show up here to promote, but please tell me why you let farmers pay taxes in produce, how exactly does this work, and what is the advantage in doing this? That part of your platform just seems so random and ridiculous that I can't help but to continue pursuing an answer the question of why???

Looking forward to seeing it. It will be interesting to see whether or not it bypasses some intrinsics to democracy.

Why bother with a new thread on the same topic in a different forum?

Is it only to get your pro-technocracy argument hidden away from my 5 pages of argument against it?

I really don't feel like making the same argument against the same utopian theory in two different threads. Forgive me if I ignore this one in preference to the other.

P.S. Note to OP: the word is "parliamentarianism" and it is indeed a word.

The reason we would allow farmer to pay their taxes in produce is for the following reasons. First, right now, were paying farmers not to plant their crops and decreasing production to keep crop prices stable. To pay farmers not to plant crops while people in the world are starving is a crime. We would eliminate price supports and encourage farmers to be producing again.

Second reason we propose this idea is because prices of food do drop. When farmers do produce, they become victims of their own success. This program we propose will allow farmers to keep their cash, give the USG food to feed the military, the poor people of America, and to feed countries stricken with famine worldwide.

Fucking charming. As if our 1st world farmer subsidies and 3rd world food charity hasn't caused enough damage yet? Yeah, lets have more of both! That's the solution! http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...s/rolleyes.gif

To all of you, Thank you for your patience. Puting it together in a post is much harder, complicated, and time-consuming than I had figured. I will be posting it, at least in part, later today.

I have read the information (Thanks to MM) and "NO THANKS" I couldn't be more opposed to most of what I have read there.

Fire away...

HERETIZ

The United States government is likely the best in the world, but is far from perfect. It is going to take time, but we can do better. For one thing, we have to discard or at least ignore our present designation of parties. We are built on the two party system, but there is no more pure Democrat, or pure Republican. We now have ALTRA Conservatives,and ULTRA Liberals on the two ends of the spectrum, with persons leaning towards conservatism, or liberalism, and moderates in between. but you will find Cons and Libs on BOTH sides of the isle.

Everybody complains but no one offers a plan so here is my case for a NEW United States Government. Obviously, There would have to be a constitutional convention, or at the very least, some new amedments to the Constitution.

Mostly the changes are in operation of the various agencies but I'll start at grass roots elections:

Local , district, and state elections would remain primarily as they are except I would favor the assembly change to a four year term of office. To become fair, equitable and and reasonable, there would have to be a change in the methods of drawing up districts (I will cover this later in the State operations section.)
Elections of US Senate and house members would again be similar to present operations, with the same requirement for extention of House terms to four years. I would also be in favor of reducing Senate terms to four years, in that it would allow 50 percent of the seats to be contested, rather than the present 33% but it is of great importance that the terns remain staggered so as only a portion would be changed in each voting session.

The major change in voting would be that The public would NOT elect the President or Vice-president. This would be done by the members of the US Senate, and the House or Representatives, in accordance with the following plan:

1. The house of representatives is composed of two Representatives from each of the congresssional districts, This is a representative (democratic) -one person/one vote system.
2. The Senate is made up of two senators from each state (a Republic form of representation.)

3. under this plan, the Senate and House would nominate and elect the President and Vice-president from a select list of canidates composed of persons who had completed a full term of service as a Senator, Representative, or Governor ( with the possibility of including past mayors of very large cities) This would do away with the present electorial college and substitute the same system in congress as the ONLY avenue to elect a president. This again is a republican form of government in that we elect representatives (Senate and house) to represent our best interests.

In addition, The house and senate would nominate cabinet menbers and high echelon government officials, who, tho they are under the command of the president, "would serve at the pleasure of the congress". and could be replaced as found necessary. This would be a built-in Checks and Balances system. (Which obviously we are in dire need of at the present time.) Certain other changes would be required at federal level.

a. The president would be primarily a spokesperson for the nation, a housekeeper to keep the governemt operating smothly (like a glorified Chairman of the board.) and figuratively, the Commander in Chief, Tho the actual duties of CIC would fall to the Joint Chiefs of staff, the congress, and the secretary of defense . The Pres would also cast the deciding vote in the senate, rather than the VEP.

b. The Vice president would have the sole duties of assisting the president, and/or substituing for, or replacing him as required
.
c. The order af assention would be changed to
* the Vice-president,
* the Chief of Staff(elected and chosen by the congress)
* perhaps the Secretary of defense
* then to the Leader of the Senate or Speaker of the house.
( it should be noted that only under the direst of circumstances would the congress be unable to quickly elect a new Vep if it was necessary.

d. I would be in favor of changing the tenure of supreme court justices, to allow them to be replaced like any other elected or appointed official.

e. Law enforcement agencies Like the CIA, FBI. and NSA, would be combined into one agency

f. The military would be combined into one service, with four basic components
(1) AIR FORCE, to include all aircraft and air craft operations.(including Naval Air and military choppers, etc.
(2) NAVY to include all duties pertaining to ships and boats
(3) ARMY for all ground-pounding, and mechanized Operations, and groundskeeping and support operations.
(4) MARINES, as Rapid response Strike force and other Special forces, all in conjuction with the other three forces as required by the situation.

Thus land bases would utilize persons from Army, Air Force, and Marine, and Possibly navy is warrented, while ships would have a complement of Army,and Navy, and would include Marines and Airforce as necessary.

g. Certain extensive RULE changes would be required in the every day operation of the House and Senate, which wiuld include that of the State assemblies as well.

(1) The Senate would have an elected leader and assistant thereto and the House and legislations would each have an elected Speaker and assistant speaker. Each would be elected from the body of that entity. and as is presently the case, would be expected to be from the then majority party,
(2) Each entity would have it's sub-commities, as is presently the case. However,
(3) No leader or full committee may decline to allow a measure to come to the floor on it's own whim, as has been the situation in the past. The originator would have the right to announce the measure on the floor, and receive at least a vote by acclaim. then if there is still a legitimate dispute as to the right to have it discussed , The originator would have to right to call for a rollcall vote. Note, because of reasonable concern for his or her future interests, that person would not be likely to call fo such a vote, unless he or she thought they had been wronged.
Futher, such votes by acclaim must be valid. with no "all ayes/allnays/the ayes have it"? votes which took all of ten seconds,and as was an all too frequent scenarior when Newt Gindrich and especially Tip O'neal were in charge.
Lastly and most importantly. Bills must be introduced separately or at least in appropriate combinations IE A school bill could not be combined with, or ammended by a weapons bill, with each issue standing on it's own. In the past, not having such a requirement was the reason much of the pork spending had been passed, and many ammended bills were allowed to get thru to be certain the major issue was passed.

It is entirely possible that I have left something out, but if I have, I am sure one of you will notice, and bring it up. Also.

THIS IS NOT THE COMPLETE PLAN.

Bringing it this far has been very time consuming, and to add more would be even more confusing, Therefore, States local and district operations will be addressed in my next post to Include Changes in
(1) Police Operations.
(2) National Guard Operations, and very importantly
(3) Cencus and district reapporionment.

All of these points will be addressed. And if additional explaination or clarification is necessary, please inquire

In the mean time, thanks for listening??? (Reading)

Donniston: You just took a few planks from the Falconist Party platform.http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...s/thumbup1.gif

The Falconist Party first of all, advocated expanding the term of Congressmen to five years and reducing the term of Senators from six years to five. The only are where we part company is while you intend to keep the winner take all system in place, we plan to implement proportional representation in the election of the US Congress.

Another area we part company in is while you favor the Congress electing the President, we favor having the President elected by direct popular vote. But in the PR system we devised, our outcome should be similar. But we might actually entertain your idea and revise our platform.

We like your idea for merging law enforcement agencies. Mind you that the CIA and NSA are not Law Enforcement Ageincies-they're intelligence gathering agencies. We favor keeing intelligence agencies separate as they provide different sets of eyes and ears for the nation. OTOH, we also favor merging all federal police forces into a US Police Force (USPF) which would include the FBI, DEA, ATF, ICE, FEMA, FPS, CBP, USSS, USPP, USCP, and the USCG.

We also like your idea of merging the federal services but keeping their missions intact. We proposed the same thing which included

• Merging the Army and Marine Corps, Marines will still retain their uniforms, customs, division organization, and fighting style. Marines and Paratroopers will retain their identies. The new outfit will have command of all aircraft including strategic bombers hence the elimination of the Air Force.
• Transfer control of all nuclear weapons to the Navy and allowing the Navy to retain its air arm.
• Merging all the noncombat arms of the separate armed services into a single service support corps
• Merging the ROTC and OCS programs of the separate armed services with specialization in air and naval operations after graduation
• Replacing the separate departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force with a Joint Force Defense HQ run by the Minister of War
• Two systems of rank, Military and Naval
• One system of "Marine Corps" style boot camp for the entire military
• The military will be refered to as the US Defense Forces (USDF)
• There will be a system of universal military training and mandatory national service for the American people

[QUOTE=doniston]HERETIZ


THIS IS NOT THE COMPLETE PLAN.
All of these points will be addressed. And here goes:

Page two.-- States Rights and operations:

There are many incidental issues upon which I could comment, but are mundane day to day operations. Some, are proper subjects of inquiry and would merit discussion with the possibility of changing, recinding or diminishing states rights in favor of conformity with the rest of the states. (such as Education standards, driving regulations and rights, and welfare.) As I said, these are legitimate issues of concern, and can be discussed if desired, However, the main purpose of this post is to outline my proposed plan reguarding Police, National Guard and militias, and most importantly Congressional redistricting. I will start with:

POLICE:
It is my beleif that the public would be better served if there was a "State Office of law enforcement" which would be in overall command of all Law Enforcement units, from State Police, Highway Patrol Sheriff departments, City Police, and even special Security Police. . They would be financially outfitted and supported by the varied levels IE: State,County, city, and burg, But would receive the upper echelon support, Physically as needed, with central record keeping, ect. and Specialized training as required. Amongst other things, and partially due to standardization, this would far more economical than individual units.

NATIONAL GUARD AND MILITIAS

To me, National Guards, and militias should be standardized, Trained and outfitted and financed by the Federal givernment, --under the unbrella of the Defense department and the Military High Commander.
Military reservists (when on normal rotation duty) would be housed with the national guard, and would likely be trained with, or be the trainers of said guard.

I would change the name to "State Guardsmen", which is the original intention, and they would be under the command of the Governor for use in local situations, whether for Crowd Control, and assisting the police, or in the event of natural (or unnatural) disaster Further,
They would be subject to mobilization at any time by the Federal Government, in the event of National Emergency, (as is presently the situation)

CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING OR RE-APPOTIONMENT.

This, to me, is the most important ingredient to a Democratic form of Government. Without proper proportionment, you can throw out the one person/one vote rule, because it is no existant. I have studied and been involved somewhat in this situation for a long time. Fair apportionment is extremely simple, and available in any stete. I know this for a fact, because::

In the sixties, I lived in Illinois, and attempted to start a new politifcal party A part of my interest was the reapportionment of the State of Illinois. The (infamous) Chicago had one District which consisted of three islands in the midst of the city with two of those islands separated by another district which was shaped like a dumbell, (two large areas on the ends, and a narrriw corridor connecting them.)
I spent the better part of three weeks, armed only with census figures, and topographical and Geo-physical maps, and SINGLE-HANDEDLY completely reapporioned the State--, (at least graphically). I succeeded to the degree that every district was designed within 2 percent of the average required population of each district
Of course it was never approved, but I was even on TV with the proposal and the completed map. I had expected the then Governor, WALKER to get behind it, but he never even responded, (I was to find out later that he was in the pocket of some very powerful local leaders who didn't like my ideas. in fact I even received three threats, to stop or else.)
I have related this only to show that it is reasonablly and simply possible. but WILL NOT BE FAIRLY DONE UNDER PRESENT CONDITIONS The leaders of those districts don't want the change. However, Under my plan, it could be accomplished by:

1. Either now, using approximate or intrim census figures, or shortly after the new census is completed. Two or more teams from each state, consisting of one person from each party (the only other condition would be their ability to perform simple mathematics) would start at either end of state and work towards each other.
2. They would be provided with appropriate maps showing current infrastructure, and geophsyical maps showing city and county limits, and geographic maps showing natuaral barriers. For instance, it wiuld make little sense the create a district on both sides of a river where there were no available bridges.
3. They would be provided with the latest census figures by city, county, and locality, but would be denied any reference to Race, Creed, Nationality, Social or economic status, political affiliation, or religius preference. In short, the only guidelines allowed would be raw population figures and the afore mentioned maps for guidance.
There are those who would disagree with the disallowance of the referenced information I would deny on the basis that that is "only right and proper". But on the contrary, that is precisely what is wrong with the present system, and why incumbents, are so ofter entrenched.
4. The teams would endevour to draw the proposed districts as compact as is possible, (for logictic reasons, if nothing else), and rather than result in the shape of one present Clifornia District which runs along the coast of very expensive dwellings and businesses and where, in the midst of the district, it narrows to LESS THAN A HUNDRED YARDS (with only enough room for the Coast highway, and the Cliftside businesses). ( do you suppose that could be the result of improper redistricting??
Further, they would draw them in accordance with appropriate city or county limits where possible, and within the percentage limits allowed for deviation from the population requirements. (For instance, One district might be one % above the limit, so the next should be below the limit to compensate). When the two or more teams come together, thay should be able to have a properly completed job.
5. Then the entire prposal would be put before the State assembly for approval, or even before the voters.

OK, THIS IS THE END OF MY BEGINNING PRESENTATION, If I have left anything out, I am sure you will tell me "Have at it." AND THANKS FOR lISTENING.

You will note, that while some of your concerns are similar to mine, We have far more disagreement, than agreement. Your plan basically takes us back to the middle ages and feudal conditions. My solutions and reasons therefor,are anything but the same. But your opinions are welcome. and my aim is to come to a satisfactory plan that the country can live with. Not just I and you.

How does the Falconist Party platform take us back to the middle ages and feudal conditions? If anything, our party plans to take America and the world into the future with commitments to space exploration, rebuilding America, research and development, and manifest destiny.

As for your plan for drawing Congressional districts, you still have the problem of the two-party oligarchy. Your political party wouldn't stand a chance in the winner take all system unless you incorporated preferential voting where you had multiple candidates and people selected a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice. Every 1st choice vote would equal 3 points, evenry 2nd choice vote would equal 2 points, every 3rd choice vote would equal 1 point. The candidates with the most points would win the election.

What is the name of your party and do you have a link? I like to check it out

QUOTE=Praetor]How does the Falconist Party platform take us back to the middle ages and feudal conditions? You advocate charging the peasants 20% apparently of their property (that in itself is tribute to the king. Nuf said. If anything, our party plans to take America and the world into the future with commitments to space exploration, rebuilding America, research and development, and manifest destiny. YUP, and most definitely on the backs of the american public

As for your plan for drawing Congressional districts, you still have the problem of the two-party oligarchy. Your political party wouldn't stand a chance in the winner take all system unless you incorporated preferential voting where you had multiple candidates and people selected a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice. Every 1st choice vote would equal 3 points, evenry 2nd choice vote would equal 2 points, every 3rd choice vote would equal 1 point. The candidates with the most points would win the election.I'm sorry, but to me, this is utter nonsense, and is not even slightly associated to reapportionment,.

What is the name of your party and do you have a link? I like to check it out[/QUOTE] What you see is what you get. It is not my "party", it is a grass roots "plan" for a different type of government. the only links are my two posts.

Why is giving minor parties a voice in Congress utter nonsense? Your system keeps the two party oligarchy in power. You want to talk feudalism, we already have it with the transnational corporations and the two-party oligarchy. Under our proposed system, we do away with gerrymandering, we give minor parties a say in government, and we give the "peasants" more of a voice in how laws are made.

From what I re-read so far, it appears you want to impose the British system on America except the President is elected by the Parliament but performs the functions of the King and Prime Minister.

And the one-time assets tax of 14% we propose will fall on only those whose assets are worth $10 million or more and would only be levied once. The 20% Flat Income Tax will actually be progressive as since we include annual tax credits of $2000 per child, quite a few working families will not only get all their taxes refunded but may see an increase in income.

However, were also debating whether or not to keep the flat tax. We may just scrap it and propose a progressive consumption tax.

So you have no party to carry out your plan. Maybe you can sell it to either of the two political parties or sell it to an existing political party. It's an interesting read though.

I like your idea for a State Law Enforcement Command for each state. Our party would call for State Police Chiefs (3-Stars) to have supreme command of all law enforcement, fire, and rescue units in a state with state police commanders (full-birds) in-charge of state police forces. County Sheriffs (2-Stars) would have command of all law enforcement and first responder forces in a county while a Undersheriff would command the Sheriff's Deputies. Municipal Police Forces would be under the command of local police chiefs (Majors-2 Star Generals depending on population). Fire and Rescue units will be under the command of local fire chiefs.

The US Police Comissioner (Five Stars) would have supreme command of all law enforcement agencies in the nation while the USPF high command (all 4-star chiefs) will condct the day-to-day operations of running the USPF

Praetor: I am going to start over with you, as I preceive I started off on the wrong tack.
First off, I have read your Falcolnist platform, and have already stated that I am strongly opposed to the majority of it, It also appears, considering the comments both here and especially on the thread you created to expose it, that nearly everyone agrees with me. I must say, that I am NOT interested in what "WE" (the Falconist platform) thinks, or what it's platform is. Nor would I be interested in the platform of the DRC or RNC.( or the platform of any other political party. I am however interested in what YOU individually beleive, and what your PERSONAL "INDIVIDUAL" political philosophy might be.
This is not, and was not intended as a platform, but rather as a sounding board to learn what various persons INDIVIDUALLY beleive, about my Ideas, and any ideas THEY wish to contribute. All this in hopes that jointly we might come up with a mini- Constitutional convention of our own that just perhaps other more influential persons might adopt, and/or support. Thus, I will answer anything that has already been introduced to this thread, but will not continue to address portions of your platform that are not germaine to this discussion. OK????
That being said, I will re-address certain parts of your previous posts, with more complete responses, and lastly, get to your latest post.
------------------------------------------------------------
Praeto POST 2http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...lies/frown.gifquote)
The House will have its seats apportioned among the political parties on the basis of the percentage of the popular vote won by each party. . This defeats the whole purpose of the House of Reps, which is intended to provide representation of "EACH" area of the country (IE : one man/one vote).
The Senate would have its seats apportioned among all political parties in proportion to the percentage of states won by each party.Nearly Identical to the electorial college
.In both houses, bonus seats will be awarded to the party that has won the pluarity of votes as well as the Presidency Amongst other things, this smacks of totalitarianism . Further, You want to reward minor parties with additional clout, and then turn arround and want to reward the winning party with more clout. "Can you say controdictory""
------------------------------------------------------
Post 12, and parts I hadn't covered
We also like your idea of merging the federal services but keeping their missions intact. We proposed the same thing which included In some ways similar but definitely not the same.
Merging the Army and Marine Corps, Marines will still retain their uniforms, customs, division organization, and fighting style. Marines and Paratroopers will retain their identies. The new outfit will have command of all aircraft including strategic bombers hence the elimination of the Air Force. Nope, see my plan
Transfer control of all nuclear weapons to the Navy and allowing the Navy to retain its air arm. If such were necessary, it should be a separate agency under the Defense Depatrment.
Merging all the noncombat arms of the separate armed services into a single service support corps Nope, they should be part of the Army/Marines
Merging the ROTC and OCS programs of the separate armed services with specialization in air and naval operations after graduation [COLOR-"Blue"]Immaterial[/COLOR]
Replacing the separate departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force with a Joint Force Defense HQ run by the Minister of War Logicaly and basically what I have suggested.
Two systems of rank, Military and Naval Agreed but changed and simplified somewhat
One system of "Marine Corps" style boot camp for the entire military More or less
The military will be refered to as the US Defense Forces (USDF) OK
There will be a system of universal military training and mandatory national service for the American people Perhaps but limited
----------------------------------------
Post 15 A more complete answer to your questions in this post:
How does the Falconist Party platform take us back to the middle ages and feudal conditions?. Let me answer that with an analogy:
"The great King "Iwantit" from the far away country of "SoItakeit (DC)" exacts a tribute fron it's serfs (citizens of 20% of the citizens worth, and if they can't afford it, 20 percent of their property is confiscated and added to the King's treasury, and maybe even in the form of barrels of corn. and then, perhaps out of the goodness of his heart, he returns $2,000 to the peasant, in the form of Tax Credit.(Welfare). That sir is a good picture of Fuedalism
If anything, our party plans to take America and the world into the future with commitments to space exploration, rebuilding America, research and development, and manifest destiny Perhaps so, after robbing the people blind.

As for your plan for drawing Congressional districts, you still have the problem of the two-party oligarchy. Your political party wouldn't stand a chance in the winner take all system unless you incorporated preferential voting where you had multiple candidates and people selected a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice. Every 1st choice vote would equal 3 points, evenry 2nd choice vote would equal 2 points, every 3rd choice vote would equal 1 point. The candidates with the most points would win the election.
IMHOThis part of your plan is constructed out of whole cloth and conjecture. First of all, there is no present two-party system. At this point of time is two groups of people with the same priorities masqurading as two separate parties. This has nothing to do with redistricting, in that there would still be One person elected from each district.
Also, you seem to think I have a party. NOT SO, I beleive it will soon be on us that there will be a very small minority of Ultra-Conservatives, Likewise Ultra-Liberals, and the remainder will be made up of smaller political persuasions. Certainly, this would not help in a Presidential race, but then again, my plan does away with the presidential race by the public.
---------------------------------------------
Post17 The latest.
Why is giving minor parties a voice in Congress utter nonsense? Your system keeps the two party oligarchy in power. You want to talk feudalism, we already have it with the transnational corporations and the two-party oligarchy. Under our proposed system, we do away with gerrymandering, we give minor parties a say in government, and we give the "peasants" more of a voice in how laws are made. I have already answered that above

From what I re-read so far, it appears you want to impose the British system on America except the President is elected by the Parliament but performs the functions of the King and Prime Minister.Well I did say at the "offing"that my plan was a combo which included parlimantarianism

And the one-time assets tax of 14% we propose will fall on only those whose assets are worth $10 million or more and would only be levied once. The 20% Flat Income Tax will actually be progressive as since we include annual tax credits of $2000 per child, quite a few working families will not only get all their taxes refunded but may see an increase in income. I am totally opposed to any and all sorts of tax credits. They are nothing more than a diffrerent form of welfare Please note, I am not opposed to welfare, as needed, but let's call a Spade, a "SPADE"

However, were also debating whether or not to keep the flat tax. We may just scrap it and propose a progressive consumption tax. Why not "NO state tax?, make it all US ]/COLOR]

So you have no party to carry out your plan. Maybe you can sell it to either of the two political parties or sell it to an existing political party. COLOR-"Blue"]As stated earlier, It is a suggestive form of action. I have no intention of trying to "Sell" it to an existing party. That would be self-defeating.It's an interesting read though.

I like your idea for a State Law Enforcement Command for each state. Our party would call for State Police Chiefs (3-Stars) to have supreme command of all law enforcement, fire, and rescue units in a state with state police commanders (full-birds) in-charge of state police forces. County Sheriffs (2-Stars) would have command of all law enforcement and first responder forces in a county while a Undersheriff would command the Sheriff's Deputies. Municipal Police Forces would be under the command of local police chiefs (Majors-2 Star Generals depending on population). Fire and Rescue units will be under the command of local fire chiefs
Of course you had to screw it up by mis-reading it. In no way would I suggest combining the Police, and fire departments. At the present time, the fire departments in many areas won't enter an area until there is a police presence. Thus many things burn down which could have been saved. A better plan would be to allow the Fire Department to be armed, (and cut out the middleman.
I also notice that you seem to be obcessed with Generals. These are not, and should not be part of a Civilian enterprise.

The US Police Comissioner (Five Stars) would have supreme command of all law enforcement agencies in the nation while the USPF high command (all 4-star chiefs) will conduct the day-to-day operations of running the USPF NO WAY, Keep the Feds the Hell out of Civil law enforcemnt except in a supportive capacity.
This should cover everything up to now.
[COLOR='Red"]HEY, where's the rest of you people???[/COLOR]

Donniston

I'm not interested in a program that both you and I agree on either. I already have people that agree with my platform. We just happened to form a party to advance it. You and I can present our individual programs to the American people and we will see which one gets advanced.

And my ideas and the ideas of the Falconist Party are one in the same. The only ideas I find dissagreement with my own party are as follows:

1. I don't think cost prohibitive taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and pornography are a good idea. I'm in favor of rationing alcohol and tobacco myself
2. I'm not in favor of the $3/gallon gasoline tax. I think this will eventually be repealled from the platform
3. I think we need to eliminate the military service requirement from our immigration plank in our platform
4. I think we need to re-define the plank in our platform where alternative lifestyles are frowned upon, but not necessarily outlawed
5. I might propose to the Falconist Party that the President and XVP are elected by the US Congress every five years.
6. I'm leaning towards repealling the flat tax and replacing it with a progressive consumption tax

But sue me if my ideas and those of a political party are almost one in the same. You been at work on your program for 48 years yet nobody has adopted your ideas. You either got to sell your ideas to an existing party or form a new one if you hope to see your ideas turned into reality.

I may not agree with your ideas but I enjoy watching new movements trying to shake up the status quo with their ideas. Good luck.

But lets ignore the Falconist Party for now. Lets focus on your ideas.

What I have a problem with is regardless of how you draw up Congressional districts. You are still going to have the same Gerrymandering problem we have now. People from the two groups rulling our country will draw up congressional districts where one party dominates that Congressional District.

Let me ask you something, how would your plan improve the playing field for minor parties and independent candidates? How would this reduce the stranglehold of the two major parties over our political system?

How would your plan reduce congressional pork? Lawmakers will always vote for things that would benefit their districts and states before the national interest.

I have a few more questions. But I'll post them later