It’s no secret that the Senate and the House are pretty screwed up in this day and age. Whereas the Senate and the House of Representatives were intended to be a seat for deep discussion about the laws governing the United States of America, they have turned into nothing more than a petty fight between the Democrats and the Republicans. It seems today to be less of an issue of who is in Congress, and more of an issue of how many are representing each party.
Every time a bill appears, the Democrats vote one way and the Republicans vote the other. It is no longer a battle of wits between the districts and the states to determine the laws governing American citizens–it is a battle between two parties. Two sides. We might as well have one man representing the whole legislative system, because if we’ve got more Republicans than Democrats, all the Republican bills will pass, and vise versa with more Democrats.
Considering how deeply-rooted the idea of political parties has become, this seems almost unavoidable in retrospect. The solution to the problem, then, goes deep into the roots of American politics. With political parties being as ingrained as they are in our politics, changing the number of representatives or putting limits on who can and cannot run for Congress will not work. Changing the people involved will not work. What we need to do is change the way the entire Legislative Branch is handled.
Of course, critics may argue, what we have works. And indeed, it does. New laws get passed, new bills get signed. But is it as good as it could be?
I will now present my ideas for a complete legislative reform.
My idea calls for power to be put directly into the hands of the people, using what can be best described as a combination of a wiki and a public forum. Clearly, with what I just said, it can be drawn that this proposed system of legislature is only possible with the Internet, and I do not believe that America is yet ready for a legal system that alienates people without Internet access. That being said, I firmly believe that within the next 10 years, nearly every American will have Internet access.
Following is the basic framework of my proposed Legislative Branch.
- A complete, semi-editable wiki is provided by the government to the public. Any legalized American citizen can access this wiki, using their Driver’s License number or their State ID number as their unique login ID.
- Any law can be marked for editing. If a law is marked for editing, the user who marked it will be asked to describe the edit that they would like to make. For example, if a user wanted to change the penalty for petty theft, that user would search for the law in question and mark the penalty section of the article for editing. The user would then enter their proposed change.
- This edit opens a thread on the public forum for discussion of the edit. The discussion will be open for a set number of days, depending on how extensive the edit is. In the above example, the number of days would be relatively low. If a user wanted to change the definition of murder, however, the number of days the discussion would be allowed to take would be substantially greater.
- Any user can post in this discussion, presenting their own unique viewpoints and ideas on the issue.
- During this debate, the edit itself can be modified and fine-tuned.
- After the set number of days are up, users may vote whether or not to pass the aforementioned edit. Voting will be open to everyone, but users are highly encouraged (or even forced) to read the entire discussion thread on the topic before casting their ballots.
- An edit will only take effect if it wins the vote with a 2/3 majority.
- If the edit is passed, it will be sent through to a quality control bureau, which will rewrite the law in the clearest, easiest to understand way possible without losing the law’s meaning.
- If the edit is passed, it will be sent to the President’s desk. The President then has the power to veto the edit. If the President does not veto the edit, the edit becomes law.
- Users can also create entirely new laws in much the same way they can edit old laws. There is a link on every wiki page labeled “Write New Law,” as well as one labeled “Write New Related Law.”
- “Write New Law” gives people a blank slate to form their law on. They are required to fill in two sections: What the law is and what the penalties for breaking the law are.
- “Write New Related Law” does the same as above, only using the law that the user is currently looking at as a template.
- When a new law is written and submitted, it, like an edit, will generate a discussion thread.
- These discussions will last considerably longer than a discussion about an edit, and the time spent will be based on the severity of the penalties associated with the law.
- The new law, like an edit, can be changed during the process of debate.
- The new law must win the proceeding vote by a 2/3 majority, like an edit.
- If the new law wins the vote, it is delivered to the quality control bureau, which rewrites the law in the simplest and easiest to understand language possible.
- The new law is then sent to the President, where he chooses to either pass or veto it.
In addition to the process detailed above, users have several abilities beyond writing laws and editing existing laws.
- A user may “blam” a new law or edit during discussion. If a law or edit is “blammed” by enough different peolpe, that law will be marked for removal. A member of the Judicial branch will then review the law and decide whether it is worth discussion or whether it should be removed from the legislative forum.
- Users have the right to veto rulings of the judicial system. They can overturn rulings with a 3/5 majority and can call for a retrial with a 2/3 majority.
- In order to prevent abuse of the system, users may only edit one law per month and may only write one new law per every six months. A user may also only “blam” one law per day.
So, what do you think about my new legislative prototype? Good? Bad? Ugly? Feel free to pick it apart in the comments.
I do think it’s worth pointing out that New Zealand has already incorporated a similar system.
~Emory B.
Is it just me, or has 
