The constitution was written by the educated elite to protect the interests of the elite. That is why we have a bicameral legislature and an electoral college for the executive office. Attempting to reset the government and country to where they were during Washington's presidency would be to trade our current social issues for those of 250 years ago. Sooner or later, we would come back to the point where some portion of the citizenry would become frustrated enough with the situation to attempt to resolve it by force, and then we would have a civil war in a nuclear nation.
One issue I do have with our current government is the two-candidate two-party system, supported by the one vote per citizen system. It is not mathematically sound. Consider a hypothetical situation where there are four voting blocs, representing A 27%, B 26%, C 25% and D 22% of the electorate. Any two of A B and C can form a majority on any given issue. D, even as a bloc, will never affect the outcome of any vote. Thus D is a "dummy", and all its voters are marginalized.
A more equitable system is to grant each voter X votes per elected position, where X is the number of candidates for that position. Thus any given voter could spend all votes for a single candidate, or spread them around based on where their interests lie: 1 vote for the free market candidate, 2 votes for the education candidate, no votes for the pro-war candidate, and so on. Thus the candidate who best aligns with the electorate on the greatest number of issues will win. In this system, there is a vastly reduced chance of dummies, because people who belong to a minority on one issue will not necessarily be in the minority on others.
This also reduces the power of majority blocs. Imagine a voting body made up of nine people (like the Supreme Court!). In such a body, five voters united hold sufficient power to sway any decision. If all five meet before a decision is rendered and make their own decision as a smaller group, then they have marginalized the other four voters. If three of the five meet even earlier, and vote upon the issue amongst themselves, then they have marginalized the other two. If two of the three met still earlier, they can marginalize the other one. By this system of voting alliances, 2 people can determine the final outcome of nine voters on any issue they agree on. The many votes system reduces the efficacy of this sort of backroom politics by providing more options for the voters to be divided on.
As far refusing to fund policies you don't agree with, I will say this: I feel that a lower compulsory tax married to an increased incentive to donate additional money to the government that will be applied directly to a government agency that you wish to fund (such as defense, or education, or what have you) would be a more representative system. That said, I would not trust any system where every individual person is expected to contribute responsibly to the community without being removed from that community upon failure to do so. If you refuse to play by the rules, you should not be allowed in at all. I fully expect some of my tax dollars to fund things I don't personally agree with, but I feel that I have made a covenant with the American people to abide by the decisions of the majority in return for my rights as a citizen, foremost among them life, liberty, equality and my vote. I respect this because I do not trust that a violent minority, unchecked, would not deprive me of those rights.
One issue I do have with our current government is the two-candidate two-party system, supported by the one vote per citizen system. It is not mathematically sound. Consider a hypothetical situation where there are four voting blocs, representing A 27%, B 26%, C 25% and D 22% of the electorate. Any two of A B and C can form a majority on any given issue. D, even as a bloc, will never affect the outcome of any vote. Thus D is a "dummy", and all its voters are marginalized.
A more equitable system is to grant each voter X votes per elected position, where X is the number of candidates for that position. Thus any given voter could spend all votes for a single candidate, or spread them around based on where their interests lie: 1 vote for the free market candidate, 2 votes for the education candidate, no votes for the pro-war candidate, and so on. Thus the candidate who best aligns with the electorate on the greatest number of issues will win. In this system, there is a vastly reduced chance of dummies, because people who belong to a minority on one issue will not necessarily be in the minority on others.
This also reduces the power of majority blocs. Imagine a voting body made up of nine people (like the Supreme Court!). In such a body, five voters united hold sufficient power to sway any decision. If all five meet before a decision is rendered and make their own decision as a smaller group, then they have marginalized the other four voters. If three of the five meet even earlier, and vote upon the issue amongst themselves, then they have marginalized the other two. If two of the three met still earlier, they can marginalize the other one. By this system of voting alliances, 2 people can determine the final outcome of nine voters on any issue they agree on. The many votes system reduces the efficacy of this sort of backroom politics by providing more options for the voters to be divided on.
As far refusing to fund policies you don't agree with, I will say this: I feel that a lower compulsory tax married to an increased incentive to donate additional money to the government that will be applied directly to a government agency that you wish to fund (such as defense, or education, or what have you) would be a more representative system. That said, I would not trust any system where every individual person is expected to contribute responsibly to the community without being removed from that community upon failure to do so. If you refuse to play by the rules, you should not be allowed in at all. I fully expect some of my tax dollars to fund things I don't personally agree with, but I feel that I have made a covenant with the American people to abide by the decisions of the majority in return for my rights as a citizen, foremost among them life, liberty, equality and my vote. I respect this because I do not trust that a violent minority, unchecked, would not deprive me of those rights.
