Having a lot of political parties so I could vote for one on a particular single issue would help, but there would still be a lot of issues where I don't think my voice can be heard.
Better to leave more issues to the free market and civil society.
Yet, you don't get to choose a Apple laptop with an AMD instead of and Intel processor, a Samsung handheld computer with an A7 processor instead of a Exanos or Qualcomm. In life, things come in sub-optimal bundles and you pick your poison.
So there are some limitations. But I still get to make a choice for every single purchase. I don't have to select just one company and then have that company provide every single piece of computer equipment that I get all year.
The problem is that we often only have a few choices even in a commodity market because of economies of scale. The economics of spending billions of dollars to develop high performances CPUs have dwindled the field to a majority player and a consolation player. Likewise, in the US, there aren't an excess political resources to fund billion dollar campaigns where only 1 person wins, so there is only about 1.1 political parties. When you scale things back you get more diversity, (e.g., local politics or SoC chips), but at the top of the food chain, it's not much freedom and not much service...
I think you misunderstood the 1.1. In America we get to choose 1 president for 4 years, 2 senators for 6 years each, and 1 representative for 2 years. That gives us 11 votes over 12 years. Yikes, my math was wrong and it's worse than I said. We get less than one vote per year.
I care about more than 11 issues, but I don't get to choose 11 different politicians to address them - or even 3 different politicians to address them.
I own more than 11 different electronic devices, and I can choose a different company to provide each device.
Question 1: The ACA (Obamacare) is an exercise of the federal government's constitutional power to
a. regulate interstate commerce
c. promote the general welfare
d. none of the above
You can see how a judge could write that question and the answer would depend on which other judge is grading it. (or if House Speaker Pelosi were writing the question the answer would "ha ha ha ha ha".
I've seen a lot of suggestions about how we need quizzes or tests to make sure people are qualified to do some action in politics whether it be voting, running for office, making laws, whatever. I even made some suggestions myself when I was younger. The problem always comes down to reliably finding some neutral disinterested uncorruptible party to write the tests when few such parties exists and you can't trust the people tasked with finding them.
Let me put it this way. I can about the national debt, generally following the Constitution, specifically allowing freedom of religion, illegal immigration, lowering spending, global warming, racism, NASA, good treatment of America's allies, treatment of America's enemies, free trade.
Every year I get just over one chance to choose Democrat or Republican on all these issues. I don't get to say "I'll have a Republican on following the Constitution, a Democrat on global warming, a Republican on illegal immigration, a Democrat on NASA..." Nor can I choose specific models "I'll have a far right republican on freedom of religion and a moderate republican on free trade..." I get to choose 1.1 person a year.
On the other hand in electronics I get to choose an Apple laptop, a Samsung handheld computer, a philips stereo, a Sony TV,... And when I choose that Sony TV I get to choose from so many models. And if I find I don't like one of these items after getting it home I can return it.
We need to have less control by the government and more control by the market because market control generally means freedom and excellent service.
A large refund is a sign of poor tax planning.
Or a recognition that if the money goes in the bank your spouse will expand your expenses to match the income. The interest on the refund isn't nearly as much as I save by not letting my wife spend it for a year. It gives us a chance to buy something nice once in a while.
The compromise is usually higher spending and lower taxes.
A bonus would be that every sponsor of a bill would have to approve every amendment to a bill. That way you would always have at least one person who could be held personally accountable fore the whole bill (i.e. they wouldn't be able to claim they had to vote for the bill even though it contained some provisions they didn't like since they would be able to eliminate any provision they didn't like).
They cancelled this policy almost immediately after it was brought to light.
I dunno. Are the 0.01%ers trying to figure out a new way to fuck over the middle class?
Congress is more like
Or is this one of those cases where some judges have already decided that their preferences and policies are more important than what the Constitution says?