For starters, any federal employee clerk, secretary, analyst, is prohibited from taking bribes. This small rule would solve 98% of the corruption. You don’t mention which foreign countries do a better job, and that’s because they don’t.
Hmmm. Half of the judges at Germany’s constitutional court are elected by the parliament, the other half is elected by the premiers of the 16 states. In both cases, the judges need to be elected by a two thirds supermajority: which makes it very difficult to get some polarising candidates elected. Judges are elected for a period of 12 years or until they reach the age of 68 (whatever happens earlier), so the judges are not elected „forever“. And over the past decades, those court’s decisions have been made an impact in politics, turning things upside down or changing the course back to something more in line with the constitution. Yes, there’s some potential flaws: if some radical party reaches a one-third majority in parliament, they could effectively block electing any candidate who they don’t like - in an attempt to force the other parties into voting for a candidate by the radical party. So far, this has not been happening. Probably not the best, but still a better way to appoint judges than having a single person decide who will be ruling for the next few decades.
@@AndersHenke A single person doesn’t decide. The president nominates and the candidate undergoes rigorous examination by the Senate who may decline the nomination by a simple majority. Back in the old days, before a Republican majority, the goal was to find someone non partisan who swore to uphold the constitution. The problem is not mechanics it’s corruption, which you may not be aware of. Regan changed the system to accept corporate funding for campaigns and donations (bribes) which Republicans have pushed to the edge of Fascism where corporations are in control. There has to be a political will to govern together and Republicans are like the National Socialists in your country in the 1930s. Several Fascist think tanks are behind it, Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. The problem is they contribute to Democrats too, and have a well funded propaganda campaign. That source of decay needs to be weeded out by not allowing them to fund candidates. I think we’re beyond organizing in a different way. We need a bribectomy operation.
98% of the statements that say "98% of anything" are made up. Bribery is actually a very small part of corruption. What about "I give you this very highly paid and honorable job for life, if you keep working for me"?
Attempting to make a positive change in a system utilizing the existing system is futile. That is basically attempting to reform something. Let's look at something easier to grasp. Let's take transportation as it is on the collective mind as well. Look at examples of public transportation. Rightly so, we need to immediately reduce emissions. Long story short, consider green house gasses to be a filter that reduces the atmospheres ability to exhaust heat, planet gets hotter. So that isn't good, let's fix that. Our system attempts to use technology. They attempt to reform mass transportation with new tech. So, break up existing mass transportation, such as a train or tram. Using newer tech, they will break up the mass transport that has utilized diesel as fuel. This is replaced with very expensive electric tech, broken down into multiple, individual units. They reformed mass transportation. Now they have a high cost, high maintenance, unreliable, futuristic model that is not economic and cannot move people near as efficiently. This ends up increasing the use of automobiles. The effect is increased emissions. That is not always the case. There are good examples of electric trolley cars that have had no need for reform and cannot be improved upon. I was just using this as an example. Anyways...one can pick and choose historical examples of re forming. It could be political, technological, what have you. So generally speaking, reforming does not get us where we want to be. I am not suggesting making any revolution either. One can look into historical examples of revolutions, be they political or technical. Generally, the vacuum is filled with something that will not get us where we want to go as the logic is circular. So the speaker is quite logical and sincere. He communicates very well to his audience. So, it appears that it is the audiences (masses) job to fix this issue. He is correct and fair enough. So, utilizing the existing system, is there a pathway for the audience to fix this? Please let me know any solution to this problem you may come up with. The only catch is, you cannot include voting as a solution. Thank you for any sincere replies.
