I disagree.  If you turn it into a system where each state still gets a proportional amount of votes for the overall president, except without the electoral college, there would only be one thing that changes.  The electoral college would no longer have the ability available to vote contrary to what the popular vote wants.

What do you mean by surpass ours?  Overall GDP?  I personally don't take a lot of heed to that.  GDP per capita is better in my opinion, and last I looked, China still has ~$7,000 GDP per capita, and the US has ~$45,000.

I actually agree with a lot of this, I didn't think I would coming into this thread.

As for electoral systems, I've always been a big fan of systems along the line of AMS or AV +.  Under those systems,  one votes for a party and a candidate.  A certain number of the seats (56% I think in Wales and in Greater London Assembly) are decided by FPTP for AMS and AV for AV +.  All the others are decided by the Proportional List system and these MPs don't have a constituency.  

They're fairly proportional, can still result in single party and/or majority Governments and keep single member constituencies.  The main disadvantage from it is the fact that it creates in effect two tiers of MPs, as some do not have their own constituencies and therefore the duties  involved.  While a super proportional system like STV sounds very good in theory, they often lead to fractured weak governments (Germany is the exception).

Wow, I was actually surprised this thread got some decent posts/insights.  I haven't read all the statements but I plan on looking at all of them later tonight.  Some of my points were a little harsh (aka burn the fed building down); I was just in a very grouchy mood yesterday.  I already see some good rebuttals to my statements.  Measures need to be taken soon to get the country in the right direction again.  My main concern is still the debt.  

Healthcare costs need stop rising as fast as they are in USA.  Healthcare will probably be the trickiest topic to touch.  While I don't support the government taking over the healthcare system entirely; I don't see how it could be much worse (price wise) than the system we have now.  If costs of healthcare are far exceeding inflation then it is easy to see that something needs to be done soon.  Perhaps ban drug companies from advertising their drugs (doctors should be the ones prescribing drugs not the patient going to the doctor for a drug), allow Medicaid/Medicare programs to bargain with drug companies or perhaps other nations for cheaper drugs, look at hospitals/doctors overcharging (I went in for appendicitis a few years back (didn't have insurance), cost of the surgery, MRI or whatever they used to scan to make sure it was, anesthesia, and surgery all cost about 4-5k without insurance; the hospital then charged I think 20k for one night stay, check up every so often, and pain medicine).  Basically, I could have just went home with some pain medicine and been fine after the surgery.  How is that the diagnosis, anesthesia, and surgery cost 5k without insurance and the one night hospital stay cost 20k?  Probably because the hospital knew they were going to write it off to the government for tax credit so they loaded it up with bullshit charges.  Sorry for being apart of the uninsured problem (least the surgeon, anesthesiologist, radiologist, and pathologist all got paid).

One other topic that should be mentioned is the rising cost of education (specifically college).  College tuition has risen almost at the same rate as healthcare.  I moved to Texas back in 2000 and went to school at Texas Tech.  At that time they just deregulated universities in Texas saying that it would lead to a decrease in tuition.  After deregulation tuition rates jumped every year almost double then the years they were regulated.  A semester at Texas Tech in 2000 used to cost around 3k now it probably cost around 4-5k.  So in ten years the tuition has almost doubled.  That doesn't seem too fair to me. 

High schools need to stop spending all the tax money on grand stadiums for their high school football teams.  School is to learn.  Sports should be almost an afterthought.  You don't need a huge stadium to play football in.  You just need a field, some bleachers for the fans, and perhaps lights for night games.  The emphasis on sports needs to be lowered a little.  I love sports (played soccer, football, basketball, baseball) and there should be a place for them (help keep kids out of trouble, etc).  However, the spending on them needs to curbed (especially football, aka Texas).

Ask any student that goes to college what one of the biggest scams are.....  you guessed it textbooks....  Something needs to change about this.  Now that e readers are becoming more popular they should perhaps look to that option.  No more going to the book store to sell back the books at the end and being told that edition is outdated and isn't worth crap.

There are plenty other areas to look at for waste.   Feel free to add some of yours or elaborate on mine.

Very good post, Rath, and I agree 100%.

#1 is a very hard issue, because there is no simple one-shot answer for fixing healthcare costs. We have a lot of issues with our system, and everyone - doctors, patients, government, and insurance companies all share part of the blame, but never want to shoulder any burden.

Realilistically, to fix the system, we have to deal with all aforementioned parties. We have to break up the AMA, which is the doctor's union, which decides what it takes to practice in the US. Our doctors have the most insane standards when compared to any developed nation (8 years 4 years residency to become a doctor vs. 6-8 in every other country). That translates to much higher costs, as doctors have less years to earn their income and pay off student loans (much the same reason why every field that requires a doctorate is incredibly costly in the US). Patients must have a stake in the system, or else they will continue to enjoy the benefits of obesity without the faults of it. Obesity is linked with much higher costs of health care, so its no wonder we spend more. The government requires massive amounts of compliance for medicare, and pegs services at whatever they decide, which can raise prices, and stifles competition. Finally, insurance companies aren't required to compete for individual health plans, as the government gives significant subsidies to companies offering health care. This is bad, because health care should not be pegged to your work, but yourself, and our system discourages individual competition.

#2 will happen, I think. Voters are dissatisfied with both parties at an all-time high. Its just a matter of someone coming out of the woodwork with the money to establish a significant 3rd party. I'd wish the Libertarians started coming out in droves, but it hasn't happened yet.

#3. Won't happen until we get someone in office with a pair of balls. Something we've lacked since Clinton. If Johnson or Paul get elected, its a certainty it will happen, which is my hope.

#4. As Kasz said, Republicans have banned earmarks. However, the core of the problem is that Americans are......Quite frankly........Retarded. Average voters cringe at the thought of losing their pension/health care/government jobs/welfare/ect, even when its bankrupting us. We always put the burden on the other party, or effigies of wasteful people, when in reality, its usually those same people that are mooching off the system one way or another. Its sickening, but no one really wants to do what is needed to reform the system. The AARP always uses scare tactics when we try to reform pensions, and its a death warrant for politicians, as the elderly are the biggest US voting bloc.

Yes, just yes.

One thing I thought I'd mention.  You realize that with a 3% yearly inflation rate, if college was $3,000 in 2000, it should be a little over $4,000 now.  I also thought I'd mention.  When you went to college, did you get $2,500 back in federal taxes if you spent $4,000 for a year?  I'm not sure when that program came around, but somebody can go to a tech school around here for like $5,500-$6,500 for a year after the federal refund.

when it comes to point 5 they wont stop. because it gives them oil, tactical positions, and other resources.

they dont do it because theyr nice, they do it because it has benefits, even though they do a terrible job.

I was just stating some ballpark figures for tuition.  After actually checking it appears total tuition and fees for year 2000 were about 3.4k (for in-state undergrad).  I was pretty far off for the 2010 tuition.  Looks like it is now 8.2k for total tuition and fees for 2010-2011.  That brings it well over 3% yearly inflation rate.  Not sure about the federal taxes back if you spent over 4,000.  Maybe that was a recent addition.  The 2.5k back in federal taxes sounds like the universities are overcharging and having the federal government foot some of the bill just to make education a tad bit "affordable".

http://www.irs.ttu.edu/Tuition/TUITFEE6.HTM

Just looking at the numbers (reminder that deregulation of Texas universities for tuition happened around 2000) it just makes me sick.  1988-2000 tuition for in-state undergrads went from 1.1k to 3.1k.  Two thousand increase for a little over a decade isn't too bad considering inflation.  Now look after deregulation....  2000-2011 tuition for in-state undergrads went from 3.4k to 8.2k.  Just seems pretty obvious to me that regulating universities so they don't charge out the ass is a good idea.

Wait, $8,200 is for the whole year, right?

-----------------

Regardless of that, I don't get why people complain about the cost of education in the first place.  I think it is very affordable.  I paid like $3,500 for the whole year this year to go to a good state university.  That includes a $2,000 scholarship and the $2,500 I get back from the government, but that is besides the point.  I'm paying $3,500 for 1/4 of an education that will get me into a field that averages well over $100,000 a year. 

Even for somebody not going into that good of a field, an associates degree will average you $8,000 more per year than a high school degree.  A bachelor's degree will average you $22,000 more than a high school degree.  If you figure in working for 40 years (just for simplicity), an associates degree will average somebody $320,000 more in their life and a bachelor's degree $880,000 more in their life.  So even if you have to pay $40,000 for an education, you're getting such a massive return on your investment, that there is really no reason anybody should be complaining.

Here's the link I got the data from: http://www.earnmydegree.com/online-education/learning-center/education-value.html

Edit: Also thought I'd mention that at least in Minnesota, there is something called PSEO (Post Secondary Enrollment Options).  For your junior year of high school, if you are in the top third of your class, you can go to a college part or full time.  If you are in your senior year of high school, and are in the top half of your class, you can go to college part or full time.  I did this option for my senior year and did it full time.  The best part?  The government pays for all the classes, books, everything.

I've put a total of ~$3,500 into my education so far, and after this semester, I am going to have 73 credits.  College doesn't have to be that expensive.  There are tons of options out there to make it more affordable.

-----------------

Also, in regards to the $2,500, it isn't just if you spend $4,000.  For the first $2,000 you spend, you get the full amount back, and for the next $2,000, you get 25% back.  So if you only spent $3,000, you would get $2,250 back.