If You Could Rewrite the US Constitution

[celedhring]

And if a court did decide the budget to be unconstitutional, how could it be enforced?  The Court couldn't cram down an alternative budget without violating separation of powers.  What if Congress refused to cooperate?  In theory you could revert to the prior year budget under the Yi constitution, but what if that budget was in deficit (either because it was a war/crisis budget or because revenues went down)?

Extended budgets aren't too uncommon over here, particularly with the kind of minority governments Spain has had since 2015. When those happen and the fiscal scenario has worsened the executive usually issues "non-availability orders" which forbids the several departments to spend their full budgetary allotment.

But having the judiciary insert itself in the budget process would be a terrible idea (unless we're talking about not following due procedure to pass it, of course).

[grumbler]

I don't think that solely PR is the way to go for a national legislature, because it creates a lot of separation between the people and their government.  I think having the senate be elected by PR creates a "national" legislative chamber unencumbered by obligations to the localities, but the House needs to be representative of the people in their districts, so that individuals feel that they have a representative responsive to their own concerns.

How many representatives need to be in the House is a tough question.  The smaller the district, the closer the electorate feels to their representative, but smaller districts mean more districts, and there is a limit on how large a legislative body can be and still be able to carry out its duties.  I don't know how to strike that balance.

[Barrister]

I wouldn't put fiscal mechanisms into the Constitution.  It would just produce tons of disputes about what a "crisis" is, what a "contraction" is and even what a "deficit" is (e.g. is social security considered on or off budget?)  Unless the remit of the Supreme Court is beefed up (would not recommend) the Court would most likely decline to adjudicate these issues, viewing them as political questions and deferring to the other branches, which in effect negates the point.  Alternatively, the Court would create standards of its own, which is probably even more problematic.

The way to control deficits is to create a political consensus around it and enforce it as a political norm, not to attempt to constitutionalize it.  The EU tried the latter and it's been a mess.

This, by the way, is why I very seriously suggested abolishing the Bill of Rights.  Look at the endless debates around the second amendment and what it means. And yes in the end the Court has had to create standards of its own, which have been more problematic.

[garbon]

I wouldn't put fiscal mechanisms into the Constitution.  It would just produce tons of disputes about what a "crisis" is, what a "contraction" is and even what a "deficit" is (e.g. is social security considered on or off budget?)  Unless the remit of the Supreme Court is beefed up (would not recommend) the Court would most likely decline to adjudicate these issues, viewing them as political questions and deferring to the other branches, which in effect negates the point.  Alternatively, the Court would create standards of its own, which is probably even more problematic.

The way to control deficits is to create a political consensus around it and enforce it as a political norm, not to attempt to constitutionalize it.  The EU tried the latter and it's been a mess.

This, by the way, is why I very seriously suggested abolishing the Bill of Rights.  Look at the endless debates around the second amendment and what it means. And yes in the end the Court has had to create standards of its own, which have been more problematic.

Toss out all of them because one has been especially problematic?

[Barrister]

I wouldn't put fiscal mechanisms into the Constitution.  It would just produce tons of disputes about what a "crisis" is, what a "contraction" is and even what a "deficit" is (e.g. is social security considered on or off budget?)  Unless the remit of the Supreme Court is beefed up (would not recommend) the Court would most likely decline to adjudicate these issues, viewing them as political questions and deferring to the other branches, which in effect negates the point.  Alternatively, the Court would create standards of its own, which is probably even more problematic.

The way to control deficits is to create a political consensus around it and enforce it as a political norm, not to attempt to constitutionalize it.  The EU tried the latter and it's been a mess.

This, by the way, is why I very seriously suggested abolishing the Bill of Rights.  Look at the endless debates around the second amendment and what it means. And yes in the end the Court has had to create standards of its own, which have been more problematic.

Toss out all of them because one has been especially problematic?

They're all problematic.

Ultimately you can't rely on the Courts to protect rights - you need to entrust in your citizens and the politicians they elect.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think that solely PR is the way to go for a national legislature, because it creates a lot of separation between the people and their government.  I think having the senate be elected by PR creates a "national" legislative chamber unencumbered by obligations to the localities, but the House needs to be representative of the people in their districts, so that individuals feel that they have a representative responsive to their own concerns.

You could have a blended system like Scotland (in the Scottish Parliament) or Germany possibly on a state-wide basis.

So I think in Scotland two thirds of the MSPs are directly elected from constituencies and a third are elected from regional lists based on PR (people have two votes for MSPs). It definitely improves representation of small fringer parties like the Greens, Scottish Socialists or Lib Dems because people vote tactically for their constituency MSP but with their heart on the list. I think Germany is broadly similar with constituency votes and then a regional list.

So obviously it wouldn't matter for thinly populated states but in, say, California you could have about 30-35 directly elected Reps and the remainder by list.

How many representatives need to be in the House is a tough question.  The smaller the district, the closer the electorate feels to their representative, but smaller districts mean more districts, and there is a limit on how large a legislative body can be and still be able to carry out its duties.  I don't know how to strike that balance.

Far more. The House is tiny.

In the UK the rule is roughly 100,000 people per MP but that would lead to a body the size of the National People's Congress which may not be plausible. Maybe either 1 per 500,000 people (or state if too small)?

[fromtia]

I don't think that solely PR is the way to go for a national legislature, because it creates a lot of separation between the people and their government.  I think having the senate be elected by PR creates a "national" legislative chamber unencumbered by obligations to the localities, but the House needs to be representative of the people in their districts, so that individuals feel that they have a representative responsive to their own concerns.

How many representatives need to be in the House is a tough question.  The smaller the district, the closer the electorate feels to their representative, but smaller districts mean more districts, and there is a limit on how large a legislative body can be and still be able to carry out its duties.  I don't know how to strike that balance.

I have no clue how to approach this, but more seems like a good start. 1 representative for about 750,000 people seems a bit light. I don't know at what point a legislative body becomes too cumbersome to be functional. A thousand?

I agree about PR, there's probably ways to finesse it that are smart. Ultimately I think a multi party system would be more representative , more democratic and less polarizing. I understand that PR doesn't automatically equal multi party and that the 2 party system isn't enshrined in the constitution. You may just end up with a dominant coalition of parties that were the former Republicans*, but that's still an improvement.


* The Glassy Eyed Laffer Curve Party, The RICH AF Party, The Think of the Babies Party, The Blast 'Em They Might Be Communists Party, The Me First! Party....etc

[crazy canuck]

I wouldn't put fiscal mechanisms into the Constitution.  It would just produce tons of disputes about what a "crisis" is, what a "contraction" is and even what a "deficit" is (e.g. is social security considered on or off budget?)  Unless the remit of the Supreme Court is beefed up (would not recommend) the Court would most likely decline to adjudicate these issues, viewing them as political questions and deferring to the other branches, which in effect negates the point.  Alternatively, the Court would create standards of its own, which is probably even more problematic.

The way to control deficits is to create a political consensus around it and enforce it as a political norm, not to attempt to constitutionalize it.  The EU tried the latter and it's been a mess.

This, by the way, is why I very seriously suggested abolishing the Bill of Rights.  Look at the endless debates around the second amendment and what it means. And yes in the end the Court has had to create standards of its own, which have been more problematic.

Toss out all of them because one has been especially problematic?

They're all problematic.

Ultimately you can't rely on the Courts to protect rights - you need to entrust in your citizens and the politicians they elect.

The Court in Canada has been pretty good at it actually.  I would not be so confident in politicians, and especially right wing politicians, being entrusted with protecting the rights of people he doesn't like.

The only way that makes sense is your very narrow definition of what a right should be.

Which is the reason the Bill of Rights makes sense.  Rather than relying on the fiat of the politicians of the day.

[The Brain]

Sweden has the insane number of 349 MPs, or 1 MP per 29,000 people. I've always thought that this should at least be reduced to 199 MPs. Not gonna happen though.

[Admiral Yi]

I wouldn't put fiscal mechanisms into the Constitution.  It would just produce tons of disputes about what a "crisis" is, what a "contraction" is and even what a "deficit" is (e.g. is social security considered on or off budget?)  Unless the remit of the Supreme Court is beefed up (would not recommend) the Court would most likely decline to adjudicate these issues, viewing them as political questions and deferring to the other branches, which in effect negates the point.  Alternatively, the Court would create standards of its own, which is probably even more problematic.

The way to control deficits is to create a political consensus around it and enforce it as a political norm, not to attempt to constitutionalize it.  The EU tried the latter and it's been a mess.

It doesn't seem to create these issues at the state level.

[Zanza]

As the German constitution was mentioned, I dont think it fits. Some parts are very elegant and work well, others not so much, especially in a different context like the United States.

I guess our upper chamber works a bit better than the American Senate right now: the state governments are represented there instead of personally elected members. More like the US Senate before the 17th amendment. The states have different voting weights, but a heavy skew towards smaller states to give them over-proportional representation. Maybe add something like the QMV (certain percentage of population and number of states) of the EU to compensste for a lack of the filibuster.

[Zanza]

Germany's lower house has half of its members directly elected in constituencies using FPTP. The other half is determined by party list votes, which means that the overall parliament is proportional to the people's will and each constituency still has a directly elected parliamentarian. 

But that system currently has big problems, which are hard to explain, but which lead to a bloated number of seats.

[Syt]

Germany's lower house has half of its members directly elected in constituencies using FPTP. The other half is determined by party list votes, which means that the overall parliament is proportional to the people's will and each constituency still has a directly elected parliamentarian. 

But that system currently has big problems, which are hard to explain, but which lead to a bloated number of seats.

Not entirely correct, it's not "half this, half that".

You get two votes: one for the district's FPTP race, one for the party list (and it's not unusual for people to split their votes between parties, e.g. if they want to see a certain coalition, or if they like their local candidate of party A, but generally prefer party B).

The party vote determines the ratios in the Bundestag. The seats are then first filled with the winners of the direct mandates. Example: based on party list votes, SPD should get 100 seats, and they win 78 FPTP districts, then 22 seats are filled from the party list.

If SPD should get 80 seats, but win 85 FPTP seats, then the parliament is expanded until their party list vote % matches the 85 FPTP seats. (the mechanics for this have been changed a bit in the last 10 years, but the gist is still true)

IIRC the party lists are state specific, and there's seat contingents per state, so it's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the gist.

Source: had 1 semester on election stuff at administrative school.

[Zanza]

Germany seems to have figured out how to do the democracy thing, after that period of unpleasantness eight decades ago.  Maybe use them as the starting point.  They even seemed to handle absorbing a whole other country with a different ideology, so that probably speaks good things about its ability to handle potentially zero-sum conflicts.

In West German constitutional terms, East Germany was of course not another country, just a part of Germany under different administration. East Germans for example never had to apply for citizenship as they were already citizens. The relations to the GDR were under the interior minister, not the foreign minister.

[Zanza]

@Syt: Yes, I simplified it a bit..