If you could wave a wand and convince America to amend the constitution as you see fit, what would you change?
For me, number one would be to abolish the Electoral College and make the Presidential election be dependent on the national vote.
Number two would be to lengthen the term of office for House Representatives to four years and have their elections staggered in halves, half during Presidential years and half in off years.
Number three would be to give Supreme Court Justices 20 year term limits.
I would like to add some protections for civil liberties, but we already have strong constitutional protections for them that all three branches of government have ignored to a greater or lesser degree, so I'm not sure what good that would do.
I'd establish a monarchy with myself as the sovereign. Maybe you shouldn't entrust me with a magic wand of so much power. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 05, 2012, 01:57:08 AM
I'd establish a monarchy with myself as the sovereign. Maybe you shouldn't entrust me with a magic wand of so much power. :hmm:
Yeah, what a stupid premise. I'm pretty sure if Tim had the magic wand he wouldn't do what he said but establish moon bases or commissioned giant robots or something, too.
I am not a fan of giant robots.
Just answer the damn question seriously.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 05, 2012, 02:46:40 AM
Just answer the damn question seriously.
You asked me to set up a government, and that's what I did. :P
If it mattered what's in the Constitution, I'd give a serious answer. :P
I'd ditch the electoral college and the senate and throw in FDR's extra bill of rights and an amendment mandating exclusively-public financing of campaigns. :showoff:
Amendment 4 - House districts must equal the population of the smallest state.
So (Wyoming) 568,158/311,591,917 = 548 seats
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 05, 2012, 06:23:48 AM
Amendment 4 - House districts must equal the population of the smallest state.
So (Wyoming) 568,158/311,591,917 = 548 seats
You realize that still leaves the other states with under a million either over or underrepresented, quite possibly even moreso than now.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 05, 2012, 06:27:07 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 05, 2012, 06:23:48 AM
Amendment 4 - House districts must equal the population of the smallest state.
So (Wyoming) 568,158/311,591,917 = 548 seats
You realize that still leaves the other states with under a million either over or underrepresented, quite possibly even moreso than now.
I'd have run the math to know for sure, but I think it would be more equitable. The number of people per representative would certainly drop significantly which would be good in and of itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population
Amendment 5 - Gerrymandering outlawed. Nonpartisan commissions draw up the districts.
Repeal the second amendment so your police can go armed with just sticks.
All guns will magically melt when the 2nd gets repealed. A SCIENCE FACT.
I've talked about some of these before, and it looks like Tim is on the same page as me with some:
- More normalized House districts, with each state getting a number equal to how many times its population can be evenly divided by the population of the smallest state. (Affects electoral college as well.)
- House terms changed to four years (I didn't consider staggering, but that's a good idea I'll adopt.)
- Vice President receives enumerated powers in the Senate as its Constitutional President, including power to unilaterally invoke cloture and any debate at any time he sees fit and the ability to call votes on specific legislation.
- SCOTUS selection changed. Presidents can appoint one SCOTUS justice per term. Once they've appointed their one, any further vacancies will be filled via special commission. The commission will be 12 in number, with 4 selected by the Speaker of the House, 4 selected by the Senate and 4 judges selected by the Supreme Court itself. The commission will be chaired by the Vice President and can break tie votes, any candidate receiving majority support in the commission becomes a justice. When selection is done via commission, they may only choose from persons who are already Federal judges and have served in that capacity for at least 4 years. SCOTUS terms are fixed at 20 years, non-renewable.
- Primary elections for President abolished. Instead, roughly around the time of current Super Tuesday a nationwide vote in all States/D.C./territories will be held. The top 5 candidates in that election will be on the ballot in all 50 States come election day in November. Note this is one big election, both Democrats and Republicans will be in this first round of balloting including a sitting President. In theory if the sitting President was not in the top 5, they would not be on the ballot in November and thus would have their term end. Further, anyone in the top 5 will receive full Federal matching funds for the Presidency. Further, new regulations will require a mandatory minimum amount of air time that media outlets sell for political advertising be apportioned to each candidate, regardless of their ability to pay. (Candidates with more money will be able to get ads above the minimum, obviously.) Further still, a series of 3 debates will be conducted by some sub-committee of the FEC. Any candidate that does not attend loses Federal matching funds for the remainder of the election and their campaign will owe as a debt any funds they already accepted. Further, if a candidate refuses Federal matching funds the FEC will set a "maximum" amount of dollars any individual candidate can raise in an election. Anything over the cap, the campaign will have to forfeit 50% of dollars over the cap, the 50% will be distributed proportionally to the other candidates with the lowest funded campaigns receiving larger shares. Additionally, all PACs/Super PACs/Unions/Individuals etc that spend over $10,000 on any activity related to a Presidential election must be a registered entity with the FEC. Once registered these private bodies can do much as they do now, but they are only allowed to spend a certain amount of money in a campaign cycle (cap set by FEC.) Any money spent by them over the cap must be matched 100% by mandatory contributions to the FEC, who will apportion the money to the candidates accepting Federal matching funds in a way preferential to the lowest funded candidate.
- After the above, if no President has a majority of Electoral Votes on election day, the field will be reduced to the top three candidates and a runoff election will be held one month later. If after that election there is still no majority winner, it will go to the House as per the current Constitution.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 05, 2012, 07:26:56 AM
I've talked about some of these before, and it looks like Tim is on the same page as me with some:
- Vice President receives enumerated powers in the Senate as its Constitutional President, including power to unilaterally invoke cloture and any debate at any time he sees fit and the ability to call votes on specific legislation.
- SCOTUS selection changed. Presidents can appoint one SCOTUS justice per term. Once they've appointed their one, any further vacancies will be filled via special commission. The commission will be 12 in number, with 4 selected by the Speaker of the House, 4 selected by the Senate and 4 judges selected by the Supreme Court itself. The commission will be chaired by the Vice President and can break tie votes, any candidate receiving majority support in the commission becomes a justice. When selection is done via commission, they may only choose from persons who are already Federal judges and have served in that capacity for at least 4 years. SCOTUS terms are fixed at 20 years, non-renewable.
Nice to see someone taking the topic seriously Otto.
I really like the enumerated powers for the VP. It would definitely cut down some of the gridlock in the Senate.
Don't know about the Supreme Court selection though. If you're going to do that I'd rather have all Justices picked that way rather than President getting a freebie. Would that one be voted on by the Senate in the normal way?
As for the Presidential election. I'd mandate rotating regional primaries. Split the country into five sections. South would go first one cycle, 2nd the next, etc. Each region would vote one week apart starting the first week of May.
I'd definitely overturn Citizen's United.
Dump Tuesdays as appointed election days. We are no longer an agrarian nation that requires two days' travel by horse and buggy after church services on Sundays to polling places, so it is no longer necessary.
Since Republicans seem to have such an obvious problem with early voting, either 1) make it a Federal holiday so people can truly participate, or 2) do what the Europeans do and vote on weekends.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on November 05, 2012, 05:42:11 AM
throw in FDR's extra bill of rights
Yeah a bunch of new vague rights would be great...
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2012, 07:55:48 AM
Dump Tuesdays as appointed election days. We are no longer an agrarian nation that requires two days' travel by horse and buggy after church services on Sundays to polling places, so it is no longer necessary.
Since Republicans seem to have such an obvious problem with early voting, either 1) make it a Federal holiday so people can truly participate, or 2) do what the Europeans do and vote on weekends.
While I actually kind of like the idea of election day being a federal holiday, I'm not sure it would accomplish much--most of us who aren't federal workers don't get federal holidays off anyway.
Holding elections on weekends would probably actually depress voting turnout, at least if election day was still in the fall--it would conflict with watching football on TV.
Quote from: dps on November 05, 2012, 08:11:19 AM
Holding elections on weekends would probably actually depress voting turnout, at least if election day was still in the fall--it would conflict with watching football on TV.
You're probably watching too much football if that's a bigger impediment than a shift at work.
Quote from: dps on November 05, 2012, 08:11:19 AM
While I actually kind of like the idea of election day being a federal holiday, I'm not sure it would accomplish much--most of us who aren't federal workers don't get federal holidays off anyway.
Holding elections on weekends would probably actually depress voting turnout, at least if election day was still in the fall--it would conflict with watching football on TV.
You don't have to be a federal worker to get federal holidays off, plenty of employers honor them, just like plenty of employers honor MLK's birthday even if some don't. Even a few more people able to exercise the day as a holiday would be an improvement.
Besides, making it a holiday or pushing it onto the weekend it would be of immense help to people who have to wind up taking the day off from work anyway, burning up a personal leave day to watch their little shits, since most polling places are schools and are closed on Election Day anyway.
The ability to voting shouldn't mean you should have to take a day off to do it. I know Republicans prefer it that way, but that's fucked up.
People take whole days off to vote? What dedication. -_-
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2012, 08:31:13 AM
People take whole days off to vote? What dedication. -_-
Stop hating on the breeders, g. It's so very Martinus.
Polling places in most states are open at least 12 hours on election day. Not many people work shifts that long.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin
You're probably watching too much football if that's a bigger impediment than a shift at work.
Sure, but there are people out there with that outlook.
Of course, if you don't vote because you'd rather keep your butt parked on the couch watching TV (regardless of what you're watching), it isn't anyone's fault but your own that you didn't get to vote.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2012, 08:36:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2012, 08:31:13 AM
People take whole days off to vote? What dedication. -_-
Stop hating on the breeders, g. It's so very Martinus.
Can you expand on that logic? On its face it appears quite a leap.
Keep the voting booths open 3 days, Saturday through Monday.
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2012, 08:48:06 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2012, 08:36:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2012, 08:31:13 AM
People take whole days off to vote? What dedication. -_-
Stop hating on the breeders, g. It's so very Martinus.
Can you expand on that logic? On its face it appears quite a leap.
Fucking people with fucking school aged children that need to take the fucking day off on their own fucking personal fucking time because the fucking local elementary school is fucking closed because it's a fucking polling place. Fuck. It's not that fucking much of a fucking leap.
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2012, 08:31:13 AM
People take whole days off to vote? What dedication. -_-
I know living in Mega City One may have inured you to this, but for a lot of people it is borderline necessary. My girlfriend, for example, commutes almost an hour each way every day. (Every day she works, anyway. Some people apparently still get to work 40 hour weeks.) Her leave, which she applied for a good two months ago, wasn't approved and she's going to have a hell of a time getting back home to try to vote.
Now, granted, it's foolish to live an hour away from your job, but that's how the cookie crumbles sometimes.
Edit: but you know, I think she could've voted early. I wonder why she didn't do that?
And they would be better served by a holiday or weekend when they'd have to look after the children? Seems like it would make more sense not to have kids education interrupted and not have school as polling place. :mellow:
There are a few suggestions I'd have for the election and election financing laws.
- FCC mandates a public service obligation for broadcasters to broadcast british style party political broadcasts in the leadup to the election. This gives Obama and Romney (plus the well supported 3rd party candidate) 30 minutes of prime time to explain to the voter exactly why they should vote for him or her. This will be like the debates a benchmark for the undecided voter to hear and evaluate. This will reduce the effect of election advertisements.
- Revamp election funding by permitting unlimited public donations to candidates and state and national parties and ending all these PAC regulations and rules. This will return money to the party and candidates which have to look at the big picture not single issue groups like the sierra club or americans for tax reform. This will reduce attack adds since the official campaigns will have to justify any swiftboating they do and those who donate to PACs will have to justify to the public and their kids why they didn't just give to the official campaign.
- Single transferrible vote. In an age of computers there is no reason not to do this. No more tactical voting.
- Primaries. I like the primary system since it gives a "minor league" opportunity for candidates to prove themselves. We would never had Clinton without it. I'd randomize the order. Break up the states into 5 seed categories based on electoral votes. Round 1 go through the first 10 one state at a time from smallest to largest. e.g. Wyoming, then Connecticut, then Washington, the Georgia and then New York in the first round. Then the first super tuesday with 5 states, then three super tuesdays with 10 states, then another 5 state tuesday and then the last 5 in decending order opposite of the first group. This permits smaller and less well known candidates to try and campaign face to face in the first small states. Since the order isn't fixed Iowa's farming policy ceases to be so super relevant.
- Vary electoral votes by turnout. Weigh it at say 50% (or whatever). Does your state have 12 electoral votes today? 2 senators. It now has 7. For every 20% of turnout it gets it gets one more. 5 EV? it now has 4 and gets another 1 if you get more than 50% turnout. Now candidates have a reason to campaign in their safe states as well. Texas, California and New York will now get some presidential love.
- And the wild suggestion. Redistributative electoral votes. Norway has a system of PR in multi seat districts where votes which don't produce candidates but support parties getting more than 4% get moved to other districts where these votes now combined produce a successful parliamentarian.
Having thought about it, here is my list of needed changes:
1. Make blood sports legal.
2. Outlaw any gun smaller than .50 cal.
3. Allow the government to quarter soldiers in private homes.
4. Make the voting age 40.
5. Choose the president randomly by the one that grabs the black bean from the jar.
6. At the end of every term, all politicians are killed.
7. Free beer at football games.
Those Jean Claude van Damme movies are illegal? Now that I look that up, Van Damme was only in one of those movies. Also Forest Whitaker was in it. I had no idea.
Quote from: PDH on November 05, 2012, 09:38:59 AM
Having thought about it, here is my list of needed changes:
1. Make blood sports legal.
Obviously your team needs Michael Vick
Quote from: PDH on November 05, 2012, 09:38:59 AM
2. Outlaw any gun smaller than .50 cal.
The Brown Bess is .71 cal.
Quote from: PDH on November 05, 2012, 09:38:59 AM
3. Allow the government to quarter soldiers in private homes.
See the Brown Bess bit
Quote from: PDH on November 05, 2012, 09:38:59 AM
4. Make the voting age 40.
meh... Wyoming must be the Argentina of the North
Quote from: PDH on November 05, 2012, 09:38:59 AM
5. Choose the president randomly by the one that grabs the black bean from the jar.
The Copts already pick their Pope like that. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/04/world/africa/egypt-coptic-pope/index.html
Quote from: PDH on November 05, 2012, 09:38:59 AM
6. At the end of every term, all politicians are killed.
Disagree, Clinton and Carter have been good Ex-Presidents
Quote from: PDH on November 05, 2012, 09:38:59 AM
7. Free beer at football games.
OK, that settles it. I'm up for your program.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2012, 07:55:48 AM
Dump Tuesdays as appointed election days. We are no longer an agrarian nation that requires two days' travel by horse and buggy after church services on Sundays to polling places, so it is no longer necessary.
Since Republicans seem to have such an obvious problem with early voting, either 1) make it a Federal holiday so people can truly participate, or 2) do what the Europeans do and vote on weekends.
We don't have a particular day for elections in the UK, but it's never weekends. We have polling stations open from 7am to 10pm, and they're within walking distance for city and suburban voters, and postal votes are an option everywhere else.
I Straight popular vote for President
II House seats have a term limit of four terms, Senate two terms, Mandatory retirement of Supreme Court Justices at 20 years
III Mandatory Cursus honorum instituted
IV Curb the power of the Tribunes of the People
V Execution of all suspected Marians
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2012, 11:01:07 AM
III Mandatory Cursus honorum instituted
This would be good for Norway as well. The problem here is that half the political class of norway consists of former party youth group leaders who dropped out of uni to go to parliament.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2012, 07:55:48 AM
Dump Tuesdays as appointed election days. We are no longer an agrarian nation that requires two days' travel by horse and buggy after church services on Sundays to polling places, so it is no longer necessary.
Since Republicans seem to have such an obvious problem with early voting, either 1) make it a Federal holiday so people can truly participate, or 2) do what the Europeans do and vote on weekends.
You know there's the other option of Thursdays. :bowler:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2012, 08:26:49 AM
Quote from: dps on November 05, 2012, 08:11:19 AM
While I actually kind of like the idea of election day being a federal holiday, I'm not sure it would accomplish much--most of us who aren't federal workers don't get federal holidays off anyway.
Holding elections on weekends would probably actually depress voting turnout, at least if election day was still in the fall--it would conflict with watching football on TV.
You don't have to be a federal worker to get federal holidays off, plenty of employers honor them, just like plenty of employers honor MLK's birthday even if some don't. Even a few more people able to exercise the day as a holiday would be an improvement.
Besides, making it a holiday or pushing it onto the weekend it would be of immense help to people who have to wind up taking the day off from work anyway, burning up a personal leave day to watch their little shits, since most polling places are schools and are closed on Election Day anyway.
The ability to voting shouldn't mean you should have to take a day off to do it. I know Republicans prefer it that way, but that's fucked up.
Schools closed on election days? Maybe in Commieland, but in the Midwest, your kids go to fucking school on election day.
Yeah they had the voting happening in the gym or a secluded corner of the school while classes were still going on.
Quote from: Scipio on November 05, 2012, 01:44:47 PM
Schools closed on election days? Maybe in Commieland, but in the Midwest, your kids go to fucking school on election day.
Glad to see that extra day pays off with the Creationism syllabus.
guys primaries aren't a Constitutional thing, they're a party thing. If you want to change the basic election system in the way OvB does, you'd have to have an amendment, but the other primary proposals don't implicate the Constitution as far as I can tell.
As for what I'd like: an amendment explicitly protecting the right to privacy, which some states have (including Alaska); getting rid of the electoral college (which has some benefits but is anti-democratic); and allowing for stronger restrictions on money in campaigns (I don't know specifics). I'd also like expanding the House of Representatives (either through Timmy's proposal or something else). Also at this point, given that there are apparently 5 votes on the Supreme Court for a retrograde vision of the commerce clause, it might be necessary to more explicitly state the power of Congress over the national economy.
Most things that I want to change politically are in the policy realm and thus not appropriate in a Constitution in my opinion. Amendments should focus either on structural issues, including elections and the balance between states and the federal government, or individual rights.
edit: other ideas in this thread I like: 20 year terms for the Supreme Court, nonpartisan districting.
You need to return to your roots. The great experiment has failed. Become a Parliamentary democracy.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2012, 02:39:56 PM
You need to return to your roots. The great experiment has failed. Become a Parliamentary democracy.
We have no monarchy to act as a figurehead and Germany's parliamentary republic looks stupid. Going to have to stay a presidential republic.
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2012, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2012, 02:39:56 PM
You need to return to your roots. The great experiment has failed. Become a Parliamentary democracy.
We have no monarchy to act as a figurehead and Germany's parliamentary republic looks stupid. Going to have to stay a presidential republic.
:huh:
Plenty of places have a ceremonial President and a functioning parliamentary democracy. Ireland and Israel come to mind.
Quote from: Barrister on November 05, 2012, 02:46:13 PM
Plenty of places have a ceremonial President and a functioning parliamentary democracy. Ireland and Israel come to mind.
Yes and I have already dubbed them stupid.
Add "To do whatever needs to be done in a 21st century state that the founders didn't think about in the 18th century" to Article 1, Section 8.
Quote from: Viking on November 05, 2012, 10:53:21 AM
Disagree, Clinton and Carter have been good Ex-Presidents
:lol: :bleeding:
Quote from: Barrister on November 05, 2012, 02:46:13 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2012, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2012, 02:39:56 PM
You need to return to your roots. The great experiment has failed. Become a Parliamentary democracy.
We have no monarchy to act as a figurehead and Germany's parliamentary republic looks stupid. Going to have to stay a presidential republic.
:huh:
Plenty of places have a ceremonial President and a functioning parliamentary democracy. Ireland and Israel come to mind.
To be fair our president doesn't really have much of a point. Why not just set up a parliamentary democracy without a ceremonial president. Switzerland seems to do fine without a head of state.
Quote from: Zanza on November 05, 2012, 03:00:08 PM
Add "To do whatever needs to be done in a 21st century state that the founders didn't think about in the 18th century" to Article 1, Section 8.
That sounds dreadfully vague.
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2012, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2012, 02:39:56 PM
You need to return to your roots. The great experiment has failed. Become a Parliamentary democracy.
We have no monarchy to act as a figurehead and Germany's parliamentary republic looks stupid. Going to have to stay a presidential republic.
Look to Finland or Iceland for model Republics. Both have elected Presidents with substantial powers who for the most part choose not to use them acting more like model 19th century enlightened monarchs with the same attitude and powers while having the country run by a parliament interfering from time to time when it is relevant.
I like to think that is the kind of presidency George Washington had allowing Alexander Hamilton to get on with running the country while he opened libraries and hospitals and generally oversaw what was going on.
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2012, 03:05:59 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 05, 2012, 03:00:08 PM
Add "To do whatever needs to be done in a 21st century state that the founders didn't think about in the 18th century" to Article 1, Section 8.
That sounds dreadfully vague.
Well yes, it was meant to be vague. I wanted to express that the enumerated powers might need some update to allow for stuff like "To regulate healthcare" or "To regulate environmental protection". The catch-all clauses of "general welfare" or "interstate commerce" seem to be very vague to me and seem to cause a lot of conflicts about what the federal government may and may not legislate. So it would be good to define which issues really are for the federal government to decide upon and which aren't. That would perhaps go to increase the perceived legitimacy of the federal government too.
Gotcha. Didn't see that in what you said.
Quote from: Barrister on November 05, 2012, 02:46:13 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2012, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2012, 02:39:56 PM
You need to return to your roots. The great experiment has failed. Become a Parliamentary democracy.
We have no monarchy to act as a figurehead and Germany's parliamentary republic looks stupid. Going to have to stay a presidential republic.
:huh:
Plenty of places have a ceremonial President and a functioning parliamentary democracy. Ireland and Israel come to mind.
I'm not sure Israel is the best example. Didn't their President rape someone a few years back?
Quote from: Zanza on November 05, 2012, 03:16:04 PM
Well yes, it was meant to be vague. I wanted to express that the enumerated powers might need some update to allow for stuff like "To regulate healthcare" or "To regulate environmental protection". The catch-all clauses of "general welfare" or "interstate commerce" seem to be very vague to me and seem to cause a lot of conflicts about what the federal government may and may not legislate. So it would be good to define which issues really are for the federal government to decide upon and which aren't. That would perhaps go to increase the perceived legitimacy of the federal government too.
That's a good idea. I'd rather do it with an amendment on each thing. "Congress shall create Medicare", etc.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 05, 2012, 03:26:51 PMThat's a good idea. I'd rather do it with an amendment on each thing. "Congress shall create Medicare", etc.
It should still be a constitution, so only give the general outlines. Saying that Congress has the power to regulate healthcare or social security is okay. Having specific programs in the constitution would in my opinion limit Congress too much in what it can and can not do. And it's not like Congress actually has to use its powers, so even if healthcare was an enumerated power, if there are enough tea party voters, Congress theoretically could just abolish all regulations. If you write "Medicare" into the constitution, you take away that freedom.
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2012, 03:01:41 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 05, 2012, 10:53:21 AM
Disagree, Clinton and Carter have been good Ex-Presidents
:lol: :bleeding:
Now you've got a problem with getting houses built for low income types, too?
Man, you are working straight from the Central Casting script today.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2012, 04:11:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2012, 03:01:41 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 05, 2012, 10:53:21 AM
Disagree, Clinton and Carter have been good Ex-Presidents
:lol: :bleeding:
Now you've got a problem with getting houses built for low income types, too?
Man, you are working straight from the Central Casting script today.
If only he kept his efforts restricted to building homes.
What did Jimmy do again? I don't really recall...I know he says mean things about Israel.
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2012, 04:14:50 PM
What did Jimmy do again? I don't really recall...I know he says mean things about Israel.
He still breathes. Conservatives seem to have a real problem with that.
Quote from: Zanza on November 05, 2012, 03:32:41 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 05, 2012, 03:26:51 PMThat's a good idea. I'd rather do it with an amendment on each thing. "Congress shall create Medicare", etc.
It should still be a constitution, so only give the general outlines. Saying that Congress has the power to regulate healthcare or social security is okay. Having specific programs in the constitution would in my opinion limit Congress too much in what it can and can not do. And it's not like Congress actually has to use its powers, so even if healthcare was an enumerated power, if there are enough tea party voters, Congress theoretically could just abolish all regulations. If you write "Medicare" into the constitution, you take away that freedom.
What if I want to protect Medicare from that theoretical Tea Party Congress?
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2012, 04:14:50 PM
What did Jimmy do again? I don't really recall...I know he says mean things about Israel.
Lots and lots of mean things about Israel. "Apartheid" is one of them.
On the contrary he says nice things about Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. And despite the usual custom of former Presidents not criticizing their successors, Carter went out of his way to criticize Bush 43.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2012, 04:15:50 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2012, 04:14:50 PM
What did Jimmy do again? I don't really recall...I know he says mean things about Israel.
He still breathes. Conservatives seem to have a real problem with that.
Man, Seedy the bailbondsman would not have been impressed by your love for Israel-bashing and Castropologism. You've changed, man.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 05, 2012, 02:46:40 AM
I am not a fan of giant robots.
What exactly do you have against giant robots?
Larger robots can be the more efficient option for robotic tasks that call for greater size and bulk.
I'm very disappointed to find that you of all people harbor such prejudices against robots based soley on their heftiness.
Quote from: Barrister on November 05, 2012, 04:33:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2012, 04:14:50 PM
What did Jimmy do again? I don't really recall...I know he says mean things about Israel.
Lots and lots of mean things about Israel. "Apartheid" is one of them.
Well, we certainly can't have all that.
Much easier just to say that Palestinians have no interest in peace, and how Palestinian culture is the reason for "such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality" next to Israel. :P
QuoteOn the contrary he says nice things about Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. And despite the usual custom of former Presidents not criticizing their successors, Carter went out of his way to criticize Bush 43.
Castro and Chavez are wildly popular elected leaders of their respective countries. Why can't nice things be said about them? :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on November 05, 2012, 04:33:04 PM
And despite the usual custom of former Presidents not criticizing their successors, Carter went out of his way to criticize Bush 43.
I doubt he had to go that far out of his way.
Quote from: Barrister on November 05, 2012, 04:33:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2012, 04:14:50 PM
What did Jimmy do again? I don't really recall...I know he says mean things about Israel.
Lots and lots of mean things about Israel. "Apartheid" is one of them.
On the contrary he says nice things about Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. And despite the usual custom of former Presidents not criticizing their successors, Carter went out of his way to criticize Bush 43.
I have no problem with former Presidents ripping their successors...but the Chavez and Castro thing is pretty nutty.
This isn't a constitutional thing, since I don't want to gift them with a permanent seat or anything.
But I wish that Presidents who remained healthy after their term would follow that example of John Q. Adams and entered the House or the Senate.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 05, 2012, 05:23:06 PM
This isn't a constitutional thing, since I don't want to gift them with a permanent seat or anything.
But I wish that Presidents who remained healthy after their term would follow that example of John Q. Adams and entered the House or the Senate.
Why would they want to do that? By the time they're done, they're completely spent.
Quote from: Neil on November 05, 2012, 04:35:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2012, 04:15:50 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2012, 04:14:50 PM
What did Jimmy do again? I don't really recall...I know he says mean things about Israel.
He still breathes. Conservatives seem to have a real problem with that.
Man, Seedy the bailbondsman would not have been impressed by your love for Israel-bashing and Castropologism. You've changed, man.
Indeed.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 05, 2012, 06:27:07 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 05, 2012, 06:23:48 AM
Amendment 4 - House districts must equal the population of the smallest state.
So (Wyoming) 568,158/311,591,917 = 548 seats
You realize that still leaves the other states with under a million either over or underrepresented, quite possibly even moreso than now.
We should go back to the Constitutional minimum, and have 10,000+ Representatives.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 05, 2012, 04:29:59 PM
What if I want to protect Medicare from that theoretical Tea Party Congress?
Apart from some basic concepts like rule of law, democracy or republicanism, a constitution should not limit policy making. It should just make sure you need a wide consensus to change it. But something as specific as a health insurance program should not be protected.
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2012, 05:29:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 05, 2012, 04:35:41 PM
Man, Seedy the bailbondsman would not have been impressed by your love for Israel-bashing and Castropologism. You've changed, man.
Indeed.
Meh, fuck you guys. Like I still need to be yelled at by old Jews for not bailing out enough black people.
Seeds, don't take it personally. I'm just being me. :P
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2012, 05:50:26 PM
Seeds, don't take it personally. I'm just being me. :P
Yes, and you're being particularly cuntacular today, I might add.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 05, 2012, 05:40:05 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 05, 2012, 06:27:07 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 05, 2012, 06:23:48 AM
Amendment 4 - House districts must equal the population of the smallest state.
So (Wyoming) 568,158/311,591,917 = 548 seats
You realize that still leaves the other states with under a million either over or underrepresented, quite possibly even moreso than now.
We should go back to the Constitutional minimum, and have 10,000+ Representatives.
so every time you go to war there you have available to you 10,000 irregular untrained light infantry who just voted for the war?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2012, 05:51:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2012, 05:50:26 PM
Seeds, don't take it personally. I'm just being me. :P
Yes, and you're being particularly cuntacular today, I might add.
Whereas I'd say you've been rather sensitive but I'll call it a draw. I'm off to do other things.
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2012, 05:12:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 05, 2012, 04:33:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2012, 04:14:50 PM
What did Jimmy do again? I don't really recall...I know he says mean things about Israel.
Lots and lots of mean things about Israel. "Apartheid" is one of them.
On the contrary he says nice things about Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. And despite the usual custom of former Presidents not criticizing their successors, Carter went out of his way to criticize Bush 43.
I have no problem with former Presidents ripping their successors...but the Chavez and Castro thing is pretty nutty.
Like what? I know he's a favourite lynchpin for the American right, but I'm not really aware of what he's done or said to merit that scorn.
Quote from: Count on November 05, 2012, 02:30:39 PM
guys primaries aren't a Constitutional thing, they're a party thing. If you want to change the basic election system in the way OvB does, you'd have to have an amendment, but the other primary proposals don't implicate the Constitution as far as I can tell.
As for what I'd like: an amendment explicitly protecting the right to privacy, which some states have (including Alaska); getting rid of the electoral college (which has some benefits but is anti-democratic); and allowing for stronger restrictions on money in campaigns (I don't know specifics). I'd also like expanding the House of Representatives (either through Timmy's proposal or something else). Also at this point, given that there are apparently 5 votes on the Supreme Court for a retrograde vision of the commerce clause, it might be necessary to more explicitly state the power of Congress over the national economy.
Most things that I want to change politically are in the policy realm and thus not appropriate in a Constitution in my opinion. Amendments should focus either on structural issues, including elections and the balance between states and the federal government, or individual rights.
edit: other ideas in this thread I like: 20 year terms for the Supreme Court, nonpartisan districting.
Well, you're half-right kinda sorta on the primary thing. My point which wasn't fully fleshed out is I want more Federally oriented and controlled elections for Federal offices. Standardized voting times, standardized ballot format and processing etc. I also want to rid us of the primary system because I think it exaggerates the importance of certain regions of the country and forces certain viewpoints out of the public consciousness, it favors the status quo in the big parties and allows them to easily squelch out any voices from the two big parties that aren't 100% in line with the most partisan part of their voters.
With my proposal you'd have five people on a national ballot, guaranteed presence in debates, massive amounts of funding etc. I think it'd really shake things up significantly. That being said, you're correct that process-wise much or all of it could possibly be done through legislation. Even my financing stuff probably wouldn't run afoul of
Citizens United, because it mostly just massively penalizes campaigns that go over the cap and penalizes large PACs through basically a type of redistributive "luxury tax" similar to what you have in major league baseball. The parties could both agree to the primary stuff.
But where you're half wrong is in some states the primary system is actually enshrined in law, it's not something the party bosses can change via fiat. Additionally, outside of that the practical reality is reforms like that, if they were to work, would require the force of a constitutional amendment to ever get implemented. Which of course brings us to the reality that virtually no process reforms will ever happen because we just don't amend our constitution in this country.
I harped on at length about Presidential elections because it required the most detail, but I think the most important point I made was giving the Vice President the power to nuke the Senate's super-majority bullshit. A upper house that basically mandates (because of partisan intransigence) supermajority control to get legislation passed is one of the great blights on our current system.
The other great blight, to my mind, is unlike in Westminster style systems we have no way to resolve intractable disputes between legislative and executive. If Cameron or Harper lose the ability to pass any legislation they can just hold a new election, Obama and Boehner just get to scream at each other while their terms tick away.
I actually like the electoral college and wouldn't necessarily want to see it thrown out. I have my reasons which I've argued before, but basically I think it is generally good for a government to have to bow to some level to regional and state interests as it helps to keep regions of the country feeling like they have no voice (which leads to nations breaking down over time.) I also like the principle of not giving the executive a direct election.
We'd actually be in fairly limited company among OECD nations with a directly elected Head of Government. I think France might be the only country that comes to mind that has such a system.
One of the nice features of the Westminster style systems is if you become Head of Government then by its very nature you have a legislative majority or coalition that can get things done.
A simpler reform that I think could at least mirror that to a degree would be to slightly alter how we do the electoral college. In addition to normalize House seats as me and Tim talked about, what could really help things in general is if every State did its electoral votes like Maine (and Nebraska.) For those unaware Maine and Nebraska do it like this, basically they give two electoral votes to the statewide winner (essentially representing the two electoral votes every state gets which basically equates to the two Senator system in the Senate.) After that, each of their congressional districts is also an electoral vote district. Whoever wins the district, gets the vote. Now, Maine and Nebraska are small states with a small number of congressional districts in each, and the winner of the statewide total has always swept all of the districts of both states so they have never apportioned their votes separately.
But in big states like California and Texas, there are a huge number of votes in play. California has 19 Republican House members who ostensibly represent pretty solidly Republican districts. That would be almost as many electoral votes as the entire state of Ohio or Pennsylvania. Texas has 9 Democrat House members who would likewise probably be worth campaigning in their district.
Such a system would preserve some of what I like about the electoral college while cutting back on most of the areas where people complain. Additionally, while it doesn't exactly map one to one with the general election in the House, doing it this way would make it much more likely that whoever won the Presidency would also win the House of Representatives, because a big part of winning the Presidency would be related to how many Congressional Districts you won (basically 436 of the votes in play.)
Quote from: PDH on November 05, 2012, 09:38:59 AM
Having thought about it, here is my list of needed changes:
1. Make blood sports legal.
2. Outlaw any gun smaller than .50 cal.
3. Allow the government to quarter soldiers in private homes.
4. Make the voting age 40.
5. Choose the president randomly by the one that grabs the black bean from the jar.
6. At the end of every term, all politicians are killed.
7. Free beer at football games.
1. Make Ed Anger Dictator for life
End
Quote from: Count on November 05, 2012, 02:30:39 PMIf you want to change the basic election system in the way OvB does, you'd have to have an amendment
See the thread title.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 05, 2012, 06:21:39 PM
My point which wasn't fully fleshed out is I want more Federally oriented and controlled elections for Federal offices. Standardized voting times, standardized ballot format and processing etc.
Concur. It would alleviate a shitload of problems.
Quote from: dps on November 05, 2012, 07:12:03 PM
Quote from: Count on November 05, 2012, 02:30:39 PMIf you want to change the basic election system in the way OvB does, you'd have to have an amendment
See the thread title.
Exactly. My point was that some of the proposals don't require a constitutional amendment (see thread title) in contrast to Otto's, which does
edit: actually i'm not sure Otto's plan requires an amendment either, although he makes good arguments for why it might be practically necessary to amend the Constitution
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2012, 07:55:09 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 05, 2012, 06:21:39 PM
My point which wasn't fully fleshed out is I want more Federally oriented and controlled elections for Federal offices. Standardized voting times, standardized ballot format and processing etc.
Concur. It would alleviate a shitload of problems.
That is one thing I always found particularly ludicrous with the way elections are held in the US: no standards, no unified regulations. I don't see that such would deprive the member States from getting their distinct voices heard.
Anyhow as for the question:
- universal suffrage for the presidency - at a fixed date like now - but for 5 years ( 4 years of work and 1 year of whoring);
- proportional suffrage for the House - to allow for smaller parties;
- no popular election for the Senate - rather an election/nomination from each state's legislature since the Senate's purpose is to represent States' interests;
- 5 year terms for members of both House and Senate - renewable once - like the presidency;
- as others have said an increase of the constitutional powers of the VP - sort of like a 'junior consul' - perhaps as titular House Speaker - which he/she would abandon if the POTUS croaks and he/she has to take over;
- let the member States' legislatures nominate 3-5 jurists each and form into a permanent judicial college that choose 9 from their ranks to sit on the bench of the Supreme Court and fill out any vacancy - for a maximum of 10 years - non renewable. No more direct input from either Congress or the Presidency (always found this to be a loophole in an otherwise pretty tight check and balance mechanism between the 'Powers');
- public financing of the elections based on total % of the popular vote - to alleviate the reach of the 'money bags'
-----
Of course, like I said above, a uniformed regulation about everything pertaining to federal elections (presidency, House seats). Fifty different ballots, accounting methods, etc is too large a door open for fraud.
Oh and get rid of whichever amendment allows private citizens to own an armory in their basement. This is no longer the XVIIIth century and the time of citizen farmers defending 'liberty' against tyranny. You wanna play with guns? Enroll in your local militia, the police corps, the State National Guard or the Federal Army. Otherwise - no guns for private citizens.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on November 05, 2012, 08:46:38 PM
That is one thing I always found particularly ludicrous with the way elections are held in the US: no standards, no unified regulations. I don't see that such would deprive the member States from getting their distinct voices heard.
It's incredibly ludicrous. The vote is constitutionally ensured by the Federal government, it should be enforced by the Federal government; at the very least for Federal elections.
A whole lot of civil rights pioneers in the 50s and 60s would've given their eye teeth to have elections administered by the Feds, including government-issued Voter ID cards, instead of having to count the number of jelly beans in a jar as a poll tax by the local Klan member running the local election board--that is, the eye teeth the Alabama State Police hadn't already knocked out.
But weren't you telling me that voter ID laws are worse than the Klan, slavery and the Holocaust all rolled into one?
Quote from: Neil on November 05, 2012, 09:16:43 PM
But weren't you telling me that voter ID laws are worse than the Klan, slavery and the Holocaust all rolled into one?
The way the states were compelling them for no particular reason, other than to simply affect this particular election? Yes. But a Federal Voter ID? Works for me.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 05, 2012, 06:44:19 PM
what could really help things in general is if every State did its electoral votes like Maine (and Nebraska.) For those unaware Maine and Nebraska do it like this, basically they give two electoral votes to the statewide winner (essentially representing the two electoral votes every state gets which basically equates to the two Senator system in the Senate.) After that, each of their congressional districts is also an electoral vote district. Whoever wins the district, gets the vote. Now, Maine and Nebraska are small states with a small number of congressional districts in each, and the winner of the statewide total has always swept all of the districts of both states so they have never apportioned their votes separately.
I believe that Nebraska had a house district go for Barak last election.
Indeed. Controversially one of the Maine Electoral College went for Olmert.
I like the Electoral College. I'd have term-limits for Supreme Court judges because I think the current system's a bit shoddy and undignified. I don't know if this is constitutional, but I'd require special elections for Senators - Governor's appointing them makes sense when they were chosen by the legislature, not now.
Here's a pretty interesting experiment in democracy.
You'd have to increase the threshold necessary to a million here though.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/11/05/open_ministry_finland_s_open_source_project_to_let_citizens_propose_laws.html
Quote
In Crazy Open-Source Project, Finnish Citizens Propose Laws for Parliament To Consider
By Fruzsina Eördögh
Posted Monday, Nov. 5, 2012, at 6:08 PM ET
Advance votes in the Finnish presidential elections are counted in Helsinki
Photo by SARI GUSTAFSSON/AFP/Getty Images
As the U.S. Election Day draws terrifyingly near, many Americans are frustrated as ever that their voice isn't heard in the legislative process. But maybe Finland has a solution to that problem.
Through the open-source web platform Open Ministry, launched in March by a group of nonprofit entrepreneurs, citizens of Finland can propose legislation and throw their support behind laws of interest. Any legislation that receives 50,000 shares will be voted on by Parliament.
Each suggested law gets six months to gather traction. Whether the majority is in favor or not doesn't matter, as anything with 50,000 total shares (likes or dislikes) moves on to the next, official round of voting. Two weeks ago, a proposal to ban the practice of farming animals for the fur trade became the first Open Ministry idea to pass the threshold for Parliament consideration. Out of the roughly 340 pitches currently on the site, the fur-trade idea is far and away the most popular, having collected more than 56,000 shares with the majority in favor of the ban. But it seems the Finnish are not eager to overly burden their legislators with lots of new laws to consider: The next most popular proposal is a ban on selling energy drinks to children under the age of 16, with 3,486 Finns almost evenly divided on the ban. (Perhaps the legislation proposer saw some clips of Honey Boo Boo and her Go Go Juice?)
Open Ministry confirms citizens' identities through their bank or mobile API's, so spamming or hacking the system is incredibly difficult. The online version of Open Ministry didn't go up for months, in fact, until it was deemed hacker-proof.
Finnish sensibilities aside, could crowd-sourcing legislation work elsewhere? The code for Open Ministry is already on GitHub (a project-hosting site at the forefront of the open-source movement), and Open Ministry founder Joonas Pekkanen told Gigaom in an interview in September, "We encourage anyone to ... contribute and use it in other countries." But it would have to scale up—way up. Finland has roughly 5 million residents, while the United States has 311.5 million, according to the latest census.
And while Open Ministry may be spam- and hacker-proof, there are no signs that it is prankster-proof. Maybe the residents of Finland don't seem the type to vote on bogus legislation, but the same can't be said for citizens of the United States. In July of this year, two writers from the satire Internet site Something Awful got more than 62,000 people to like a Facebook page in order to "exile" rapper Pitbull to Alaska, effectively hijacking a Wal-Mart social media campaign.
Within hours of launching Open Ministry in the United States, there would surely be dozens of proposals for legalizing marijuana—just as talk about weed has taken over online White House chats.
Quote from: Grallon on November 05, 2012, 08:46:38 PM
Anyhow as for the question:
- universal suffrage for the presidency - at a fixed date like now - but for 5 years ( 4 years of work and 1 year of whoring);
- proportional suffrage for the House - to allow for smaller parties;
- no popular election for the Senate - rather an election/nomination from each state's legislature since the Senate's purpose is to represent States' interests;
- 5 year terms for members of both House and Senate - renewable once - like the presidency;
- as others have said an increase of the constitutional powers of the VP - sort of like a 'junior consul' - perhaps as titular House Speaker - which he/she would abandon if the POTUS croaks and he/she has to take over;
- let the member States' legislatures nominate 3-5 jurists each and form into a permanent judicial college that choose 9 from their ranks to sit on the bench of the Supreme Court and fill out any vacancy - for a maximum of 10 years - non renewable. No more direct input from either Congress or the Presidency (always found this to be a loophole in an otherwise pretty tight check and balance mechanism between the 'Powers');
- public financing of the elections based on total % of the popular vote - to alleviate the reach of the 'money bags'
:hmm: Something is wrong here. I agree with Grallon on most of this.
Regarding making the VP more powerful. The VP gets as much power as the president lets him have. Powerful VPs like Cheney and Gore have been men who were in step with the president on the major issues before being picked. VPs picked to satisfy a constituency never do have any power. Honestly, the VP really doesn't have any power, even the tiebreaker he has in the senate has never been used against the president, so it really is a presidential power.
Quote from: Viking on November 06, 2012, 05:37:33 AM
Regarding making the VP more powerful. The VP gets as much power as the president lets him have. Powerful VPs like Cheney and Gore have been men who were in step with the president on the major issues before being picked. VPs picked to satisfy a constituency never do have any power. Honestly, the VP really doesn't have any power, even the tiebreaker he has in the senate has never been used against the president, so it really is a presidential power.
Well yeah, that is how it is. However if we amend the constitution to give him more power, that'll change.