Electioneering

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Statistikhengst, Jan 8, 2014.

  1. Statistikhengst
    Offline

    Statistikhengst תיקון עולם, this will never end Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    46,264
    Thanks Received:
    11,315
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    deep within the statistical brain!!
    Ratings:
    +23,651
    That's what she always said to me. I never believe it.

    Oh, sorry. You are talking about elections. I was thinking of my girlfriends and their shopping jaunts.
     
  2. Tresha91203
    Offline

    Tresha91203 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2012
    Messages:
    2,075
    Thanks Received:
    745
    Trophy Points:
    1,030
    Location:
    South Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +1,780
    I had the same thought about the Senators. I am still chewing on this and afraid it may be over my head but did not feel the Senators were really addressed. The idea is each state get an equal number despite their population. The Founders viewed the States themselves as important. They wanted Louisiana equal to California in the Senate despite population, despite the size of the state, precisely to protect Louisiana from California. Your solution (if i understood correctly) gives California more power over Louisiana, which I think is opposite of their intent.

    [/B]
     
  3. Tresha91203
    Offline

    Tresha91203 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2012
    Messages:
    2,075
    Thanks Received:
    745
    Trophy Points:
    1,030
    Location:
    South Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +1,780
    Sorry, but I am on a tablet so can't quote your last post to respond to without quoting way too much. Regarding one R and one D Senator in each state: I am uncomfortable with forever locking the US into this 2 party system. I feel it is part of the problem.
     
  4. Tresha91203
    Offline

    Tresha91203 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2012
    Messages:
    2,075
    Thanks Received:
    745
    Trophy Points:
    1,030
    Location:
    South Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +1,780
    [/B]QUOTE=Derideo_Te;8430419]
    :thup:

    Works for me! Similar to giving voters a line item vote on Budget Bills. That way the popularity of each item will be readily apparent to our representatives.[/QUOTE]

    There are some things we don't know and can't know. No move is made in isolation. I suspect there are reasons BSO continued some of GWB's policies he disagrees with, and not all of them are nefarious. When I am presented with a more complete picture of something, my opinion is changed or refined. I trust that our Presidents are similar. The idea is to elect someone who would do it like you would if you had all the facts, and then trust (but verify when able) him to do it.

    Also, this castrates him in global politics.
     
  5. Tresha91203
    Offline

    Tresha91203 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2012
    Messages:
    2,075
    Thanks Received:
    745
    Trophy Points:
    1,030
    Location:
    South Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +1,780
    I've loved this thread. Just a couple more thoughts:

    No to messing with the supreme court except possibly that idea that no President can appoint more than 1. I think I like that idea but haven't mulled it over long enough. the SC is our last line of defense against the politician. He is appointed by our highest elected official and will never have to defend his position (unless abused). The 3 powers are seperate. It seems you are wanting to meld a lot together that was specifically designed to be separate, and with very good reason.

    Also, there seems to be an assumed move towards Federal microrule. Not everyone wants to be a Californian. There is no need for New York to have undue influnce on Cleetus in Back Vacherie. We are far too big of a Country for the kind of homogeneity you are seeking. It is not necessary and not everyone wants it. What is wrong with allowing Utah to be Utah? We are all free to leave Utah for California to find our bliss if we choose. Cleetus is NOT going to be happy in San Francisco. He's not hurting anyone and he's perfectly happy where he is. Why the compulsion to mess with him?

    The people speak through the House. The majority decides what needs to get done and starts it rolling. Then, you move to the Senate where the States get to look at it and decide whether then agree or if there is some hidden/unintended consequence that needs to be resolved or scrapped totally. Your proposal eliminates this safeguard completely. There is a reason the people don't get to rule without checks. Mob rule is pure emotion. The SC is the final protection. If we get screwed by the politicians, they are outside that influence. They are not defending their seat and they wont get fired. Their job is to stand up to both the politicians AND THE MOB without fear of reprecussion. I get the vibe you want the mob to be able to punish (therefor influence) the court. I feel this is bad.

    Change is supposed to be slow. We were designed that way on purpose for a reason and it has worked well. This speeds up everything and may be reckless.
     
  6. Statistikhengst
    Offline

    Statistikhengst תיקון עולם, this will never end Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    46,264
    Thanks Received:
    11,315
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    deep within the statistical brain!!
    Ratings:
    +23,651
    *bumped* for a number of members who are debating what just happened in the Mississippi runoff election on June 24th, 2014, between GOP incumbent Cochran and Tea-Party challenger McDaniel.

    Now could be a good time to re-read the OP to this thread, which is spread over a number of postings at the beginning.
     
  7. Derideo_Te
    Offline

    Derideo_Te Je Suis Charlie

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2013
    Messages:
    20,464
    Thanks Received:
    7,286
    Trophy Points:
    360
    Ratings:
    +12,088
    Electing SC justices introduces politics in the same manner that appointing/approving them does. Prospective justices would make rulings that would favor whichever political segment they believed would get them the most votes. Worst of all would be the corporations funding the campaigns of prospective justices so that makes direct elections a disaster in my opinion.

    That said there must be a better way to ensure that SCOTUS justices are nonpartisan. Sounds impossible because they are human but there actually are some out there who can put their partisanship aside and decide purely on the merits.

    In my opinion the "litmus test" for any SC appointee is their track record on decisions that favor We the People over and above all other competing interests. Any prospective appointee with a track record of deciding in favor of corporations over We the People should be automatically disqualified.

    When it comes to disputes between factions amongst We the People there will be divide between conservative and liberal viewpoints. That is where I propose a quota of 3 conservative, 3 liberal and 3 independent based upon voting records of all prior decisions relating to involving We the People. If a justice retires from that segment then the next one in line for that segment becomes the appointee.

    So that leads into how I see the system working. No elections but instead an independent ranking organization comprised primarily of Law School Deans with the same 3 way quota. They would rank the best suited judges to become the next SC justice within their segment and when a position opened up whomever was at the top of that list would become the next appointee in order to maintain balance within the SC. The Senate would still vote to confirm the appointment.

    There would be another little wrinkle here. If the Law School Deans believed that an appointed SC justice was no longer voting consistently in accordance within the principles of the segment to which they were appointed and/or voting against the interests of We the People the Law School Deans could nominate a replacement judge for the SC justice. If the Senate confirmed the replacement then that SC justice would be ousted by their replacement.

    Yes, there is still room for corruption and collusion but the political element is far less pervasive and there is now a defined segment in the middle that must be swayed by the merits of the case to one side or the other and that makes it more likely that bad law like Citizens United will never make it through and good laws that uphold the rights of We the People will not be overturned in favor of special corporate interests in my opinion.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Statistikhengst
    Offline

    Statistikhengst תיקון עולם, this will never end Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    46,264
    Thanks Received:
    11,315
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    deep within the statistical brain!!
    Ratings:
    +23,651
    *bump* for the sake of discussion, especially considering the McDaniel lawsuit in Mississippi.
     
  9. Jroc
    Offline

    Jroc יעקב כהן Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    19,280
    Thanks Received:
    6,291
    Trophy Points:
    390
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +11,681
  10. Statistikhengst
    Offline

    Statistikhengst תיקון עולם, this will never end Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    46,264
    Thanks Received:
    11,315
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    deep within the statistical brain!!
    Ratings:
    +23,651

Share This Page

Search tags for this page
electioneering in colleges will help democracy
,

gd on electioneering in collages will help in democracy

,

Gd topic electioneering in colleges will help democracy