How to fix it.

[candycorn]

How to fix it:

As many, if not most, of you know I am a big proponent of further perfecting the Constitution. It was written by men so, therefore, it is imperfect. Furthermore, it was written during a period in our nation’s history when the threads that were weaving the American fabric were not yet tested for strength; much less how they would fit together to form the parent cloth. It is even true that the framers of the Constitution recognized that their first gambit in the birth of the American nation was not working a mere eleven years into the experiment. The Articles of Confederation were judged to be unsuitable by the cadre of leaders so they sought to forge a new document that would correct the mistakes of the past. Why is it then that we, 225 years later, are too timid to make such an observation? Certainly the eleven year span between 1776 to 1787 witnessed miniscule changes when compared to the massive transformations our country has seen in the last 225. So why not seek to further perfect the document from our advantageous position that comes along with being a witness to history; from learning from one’s mistakes and making the simple realization that the men of those first formative years of the American experiment could not possibly have forecasted the metamorphosis that has transpired over the last two and a quarter centuries?

At the top of the list is the admission that politics is a prevalent force in our nation’s governance. Once political considerations are put on the table and are addressed, the methodologies of mitigating what Washington called the “baneful effects of party” can be addressed. Put another way, the first step in solving a problem is to admit that there is one. We have a problem; its name is politics and it will not go away.

What steps do we take to mitigate the effects of politics? The Constitution gives us a great system of checks and balances where one branch of the government can check the intentions and actions of another branch. It is genius. The rivalries that are born out of the document are, perhaps, the greatest thing about the Constitution. The founding fathers—through the adoption of the document—clearly did not want Congress to trust the President or the Courts to trust the rule of Congress or that the President to be totally restrained in effecting either—thus giving the Chief Executive the veto power and the power to appoint judges. Yes; the founder put in place a system of checks and balances. But while they wanted distrust; they didn’t want—from all indications of the Constitution—is the disrespect between the bodies and, in the case of Congress, within the bodies themselves. The Constitution needs to be further perfected to ensure that one house of Congress should be required to hear the full work of the other house in a timely fashion; a straight up or down vote on the work submitted by the other house. Currently, the party leadership makes the determination of what bills are considered and the result has been unparalleled gridlock and the people’s business languishes as a result. A straight up or down vote may merely result in more bills being voted down than ever before. This is fine. That is what representatives do in a republic such as ours. However, when doing the peoples’ business, the record of the representative’s votes will be more detailed and there will be no more hiding behind party leadership to shield a member of the body from having to take a stand. A vote of “present” should be done away with. The member is elected to serve the people of his or her state or district. Surely it isn’t too much to ask that they read the bill and make an informed decision as to whether or not they support the bill. Where the matter isn’t brought up by the other chamber of the Congress, the Congress should be forced to hold floor votes to conduct the nations’ business. When the President nominates federal judges, the Congress should have to consider those appointments in a timely fashion. It is a sign of disrespect to the jurists and to the people that nominations languish for months while the Senate refuses to hold nomination hearings.

What is of equal disrespect to the nations’ citizenry is that Congress quite often is in session for less than one half of the calendar year. While this isn’t always the blight that it can be made out to be—members should be home in their communities as often as possible—most Americans are given ten federal holidays from work where businesses are closed. There are generally 104 weekend days in a year so 114 days out of 365 are non-session days. Comparatively few Americans work on weekends and while Congressional representation is a privilege that should only be bestowed on the best qualified; we shouldn’t expect the members to not have a life outside of their service to us. So 114 days are off the books without consideration. However, of the remaining 251 days in the year, Congress should be required to be in session no less than 167 of those days or 2/3 of the time. Another quarter of the remaining time—21 days—should be devoted to time spent in the community working to uncover the issues in their states and districts; holding hearings in the local chambers of commerce, meeting with community groups, etc… Members of the Senate may use the 21 days to visit foreign embassies, meet with other world leaders or do work that is otherwise in accordance with their more generalized office if they wish. The point is that for most of the time; 300-302 days, Congress should be doing the job they were elected to do; be it in Washington or in their communities.

State’s rights are not spelled out by the Constitution except to say that rights not defined should be given to the states. What is “defined” or not has put many people through law school in this nation. The States have been, at times, poor stewards of their responsibilities. Never more so has this been true when drawing Congressional boundaries or Gerrymandering as it is called. The word processor on which I am typing this recognized the word “gerrymandering” so it is a thing that has become part of our lexicon. For those who do not know, the word comes from the root “gerrymander” which was a mythical creature. Someone once used the term to describe the shape of a congressional district that was drawn to either favor one group or injure another. The Constitution needs to be further perfected to stop this practice. It’s hard to imagine a system that is less respectful to the nation as a whole than to have these districts drawn to ensure a seat in the House of Representatives remains in the hands of one party or the other. District lines should be abolished all together. In their place, a non-contiguous grouping of persons by population needs to be implemented. I recommend it be done by zip codes via a lottery system. Call the more populous zip codes category A, moderately populated, category B, rural as category C. Then you take all of the A’s, B’s, and C’s and assign a district numbers via a lottery system as to where each district has roughly the same number of people. Then assign a legislator to a district every 10 years based on the census. He or she may have a district that has both Miami and Jacksonville neighborhoods but what we have now isn’t equitable and is seemingly totally at the whim of whichever party happens to hold the pen that draws congressional boundaries.
“Safe” seats will be a thing of the past in most cases. And seats that have historically belonged to one ethnicity or another will vanish over time as well. If this can be combined with campaign finance reform; there will be significant process into amplifying the voices of the voters over those of special interest.

Constitutional perfections need to be added to the Court system as well. I do not feel that 30 year terms for Supreme Court Justices is out of the question.

I would urge the Constitution to be further perfected to abolish Presidential pardons and bestow that power to the Supreme Court so that legal experts can consider the cases that are truly in need of review without the election cycle being a consideration. In an election year, those who are being considered for a pardon are often at the whim of the Electoral College since a President who gets a second term is more conscious of political fallout than one that doesn’t have a second term coming their way. These extraordinary circumstances that are by definition matters of law should be decided by the high court. A simple 5-4 majority would be needed to overturn part of a conviction or commute a sentence.

Where the Constitution is currently silent, voice needs to be added. Where the Constitution speaks, silence should be advised in some cases. In the last seventy years, Presidents have moved troops in and out of harm’s way totally without Constitutional authority outside of the stipulation that he is Commander in Chief. Congress shall have the power to declare war. It says so in the Constitution. The document needs to be perfected to mean just that; we don’t move troops into harm’s way without Congressional approval. This can be done with proxies given to party leaders as to expedite the decision or if the members do not wish to give proxies, they have to be notified for a vote on whether or not to commit troops. Wars fought for convenience or with murky goals in mind should be abolished all together.

There are endless avenues to travel down to further perfect the document. I think it should be regularly perfected. I wouldn’t be comfortable with anything more often than seventy years or so with the understanding that the amendment process will still be available in the meantime. We do not know what the founders didn’t write in the document. We can speculate on their intent but the document we have is ill-suited to the 22nd century realities.

 

[Amelia]

Bump. Still reading and digesting.

Quick note: Gerrymandering was named for Elbridge Gerry -- Gerry + Salamander.

Hope that doesn't seem like a hit and run correction. I'm really thinking about your post. ( :

 

[flacaltenn]

How to fix it:

As many, if not most, of you know I am a big proponent of further perfecting the Constitution. It was written by men so, therefore, it is imperfect. Furthermore, it was written during a period in our nation’s history when the threads that were weaving the American fabric were not yet tested for strength; much less how they would fit together to form the parent cloth. It is even true that the framers of the Constitution recognized that their first gambit in the birth of the American nation was not working a mere eleven years into the experiment. The Articles of Confederation were judged to be unsuitable by the cadre of leaders so they sought to forge a new document that would correct the mistakes of the past. Why is it then that we, 225 years later, are too timid to make such an observation? Certainly the eleven year span between 1776 to 1787 witnessed miniscule changes when compared to the massive transformations our country has seen in the last 225. So why not seek to further perfect the document from our advantageous position that comes along with being a witness to history; from learning from one’s mistakes and making the simple realization that the men of those first formative years of the American experiment could not possibly have forecasted the metamorphosis that has transpired over the last two and a quarter centuries?

The Articles was a completely TOOTHLESS document not even giving the Fed GOVT the ability to enforce a law or edict. More of an "arbitration committee" than a national governing body. So that was a matter of scope and convienience. To establish a Federal Govt (which was clearly the goal) you needed more.

At the top of the list is the admission that politics is a prevalent force in our nation’s governance. Once political considerations are put on the table and are addressed, the methodologies of mitigating what Washington called the “baneful effects of party” can be addressed. Put another way, the first step in solving a problem is to admit that there is one. We have a problem; its name is politics and it will not go away.

What steps do we take to mitigate the effects of politics? The Constitution gives us a great system of checks and balances where one branch of the government can check the intentions and actions of another branch. It is genius. The rivalries that are born out of the document are, perhaps, the greatest thing about the Constitution. The founding fathers—through the adoption of the document—clearly did not want Congress to trust the President or the Courts to trust the rule of Congress or that the President to be totally restrained in effecting either—thus giving the Chief Executive the veto power and the power to appoint judges. Yes; the founder put in place a system of checks and balances. But while they wanted distrust; they didn’t want—from all indications of the Constitution—is the disrespect between the bodies and, in the case of Congress, within the bodies themselves. The Constitution needs to be further perfected to ensure that one house of Congress should be required to hear the full work of the other house in a timely fashion; a straight up or down vote on the work submitted by the other house. Currently, the party leadership makes the determination of what bills are considered and the result has been unparalleled gridlock and the people’s business languishes as a result.

That's a GOOD thing in many cases. The Constitution is mum on what leadership or internal rules are required. They have silly juvenile rules and customs that are NOT endorsed by the Constitution. Leave the Constitution out of it -- create better PARTIES.. Now there's a concept.

A straight up or down vote may merely result in more bills being voted down than ever before. This is fine. That is what representatives do in a republic such as ours. However, when doing the peoples’ business, the record of the representative’s votes will be more detailed and there will be no more hiding behind party leadership to shield a member of the body from having to take a stand. A vote of “present” should be done away with. The member is elected to serve the people of his or her state or district. Surely it isn’t too much to ask that they read the bill and make an informed decision as to whether or not they support the bill. Where the matter isn’t brought up by the other chamber of the Congress, the Congress should be forced to hold floor votes to conduct the nations’ business. When the President nominates federal judges, the Congress should have to consider those appointments in a timely fashion. It is a sign of disrespect to the jurists and to the people that nominations languish for months while the Senate refuses to hold nomination hearings.

If you did that a politician couldn't go home and tell one constituentcy that he voted for the bill and other that he voted against it !! There are certain types of bills and votes that are particular to each house per the Constitution. Otherwise there is no requirement that each house can't address the issue on their own. This gives a politician multiple shots at posturing their position anyway. READING the bills could be important eh? And again the leadership decides how much time and staff is available to perform dilligient research. The REAL PROBLEM IS -- Congress tackles TOO MANY ISSUES too DEEPLY to be efficient at ANYTHING. And lately ALL the bills they write are BLANK CHECKS for the bureaucracy to fill in and ACTUALLY MAKE THE law as they go. THAT is totally unacceptable -- but again the solution is 3rd parties, different parties, more responsible and ethical parties. NOT changes in the scope and rules of the Congress thru the Constitution.

The problem of determining where a candidate STOOD or VOTED on a bill belongs to YOU and the Press. The press isn't doing its job because the public is numbed by the sheer scope of what Congress has bitten off and doesn't want to do its duty and the press would rather cover the Kardashians and BBQing tips..


What is of equal disrespect to the nations’ citizenry is that Congress quite often is in session for less than one half of the calendar year. While this isn’t always the blight that it can be made out to be—members should be home in their communities as often as possible—most Americans are given ten federal holidays from work where businesses are closed. There are generally 104 weekend days in a year so 114 days out of 365 are non-session days. Comparatively few Americans work on weekends and while Congressional representation is a privilege that should only be bestowed on the best qualified; we shouldn’t expect the members to not have a life outside of their service to us. So 114 days are off the books without consideration. However, of the remaining 251 days in the year, Congress should be required to be in session no less than 167 of those days or 2/3 of the time. Another quarter of the remaining time—21 days—should be devoted to time spent in the community working to uncover the issues in their states and districts; holding hearings in the local chambers of commerce, meeting with community groups, etc… Members of the Senate may use the 21 days to visit foreign embassies, meet with other world leaders or do work that is otherwise in accordance with their more generalized office if they wish. The point is that for most of the time; 300-302 days, Congress should be doing the job they were elected to do; be it in Washington or in their communities.

You cut the scope of Govt -- do away with Commerce, Education, Energy and few other agencies and Congress can concentrate on their basic duties and not waste time on ENERGY DRINKS or STEROIDS in baseball. These clowns think the job is to react and posture in front of the cameras on every pimple that erupts in the news. It's virtually impossible to go home or work part-time at controlling the immense bureacracy they've created. They can't even do oversight of the monster being there most of the year.

State’s rights are not spelled out by the Constitution except to say that rights not defined should be given to the states. What is “defined” or not has put many people through law school in this nation. The States have been, at times, poor stewards of their responsibilities. Never more so has this been true when drawing Congressional boundaries or Gerrymandering as it is called. The word processor on which I am typing this recognized the word “gerrymandering” so it is a thing that has become part of our lexicon. For those who do not know, the word comes from the root “gerrymander” which was a mythical creature. Someone once used the term to describe the shape of a congressional district that was drawn to either favor one group or injure another. The Constitution needs to be further perfected to stop this practice. It’s hard to imagine a system that is less respectful to the nation as a whole than to have these districts drawn to ensure a seat in the House of Representatives remains in the hands of one party or the other. District lines should be abolished all together. In their place, a non-contiguous grouping of persons by population needs to be implemented. I recommend it be done by zip codes via a lottery system. Call the more populous zip codes category A, moderately populated, category B, rural as category C. Then you take all of the A’s, B’s, and C’s and assign a district numbers via a lottery system as to where each district has roughly the same number of people. Then assign a legislator to a district every 10 years based on the census. He or she may have a district that has both Miami and Jacksonville neighborhoods but what we have now isn’t equitable and is seemingly totally at the whim of whichever party happens to hold the pen that draws congressional boundaries.
“Safe” seats will be a thing of the past in most cases. And seats that have historically belonged to one ethnicity or another will vanish over time as well. If this can be combined with campaign finance reform; there will be significant process into amplifying the voices of the voters over those of special interest.

It's up to the states how they apportion the House. Does not apply to the Senate. That's fine with me if they want to guarantee a black district or safe party district. Just make sure that the minority in the district gets a representation by having the PARTIES run candidates. Too many seats go unchallenged and leave 40 to 50% of that district without a voice. The Libertarians and Greens would be PLEASED to run opposition in those districts. LET THEM ON THE BALLOT AND INTO THE DEBATES !

Constitutional perfections need to be added to the Court system as well. I do not feel that 30 year terms for Supreme Court Justices is out of the question.

I would urge the Constitution to be further perfected to abolish Presidential pardons and bestow that power to the Supreme Court so that legal experts can consider the cases that are truly in need of review without the election cycle being a consideration. In an election year, those who are being considered for a pardon are often at the whim of the Electoral College since a President who gets a second term is more conscious of political fallout than one that doesn’t have a second term coming their way. These extraordinary circumstances that are by definition matters of law should be decided by the high court. A simple 5-4 majority would be needed to overturn part of a conviction or commute a sentence.

Where the Constitution is currently silent, voice needs to be added. Where the Constitution speaks, silence should be advised in some cases. In the last seventy years, Presidents have moved troops in and out of harm’s way totally without Constitutional authority outside of the stipulation that he is Commander in Chief. Congress shall have the power to declare war. It says so in the Constitution. The document needs to be perfected to mean just that; we don’t move troops into harm’s way without Congressional approval. This can be done with proxies given to party leaders as to expedite the decision or if the members do not wish to give proxies, they have to be notified for a vote on whether or not to commit troops. Wars fought for convenience or with murky goals in mind should be abolished all together.

This 30 day "war powers" act is good in principle because conflicts blow up faster these days. And the C in C needs to make quick decisions. But too many times it's 30 day provision is never resolved. I don't want party leadership involved anymore than I want the Prez to be the chief decider. He already CONSULTS with party leadership before committing troops. The problem is the lack of compliance with the Founding Document because politicians avoid risky commitment at all costs. FORCING them to vote -- means they cannot hide from their decision.

There are endless avenues to travel down to further perfect the document. I think it should be regularly perfected. I wouldn’t be comfortable with anything more often than seventy years or so with the understanding that the amendment process will still be available in the meantime. We do not know what the founders didn’t write in the document. We can speculate on their intent but the document we have is ill-suited to the 22nd century realities.

Many good and debateable fixes here. But about 1/2 are not contraindicated by the Constitution and most of the other half just demands STRICTER adherence to the Constitution. See notes above..

A new Constitutional Convention would result in mass casualties, several declarations of war and a draft big enough to strip Yosemite of trees. So I'd rather leave a Document that very simply enumerates the Powers of the Fed Govt and modify it sparingly.

But MOST importantly -- the stalemates and frustrations you have are simply because having 2 parties causes a NATURAL roadblock to the function of Congress and allows each party to SWEAR it's gonna resolve the Congressional rules and open up the process. When they achieve power -- nothing happens. Even a token amount of 3rd party and Independent representatives would shed light on the issues. A disloyal party member right now has no where to go if they defy Party leadership. If they speak out or don't toe the line, they will be operating out of closet 5 blocks from Capitol Hill and facing a Party backed candidate in the next primary.. This party ALLEGIANCE would be broken down as soon as Americans understand there is no REQUIREMENT to vote either REP or DEM. You make easier for representatives to DEFY their party and run as INDEPENDENTS or 3rd party and a lot of your problems here simply go away... Better politicians, Better Voters, Better parties. Don't blame the Constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I would urge the Constitution to be further perfected to abolish Presidential pardons and bestow that power to the Supreme Court…

That would be ill-advised, the Supreme Court is the final appellate Court in the Federal system; it addresses conflicts between and among the many Federal courts of appeal, the state supreme courts, and between and among the states themselves. It would be inappropriate and unworkable to expect the justices to re-examine a lawfully adjudicated criminal conviction outside of the appellate process. Pardons are a political, not legal, matter – hence the Framers’ intent to invest that authority in the Chief Executive.

One must remember that the Constitution is not ‘the beginning’ of a thing, but the culmination of nearly 1000 years of Anglo-American judicial tradition, representing a long and brilliant process resulting in greater freedom for our Nation and ensuring the liberty of each individual in the context of the rule of law.

As with the Federal courts and the Supreme Court, it was neither the function nor design of the Constitution to address and resolve all problems vexing our Nation; it is therefore the responsibility of the people, through the democratic process, to compel Congress and the Executive to act in a manner responsive to the people’s needs, not the courts or judiciary.

Where the Constitution is currently silent, voice needs to be added. Where the Constitution speaks, silence should be advised in some cases. In the last seventy years, Presidents have moved troops in and out of harm’s way totally without Constitutional authority outside of the stipulation that he is Commander in Chief. Congress shall have the power to declare war. It says so in the Constitution. The document needs to be perfected to mean just that; we don’t move troops into harm’s way without Congressional approval. This can be done with proxies given to party leaders as to expedite the decision or if the members do not wish to give proxies, they have to be notified for a vote on whether or not to commit troops. Wars fought for convenience or with murky goals in mind should be abolished all together.

In Dellums v. Bush (1990), the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that there was no Constitutional provision to determine when military action by the Executive is actual war subject to Congressional approval or an act appropriate for the Chief Executive per Article II, Section 2:

In relation to the issues involved in this case, the Department of Justice expands on its basic theme, contending that by their very nature the determination whether certain types of military actions require a declaration of war is not justifiable, but depends instead upon delicate judgments by the political branches. On that view, the question whether an offensive action taken by American armed forces constitutes an act of war (to be initiated by a declaration of war) or an "offensive military attack" (presumably undertaken by the President in his capacity as commander-in-chief) is not one of objective fact but involves an exercise of judgment based upon all the vagaries of foreign affairs and national security.

dellums v. bush - Google Scholar

How then by amendment might we so define the difference between an ‘act of war’ requiring Congressional approval and that of an ‘offensive military attack’ in the context of national security. Would, for example, the president need approval from Congress to kill Usama bin Laden? Or to kill the pirates who attacked the Maersk Alabama?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I would

term limits House
The Senate will be elected by the state houses of each state.
The Vice President would have to be voted on by the public in the general election not picked by the president.
limit campaign contributions
Balance budget
Give the power back to the states for domestic issues and the federal government maintain foreign issues
Kill the income tax
Kill all unconstitutional gun laws.
Place the national guard back in the hands of the states
Insure the vetting system for our national elected officials is maintained

This is a start.

 

[flacaltenn]

RE: Dellums v Bush

Vagaries of war ends -- when you unlawfully project military power over a border without permission and start blowing things up without permission.. DC court must have had a stash of something left over from Marion Barry...

Quick reaction strikes are really no different -- IF THEY ARE OFFENSIVE. CLEARLY TWO prez-s had PLENTY of time to get tacit Congressional Approval to take out bin Laden. Probably 10 years worth. A raid on Iran -- same observation.. Plenty of time. Guess what a public Congressional vote on use of military force to take out Iran's weapons manufacturing would do? It MIGHT actually get Iran to stop laughing.

It's DEFENSIVE operations that need C in C flexibility.

 

[candycorn]

But MOST importantly -- the stalemates and frustrations you have are simply because having 2 parties causes a NATURAL roadblock to the function of Congress and allows each party to SWEAR it's gonna resolve the Congressional rules and open up the process. When they achieve power -- nothing happens. Even a token amount of 3rd party and Independent representatives would shed light on the issues. A disloyal party member right now has no where to go if they defy Party leadership. If they speak out or don't toe the line, they will be operating out of closet 5 blocks from Capitol Hill and facing a Party backed candidate in the next primary.. This party ALLEGIANCE would be broken down as soon as Americans understand there is no REQUIREMENT to vote either REP or DEM. You make easier for representatives to DEFY their party and run as INDEPENDENTS or 3rd party and a lot of your problems here simply go away... Better politicians, Better Voters, Better parties. Don't blame the Constitution.

I reject the premise that the document is flawless and the practicioners are what is flawed. Where the constitution is silent it often needs a voice is my stance. The way I know this is because where it does have a voice, it allows for modern day legislative subterfuge if not modern day sabotage. Take the filibuster for example. Nowhere is it mentioned in the Constitution yet both major parties utilize it now to hold up bills and impede the will of the majority. Having a third or fourth party will only lead to more filibusters. A great many people here claim to speak for the founders. That always makes me chuckle because they actually speak for the founders they agree with. But if we can discern something from their work; the filibuster not being mentioned obviously means that they didn't consider it prudent enough to include. Nowhere does it mention that the Senate may or may not decide to hear legislation from the House of Representatives or purposely place a hold on federal Judges nominated by the President.

Currently we have what is by all accounts an apathetic electorate. An apathetic electorate is a poor public servant's best friend in my view. But since service to the country isn't compulsory nor is taking part in the electoral process, pleading for "better voters and better politicians" is the equivalent to trying to stop the tide coming in. Until something changes that forces engagement, we will have poor public servants and party officials beholden to parties over people. I will agree with you that we get the government we deserve and not having an interest is a disgrace to both you and your community. I would suspect however that if most people were given the choice of changing the rules for themselves to require attendance of COC meetings, PTO's, and compulsory voting versus, changing the rules of the elected representatives to outlaw obvious abuses of power bestowed on a few men and women by political parties due to nothing other than patronage, the choice would be to hamstring congress into actually doing the people's work instead of tactically delaying or fast-tracking legislation due to political concerns.

Writing rules into the Constitution for Congress is a common sense approach that needs to be enacted sooner rather than later. Argument that more political parties will furnish some sort of answer to the nation's woes is much like saying a third boxer in the ring would reduce the amount of punches thrown.

 

[candycorn]

I would urge the Constitution to be further perfected to abolish Presidential pardons and bestow that power to the Supreme Court…

That would be ill-advised, the Supreme Court is the final appellate Court in the Federal system; it addresses conflicts between and among the many Federal courts of appeal, the state supreme courts, and between and among the states themselves. It would be inappropriate and unworkable to expect the justices to re-examine a lawfully adjudicated criminal conviction outside of the appellate process. Pardons are a political, not legal, matter – hence the Framers’ intent to invest that authority in the Chief Executive.

One must remember that the Constitution is not ‘the beginning’ of a thing, but the culmination of nearly 1000 years of Anglo-American judicial tradition, representing a long and brilliant process resulting in greater freedom for our Nation and ensuring the liberty of each individual in the context of the rule of law.

As with the Federal courts and the Supreme Court, it was neither the function nor design of the Constitution to address and resolve all problems vexing our Nation; it is therefore the responsibility of the people, through the democratic process, to compel Congress and the Executive to act in a manner responsive to the people’s needs, not the courts or judiciary.

I disagree.

Caspar Weinberger was pardoned before he was charged with a crime by Bush 41. Scooter Libby had his sentence commuted because he happened to know the President; others who may have similar cases or even stronger cases do not get their pardons overturned (much less on the evening of the conviction) because they do not enjoy access.

A dangerous precedent is set when the President (who may be guilty of a crime) can pardon someone prior to conviction to prevent a case being heard as to where that crime could be discovered.

While it may not have been the intention of the founders to invest the power of pardon in the Supreme Court, twenty-first century America and the abhorrent abuses of the power speak to the fact that it is high time that the power was stripped from the President.

Where the Constitution is currently silent, voice needs to be added. Where the Constitution speaks, silence should be advised in some cases. In the last seventy years, Presidents have moved troops in and out of harm’s way totally without Constitutional authority outside of the stipulation that he is Commander in Chief. Congress shall have the power to declare war. It says so in the Constitution. The document needs to be perfected to mean just that; we don’t move troops into harm’s way without Congressional approval. This can be done with proxies given to party leaders as to expedite the decision or if the members do not wish to give proxies, they have to be notified for a vote on whether or not to commit troops. Wars fought for convenience or with murky goals in mind should be abolished all together.

In Dellums v. Bush (1990), the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that there was no Constitutional provision to determine when military action by the Executive is actual war subject to Congressional approval or an act appropriate for the Chief Executive per Article II, Section 2:

In relation to the issues involved in this case, the Department of Justice expands on its basic theme, contending that by their very nature the determination whether certain types of military actions require a declaration of war is not justifiable, but depends instead upon delicate judgments by the political branches. On that view, the question whether an offensive action taken by American armed forces constitutes an act of war (to be initiated by a declaration of war) or an "offensive military attack" (presumably undertaken by the President in his capacity as commander-in-chief) is not one of objective fact but involves an exercise of judgment based upon all the vagaries of foreign affairs and national security.

dellums v. bush - Google Scholar

How then by amendment might we so define the difference between an ‘act of war’ requiring Congressional approval and that of an ‘offensive military attack’ in the context of national security. Would, for example, the president need approval from Congress to kill Usama bin Laden? Or to kill the pirates who attacked the Maersk Alabama?

Yes. In my view he would if we're going to keep Article I's reference to Congressional Involvement intact. Either it has the power or it doesn't. My point is that we need to spell out what powers the Congress enjoys in this matter and what powers the president enjoys as well. If we're happy with Korean Conflict style engagements (technically the war is still going on), fine; lets get rid of the pesky passage about Congress having a say so. If we want to have Congressional oversight of the power to engage in warfare; we need something stronger than what we have because after 10 years plus in Afghanistan, 10 years plus in Iraq, about 60 in Korea; 8 in Vietnam; I think we can agree that these were wars and not some "police action".

The idea of a permanent war cabinet comprising the Speaker of the House and Senate Pro Tem may be a better solution. The cabinet would have to authorize the actions.

 

[candycorn]

Bump. Still reading and digesting.

Quick note: Gerrymandering was named for Elbridge Gerry -- Gerry + Salamander.

Hope that doesn't seem like a hit and run correction. I'm really thinking about your post. ( :

Love the Avatar.

 

[flacaltenn]

But MOST importantly -- the stalemates and frustrations you have are simply because having 2 parties causes a NATURAL roadblock to the function of Congress and allows each party to SWEAR it's gonna resolve the Congressional rules and open up the process. When they achieve power -- nothing happens. Even a token amount of 3rd party and Independent representatives would shed light on the issues. A disloyal party member right now has no where to go if they defy Party leadership. If they speak out or don't toe the line, they will be operating out of closet 5 blocks from Capitol Hill and facing a Party backed candidate in the next primary.. This party ALLEGIANCE would be broken down as soon as Americans understand there is no REQUIREMENT to vote either REP or DEM. You make easier for representatives to DEFY their party and run as INDEPENDENTS or 3rd party and a lot of your problems here simply go away... Better politicians, Better Voters, Better parties. Don't blame the Constitution.

I reject the premise that the document is flawless and the practicioners are what is flawed. Where the constitution is silent it often needs a voice is my stance. The way I know this is because where it does have a voice, it allows for modern day legislative subterfuge if not modern day sabotage. Take the filibuster for example. Nowhere is it mentioned in the Constitution yet both major parties utilize it now to hold up bills and impede the will of the majority. Having a third or fourth party will only lead to more filibusters. A great many people here claim to speak for the founders. That always makes me chuckle because they actually speak for the founders they agree with. But if we can discern something from their work; the filibuster not being mentioned obviously means that they didn't consider it prudent enough to include. Nowhere does it mention that the Senate may or may not decide to hear legislation from the House of Representatives or purposely place a hold on federal Judges nominated by the President.

Currently we have what is by all accounts an apathetic electorate. An apathetic electorate is a poor public servant's best friend in my view. But since service to the country isn't compulsory nor is taking part in the electoral process, pleading for "better voters and better politicians" is the equivalent to trying to stop the tide coming in. Until something changes that forces engagement, we will have poor public servants and party officials beholden to parties over people. I will agree with you that we get the government we deserve and not having an interest is a disgrace to both you and your community. I would suspect however that if most people were given the choice of changing the rules for themselves to require attendance of COC meetings, PTO's, and compulsory voting versus, changing the rules of the elected representatives to outlaw obvious abuses of power bestowed on a few men and women by political parties due to nothing other than patronage, the choice would be to hamstring congress into actually doing the people's work instead of tactically delaying or fast-tracking legislation due to political concerns.

Writing rules into the Constitution for Congress is a common sense approach that needs to be enacted sooner rather than later. Argument that more political parties will furnish some sort of answer to the nation's woes is much like saying a third boxer in the ring would reduce the amount of punches thrown.

I don't know what math you're using -- but having 6 or 12 INDEPENDENT votes in the Senate makes it HARDER to organize a filibuster just on the word of a major party boss. That's clear as day.. Instead of a GUARANTEE that one party can seat 60 partisians, BOTH REPS and DEMS would have to work for the INDEPENDENT representatives votes.

And I'm loathe to making the Constitution DICTATE the work/voting rules of the 2 houses. If the Senate doesn't want to consider a House bill -- the LEADERSHIP is to blame. (and it clearly is)

OTH -- If it's clear that there are not enough votes to CONSIDER the bill -- then the process is actually expedient. Because using time to debate something that doesn't have a prayer of passing -- is wasteful (especially with a duopoly of REP v DEM). Another reason why building in INDEPENDENTS would HELP the process. It would not be clear if the bill would pass or not without the Majority Leader consulting and REASONING with others... That's 2 strikes against you dismissing my suggestion out of hand.

The PRACTIONERS are the problem because all the power is really concentrated in just 2 VOTES. That of the Leadership of the 2 parties. Make that 3 or 4 and the process opens up into a more democratic and deliberative process instead of a tug of war (or a boxing match).

Right now that Apathetic Electorate of yours IS the problem because patterns of voting for Prez versus the rest of the ballot show significant INTENTIONAL splits just to HAMSTRING the process and NOT hand both Houses and the Prez to one party. They may be lazy and ill-informed but they are not stupid enough to give the keys to ONE PARTY alone.. They do this trick in "midterm corrections" all the time when the novelty of a new Prez wears off and they tire of the power they granted to someone who in a mere two years -- forgets all of their election promises..

It's not a boxing match -- your insistence that the system is functioning correctly with just two unprincipled parties just makes it LOOK like one...

 

[M14 Shooter]

How to fix it:
As many, if not most, of you know I am a big proponent of further perfecting the Constitution.

Not sure if you mean ‘making better’ or ‘bent better toward your ideological slant’.

The Articles of Confederation were judged to be unsuitable by the cadre of leaders so they sought to forge a new document that would correct the mistakes of the past. Why is it then that we, 225 years later, are too timid to make such an observation?

We’ve made that observation at least 27 times, each of them resulting in an amendment.

The Constitution needs to be further perfected to ensure that one house of Congress should be required to hear the full work of the other house in a timely fashion; a straight up or down vote on the work submitted by the other house.

Just to make sure I hear you right:
Harry Reid should take GOP house budgets to the floor for an up/down vote, with no chance of a filibuster?
He should do the same with the repeal of Obamacare?

Currently, the party leadership makes the determination of what bills are considered and the result has been unparalleled gridlock and the people’s business languishes as a result.

Working as intended. When gridlock rules the day, then only the VERY important things get passed.

State’s rights are not spelled out by the Constitution except to say that rights not defined should be given to the states.

Incorrect. Powers not given to the federal government are assumed to remain with the states. The Federal government cannot give rights to the states.

What is “defined” or not has put many people through law school in this nation. The States have been, at times, poor stewards of their responsibilities. Never more so has this been true when drawing Congressional boundaries or Gerrymandering as it is called.

So long as they do not violate anyone’s rights, states are free to define their voting districts as they see fit. The constitution does not give the federal government the power to interfere here. The federal government should not be given such a power as all elections are state elections and as such the state legislatures are far better able to cope with the necessary details than Congress.

District lines should be abolished all together.

They exist to make sure that the people within the district are represented by the person they choose; as such, they work as intended.

Constitutional perfections need to be added to the Court system as well. I do not feel that 30 year terms for Supreme Court Justices is out of the question.

The entire purpose of judicial appointment to lifetime terms is to remove politics from the court as much as possible.

I would urge the Constitution to be further perfected to abolish Presidential pardons and bestow that power to the Supreme Court so that legal experts can consider the cases that are truly in need of review without the election cycle being a consideration.

The court already has this power. Otherwise, I don’t understand your complaint here.

Where the Constitution is currently silent, voice needs to be added.

The constitution speaks to all subjects in their intended entirety:
It grants power to the federal government in certain areas, and then leaves the rest to the states/people.

In the last seventy years, Presidents have moved troops in and out of harm’s way totally without Constitutional authority outside of the stipulation that he is Commander in Chief. Congress shall have the power to declare war. It says so in the Constitution.

You apparently assume that for troops to go into ‘harms way’, they can only do so under the auspices of a declared war. Nothing in the constitution, or the history of its creates, supports this position. The Constitution gives the CinC broad power to defend the country because of the fact that doing so may require action more swiftly than Congress can declare war, and it may require action that does not rise to the level of a declared war.

 

[candycorn]

How to fix it:
As many, if not most, of you know I am a big proponent of further perfecting the Constitution.

Not sure if you mean ‘making better’ or ‘bent better toward your ideological slant’.

The Articles of Confederation were judged to be unsuitable by the cadre of leaders so they sought to forge a new document that would correct the mistakes of the past. Why is it then that we, 225 years later, are too timid to make such an observation?

We’ve made that observation at least 27 times, each of them resulting in an amendment.


Just to make sure I hear you right:
Harry Reid should take GOP house budgets to the floor for an up/down vote, with no chance of a filibuster?
He should do the same with the repeal of Obamacare?


Working as intended. When gridlock rules the day, then only the VERY important things get passed.


Incorrect. Powers not given to the federal government are assumed to remain with the states. The Federal government cannot give rights to the states.


So long as they do not violate anyone’s rights, states are free to define their voting districts as they see fit. The constitution does not give the federal government the power to interfere here. The federal government should not be given such a power as all elections are state elections and as such the state legislatures are far better able to cope with the necessary details than Congress.


They exist to make sure that the people within the district are represented by the person they choose; as such, they work as intended.


The entire purpose of judicial appointment to lifetime terms is to remove politics from the court as much as possible.


The court already has this power. Otherwise, I don’t understand your complaint here.

Where the Constitution is currently silent, voice needs to be added.

The constitution speaks to all subjects in their intended entirety:
It grants power to the federal government in certain areas, and then leaves the rest to the states/people.

In the last seventy years, Presidents have moved troops in and out of harm’s way totally without Constitutional authority outside of the stipulation that he is Commander in Chief. Congress shall have the power to declare war. It says so in the Constitution.

You apparently assume that for troops to go into ‘harms way’, they can only do so under the auspices of a declared war. Nothing in the constitution, or the history of its creates, supports this position. The Constitution gives the CinC broad power to defend the country because of the fact that doing so may require action more swiftly than Congress can declare war, and it may require action that does not rise to the level of a declared war.

I'll respond to the balance later on. I saw this part though and wanted to respond now:

Just to make sure I hear you right:
Harry Reid should take GOP house budgets to the floor for an up/down vote, with no chance of a filibuster?
He should do the same with the repeal of Obamacare?

Yes.

 

[candycorn]

But MOST importantly -- the stalemates and frustrations you have are simply because having 2 parties causes a NATURAL roadblock to the function of Congress and allows each party to SWEAR it's gonna resolve the Congressional rules and open up the process. When they achieve power -- nothing happens. Even a token amount of 3rd party and Independent representatives would shed light on the issues. A disloyal party member right now has no where to go if they defy Party leadership. If they speak out or don't toe the line, they will be operating out of closet 5 blocks from Capitol Hill and facing a Party backed candidate in the next primary.. This party ALLEGIANCE would be broken down as soon as Americans understand there is no REQUIREMENT to vote either REP or DEM. You make easier for representatives to DEFY their party and run as INDEPENDENTS or 3rd party and a lot of your problems here simply go away... Better politicians, Better Voters, Better parties. Don't blame the Constitution.

I reject the premise that the document is flawless and the practicioners are what is flawed. Where the constitution is silent it often needs a voice is my stance. The way I know this is because where it does have a voice, it allows for modern day legislative subterfuge if not modern day sabotage. Take the filibuster for example. Nowhere is it mentioned in the Constitution yet both major parties utilize it now to hold up bills and impede the will of the majority. Having a third or fourth party will only lead to more filibusters. A great many people here claim to speak for the founders. That always makes me chuckle because they actually speak for the founders they agree with. But if we can discern something from their work; the filibuster not being mentioned obviously means that they didn't consider it prudent enough to include. Nowhere does it mention that the Senate may or may not decide to hear legislation from the House of Representatives or purposely place a hold on federal Judges nominated by the President.

Currently we have what is by all accounts an apathetic electorate. An apathetic electorate is a poor public servant's best friend in my view. But since service to the country isn't compulsory nor is taking part in the electoral process, pleading for "better voters and better politicians" is the equivalent to trying to stop the tide coming in. Until something changes that forces engagement, we will have poor public servants and party officials beholden to parties over people. I will agree with you that we get the government we deserve and not having an interest is a disgrace to both you and your community. I would suspect however that if most people were given the choice of changing the rules for themselves to require attendance of COC meetings, PTO's, and compulsory voting versus, changing the rules of the elected representatives to outlaw obvious abuses of power bestowed on a few men and women by political parties due to nothing other than patronage, the choice would be to hamstring congress into actually doing the people's work instead of tactically delaying or fast-tracking legislation due to political concerns.

Writing rules into the Constitution for Congress is a common sense approach that needs to be enacted sooner rather than later. Argument that more political parties will furnish some sort of answer to the nation's woes is much like saying a third boxer in the ring would reduce the amount of punches thrown.

I don't know what math you're using -- but having 6 or 12 INDEPENDENT votes in the Senate makes it HARDER to organize a filibuster just on the word of a major party boss. That's clear as day.. Instead of a GUARANTEE that one party can seat 60 partisians, BOTH REPS and DEMS would have to work for the INDEPENDENT representatives votes.

And I'm loathe to making the Constitution DICTATE the work/voting rules of the 2 houses. If the Senate doesn't want to consider a House bill -- the LEADERSHIP is to blame. (and it clearly is)

OTH -- If it's clear that there are not enough votes to CONSIDER the bill -- then the process is actually expedient. Because using time to debate something that doesn't have a prayer of passing -- is wasteful (especially with a duopoly of REP v DEM). Another reason why building in INDEPENDENTS would HELP the process. It would not be clear if the bill would pass or not without the Majority Leader consulting and REASONING with others... That's 2 strikes against you dismissing my suggestion out of hand.

The PRACTIONERS are the problem because all the power is really concentrated in just 2 VOTES. That of the Leadership of the 2 parties. Make that 3 or 4 and the process opens up into a more democratic and deliberative process instead of a tug of war (or a boxing match).

Right now that Apathetic Electorate of yours IS the problem because patterns of voting for Prez versus the rest of the ballot show significant INTENTIONAL splits just to HAMSTRING the process and NOT hand both Houses and the Prez to one party. They may be lazy and ill-informed but they are not stupid enough to give the keys to ONE PARTY alone.. They do this trick in "midterm corrections" all the time when the novelty of a new Prez wears off and they tire of the power they granted to someone who in a mere two years -- forgets all of their election promises..

It's not a boxing match -- your insistence that the system is functioning correctly with just two unprincipled parties just makes it LOOK like one...[/QUOTE]

No time to look at it all right now but I am the one that wants to fix the system; the system isn't functioning correctly because the system is broken and allows for an "anything" goes system of rules.

 

[antagon]

How dare y'all. I think the constitution is fine, moreover, there are provisions for modification within our system, but the nagging features which some have called out here simply are not important enough to ever result in an amendment.

Americans should take more pride in the constitution as it was written and endeavor to educate themselves about its merits instead of criticizing the finest document of its kind in the history of the world.

There's a new wave of 'patriots' who don't like our country, they just like their own land and their own existence. That's not patriotic.

 

[flacaltenn]

The system is not broken. It has just been hijacked by 2 political parties that have become sworn mortal enemies and their only desire to get access to the vault keys..

Lemme reach you this way.. The GOVT cannot recognize a particular religion, why should they be allowed to recognize a particular political party?

How about a Constitutional Amendment that goes something like this??

The Government shall make no law abridging freedom of access to the political process on behalf of any duly constituted political party. Access to the ballot shall be equally offered and adminstered based on a National public referendum of recognition for a qualifying party. Such referendum shall be held every 2 years. Recognition for that party will be determined by the 4 organizations with the most popular votes.

Let the people vote on the ORGANIZATIONS that are causing YOU the grief.. Give the people the ability to FIRE the DEMS and REPS and make the parties WORK for recognition. And -- more importantly -- make them FUNCTION efficiently, ethically and competently once they are in there..

The parties will reorganize around the changes you desire. And there is no need to attempt legislate changes to the Constitution which could and would have nasty loopholes and side - effects. In fact -- CandyCorn can start a REFORM party to change the work rules of the Congress and whatever personal biases and political slants (probably leaning left) you want to add to that.

No more would one party get promoted just because the other one screwed up worse. There would be other choices. And we would hear less of the childish excuses about how "your party did it to (or first) "... Which is true of almost any every political dustup we currently have and discuss on USMB. BOTH of them get away with the junk you're complaining about -- because there is no place to flee.

 

[candycorn]

How to fix it:
As many, if not most, of you know I am a big proponent of further perfecting the Constitution.

Not sure if you mean ‘making better’ or ‘bent better toward your ideological slant’.

Perfecting is making it better on logical terms free of ideological slant.

The Articles of Confederation were judged to be unsuitable by the cadre of leaders so they sought to forge a new document that would correct the mistakes of the past. Why is it then that we, 225 years later, are too timid to make such an observation?

We’ve made that observation at least 27 times, each of them resulting in an amendment.

With a nation so divided; the process of amending the Constitution is impossible to navigate.

Just to make sure I hear you right:
Harry Reid should take GOP house budgets to the floor for an up/down vote, with no chance of a filibuster?
He should do the same with the repeal of Obamacare?

Yes. Whatever business is handed off from one house to another deserves a fair hearing..up or down vote. I would say within 60 days of receiving the legislation.

Working as intended. When gridlock rules the day, then only the VERY important things get passed.

Nonsense. Political parties causing the gridlock were not around when it was written so the "intent" portion of your comment is silly. As for "very" important things getting passed, more hooey or have you not noticed the trillions in debt we now enjoy. Furthermore the gridlock could get worse as to where nothing passes.

That being said, My "fixes" do not eliminate gridlock. It ensures that the business of one house gets a hearing; not ignored.

Incorrect. Powers not given to the federal government are assumed to remain with the states. The Federal government cannot give rights to the states.

So long as they do not violate anyone’s rights, states are free to define their voting districts as they see fit. The constitution does not give the federal government the power to interfere here. The federal government should not be given such a power as all elections are state elections and as such the state legislatures are far better able to cope with the necessary details than Congress.

They exist to make sure that the people within the district are represented by the person they choose; as such, they work as intended.

If the intent was to have party bosses drawing district lines to insure that their party has safe seats; you're right, it's working just fine; for them.

The system is so corrupt that voters who feel disenfranchised have filed suit. Other states have taken the pen out of the party hackdom's hands and have relied on commissions to draw logical boundaries.

All of this could be avoided if we simply removed the pen all together and relied on the science available to us to draw these districts in such a way as to where politics isn't the lone consideration.

The entire purpose of judicial appointment to lifetime terms is to remove politics from the court as much as possible.

Such removal is easily done by a 30 year rule. Likely in half that time.

Where the Constitution is currently silent, voice needs to be added.

The constitution speaks to all subjects in their intended entirety:
It grants power to the federal government in certain areas, and then leaves the rest to the states/people.

Some of that is true but in these limited circumstances; the Constitution isn't serving the People of the nation well in it's silence. I

In the last seventy years, Presidents have moved troops in and out of harm’s way totally without Constitutional authority outside of the stipulation that he is Commander in Chief. Congress shall have the power to declare war. It says so in the Constitution.

You apparently assume that for troops to go into ‘harms way’, they can only do so under the auspices of a declared war. Nothing in the constitution, or the history of its creates, supports this position. The Constitution gives the CinC broad power to defend the country because of the fact that doing so may require action more swiftly than Congress can declare war, and it may require action that does not rise to the level of a declared war.

So now you have to define "war". Go ahead. Viet Nam wasn't a war? Korea wasn't a War?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The government "recognizes" all political parties.

 

[antagon]

With a nation so divided; the process of amending the Constitution is impossible to navigate.

This is ideal. LEARN.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How to fix it:
As many, if not most, of you know I am a big proponent of further perfecting the Constitution.

Not sure if you mean ‘making better’ or ‘bent better toward your ideological slant’.

Perfecting is making it better on logical terms free of ideological slant

Your suggestions seem to lean towards the latter – though, unlike some, not outrageously so.

With a nation so divided; the process of amending the Constitution is impossible to navigate.

So? The process is there; it was intentionally made difficult so it would only be done when the issue was important enough to gain consensus across the population as to how to address it.
Thus: Working as intended.

Yes. Whatever business is handed off from one house to another deserves a fair hearing..up or down vote. I would say within 60 days of receiving the legislation.

Fair enough.

Nonsense. Political parties causing the gridlock were not around when it was written so the "intent" portion of your comment is silly.

The intention of the people that wrote the constitution in this regard is reasonably clear and not difficult to find. The previously mentioned nature of the government itself – the division into three equal branches – it part of this plan, devised so that no part had too much power that they could exercise too easily.

As for "very" important things getting passed, more hooey or have you not noticed the trillions in debt we now enjoy. Furthermore the gridlock could get worse as to where nothing passes.

The point is that the manner in which to best address a very important issues bring consensus among the people. If the manner in which to deal with an very important issue does not bring consensus, then it must not be the “best” way.

You’re arguing that because disagreement hols up the political process, something must be done to get around that disagreement; you fail to recognize that disagreement is the nature of democracy.

If the intent was to have party bosses drawing district lines to insure that their party has safe seats; you're right, it's working just fine; for them.

Party bosses do not draw lines – legislators do, according to the laws of the states, and under all of the checks and balances found in our system of government. Your “party boss” argument, if sound, applies to All legislation passed into law by a state, not just redistricting.

Such removal is easily done by a 30 year rule. Likely in half that time.

You’re addressing a need that does not exist.

The constitution speaks to all subjects in their intended entirety:
It grants power to the federal government in certain areas, and then leaves the rest to the states/people.

Surely you're not suggesting that the Constitution was designed to limit the size of cola or that air pollution is the government's business.

Not sure what you mean,
The Constitution was written so that the federal government had power to deal with a number of issues, and the states then retained the power to deal with everything else – as such the Constitution leaves nothing unaddressed.

In the last seventy years, Presidents have moved troops in and out of harm’s way totally without Constitutional authority outside of the stipulation that he is Commander in Chief. Congress shall have the power to declare war. It says so in the Constitution.

You apparently assume that for troops to go into ‘harms way’, they can only do so under the auspices of a declared war. Nothing in the constitution, or the history of its creates, supports this position. The Constitution gives the CinC broad power to defend the country because of the fact that doing so may require action more swiftly than Congress can declare war, and it may require action that does not rise to the level of a declared war.

So now you have to define "war".

No, I don’t. Nothing I said rests on the definition of war.

 

[flacaltenn]

Candy:

STRONGLY suggest you read this short article about gerrymandering and proportional representation. It could be that you're just a fan of proportional represention and don't know about it. But it's NOT a new concept..

Taking power like that AWAY from party politics ain't painless or easy.. But a reform like PR would be ONE WAY to solve the problem.

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/redistricting.htm


In safe districts, candidates of the minority party are often little more than sacrificial
lambs being led to the slaughter. But it gets worse. These safe districts are often so
one-sided that the disadvantaged party does not even bother to put up a candidate. There is no
contest at all. The number of uncontested U.S. House seats varies considerably from state to
state. Florida and Texas are two of the worst. In the 2000 U.S. House elections in Florida, 43
percent of the races were uncontested. That year in Texas, 30 percent of their House races were
uncontested. The existence of some many uncontested races is a political disgrace, but it is
also a perfectly understandable result in a winner-take-all system. Why should the smaller
party bother to compete in districts dominated by the larger party? It would be a waste of
valuable political resources. As the former head of the Republican campaign effort in the
House, Rep. John Linder of Georgia, explained: "The GOP did not recruit candidates in districts
where Democrats are shoo-ins for re-election." And according to his counter-part on the
Democratic side, Rep. Martin Frost of Texas: "Both parties, I believe, had made a decision to
concentrate on really competitive districts." So in an SMP system, it is a rational political
strategy for a party to no contest seats in many districts.

On the level of state legislative contests, the problem of unopposed candidates has reached
epidemic levels. In races for state legislatures in 2000, either the Democrats or the
Republicans refused to nominate a candidate in 40.6 percent of the districts. In 1998 that
figure as 41.1 percent. Thus in a large number of cases, the creation of safe seats for
incumbents means that voters literally have no choice on election day. These are not so much
races as prolonged victory laps by the preordained winners.

These safe districts created by gerrymandering not only deny voters a meaningful choice, they
contribute to other political problems as well. For one thing, safe districts clearly encourage
political apathy and low voter participation. Why bother to participate if the outcome has been
predetermined by how the district lines have been drawn. As one San Francisco resident
complained: "Vote? Why vote? I know who’s going to win, everybody knows who’s going to win.

Pelosi always wins, with 80 percent of the vote. Nobody else has a chance." Those who support
the party that always loses are not the only ones discouraged from voting in safe districts.
Even those who support the dominant party have little reason to vote because they know that
their candidate will win anyway.

The only sure way to eliminate gerrymandering – both intentional and unintentional – from
American elections is to abandon single-member plurality arrangements and adopt proportional
representation. Indeed, the whole purpose of PR is to minimize wasted votes and ensure that the
parties are represented in proportion to the votes they receive. This eliminates the
possibilities of unfair representation produced by gerrymandering. The key to eliminating
partisan gerrymandering is the large multimember districts used in PR systems. As numerous
studies have shown, as long as a PR system has at least five seats in every district, it is
effectively immune from gerrymandering. These districts largely eliminate the wasted votes that
make gerrymandering possible. In such districts, even small political minorities do not waste
their votes and are able to elect their fair share of representatives. Thus, under PR
arrangements, where voters live or how district lines are drawn makes no difference – fair
representation will result.

Imagine, for example, that we have a region in a state that is 60 percent Republican and 40
percent Democratic and that it must be divided into two ten-member PR election districts. No
matter how the district lines are drawn and no matter how party voters are distributed between
the districts, each party will be able to elect its fair share of representatives. If all the
Democrats are packed into one district, they will constitute 80 percent of the voters there and
elect eight of the ten representatives in that district and none in the other – 40 percent of
the total seats. If the Democratic voters are fragmented and make up 40 percent minorities in
the each of the two districts, they will be able to elect four representatives in each – and
still receive 40 percent of the total seats.

That gerrymandering and unfair representation can be truly eliminated only under PR
arrangements is so indisputable that even political scientists who continue to support our
single-member plurality system are forced to acknowledge it. Nelson Polsby of the University of
California at Berkeley is no supporter of proportional representation. Yet he testified in a
court case on gerrymandering that "proportionality cannot be guaranteed in a system of voting
in which the winner of the most votes wins the election regardless of how many candidates run
in each race. To ensure proportionality it is necessary to have a proportional representation
system of elections.''

Gerrymandering does not apply to the Senate -- but in the HOUSE -- Prop. Representation COULD be modified to elect a STATEWIDE slate of Representatives.

And the article doesn't mention it -- but all those UNOPPOSED district races COULD be solved with more open ballot access. Just because the DEMS or REPS don't want to waste time and money running against a sure winner -- doesn't mean a 3rd party or Independent wouldn't try..