Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
my thought is people like you should learn what form of government we are supposed to have. that would be a good first step.
Constitutional Republic. But we have democratic processes as well. That is what I am talking about. Instead of being an ass, you could participate in a meaningful discussion.my thought is people like you should learn what form of government we are supposed to have. that would be a good first step.
How will that allow for more parties to participate?Yup.
Amendment XXVIII
Allows absolute regulation of campaign funding and issue advocacy funding at Federal level (overrules Citizens United). Establishes a system for public campaign financing.
How will that allow for more parties to participate?Amendment XXIX
Eliminates the Senate Filibuster. Also permits automatic Congressional appointment of executive branch officers and Art. I and Art. III judicial officers in the absence of a Congressional denial of appointment, but Congress may vote for a 30-day extension for confirmation hearings.
No need. The constitution already limits federal powers to those enumerated in it. The amendment would be redundant.Amendment XXX
Clarifies the Commerce Clause and overrules the aggregate effects test. Explicitly limits Federal powers to those specifically enumerated in the Federal Constitution or by Amendment.
How would this allow for more party participation?Amendment XXXI
Amends the Electoral College to have States to assign electors by majority vote in each Representative District and assigns only one electoral vote per State, plus electoral votes for population (thus, winning an entire state would net one electoral vote, which represents BOTH Senators, but the rest would require winning each district). Also sets firm rules for redistricting (to avoid gerrymandering) and would explicitly allow Federal judicial review of district plans.
Again, I don't see how this has anything to do with the party system, which was the topic of the OP.Amendment XXXII
Amends Art V requirement, instead of 3/4ths ratification by States, only 3/5ths ratification required for ratification by States, but 2/3ds requirement for Convention itself or Congressional authorization retained and 3/4ths requirement for ratification by Convention retained. Congress no longer proposes the method of Ratification, and States may always Ratify on their own initiative.
I agree, not necessarily. Nor does fewer mean better. Look at the United States.more does not = better. look at israel. 7 parties. *shiver*
How will that allow for more parties to participate?Yup.
Amendment XXVIII
Allows absolute regulation of campaign funding and issue advocacy funding at Federal level (overrules Citizens United). Establishes a system for public campaign financing.
How will that allow for more parties to participate?Amendment XXIX
Eliminates the Senate Filibuster. Also permits automatic Congressional appointment of executive branch officers and Art. I and Art. III judicial officers in the absence of a Congressional denial of appointment, but Congress may vote for a 30-day extension for confirmation hearings.
How would this allow for more party participation?Amendment XXXI
Amends the Electoral College to have States to assign electors by majority vote in each Representative District and assigns only one electoral vote per State, plus electoral votes for population (thus, winning an entire state would net one electoral vote, which represents BOTH Senators, but the rest would require winning each district). Also sets firm rules for redistricting (to avoid gerrymandering) and would explicitly allow Federal judicial review of district plans.
Again, I don't see how this has anything to do with the party system, which was the topic of the OP.Amendment XXXII
Amends Art V requirement, instead of 3/4ths ratification by States, only 3/5ths ratification required for ratification by States, but 2/3ds requirement for Convention itself or Congressional authorization retained and 3/4ths requirement for ratification by Convention retained. Congress no longer proposes the method of Ratification, and States may always Ratify on their own initiative.
I like the idea, but on the federal level it might require and amendment. It would be very interesting to see a state try it first.My choice....
1. Outlaw ALL Political Parties, Political Action Committes and Election Committees.
2. Outlaw ALL donations to any candidate from any person or entity which cannot cast a ballot for that individual (corporations, children, non-voters, and people from other areas)
3. Limit individual private donations to $100 per candidate/office, per year.
No worries. I just assumed the discussion would be about parties.How will that allow for more parties to participate?Yup.
Amendment XXVIII
Allows absolute regulation of campaign funding and issue advocacy funding at Federal level (overrules Citizens United). Establishes a system for public campaign financing.
How will that allow for more parties to participate?
How would this allow for more party participation?
Again, I don't see how this has anything to do with the party system, which was the topic of the OP.Amendment XXXII
Amends Art V requirement, instead of 3/4ths ratification by States, only 3/5ths ratification required for ratification by States, but 2/3ds requirement for Convention itself or Congressional authorization retained and 3/4ths requirement for ratification by Convention retained. Congress no longer proposes the method of Ratification, and States may always Ratify on their own initiative.
All of it helps your cause in some way. But the title of the thread is "Reforming American Democracy," so I went broad.
I'm not sure I like ending filibuster. I think it should be very difficult for Congress to pass laws. Most of them are terrible, so the fewer the better.Amendment XXVIII breaks the capital advantage that the two parties have on the other outcast parties. Amendment XXIX ends the Senate Filibuster, and admittedly this is reaching, but by doing so it pulls a tool out of the partisan box and makes coalition dealing easier (but it really just makes passing laws easier, but that helps, not hurts, multi-party democracy).
I don't favor ending the electoral college. We have enough, if not too much, direct democracy.Amendment XXXI is most important because the Electoral College is the biggest obstacle to a multi-party system. Observe what Ross Perot's 18% of the vote earned him:
But if your primary purpose is opening up the field to multiple parties, then you'd abolish the Electoral College altogether. I am not eager to do this, because I don't want direct elections of the President.
Amendment XXXII allows you to make further amendments more easily as necessary, and that weakens the status quo, thus aiding a multi-party system.
My choice....
1. Outlaw ALL Political Parties, Political Action Committes and Election Committees.
2. Outlaw ALL donations to any candidate from any person or entity which cannot cast a ballot for that individual (corporations, children, non-voters, and people from other areas)
3. Limit individual private donations to $100 per candidate/office, per year.
But we don't have that. That's the problem. Both parties support big government. Their rhetoric is world's apart, but their actual policies are incredibly similar. They all sustain the welfare-warfare state. Bush increased medicare spending, Obama entered into a war in Libya.Americans are polar. We've almost always been that way. We come from two lines of thinking:
1. Personal Responsibility and Making Your Own Luck
2. Social Responsibility and Realizing that the Playing Field is Uneven
To be honest, I'd rather have this than a multi-party parliamentary system.
^agreed
I like the idea, but on the federal level it might require and amendment. It would be very interesting to see a state try it first.
Fascist.
Well that is not what I am saying. I am trying to increase the power of the people by allowing for more representation of opinion via more than two parties. I did not say abolish democracy, I said reform it. You see, words matter. And I listed clearly my primary goal of having the possibility of more parties and opinions.Because taking away the political power of the people curtails democracy. If you mean 'taking away democracy' when you say 'reform', then a-ok.
