We need a new Constitution, yes or no?

[nodoginnafight]

Does anyone really think a new constitution would be a solution?

After all, a new constitution would be written by politicians and we all know most of them are liars, cheats, and criminals.

I think it would help. It would get people asking questions and thinking about things that everyone takes for granted now. And it would clarify consent. It might not give anyone exactly what they want, but it would need to approved by a super-majority, and that would give us something closer to real consensus. It's the thrashing back and forth between competing political philosophies, with only slim majority support each time that's killing us.

In terms of the Constitution, I think our biggest problem right now is judicial activism.

The hyper-partisan bickering doesn't have a Constitutional downside imho. It just makes it almost impossible for lawmakers to fix problems and address issues.

 

[Staidhup]

The Constitution is not the problem its the centralized omnipotent government and liberal judiciary that has usurped, and twisted the very essence of the document. Healthy civilized dialogue is essential in its preservation, to expect the minority party or courts to turn the other cheek is preposterous to say the least.

 

[dcraelin]

Not sure I like that idea. I like the idea of districts but districts should not be drawn to render an electoral outcome. Since geography isn't being considered now, I say we stop pretending it matters at all and have a non-contiguous district that is drawn by zip-codes; only because it's the most apolitical pre-drawn lines we have. Area codes could be used as well but they are not geographically identified either.

What I fear would happen in your model is that whichever party is in power in the State legislatures would relegate the minority party/parties to poorer areas of the nation for their "40% (or whatever portion of the vote they got). So, just to use California as an example, the GOP legislature would assign the Dems to poorer areas of the State.

Or is there something tying the areas represented to the 40% as in your example? Who would determine which 40% of Tennessee or Texas would be represented by whom?

Dont understand your criticism, if you say stop pretending geography matters then you should be ok with it since it does just that, in a way...representatives would represent the whole state....not just a portion of it. look up party list PR(proportional representation) in wikipedia or elsewhere. Parties could still insure regional support with their methods of filling party lists, of spots won.

The USPS--United States Postal Service--is the only entity that can legally place anything in your mailbox. This is federal law. That is why you have door hangers, telephone books (when there were such things) layed on your porch, and the USPS/FED EX drivers leave a sticky note on your door.

Using that as precedent, the Feds could state the same thing for federal elections; that only a government agency can fund candidates.

There would have to be an extensive amount of legal groundwork to be laid but there is precedent.

I'd be ok with it ,...I think...but doesn't sound like it would command a lot of support natiowide...

Bush v. Gore was not determined by the candidates not wanting to use the 12th amendment. The candidates have no choice. Whoever won Florida would win the election by getting over 270.
Currently the only way the 12th amendment comes into play is if neither candidate gets to 270.
In my system, if you don't make it to 270 OR if you don't get the plurality of popular votes, the 12th takes over.

I was saying that the courts didnt allow the 12th amendment to be used. I believe there is provision that when a state contest is in doubt procedures in the 12th or similar to it kick in and the Congress determines the winner. I may be wrong on that.

here is some possible wording of a proposed amendment on electing representatives.

"Prospective representatives shall group themselves into parties and a determination of positions for each party shall be calculated in proportion to a yearly statewide vote on party preference. Representatives shall be determined by the parties themselves either by a caucus system or a primary. "

or

"voters in each state shall, in a yearly vote, vote for their preferred party. The number of positions each party wins will be determined in proportion to this vote with no more than a 5% threshold required (unless the state has less than 20 representative positions in which case it would equal the lowest possible ratio) Representatives shall be determined by the parties themselves either by a caucus system or a primary."

 

[dcraelin]

The Constitution is not the problem its the centralized omnipotent government and liberal judiciary that has usurped, and twisted the very essence of the document. Healthy civilized dialogue is essential in its preservation, to expect the minority party or courts to turn the other cheek is preposterous to say the least.

Do you realize that one of the major criticisms, by such people as Patrick Henry, of the constitution at the time of its ratification was that it would centralize government too much.....so in other words the Constitution you profess so much allegiance to is the very thing which gives us too much centralized government.

 

[candycorn]

Not sure I like that idea. I like the idea of districts but districts should not be drawn to render an electoral outcome. Since geography isn't being considered now, I say we stop pretending it matters at all and have a non-contiguous district that is drawn by zip-codes; only because it's the most apolitical pre-drawn lines we have. Area codes could be used as well but they are not geographically identified either.

What I fear would happen in your model is that whichever party is in power in the State legislatures would relegate the minority party/parties to poorer areas of the nation for their "40% (or whatever portion of the vote they got). So, just to use California as an example, the GOP legislature would assign the Dems to poorer areas of the State.

Or is there something tying the areas represented to the 40% as in your example? Who would determine which 40% of Tennessee or Texas would be represented by whom?

Dont understand your criticism, if you say stop pretending geography matters then you should be ok with it since it does just that, in a way...representatives would represent the whole state....not just a portion of it. look up party list PR(proportional representation) in wikipedia or elsewhere. Parties could still insure regional support with their methods of filling party lists, of spots won.

I was telling those who draw congressional districts to stop pretending geography matters and then draw a district that looks like a starfish simply to ensure a district breaks one way or the other.

I think geography should matter which is why I want to use the ZIP codes that were drawn without political ends in mind. So if you live at 5th and Elm, you have Jane Doe as your representative until she resigns or loses the election.

I'm not sure how it works in proportional representation. It sounds like if Jane is a Democrat and the Republicans win 75% in the state, Jane my lose her seat without ever having given me a choice between her stands on issues, her vision for the future or her voting record and that of her opponent.

Is that the case?

The USPS--United States Postal Service--is the only entity that can legally place anything in your mailbox. This is federal law. That is why you have door hangers, telephone books (when there were such things) layed on your porch, and the USPS/FED EX drivers leave a sticky note on your door.

Using that as precedent, the Feds could state the same thing for federal elections; that only a government agency can fund candidates.

There would have to be an extensive amount of legal groundwork to be laid but there is precedent.

I'd be ok with it ,...I think...but doesn't sound like it would command a lot of support natiowide...

Getting money out of politics as to where Obama (or Bush or whomever) doesn't ever have to go to another fundraiser?

I think it would be a quiet day on the message board but other than that, I think it would have broad based support across the nation.

 

[dcraelin]

I was telling those who draw congressional districts to stop pretending geography matters and then draw a district that looks like a starfish simply to ensure a district breaks one way or the other.

I think geography should matter which is why I want to use the ZIP codes that were drawn without political ends in mind. So if you live at 5th and Elm, you have Jane Doe as your representative until she resigns or loses the election.

I'm not sure how it works in proportional representation. It sounds like if Jane is a Democrat and the Republicans win 75% in the state, Jane my lose her seat without ever having given me a choice between her stands on issues, her vision for the future or her voting record and that of her opponent.

Is that the case?

well it is more tied to party....Jane may lose her seat...If she is lower on the party totem pole.....but that may make the party as a whole less popular so they may be wary of dropping her. There are hybrid systems, but I find them to be more complicated. In general tho, minority viewpoints/parties are better represented in PR systems.

say a state has 10 reps allotted to it
going into an election both major parties have 5 reps
if the republicans gain major, broad based support, to say 70%,
under current system( with fair districts) you can expect Republicans to win all 10 seats.
under PR they would win 7 seats and Democrats would still maintain 3
as I outline, and I think in most PR systems, determination of the 2 Dems dropped would be up to the party

 

[EconChick]

That's exactly the intellectual level I expect in your posts. It's why I rarely waste my time engaging you.

I'm not an "educator." Yet another failed guess. How often can one person be THAT wrong????

LMAO, you're damn right you have no ability to educate.

So you led people to believe you were dealing with educators in the edu system.

What....you just sell helmets or something? You keep dousing your credibility.

If you're not an educator, your post was disingenuous about the high schools.

Because YOU can't conceive of why a non-educator would spend that much time in schools - then you think it is impossible. Because we all know that if YOU can't conceive it, it doesn't exist.

You're a sad little thing. Good luck to you.

LOL, shiphead. I thought you loathed personal attacks. Thanks for showing you're a poser.

Secondly, I inferred the most complimentary thing I could from your vague reference. Since you have nothing to do with education, why don't you explain to us why we should put extra weight on your post where you say you go to 17 schools.

Are you a traveling janitor? Actually a janitor would know plenty.

Are you a salesperson that shows up at each school once a year.

If you don't want to clarify, then don't expect "I work with 17 schools" to hold any weight.

That's not just me. That's how any intelligent mind would analyze it.

 

[CorvusRexus]

Not sure I like that idea. I like the idea of districts but districts should not be drawn to render an electoral outcome. Since geography isn't being considered now, I say we stop pretending it matters at all and have a non-contiguous district that is drawn by zip-codes; only because it's the most apolitical pre-drawn lines we have. Area codes could be used as well but they are not geographically identified either.

What I fear would happen in your model is that whichever party is in power in the State legislatures would relegate the minority party/parties to poorer areas of the nation for their "40% (or whatever portion of the vote they got). So, just to use California as an example, the GOP legislature would assign the Dems to poorer areas of the State.

Or is there something tying the areas represented to the 40% as in your example? Who would determine which 40% of Tennessee or Texas would be represented by whom?

Dont understand your criticism, if you say stop pretending geography matters then you should be ok with it since it does just that, in a way...representatives would represent the whole state....not just a portion of it. look up party list PR(proportional representation) in wikipedia or elsewhere. Parties could still insure regional support with their methods of filling party lists, of spots won.

I was telling those who draw congressional districts to stop pretending geography matters and then draw a district that looks like a starfish simply to ensure a district breaks one way or the other.

I think geography should matter which is why I want to use the ZIP codes that were drawn without political ends in mind. So if you live at 5th and Elm, you have Jane Doe as your representative until she resigns or loses the election.

I'm not sure how it works in proportional representation. It sounds like if Jane is a Democrat and the Republicans win 75% in the state, Jane my lose her seat without ever having given me a choice between her stands on issues, her vision for the future or her voting record and that of her opponent.

Is that the case?

The USPS--United States Postal Service--is the only entity that can legally place anything in your mailbox. This is federal law. That is why you have door hangers, telephone books (when there were such things) layed on your porch, and the USPS/FED EX drivers leave a sticky note on your door.

Using that as precedent, the Feds could state the same thing for federal elections; that only a government agency can fund candidates.

There would have to be an extensive amount of legal groundwork to be laid but there is precedent.

I'd be ok with it ,...I think...but doesn't sound like it would command a lot of support natiowide...

Getting money out of politics as to where Obama (or Bush or whomever) doesn't ever have to go to another fundraiser?

I think it would be a quiet day on the message board but other than that, I think it would have broad based support across the nation.

If only a government agency could fund candidates, than only the candidate for the current majority would ever get any funding.

However, once a general election began (the campaign season directly leading to November AFTER the primaries are over), if candidates were given an equal amount by the government, it could be done more fairly. However, a system would have to be devised to determine those who have a legitimate chance of being elected so the system isn't flooded by 3rd party candidates who may only draw a handful of votes.

The total amount given could be changed by a simple bill that passes the House and Senate, and perhaps the Vice President (or President if you really want). Anyway, because this would affect BOTH parties equally, Congress could perhaps handle this matter without an "Us vs. Them" mentality.

 

[candycorn]

Dont understand your criticism, if you say stop pretending geography matters then you should be ok with it since it does just that, in a way...representatives would represent the whole state....not just a portion of it. look up party list PR(proportional representation) in wikipedia or elsewhere. Parties could still insure regional support with their methods of filling party lists, of spots won.

I was telling those who draw congressional districts to stop pretending geography matters and then draw a district that looks like a starfish simply to ensure a district breaks one way or the other.

I think geography should matter which is why I want to use the ZIP codes that were drawn without political ends in mind. So if you live at 5th and Elm, you have Jane Doe as your representative until she resigns or loses the election.

I'm not sure how it works in proportional representation. It sounds like if Jane is a Democrat and the Republicans win 75% in the state, Jane my lose her seat without ever having given me a choice between her stands on issues, her vision for the future or her voting record and that of her opponent.

Is that the case?

I'd be ok with it ,...I think...but doesn't sound like it would command a lot of support natiowide...

Getting money out of politics as to where Obama (or Bush or whomever) doesn't ever have to go to another fundraiser?

I think it would be a quiet day on the message board but other than that, I think it would have broad based support across the nation.

If only a government agency could fund candidates, than only the candidate for the current majority would ever get any funding.

Factually incorrect.

Currently to get on the ballot in X state/district, you need a number of signatures. If you get the signatures, you get the funding in my model. If you do not, you do not get the funding. It's that simple.

However, once a general election began (the campaign season directly leading to November AFTER the primaries are over), if candidates were given an equal amount by the government, it could be done more fairly. However, a system would have to be devised to determine those who have a legitimate chance of being elected so the system isn't flooded by 3rd party candidates who may only draw a handful of votes.

Again, you could make a stipulation as to being on the ballot in a number of states equalling the minimum for a majority of electoral votes.

The total amount given could be changed by a simple bill that passes the House and Senate, and perhaps the Vice President (or President if you really want). Anyway, because this would affect BOTH parties equally, Congress could perhaps handle this matter without an "Us vs. Them" mentality.

It will be fine because it's cut and dried; you get X number of sigs on the ballot in the primaries, you get the funding. You get on X number of states in the General, you get the funding. Regardless of whether you are a DEM, REP, LIB, CONS or whatever.

 

[Andylusion]

I was telling those who draw congressional districts to stop pretending geography matters and then draw a district that looks like a starfish simply to ensure a district breaks one way or the other.

I think geography should matter which is why I want to use the ZIP codes that were drawn without political ends in mind. So if you live at 5th and Elm, you have Jane Doe as your representative until she resigns or loses the election.

I'm not sure how it works in proportional representation. It sounds like if Jane is a Democrat and the Republicans win 75% in the state, Jane my lose her seat without ever having given me a choice between her stands on issues, her vision for the future or her voting record and that of her opponent.

Is that the case?

well it is more tied to party....Jane may lose her seat...If she is lower on the party totem pole.....but that may make the party as a whole less popular so they may be wary of dropping her. There are hybrid systems, but I find them to be more complicated. In general tho, minority viewpoints/parties are better represented in PR systems.

say a state has 10 reps allotted to it
going into an election both major parties have 5 reps
if the republicans gain major, broad based support, to say 70%,
under current system( with fair districts) you can expect Republicans to win all 10 seats.
under PR they would win 7 seats and Democrats would still maintain 3
as I outline, and I think in most PR systems, determination of the 2 Dems dropped would be up to the party

Right. And I would absolutely HATE that system.

Basically what you are saying is that we would no longer be voting for our Representatives, but rather for a party.

I HATE party. The label "republican" means absolutely nothing.

There are Republicans that are more left-wing than Obama. And there are Democrats who are more right-wing than Ronald Reagan.

So we all go out and vote, and reject the socialism, and vote 70% to 30% for Republicans.

The Democrap party arbitrarily eliminates the Cheri Bustos, Ron Barber Conservative Democrats, and fills the 3 seats with Pelosi, Waters, and Biden, the most liberal.

Then the Republicans party, chops off the Reagan, Palin, and Thompson, conservative Republicans, in favor of McCain, Romney, and Dole, Liberal Republicans.

By giving the power to choose who ultimately gets our votes, to the party, the result is, it is entirely possible for people I would NEVER have allowed in government, to get a seat because of my vote.

If I could know ahead of time that my party would put Dole, Romney or McCain in office ahead of Reagan, Palin, or Thompson, I would have voted for the democrats, or a 3rd party.

This is exactly how I have heard proportional voting described in the past, and honestly, as flawed as districting is, I would perfer that by miles, over some party telling me "thanks for your vote. Now we'll put in whoever we feel like".

 

[dblack]

A simple shift to approval voting, and away from plurality, winner-take-all, elections, would go a long way toward curing what ails us.

 

[gipper]

A simple shift to approval voting, and away from plurality, winner-take-all, elections, would go a long way toward curing what ails us.

Well maybe, but I doubt it.

The first thing that needs to happen is removing the ability to get wealthy, by being politician. Removing the ability to get rich, either while in office or afterward, will go a long way to getting rid of scumbags who seek office ONLY to get wealthy.

Second thing is term limits on all in Congress.

Then thirdly, elimination of all political parties. Each candidate stands alone on his or her views. Thus eliminating the common practice of abiding by party doctrine over honesty.

Fourthly drastically reducing the power of the POTUS during peace time and war time.

 

[dcraelin]

well it is more tied to party....Jane may lose her seat...If she is lower on the party totem pole.....but that may make the party as a whole less popular so they may be wary of dropping her. There are hybrid systems, but I find them to be more complicated. In general tho, minority viewpoints/parties are better represented in PR systems.

say a state has 10 reps allotted to it
going into an election both major parties have 5 reps
if the republicans gain major, broad based support, to say 70%,
under current system( with fair districts) you can expect Republicans to win all 10 seats.
under PR they would win 7 seats and Democrats would still maintain 3
as I outline, and I think in most PR systems, determination of the 2 Dems dropped would be up to the party

Right. And I would absolutely HATE that system.
Basically what you are saying is that we would no longer be voting for our Representatives, but rather for a party.
I HATE party. The label "republican" means absolutely nothing.
There are Republicans that are more left-wing than Obama. And there are Democrats who are more right-wing than Ronald Reagan.
So we all go out and vote, and reject the socialism, and vote 70% to 30% for Republicans.
The Democrap party arbitrarily eliminates the Cheri Bustos, Ron Barber Conservative Democrats, and fills the 3 seats with Pelosi, Waters, and Biden, the most liberal.
Then the Republicans party, chops off the Reagan, Palin, and Thompson, conservative Republicans, in favor of McCain, Romney, and Dole, Liberal Republicans.
By giving the power to choose who ultimately gets our votes, to the party, the result is, it is entirely possible for people I would NEVER have allowed in government, to get a seat because of my vote.
If I could know ahead of time that my party would put Dole, Romney or McCain in office ahead of Reagan, Palin, or Thompson, I would have voted for the democrats, or a 3rd party.
This is exactly how I have heard proportional voting described in the past, and honestly, as flawed as districting is, I would perfer that by miles, over some party telling me "thanks for your vote. Now we'll put in whoever we feel like".

What you are complaining about happens in our CURRENT system....and what your really complaining about is that the candidates back-stab what the party really stands for...the party platform....most likely due to special interest influence...

What I propose would be to tie candidates to their party's platforms better, splinter parties would steal votes if candidates didnt adhere to public promises. And the parties should still have primaries or caucuses to make sure members voices were heard.

people like to think they vote for the man not the party...but that just leaves people even more at the mercy of propagandists, image makers.....cult of personality.

A simple shift to approval voting, and away from plurality, winner-take-all, elections, would go a long way toward curing what ails us.

well Id say away from winner-take-all anyway

lost your quote somehow gipper but see above for answer on supposed partisanship.

 

[Avatar4321]

We don't need a new constitution. We need a people willing to follow the one we have.

The people are corrupt

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A simple shift to approval voting, and away from plurality, winner-take-all, elections, would go a long way toward curing what ails us.

Well maybe, but I doubt it.

The first thing that needs to happen is removing the ability to get wealthy, by being politician. Removing the ability to get rich, either while in office or afterward, will go a long way to getting rid of scumbags who seek office ONLY to get wealthy.

Second thing is term limits on all in Congress.

Then thirdly, elimination of all political parties. Each candidate stands alone on his or her views. Thus eliminating the common practice of abiding by party doctrine over honesty.

Fourthly drastically reducing the power of the POTUS during peace time and war time.

Obviously you don't realize that most, if not all, of this is un-Constitutional.

Or does all this happen after the "new constitution."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We don't need a new constitution. We need a people willing to follow the one we have.

The people are corrupt

Nonsense.

We are currently following the Constitution.

Just because its jurisprudence conflicts with your subjective partisan dogma doesn't mean judges are "corrupt."

 

[dblack]

We don't need a new constitution. We need a people willing to follow the one we have.

The people are corrupt

Nonsense.

We are currently following the Constitution.

Just because its jurisprudence conflicts with your subjective partisan dogma doesn't mean judges are "corrupt."

Just because current jurisprudence aligns with your subjective partisan dogma doesn't mean it's faithfully following the Constitution. More and more people think the Court has sold us out, and that's a problem. Without willing consent, the Constitution, and our nation, is on shaky ground.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We don't need a new constitution. We need a people willing to follow the one we have.

The people are corrupt

Nonsense.

We are currently following the Constitution.

Just because its jurisprudence conflicts with your subjective partisan dogma doesn't mean judges are "corrupt."

Just because current jurisprudence aligns with your subjective partisan dogma doesn't mean it's faithfully following the Constitution. More and more people think the Court has sold us out, and that's a problem. Without willing consent, the Constitution, and our nation, is on shaky ground.

So how do you propose to change the Constitution?

 

[dblack]

Nonsense.

We are currently following the Constitution.

Just because its jurisprudence conflicts with your subjective partisan dogma doesn't mean judges are "corrupt."

Just because current jurisprudence aligns with your subjective partisan dogma doesn't mean it's faithfully following the Constitution. More and more people think the Court has sold us out, and that's a problem. Without willing consent, the Constitution, and our nation, is on shaky ground.

So how do you propose to change the Constitution?

I'd leave most of it in place. Just clarify some things, close the up the loopholes that ambitious leaders have teased apart (general welfare clause, commerce clause). I'd ban the use of discriminatory taxation to implement social policy. ....

 

[Avatar4321]

We don't need a new constitution. We need a people willing to follow the one we have.

The people are corrupt

Nonsense.

We are currently following the Constitution.

Just because its jurisprudence conflicts with your subjective partisan dogma doesn't mean judges are "corrupt."

My "partisan dogma" has nothing to do with it. it's the fact that it conflicts with the text of the document that's the problem