The only thing I would mandate at the start of the convention would be unambiguous strict constructionist language requirements. The federal government only has the powers specifically and narrowly attributed to it by the constitution.
Where it goes from there, I’m up for anything.
Traitors, insurrectionists, and others who have committed acts of disloyalty should have their voting rights removed, as well as those who would commit voter fraud or otherwise interfere with the voting rights of others.
That’s much more specific than the first version, and makes sense.
Why?
They already do- two each.
No National IDs. But what voting restriction do you want to get rid of?
Yep- except you also have to show you filed taxes every year.
Have you looked at the UK and Israel recently? Parliamentary has no advantages.
What voting rights? We have had one President with more than two terms, and it didnt work out well for the 4th, and it was only due to not changing horses in the middle of a war.
But in 2023 with cell phones, texting, videos, email, etc. is that really a concern like it was in 1787? As an simplistic example, would it be bad if the 40% of rural voters in a state were represented by “rural representatives” as 40% of the state’s delegation? Urban voters were represented by the other 60% of the delegation by “urban representatives” no matter what city(ies) they came from?
All presidential primaries are held on the same day - this would eliminate some states having a great deal of influence on party nominations, and others almost none
Allow cross party voting in primaries - I believe this would reduce extremist candidates
Ranked Order Voting with a majority needed for election to any position - I never understood how anyone can be elected with less than a majority
Term limits, 8 years for HOR, 18 for Senate, 20 for SCOTUS
What didn’t work out well? He wasn’t the only president to die in office. He has a VP who turned out to be good POTUS himself. There’s nothing wrong with presidents serving as many terms as the people want when the people have all their voting rights intact. And one of those rights is the right of every citizen to vote for the candidate of their choice.
Aren’t the voters supposed to know how their representatives voted?
Maybe; but can an ERA be worded specifically enough that it doesn’t become a general mandate for the court to order anything and everything whatsoever it deems necessary to correct the historical lower status of women in society? I.E., should the court be in the business of creating equity rather than equality?
Exactly. I was just pointing out that this is the one thing that cannot be changed by an amendment.
Every now and then - usually when there’s a Supreme Court vote that goes 51-49 for the Republicans - there are calls to change the Senate because it’s “unfair” that smaller (and usually right-leaning) states get just as many Senators as larger (and usually left-leaning) ones.
How do parliamentary systems handle not having a civilian Commander In Chief of the armed forces? On the one hand it gives the USA president perhaps too much discretionary power to order the use of military force; but on the other hand it helps guarantee that the top leader of the military is an civilian office holder, not a five-star Marshall motivated by the institutional interests of the military.
They do have a civilian commander in chief. In most parliamentary systems, there’s a formal and ceremonial commander in chief, which is the head of state - the monarch in monarchies, or a ceremonial president in republics. But this head of state is commander in chief only on paper; in practice, the person heading the armed forces is a cabinet member - might be the head of government (prime minister or whatever the title may be) or, more likely, the cabinet member in charge of defence (minister or secretary of defence, whatever the title may be). In modern parliamentary democracies, these posts are almost always held by a civilian.
Germany, I might add, is an exception in the sense that even formally, its commander in chief is the minister of defence, with that role being transferred to the chancellor (i.e., the head of government) in times of war. But there, too, it’s invariably civilians who get appointed to these posts. The head of state (a ceremonial president) is not involved in running the armed forces (although he formally issues officers’ commissions).
Ok, instead of getting rid of voting restrictions, change the rules on congressional representation so that instead of census counts, the number of representatives a state has is determined entirely by the number of people who vote in the preceding congressional election. Then let the states sort it out.
One of the most insidious ways of restricting voting is simply not having enough polling booths. A friend of mine who then lived in Cleveland told me that a couple months before the 2000 election, the state government took a bunch of voting machines away from Cleveland (which really needed them) to put in rural areas (which didn’t). As a result people in black areas were still waiting at midnight and a lot of them must have given up. He felt that the election was stolen in Ohio, not Florida. I any case, this proposal would take this incentive away from states. It would likely end up, in most states, in a lot of voting by mail.
That’s a big question I see partially answered.
While I trust Joe Biden here, having nuclear launch authority in the hand of any one person is an existential risk that should be addressed by legislation before you know who gets possibly regains the presidency.
I guess a constitutional literalist could argue that such legislation goes against having a single person as commander in chief. So, come to think of it, having something on the rough model of the Israeli security cabinet, limiting the president or prime minister’s military authority, should be in the new constitution.
Did they even have districts back in 1787? Nothing in the Constitution requires them.
I am thinking more along the lines of, 90% of the California Representatives would end up in southern California, so people in northern California that have concerns don’t have too many people to turn to; a southern California Representative might be more interested in their local area than somebody 600 miles away.
My thought was, once the number of Representatives for a state is decided, the districts are “awarded” one at a time to each party. If the Democrats got 75% of the vote, the choice would go D, D, D, R, D, D, D, R, and so on.
The idea is to free members from the party whip and allow them to vote in the interests of their constituents without worrying about being punished (or, as we’re seeing right now, being targeted for death threats) for voting the “wrong” way.
Italy used to have secret ballots in their parliament. Contributed to great instability, because there was no way to tell who was responsible for the outcome of a vote.
What a good excuse to avoid making sure women are protected by the Bill of Rights. Thanks for that.
Hmm. There has to be some way to let members vote their conscience without being threatened or punished for it. Perhaps an expansion of the speech and debate clause (as modified by the perjury amendment I mentioned above) coupled with a robust reworking of campaign finance law.
If you came here at age 8? If you’re 83 and ill?
If you want to require showing some means of support, support from others in one’s family included; and allow some exception for people genuinely incapable of supporting themselves who wound up with no family: I’ll hear that argument. Presuming of course that people are in the meantime allowed to legally hire the applicant – otherwise it amounts to ‘you must support yourself but we’re not going to allow you to do that’.
I don’t think that either cities or rural areas are as interchangeable, or as individually character-less, as you appear to think.
Bad idea. It would also eliminate the chances of anyone not already extremely well funded and nationally extremely well known before the whole thing started.
Obama, for instance, would never have been elected under that system.
Some states already do this. I’m curious about whether it works that way.
I do think ranked order voting is probably a good idea.
Nobody in practice has that right now. I never got to vote for Shirley Chisholm.
Yeah. I want to know how they voted. Didn’t we have this discussion in another thread recently?
But they’d also be freed from any of their constituents’ finding out if they did otherwise.
If their constituents can’t find out how they voted, how is anyone to tell whether their conscience agreed with any of their constituents’ consciences?
A robust reworking of campaign finance law would indeed be a good idea.
The Republicans do not allow cross-party voting in Presidential primaries. This was brought up when California first started its “open primary” system in 2000; the Republicans pointed to a clause in its rules that says that a primary can’t be used to award delegates if non-Republicans could vote in it, but the party reached a compromise with the state; there were two vote counts announced - one for all voters (a “straw poll,” for all intents and purposes), and one for registered Republicans that was used to award the delegates.