I’m not Crafter_Man, but I’ve heard the argument. It is basically that we already have one popularly elected House of Congress: The House of Representatives. When you have two popularly elected Houses, you just get more spending, more programs, more giveaways, etc.
The original Constitutional design would allow state legislatures to choose the senators thereby making them more response to state interests and not enacting so many things that intrude on state powers and make the 10th Amendment more viable. Further, as they would not be beholden to the people, they would feel freer to not vote for the spending, the programs, the giveaways, etc. and possibly restrain federal spending.
It’s a Republican thing. I’m not sold on it as I’m not sure it would really work. I think the state legislature would largely elect the same senators we have now.
Do you honestly think that if Trump had five years of mayoring or state legislature under his belt, he would be a normal president? It’s who he is that is the issue, not his lack of experience.
Put another way, do you think that if Bill Gates or Mark Cuban were elected president, the results would be the same as the Trump presidency?
You don’t amend a constitution to respond to one person’s personality.
If I could make any amendment I wanted, I would switch the US to a parliamentary system with mixed-member proportional representation (essentially I would remove the senate and the electoral college, switch house voting to MMP, have the house vote for president and have the ability to collapse the governing majority).
Since I realize this is ridiculously unpopular, a slightly more pragmatic (though still unrealistic) plan is the FairVote proposal of ranked choice/single transferable vote.
I would also make election day a federal holiday and add Puerto Rico as a state (or at least give them a binding referendum to become a state).
I think that had DJT been say a mayor for five years, his lack of aptitude for government service would have been more evident before running for president. Maybe that would have been enough to derail his presidential campaign, maybe not. But I still say that the presidency is not an entry level position in government service.
I’m not sure if Gates or Cuban would make a good president. I’d much rather find out their aptitude for electoral positions by proving themselves a capable legislator, mayor, or governor first.
Ordinarily, I would agree that you don’t amend the Constitution in response to one person. But this guy is so dangerous that we must do everything humanly possible to prevent a repeat.
Obviously if there was a political system that eliminated every possible bad political outcome, we wouldn’t have so many threads arguing about it on message boards like these because everyone would already be doing the thing that works 100% of the time. I think on balance, parliamentary systems with proportional representation in some form tend to outclass any other form of electoral system.
Even for those specific examples, I take some issue with your criticism:
Israel has a massive problem that it is a divided country in a way that a country like the US is not, and suffers from one of the two pitfalls in a proportional system - there are enough groups that absolutely refuse to work together that it’s extremely difficult for any coalition other than the one Likud has had for years to exist. Even with this problem, Netanyahu is actually going to face a real trial, as opposed to the inter-branch checks the US has had that have been completely ineffective against Trump and essentially the reason for this is that Israel has a parliamentary system. Rather than being held in check by nothing but the threat of an impeachment process with an extremely high barrier to actually enforce legislative control over the executive, Netanyahu has to constantly maintain his parliamentary coalition in order to maintain power - and he tried and failed over 3 elections to find a coalition willing to shut down the investigation.
The UK has a parliamentary system, but crucially still has first past the post and in my opinion this is a major contributor to both Brexit and BoJo’s rise. The EU referendum happened essentially because the Tories were horrified of getting their own voter base split between leavers and remainers. If they had PR this wouldn’t be a problem - there would be a pro-Europe conservative party and something like UKIP or the Brexit party - but they wouldn’t need to compete for the same voter base and the dynamic would be more similar to PR countries in Europe with Euroskeptic movements that are constantly on the outside because they don’t get to play an outsized role by threatening to split the vote of major parties.
For what it’s worth, I agree with both of you on these two points as well.
As long as there are legal provisions allowing people to have the opportunity to vote if they need to during their work hours, I don’t see any compelling reason why they need to take a day off.
I agree with DrDeth; if you give people a couple of hours off from work, they’ll go vote. If you give them the entire day off from work, they’ll go to the beach or have a barbecue.
As for congressional pay, I feel you get what you pay for. Offer a top salary and attract the best candidates for the job. I have no problem with members of congress making good money as long as they’re doing the work. And if they’re not doing the work, then we fire them in the next election.
Reducing their salaries would just make entry into Congress more difficult for regular people. And it would increase the influence of lobbyists and donors.
Because a lot of people do actually want the ritual of voting in person along with all your fellow citizens, and wage slavery shouldn’t be a reason to not get that. Voting day should be a celebratory experience, not a chore. It’s not about “need”.
At least, it’s been that for me and mine - but then, my first vote was also in my country’s first free democratic election, so I’m likely biased.
Maybe, maybe not. The original Constitution doesn’t mention any other members of the executive branch, but the 25th Amendment mentions “the principal officers of the executive departments”. Admittedly, it doesn’t define who those officers are or give a list or anything, but it assumes such officers exist.
As far as the OP, here’s my wish list:
repeal the 2nd Amendment
some provision to undo Citzens United vs FEC (not sure exactly what, though)
direct election of the president
proportional representation for each state’s congressional delegation (This would get rid of congressional districts and the gerrymandering thereof. It would require the Constitution to reference political parties, something it doesn’t currently do. But that, I think, is really a flaw in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers didn’t like the idea of them, so they pretended they didn’t exist. Yet they almost immediately formed them after the Constitution was approved.)
expand the HofR by at least 50%
a provision that requires religious institutions to be taxed by the same rules as corporations
Suggestions 3 & 4 above might require the establishment of a 4th branch of the government: an Elections Office or Commission. Presumably run by non-partisan officials, but I’m not sure how we can ensure that. Perhaps they could be nominated by the Supreme Court collectively.
(Missed the edit window) Realized that the corporate tax laws wouldn’t quite work for churches. But some provision that requires donations to them and any other earnings to be taxed in the same manner as income is for companies.
I forgot to put this in my OP, but I would make it clear that only flesh and blood people constitute persons, and that corporate entities have no rights under the Constitution.
There is a lot of discussion on how to make it easier to vote, but it’s been figured out in places like Washington and Oregon. Everyone gets a ballot in the mail two weeks before the election. Mail it back if you want to vote. No time off work, no lines, no suppression. And, no credible complaints of problems.
I’m not sold on it as I’m not sure it would really work. I think the state legislature would largely elect the same senators we have now.
Are you Republican? 