New US constitutional convention: what would (or should) get changed?

[BrainGlutton]

@Anomalous Reading

Let me just one of the things I think the Constitution does well is it specifically tries to make a majority almost meaningless. It seems designed to make sure no one, and no group, gets the necessary power to do much… Unless a very sizeable part of the nation agrees that it makes sense.

And that “check and balance” system… from the Exec-Leg-Jud down to the way the Congress is divided and how the EC works… it makes sense to me. And I’m in a state that has its votes watered down.

To sum up: It should be HARD to do anything. That way, hopefully, only the good ideas (or rounded out ones) would get passed.

Of course, if we had a multiparty system, that would be a very effective C&B (and well in line with the thinking expressed by James Madison in The Federalist No. 10). In such circumstances there would almost certainly never be a majority party in Congress. Even if all power were vested in Congress, parliamentary-style, nothing would get done unless several minority parties agreed to it.

Therefore (and for many other and much better reasons discussed in the thread linked above): The Constitution should be amended (or legislation enacted wherever it would be constitutional under the current Constitution) to introduce instant-runoff voting, electoral fusion, and proportional representation.

[BrainGlutton]

Another C&B would be the creation of a Tribunate, a fourth branch of government to police the other three (and to run the elections and do other metagovernmental functions).

[Anomalous_Reading]

@BrainGlutton

Of course, if we had a multiparty system, that would be a very effective C&B (and well in line with the thinking expressed by James Madison in The Federalist No. 10). In such circumstances there would almost certainly never be a majority party in Congress. Even if all power were vested in Congress, parliamentary-style, nothing would get done unless several minority parties agreed to it.

I can say the two party system hasn’t seemed to serve us well. How we’d preserve the Senate and such within a multiparty system… I’d consider to be an interesting problem.

Proportional representation is something I could like on many levels. It does water down geography some, though. I’d like to see some successful fusion of the two.

The Republican core of evangelicals (not that all evangelicals are Republican) and the Democratic core of the minority or the “oppressed” (not that all are Democratic) has, I think, not served anyone well.

Flip side of my argument is I think we need more willingness to work TOWARDS solutions and fewer people tapping the brakes - at times. So, much as I WANT checks and balances, I also like less partisanship and more respect.

[BrainGlutton]

@Anomalous Reading

I can say the two party system hasn’t seemed to serve us well. How we’d preserve the Senate and such within a multiparty system… I’d consider to be an interesting problem.

Back in 1992, Michael Lind suggested PR for the House only, its effect on the Senate being indirect; he also argued that would not even require a constitutional amendment.

[Anomalous_Reading]

@BrainGlutton

Back in 1992, Michael Lind suggested PR for the House only, its effect on the Senate being indirect; he also argued that would not even require a constitutional amendment.

Huh… intriguing. I think that could work. Now… who would pick who my Representative is?

Maybe even just the democratization of the House might be enough to splinter the parties more.

My biggest complaint with the Constitution isn’t with the Constitution - it’s the poor decisions that have come afterward. I rather like the document and I think it’s reasonably clear - 2nd Amendment notwithstanding.

[BrainGlutton]

@Anomalous Reading

Huh… intriguing. I think that could work. Now… who would pick who my Representative is?

A combination of you and the pols purporting to represent you, with a little bit more of the “you” than in the present mixture.

@Anomalous Reading

Maybe even just the democratization of the House might be enough to splinter the parties more.

Which is the point, and an improvement.

[BrainGlutton]

@Miller

Are you arguing against legal immigration entirely, or did you just word this poorly?

Nitpick: You mean naturalization. Not the same thing as immigration, as most of the population of Saudi Arabia can tell you.