[QUOTE=BwanaBob]
No, people. A federal election is the collation of 50 mini (state) elections, not a popular vote. You don’t get to put your votes into the pot of another state.
Leave the electoral college alone.
[/QUOTE]
Well, the Republicans don’t see it your way. They want part of California’s electoral votes. :dubious:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/republican-ploy-california-electoral-votes
If we’re just coming up with wish-lists here, regardless of likelihood of popular support, I have a few:
(1) Enshrine equal rights for everyone, regardless of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, in the constitution. Yes, this means gay marriage.
(2) Do something to make third party candidates viable. There’s absolutely no reason that someone should not be able to make a vote that says “my first choice is Ralph Nader. If he isn’t winning, my second choice is John Kerry”. (This is some version of instant-runoff balloting, or something.)
(3) Get rid of the electoral college. There’s absolutely no reason that my vote towards the president is less important than some guy from Wyoming, just because I live in California. Does that give the smaller states less power? Sure! But they SHOULD have less power. They’re smaller. Does it mean that no presidential candidate will ever visit them? No more than an equivalent region of a populous state.
(4) Do something about gerrymandering, as discussed above. If 10% of the population of a state is (some group), and they want to elect representatives who are (some group), there’s no reason they shouldn’t do so even if they live in a dispersed fashion.
(5) Rewrite the 2nd amendment in such a way that things like background checks, registration, mandatory safety training, waiting periods, etc., are unambiguously legal, but total prohibition of person-sized weapons is unambiguously not. Then let’s go argue about something else for a change.
(6) Allow the death penalty only in cases of conviction for death-worthy crimes in two entirely separate and unrelated incidents.
(7) Much more campaign finance reform.
First of all, I think the electoral college is fine as it is. A state can distribute their votes however they want. If they want to distribute them proportionally to their individual popular vote, let them. All they’re doing then, is marginalizing their say in the actual results because, more often than not, if they have an even number of votes, they’re worth zero or MAYBE two votes, whereas a state with an odd number of votes is worth one or MAYBE three. Thus, the result will be that the campaigning will be funneled to states with an odd number of electoral votes and likely large states with an odd number of electoral votes. That is, getting a proportional number of votes to get one electoral vote from a large state will be easier.
In essence, you’re not only re-introducing the entire purpose of the the electoral college to begin with (to ensure that EVERY state has a say, not just the most populated ones), but then you throw in a random variable based on how their populations relate to other states, making the system completely worthless.
Besides, only about two or three times in history has it NOT aligned with the popular vote, but if politicians were not forced to address the issues of the lesser populated areas, chances are that would be less true.
Second, IMO, the second amendment cannot be eliminated, not only because it won’t fly, but because the reason why it is there is necessary to address. The amendment doesn’t even make reference to self-defence; AFAIK, that reference didn’t come for many years. From what I gather, the purpose was as a guarantee that the people will be able to fight back against a tyranical government (as was the spark of the revolution to begin with). Of course, these days the government has the people out-gunned by a long shot, but it is still easier to oppress an unarmed citizenry than an armed one.
Further, restrictions on the types of weapons don’t make sense. The sorts of people that “NEED” to have a bazooka or a nuclear weapon probably aren’t the type of people that will obey our laws ANYWAY. And they’re probably the sort that have the illicit funds and connections to get those items outside the law anyway. Concerns over an “average” citizen obtaining a nuclear weapon is completely baseless simply because it is cost prohibitive. This is true of virtually any weapon that any sort of weapon ban would implement.
Further, with foresight, let’s assume that some form of WMD ceases to be cost prohibitive. Regardless of whatever laws are in place, we’re definitively subject to anarchy simply because then any person willing to violate the laws enough to get a WMD would then be able to impose his OWN laws with it.
Thus, because I believe the theory behind the Second Amendment, on top of basic property rights and self-defense rights, and because any potential ambiguity leads itself to accidental or intentional misrepresentation of the intent, I would reword it to language identical
IMO, the Second Amendment should be reworded to be completely unambiguous in the same sort of language as the first amendment. I would word it simply as “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Third, I also agree that any reference to money should be updated with a reference stipulating it should be accounted for inflation. Or, for things like Jury duty, to avoid some complicated definitions, just make it such that they’re compensated at the same rate at which they’d be compensated were they at their normal jobs.
Finally, I agree with some sort of term limits for representatives and/or senators. I think after a certain period of time they simply start to lose touch with the people (with some exceptions). For instance, in Virginia, a governor cannot serve more than a single term sequentially (I’m unsure if they can run again after a term out of office).
While that may be a bit extreme, term limits could be modified in several ways: 1) Absolute limits, with which I disagree because sometimes a politician really is doing a good job. 2) Sequential limits, that is, may only serve so many in a row, this doesn’t help because if he’s popular, you’re forcing the people to go with someone they like less for a term, before they can get the guy that really like back further, what if he’s replaced with someone they like just as well, you’re forcing them to essentially choose which of the two they like less. 3) Confidence vote, simply have the people decide if he should be allowed to run again. For instance, there may be someone who will basically always vote for the same party as the individual, so he’s “forced” (though I don’t believe that’s fundamentally true, many people do) to vote for the guy that’s in office when he runs for re-election, even though he thinks his party can probably put up a better candidate.
No matter what, I can’t really think of a good solution to apply term limits, and the first two would probably be better set up by the states and/or parties themselves than the federal government simply because I don’t think it has a one-size-fits-all solution.
[QUOTE=unconventional]
Well, the Republicans don’t see it your way. They want part of California’s electoral votes. :dubious:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/republican-ploy-california-electoral-votes
[/QUOTE]
That has nothing to do with what the poster was talking about-- ie, a nationwide, popular election that isn’t filtered thru the states.
States are free to choose electors as they want. Nebraska and Maine already do what CA Republicans are trying to do. (Not that I think the CA Republicans’ motives are “pure of heart” here, but there’s nothing really wrong with doing it that way.)
[QUOTE=silenus]
Winner take all is a lousy system for distributing Electoral votes. Make states allocate them proportionally so the losing party doesn’t get totally disenfranchised.
[/QUOTE]
That makes no sense. The race has only two positions up for election, the presidency and vice presidency, and they run as a team. Only one slate can win, the other will lose. So what does it matter by what proportion the winning side gets electoral votes?
Here’s the thing. I can understand doing away with the electoral college and electing the president directly. But these methods to “reform” the electoral college are stupid. If we were re-writing the constitution today–which is the premise of the thread–then we’d go with direct election of the president, just like we’d go with direct election of Senators rather than having them chosen like they were origionally, by the state legislatures.
If we always want the winner of the popular vote to become president, then just hold a popular vote, you know?
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
That makes no sense. The race has only two positions up for election, the presidency and vice presidency, and they run as a team. Only one slate can win, the other will lose. So what does it matter by what proportion the winning side gets electoral votes?
[/QUOTE]
But it does matter. If the vote in California is 51% Democrat and 49% Republican, the states 53 Electoral votes go Democrat. The Republicans might as well have stayed home. But if the votes are allocated proportionally, then every vote counts, because you will get some part of the total Electoral votes. That can make a big difference. As a non-Democrat Californian, I’m tired of my Presidential vote not count for shit.
Section IV of Article II could stand a little clarification. (They include definitions in the CFR.)
(Did I miss an earlier link, or are you all just pretending you know the constitution by heart?)
[QUOTE=silenus]
But it does matter. If the vote in California is 51% Democrat and 49% Republican, the states 53 Electoral votes go Democrat. The Republicans might as well have stayed home. But if the votes are allocated proportionally, then every vote counts, because you will get some part of the total Electoral votes. That can make a big difference. As a non-Democrat Californian, I’m tired of my Presidential vote not count for shit.
[/QUOTE]
But the President’s a Republican. So did none of the Democratic votes count?
Losing is not synonymous with disenfranchisement. You aren’t “disenfranchised” because the candidate you voted for lost. You’re “disenfranchised” if you’re not permitted to vote at all.
Return to federalism such as:
[QUOTE=HoboStew]
Doubt it. Political winds change quickly these days, and backlash hits everyone eventually. If we are really worried, we can have a 4 term limit. Call it the FDR rule.
There’s no way we are gonna get anything accepted in America without some verbage guaranteeing a right to bear some sort of arms. But as we have seen, getting the exact wording correct is pretty crucial. Getting it accurate and succinct is going to be the real challenge.
[/QUOTE]
Why don’t you start by getting a fucking realistic grasp on exactly what the fuck “arms” means?
[QUOTE=j666]
(Did I miss an earlier link, or are you all just pretending you know the constitution by heart?)
[/QUOTE]
The Bill of Rights isn’t printed on the back of your NRA membership card? 
[QUOTE=j666]
(Did I miss an earlier link, or are you all just pretending you know the constitution by heart?)
[/QUOTE]
We all watched a lot of Schoolhouse Rock.
I’d like to figure out some kind of broadly worded Personal Liberty Right. Basically something that would prohibit all of the laws that are based on the theory of “I don’t like to do this so nobody should be allowed to do it”. A right that says that if you’re an adult and you’re not harming anyone else, you can do whaever you want and public opinion and the government can’t stop you. I realize that it would probably be difficult to define exactly where “harming anyone else” begins but I’d like to see at least an attempt made in this direction.
Another idea. Abolish geographic representation. Allow anyone to be a candidate for the House of Representatives. Anyone in the country can vote for any candidate regardless of where they live. Any candidate who gets 250,000 votes or more gets lected to Congress. People will minority political views, who normally get ignored, will be able to band together nationwide and elect candidates to office.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
I’d like to figure out some kind of broadly worded Personal Liberty Right. Basically something that would prohibit all of the laws that are based on the theory of “I don’t like to do this so nobody should be allowed to do it”. A right that says that if you’re an adult and you’re not harming anyone else, you can do whaever you want and public opinion and the government can’t stop you. I realize that it would probably be difficult to define exactly where “harming anyone else” begins but I’d like to see at least an attempt made in this direction.
[/QUOTE]
It sounds like you’re talking about something like the “standing” requirement in civil suits. When you file a lawsuit, one of the prerequisites is that you have to demonstrate standing - that you’re claiming a specific harm, suffered at the hands of the person (or company, or government agency) you’re suing, and the court has the ability to redress whatever wrong you’ve suffered (by directing the payment of damages, for example). I can’t just sue someone for doing something I disapprove of - I need to demonstrate it harms me personally.
I’m no fan of laws that punish “victimless crimes”, so I’m not unsympathetic to your idea, Little Nemo - perhaps something like this might work:
[QUOTE=silenus]
As a non-Democrat Californian, I’m tired of my Presidential vote not count for shit.
[/QUOTE]
Then again, compared to someone from North Dakota, so are the Democratic presidential voters.
[QUOTE=MGibson]
If nothing else this thread should illustrate the difficulties in forming a government everyone can agree upon.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed. You’ll never get an inch of concession on the Second Amendment from me or from millions of Americans who share my views. (I’m in favor of strengthening it, personally.) Most other things, I’m more than willing to debate and compromise on, but gun rights are an issue we mobilize around.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
I’d like to figure out some kind of broadly worded Personal Liberty Right. Basically something that would prohibit all of the laws that are based on the theory of “I don’t like to do this so nobody should be allowed to do it”. A right that says that if you’re an adult and you’re not harming anyone else, you can do whaever you want and public opinion and the government can’t stop you. I realize that it would probably be difficult to define exactly where “harming anyone else” begins but I’d like to see at least an attempt made in this direction.
[/QUOTE]
I definitely like the idea, but I get the feeling this would be difficult to implement, not least because there really are a lot of people who actually do like being able to enforce their whims on others…
GREAT thread.
Little Nemo and MrExcellent beat me to it, on the personal liberty amendment…you rats!
Getting too specific about the constitution seems like a bad idea; ambiguity=flexibility, to my mind, which may be why it’s managed to hold on for as long as it has. And I shudder to think what a new Constitutional Convention might come up with. We got lucky, let’s don’t push it.
OK, I didn’t say much there. How about:
RATIFY THE DAMNED ERA ALREADY. Sheesh. Start over if need be, just do it.
PERSONAL LIBERTY- my habits and decisions are mine alone. This should help in ditching these really offensive drug/abortion laws.
And my big contribution:
A SUPERPOWERED COMBO PACKAGE DEAL FOIA/SUNSHINE LAW AMENDMENT. Basically, remove any legal protection for concealment of government activity, at any level, that cannot qualify as a fer real national secret. No more “executive priviledge.” No more mystery riders on spending bills; someone’s gotta sign their name. Campaign contributions cannot be “bundled.” And politicians MUST disclose their religious biases & sexual habits.
Do these simple things, and America will be a Paradise again. 
Require all laws to have a sunset date not more than twenty years after their date of enactment.
Put a hard number on the “limited terms” of the Copyrights and Patents clause. (Eric Flint makes a good argument for something around forty years being optimal; based on that, I’d set the limit at 50-60.
Clarify what does and doesn’t count as a declaration of war; the current mish-mash of “authorizations” makes the war-declaration clause effectively meaningless.
Require supermajority votes to impose/increase taxes.
How about an amendment mandating that all laws and regulations must have a realistic sundown provision that requires full debate before reimplementation? I’ll bet a lot of useless regulations would disappear that way, and lawmakers would be more reticent to “pass a law about it” over every little thing.
Unlike Stealth Potato, I’d be willing to require realistic, non-politicized gun registration, but only if it came bundled with a one-permit-works-anywhere concealed-carry provision, just like a driver’s license. Barring that, no quarter.