Jump to content
270soft Forum
jnewt

Forum Constitutional Convention Proposals and Discussion

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, jnewt said:

voting for article 1 is still up and will remain up, but feel free to make your proposals on Article 2 now, here are mine:

  • award electoral college votes proportionally (with a minimum threshold of 10% in order to win any EVs)
  • hold presidential elections every six years and prohibit the President from running for reelection (though allow for non-consecutive terms)
  • abolish the office of Vice President
  • establish a new line of succession where the President is followed by the Vice President (if said office is not abolished) and then the members of the cabinet (in the order their positions were created)
  • The president must fill all open vacancies in all areas in which he or she can make an appointment. The president has 90 days to make a nomination, and Congress has 90 days to hear and confirm/deny or the position is automatically confirmed.
  • Presidential recall: In order to initiate a recall election, at least one Congressmember from a majority of states must sponsor a petition (or petitions) signed by an amount of people greater than 50% of that state's voters in the previous Presidential election. If these criteria are met, a recall election will be held with the winner serving the balance of the term.
  • Trigger a special election whenever a non-nationwide-elected official (e.g. Speaker of the House or Secretary of State) ascends to the Presidency (unless it is within one year of a scheduled election)
  • remove the words "natural born citizen" from Section 1 Clause 5

I actually support all of them but the first one. I propose to abolish the Electoral College entirely and have a popular vote with a second round if no majority is gained in the first round, like in France. I also believe that Presidential recall should also be able to be initiated by a petition with a critical mass percentage of eligible voters even without sufficient support from members of Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Patine said:

I actually support all of them but the first one. I propose to abolish the Electoral College entirely and have a popular vote with a second round if no majority is gained in the first round, like in France. I also believe that Presidential recall should also be able to be initiated by a petition with a critical mass percentage of eligible voters even without sufficient support from members of Congress.

Fair enough. I'll amend my proposal by removing the required support of members of Congress. We can include the abolition of the Electoral College as a separate proposal from my proportional Electoral College proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Agree more with Patine's proposal, maybe with Ranked Pairs or Score Voting instant of top-2 runoff.
  • I don't really get the rationale behind this one.
  • The idea of a special election after the death of a president makes sense, which is what it seems you're going after.
  • (All later ones, except for recall [support Patine's change]) Support.
  • I'll like to add a parliamentary system amendment (similar to the Westminister system, but only with the parts relevant for addition to the article), if that's OK. I'm ambiguous on this, but I feel this might give some discussion value and be a potentially useful change.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Thunder said:
  • I don't really get the rationale behind this one.

Not sure which proposal you're referring to

10 minutes ago, Thunder said:
  • I'll like to add a parliamentary system amendment (similar to the Westminister system, but only with the parts relevant for addition to the article), if that's OK. I'm ambiguous on this, but I feel this might give some discussion value and be a potentially useful change.

This would probably belong in Article 1 (which we've already started voting on), but if others agree that it belongs in Article 2 we can include it as a proposal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jnewt said:

Not sure which proposal you're referring to

This would probably belong in Article 1 (which we've already started voting on), but if others agree that it belongs in Article 2 we can include it as a proposal

The six-year one-consecutive-term amendment is the one I’m confused about.

Article 2’s more appropriate mostly since the main things would be dealing with how a president is elected, and new elections.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Thunder said:

The six-year one-consecutive-term amendment is the one I’m confused about.

Basically just to change things around. I think one 6 year term would be better than two 4 year terms; you wouldn't have Presidents campaigning and worrying about how they can reelected while they're still in office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to add ranked-choice voting as a proposal for Article 2 (the proposal for Article 1 only pertains to congressional elections)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jnewt said:

Have electoral college votes be distributed proportionally

remove natural born citizen clause and replace with general citizen clause

 "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." Make clear it means they must Approve not 2/3rds must disprove. that's the scam Obama relied on to get the Iran deal approved.

update language of "high crimes and misdemeanors" to be more modern (misdemeanors meaning has changed since then)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Have electoral college votes be distributed proportionally

remove natural born citizen clause and replace with general citizen clause

 "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." Make clear it means they must Approve not 2/3rds must disprove. that's the scam Obama relied on to get the Iran deal approved.

update language of "high crimes and misdemeanors" to be more modern (misdemeanors meaning has changed since then)

Are the first two any different from my proposals? I didn't include "replace with general citizen clause" but I just proposed to remove the words "natural born" from Section 1 Clause 5.

Can you reword your third proposal? I think I understand it but just want to make sure (I believe I proposed something somewhat similar but I think it's basically the opposite).

How exactly should the language of "high crimes and misdemeanors" be updated? I think we should specify exactly what crimes but we could leave it relatively unclear to allow for interpretation, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jnewt said:

Are the first two any different from my proposals? I didn't include "replace with general citizen clause" but I just proposed to remove the words "natural born" from Section 1 Clause 5.

Can you reword your third proposal? I think I understand it but just want to make sure (I believe I proposed something somewhat similar but I think it's basically the opposite).

How exactly should the language of "high crimes and misdemeanors" be updated? I think we should specify exactly what crimes but we could leave it relatively unclear to allow for interpretation, too.

I'd just eliminate the word "misdemeanor" as it's meaning has changed since the constitution's drafting

I'd clarify that for treaties 2/3rd's of the senate must APPROVE not 2/3rds must DISPROVE Obama tried and succeeded in using the latter to get the Iran deal passed despite most of the Senate opposing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support abolishing the EC and going for Direct Democracy, also i support NYrepublican's idea of removing "natural born" from Article 1 Clause 5, also i suggest shortening the President's term to 2-3 years and allow to run to up to 3 consectuive terms, essentially making Midterms actual General Elections and allow the President to call early elections

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the electoral college isn't abolished, I would be in favor of compromising and allowing proportional voting (though I'd prefer it to remain the way it is)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

If the electoral college isn't abolished, I would be in favor of compromising and allowing proportional voting (though I'd prefer it to remain the way it is)

If the Electoral College isn't abolished, though, the system will remain broken, horrible candidates will continue to dominate and win, a two-party system will remain practically an essential and remain entrenched and nigh undefeatable at the level of the Presidential office, the vicious socio-political divide that is tearing apart the nation like growing wound within that emanates from it's two-party system, the Achilles' Heel of an otherwise great nation, and makes certain political ideals (like Trump's "Makes America Great Again") IMPOSSIBLE for any U.S. President elected under these circumstances (not just Trump, but any President elected in this socio-political environment) to fulfill, riots will become more and more common after elections, perhaps even getting to the point of an attempted American Spring or and outright revolt, and a bleak, divided, bloody, internally-hateful future with no U.S. President capable of fixing the situation at all, or even anything but exacerbating and compounding the issue and making it worse, will likely elected in the forseeable future under this system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

If the Electoral College isn't abolished, though, the system will remain broken, horrible candidates will continue to dominate and win, a two-party system will remain practically an essential and remain entrenched and nigh undefeatable at the level of the Presidential office, the vicious socio-political divide that is tearing apart the nation like growing wound within that emanates from it's two-party system, the Achilles' Heel of an otherwise great nation, and makes certain political ideals (like Trump's "Makes America Great Again") IMPOSSIBLE for any U.S. President elected under these circumstances (not just Trump, but any President elected in this socio-political environment) to fulfill, riots will become more and more common after elections, perhaps even getting to the point of an attempted American Spring or and outright revolt, and a bleak, divided, bloody, internally-hateful future with no U.S. President capable of fixing the situation at all, or even anything but exacerbating and compounding the issue and making it worse, will likely elected in the forseeable future under this system.

Abolishing the EC would actually hurt 3rd parties as every vote would count.  This would take away a lot of votes from those parties in states that are deemed safe (like my APUSH teacher's vote).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jvikings1 said:

Abolishing the EC would actually hurt 3rd parties as every vote would count.  This would take away a lot of votes from those parties in states that are deemed safe (like my APUSH teacher's vote).

This hasn't proven to be the case in France, for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

This hasn't proven to be the case in France, for instance.

France is also a different country culturaly and politically. And the 2017 election was the only time in the founding of the republic that neither of the duopoly made the run off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

France is also a different country culturaly and politically. And the 2017 election was the only time in the founding of the republic that neither of the duopoly made the run off.

The United States culture and politics is frankly destroying it from within. REAL solutions are needed to avoid a catastrophe of monumental proportions resulting from this, with likely apocalyptic effects, not just for the U.S., but globally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

France is also a different country culturaly and politically. And the 2017 election was the only time in the founding of the republic that neither of the duopoly made the run off.

Also, you're comment here is a bit false. There have not been the same consistent two major PARTIES for the whole of the Fifth Republic that have dominated. Although the most votes usually go to A Socialist party and A Gaullist-style Republican party, the fact is, the morphing, changes, splits, mergers, and political dynamism of the Fifth Republic list of political parties at any one time is such that there have been SEVERAL major Socialist and Gaullist-style Republican parties, with actual different names, logos, organization, founding members, and actual differing areas of ideology that have been cycled through in the of Fifth Republic' political churn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

voting for article 2 is still up and will remain up, but feel free to make your proposals on Article 3 now, here are mine:

  • Fix the number of Supreme Court justices to 9, allowing for no reduction or increase in this number
  • The president must fill all open vacancies in the judicial branch in which he or she can make an appointment. The president has 90 days to make a nomination, and Congress has 90 days to hear and confirm/deny or the position is automatically confirmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jnewt said:

voting for article 2 is still up and will remain up, but feel free to make your proposals on Article 3 now, here are mine:

  • Fix the number of Supreme Court justices to 9, allowing for no reduction or increase in this number
  • The president must fill all open vacancies in the judicial branch in which he or she can make an appointment. The president has 90 days to make a nomination, and Congress has 90 days to hear and confirm/deny or the position is automatically confirmed.

I'd also add a nationwide injunction against judicial elections

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, jnewt said:

voting for article 2 is still up and will remain up, but feel free to make your proposals on Article 3 now, here are mine:

  • Fix the number of Supreme Court justices to 9, allowing for no reduction or increase in this number
  • The president must fill all open vacancies in the judicial branch in which he or she can make an appointment. The president has 90 days to make a nomination, and Congress has 90 days to hear and confirm/deny or the position is automatically confirmed.

I feel as thought automatic confirmation could be used nefariously 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

I feel as thought automatic confirmation could be used nefariously 

I'd also limit obstructionism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reagan04 said:

I feel as thought automatic confirmation could be used nefariously 

But 90 days is a fairly long time, if the Senate can't reject an unqualified candidate in 3 months then we have other problems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jnewt said:

But 90 days is a fairly long time, if the Senate can't reject an unqualified candidate in 3 months then we have other problems

Yes, I think a Senate Majority Leader could use this to circumvent moderate members of their own party. This goes for a Far-Left or Far-Right President/Senate Majority Leader combo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×