Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
NYrepublican

Forum Amendments to Article 1

Which of the following amendments to article 1 would you favor?  

17 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. Which of the following amendments to article 1 would you favor?

    • Unicameral legislature with MMP voting system elected every 4 years during midterms
    • Universal adult suffrage
    • Remove age requirements, slavery related things
    • Term limits for Congress (16 years)
    • Voter initiative to call referendums to challenge congressional laws
    • Give President a line item veto
    • Have districts drawn by an independent commission
    • Have districts drawn using the split line method
    • Ranked choice voting in all federal elections
    • Forbid Governors from making temporary appointments to Congress; instead, require an automatic special election to be held within 6 months of a seat becoming vacant (unless an election is already scheduled to take place within 6 months)
    • Eliminate presidential vetoes replace with "sober second review"
    • Define copyright as 50 years MAX.
    • no changes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 07/12/2018 at 02:14 AM

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

2. Does that mean kids and non-citizens can vote?  If so, that is a horrible idea.  Non-citizens shouldn't have a say in how a country is governed.

Note that our current Constitution does not prohibit voting by non-citizens.

Share this post


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

2 - The term "universal suffrage," which is commonly used around the world, NEVER means children and non-citizens, just for reference.

I'm not familiar with this term which is why I am asking for an explanation.

12 hours ago, Patine said:

5 - Why is this scary? Should citizens have to suffer from stupid laws opposed by a majority of the population but supported by government elites or special interest groups with no short-term legal recourse?

If you have a problem with a law, vote your representative out.  Going down this route sets a dangerous precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pilight said:

Note that our current Constitution does not prohibit voting by non-citizens.

And?  It still doesn't change that it's a terrible idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

And?  It still doesn't change that it's a terrible idea.

Well if they paid taxes and only voted in local elections it mightn't be as big a deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

If you have a problem with a law, vote your representative out.  Going down this route sets a dangerous precedent.

 

I'm curious what the dangerous precedent would be, or some more clear details of this. I'm not the most informed on political science, so I'm not sure what you're referring to there.

Additionally, "voting your representative out" only works if the bill passed by a one-vote margin, and also would require delays of years to fix an issue with a bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Thunder said:

I'm curious what the dangerous precedent would be, or some more clear details of this. I'm not the most informed on political science, so I'm not sure what you're referring to there.

Additionally, "voting your representative out" only works if the bill passed by a one-vote margin, and also would require delays of years to fix an issue with a bill.

Congress would also never be able to pass necessary but unpopular measures like raising taxes if this happened @Patine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Thunder said:

I'm curious what the dangerous precedent would be, or some more clear details of this. I'm not the most informed on political science, so I'm not sure what you're referring to there.

Additionally, "voting your representative out" only works if the bill passed by a one-vote margin, and also would require delays of years to fix an issue with a bill.

There's a reason that the Founders didn't put in a national referendum.  It's because they didn't trust Democracy.  There have been moves (especially at the state level) towards more of a democratic system, but for the most part, the federal government has resisted those changes (direct election of Senators being the one big example of change).

If you don't like your representative you have a chance the punish them every 2 or 6 years.  if people keep electing the same people, that's their fault.  (That's also my reason for being against term limits.)

Share this post


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

There's a reason that the Founders didn't put in a national referendum.  It's because they didn't trust Democracy.  There have been moves (especially at the state level) towards more of a democratic system, but for the most part, the federal government has resisted those changes (direct election of Senators being the one big example of change).

If you don't like your representative you have a chance the punish them every 2 or 6 years.  if people keep electing the same people, that's their fault.  (That's also my reason for being against term limits.)

It seems to go OK in the states, why wouldn't it work well nationwide? Also, the government resisting doesn't mean it's bad, and appeal to tradition is not a full argument.

I also don't think we should have to wait 2 or 6 years to try to get a representative who wrote a bad law out, for that matter (especially if large political changes happen in that time), or to have to elect someone that disagrees with us in every other way to overturn one law. And yes, term limits are rather misguided in my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

There's a reason that the Founders didn't put in a national referendum.  It's because they didn't trust Democracy.  There have been moves (especially at the state level) towards more of a democratic system, but for the most part, the federal government has resisted those changes (direct election of Senators being the one big example of change).

If you don't like your representative you have a chance the punish them every 2 or 6 years.  if people keep electing the same people, that's their fault.  (That's also my reason for being against term limits.)

Those Constitutional mechanisms to reign in unbridled democracy and popular impressionism (like the Electoral College, for instance), created by the Founding Fathers in their distrust of democracy not only utterly failed to work as intended, but actually worked against themselves, when Donald Trump, the exact type of man the Founding Fathers wanted to keep out of the White House, was elected U.S. President...

Share this post


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

Congress would also never be able to pass necessary but unpopular measures like raising taxes if this happened @Patine

Referendums can pass increasing taxes in states (Maine 2016, Williamson County 2018 from a quick google), and state budgets don't collapse overnight when veto referendums are allowed. Additionally, at least one party with substantial support in the United States supports raising taxes on at least some people, who would likely support bills like what you might be suggesting.

Share this post


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

It seems to go OK in the states, why wouldn't it work well nationwide? Also, the government resisting doesn't mean it's bad, and appeal to tradition is not a full argument.

I also don't think we should have to wait 2 or 6 years to try to get a representative who wrote a bad law out, for that matter (especially if large political changes happen in that time), or to have to elect someone that disagrees with us in every other way to overturn one law. And yes, term limits are rather misguided in my opinion. 

In the states you have extreme resistance to controversial reforms which makes it even more difficult to pass something even if it's necessary (even more so in states with recalls).  It's the reasons that the Founders distrusted Democracy that matter.  Going down this road sets a precedent of the people voting on specific issue nationally.  Where does that stop?  People's rights should not be subject to the opinion of the majority (or a strong minority).  But, that is at the end of the road for democracy.

Share this post


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

Referendums can pass increasing taxes in states (Maine 2016, Williamson County 2018 from a quick google), and state budgets don't collapse overnight when veto referendums are allowed. Additionally, at least one party with substantial support in the United States supports raising taxes on at least some people, who would likely support bills like what you might be suggesting.

That is only people everyone hates so everyone's OK with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

In the states you have extreme resistance to controversial reforms which makes it even more difficult to pass something even if it's necessary (even more so in states with recalls).  It's the reasons that the Founders distrusted Democracy that matter.  Going down this road sets a precedent of the people voting on specific issue nationally.  Where does that stop?  People's rights should not be subject to the opinion of the majority (or a strong minority).  But, that is at the end of the road for democracy.

Thank you for clarifying some details. In Maine (where I live), I don't see much of that except when the legislature refuses to accept the result of referendums. Also, what would be an example of an issue so pressing that it must be felt but with no symptoms affecting the general populace? It does set a precedent of voting nationwide on an issue. It stops at voting nationwide on issues passed by the legislature, which would not really affect the bill of rights, and still leave jurisdiction for the courts. Additionally, it appears mostly that after civil rights are integrated, a majority generally doesn't want to remove established rights (of course, I may be wrong about this, and am open to new information).

2 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

That is only people everyone hates so everyone's OK with it.

The second example is of a sales tax increase, which primarily affects the poor.

Share this post


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

That is only people everyone hates so everyone's OK with it.

 

1 minute ago, Thunder said:

The second example is of a sales tax increase, which primarily affects the poor.

Well, since the vast majority of the American population is going to be statistically "poor' in the foreseeable future due to economic mismanagement and incompetence by both major parties and the large corporations, this is going to end up a very difficult state of affairs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jnewt So which are adopted 16 votes in

Unicameral legislature - 75%

Universal suffrage - 88%

Remove age requirements, slavery related things - 56%

Term limits - 25%

Referendums - 62%

Line item veto - 50%

Independent commision districting - 50%

Split line method - 31%

Ranked Choice - 62%

Forbid Governors from making temporary appointments to Congress; instead, require an automatic special election to be held within 6 months of a seat becoming vacant (unless an election is already scheduled to take place within 6 months) - 56%

Eliminate presidential vetoes replace with "sober second review" - 19%

Define "reasonable times" in regards to copyright as 50 years max - 56%

Share this post


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

@jnewt So which are adopted 16 votes in

Unicameral legislature - 75%

Universal suffrage - 88%

Remove age requirements, slavery related things - 56%

Term limits - 25%

Referendums - 62%

Line item veto - 50%

Independent commision districting - 50%

Split line method - 31%

Ranked Choice - 62%

Forbid Governors from making temporary appointments to Congress; instead, require an automatic special election to be held within 6 months of a seat becoming vacant (unless an election is already scheduled to take place within 6 months) - 56%

Eliminate presidential vetoes replace with "sober second review" - 19%

Define "reasonable times" in regards to copyright as 50 years max - 56%

I originally said we needed 2/3 to make any changes, but since we're essentially rewriting our own Constitution, I'm okay with dropping the required percentage of votes to a simple majority, but only if that's what other people want.

Share this post


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

I originally said we needed 2/3 to make any changes, but since we're essentially rewriting our own Constitution, I'm okay with dropping the required percentage of votes to a simple majority, but only if that's what other people want.

I'm not sure what the threshold of agreement was in Philadelphia in 1787 (the last formal, whole, complete Constitutional CONVENTION Federally, as opposed to just an amendment), but I'd be very surprised if it was a full-out and formal 2/3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Patine said:

I'm not sure what the threshold of agreement was in Philadelphia in 1787 (the last formal, whole, complete Constitutional CONVENTION Federally, as opposed to just an amendment), but I'd be very surprised if it was a full-out and formal 2/3.

Were there really even formal votes at the original Constitutional Convention? Let's drop it to a simple majority since we are essentially rewriting the Constitution and not just adding amendments. That means the following proposals would pass if voting ended right now:

 

23 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Unicameral legislature - 75%

Universal suffrage - 88%

Remove age requirements, slavery related things - 56%

Referendums - 62%

Ranked Choice - 62%

Forbid Governors from making temporary appointments to Congress; instead, require an automatic special election to be held within 6 months of a seat becoming vacant (unless an election is already scheduled to take place within 6 months) - 56%

Define "reasonable times" in regards to copyright as 50 years max - 56%

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say 2/3rds but I'm just a hermit for tradition what do I know.

Share this post


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

I say 2/3rds but I'm just a hermit for tradition what do I know.

"Hermit for tradition" lol. Typically I'd agree with 2/3 but since there aren't that many people here I don't think that'd really be as effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jnewtCan you subtract a vote from splitline and eliminate vetos and move it to independent commission and line-item veto? The first two don’t look like they will succeed so I’ll move it over to proposals with a change of victory.

Share this post


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

@jnewtCan you subtract a vote from splitline and eliminate vetos and move it to independent commission and line-item veto? The first two don’t look like they will succeed so I’ll move it over to proposals with a change of victory.

Sure thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So as the poll is now closed, the following changes will be made to our constitution:

  • Unicameral legislature with MMP voting system elected every 4 years during midterms
  • Universal adult suffrage (guaranteed suffrage for adult citizens)
  • Remove age requirements (for serving in Congress), slavery related things
  • Voter initiative to call referendums to challenge congressional laws
  • Give President a line item veto
  • Have districts drawn by an independent commission
  • Ranked choice voting in all congressional elections
  • Forbid Governors from making temporary appointments to Congress; instead, require an automatic special election to be held within 6 months of a seat becoming vacant (unless an election is already scheduled to take place within 6 months)
  • Define copyright as 50 years MAX.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×