Jump to content
270soft Forum

Forum Amendments for Article 2


Article 2 Proposals  

16 members have voted

  1. 1. Which changes should be made to our Constitution?

    • award electoral college votes proportionally (with a minimum threshold of 10% in order to win any EVs) Note: if this proposal and proposal 13 both secure a majority, only the proposal with more votes will be approved
    • hold presidential elections every six years and prohibit the President from running for reelection (though allow for non-consecutive terms) Note: if this proposal and proposal 14 both secure a majority, only the proposal with more votes will be approved
    •  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, a petition (or petitions) must be signed by an amount of people greater than 50% of that state's voters in the previous Presidential election. If this criterion is 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
    • a parliamentary system amendment (similar to the Westminister system, but only with the parts relevant for addition to the article)
    • ranked-choice voting for Presidential elections
    • for treaties, 2/3rd's of the Senate must APPROVE not 2/3rds must DISAPPROVE
    • eliminate the word "misdemeanors" from Section 4
    • 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 Note: if this proposal and proposal 1 both secure a majority, only the proposal with more votes will be approved
    • Shorten the President's term to 2 years, but allow for the President to run for 3 consecutive terms Note: if this proposal and proposal 2 both secure a majority, only the proposal with more votes will be approved
    • Allow the President to call early elections
    • None of the above

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 07/16/2018 at 04:43 AM

Recommended Posts

Just now, vcczar said:

I'd prefer multiple executives to one. Maybe like one to five with one of them up for reelection each year, with only one reelection attempt. 

I think itd be ideal I just dont think itd work

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

15 hours ago, Patine said:

@NYrepublican @ThePotatoWalrus  @TheLiberalKitten @vcczar @pilight @Sunnymentoaddict @WVProgressive @Thunder @Reagan04 @Ido @Caprice @Hestia11 @jnewt

My statement must be so bold, radical, and extreme that everyone else must be trying to process it, get their heads, and even imagine or comprehend how things could even work in the light I propose.

Is this sarcasm? This seems mostly like Condorcet's jury theorem, to be honest.

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

You want to run the country as an anarcho-syndicate?

An anarcho-syndicate would have no executive at all. Please, REAL retort and responses here, not smoke and mirrors tactics.

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

I think itd be ideal I just dont think itd work

But you can't seem to articulate why. I believe it's just pure and complete fear of something outside your comfort zone, but that may actually fix so many of the problems of politics in the modern world. The fear of change, even drastic change, is natural, but if that fear was always given into and never overcome, we'd all still be huddling by fires in caves eating crudely cooked meat and wearing untreated, crudely-cut furs and hunting (and fighting each other) with thrown rocks, clubs, and sharpened sticks.

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

But you can't seem to articulate why. I believe it's just pure and complete fear of something outside your comfort zone, but that may actually fix so many of the problems of politics in the modern world. The fear of change, even drastic change, is natural, but if that fear was always given into and never overcome, we'd all still be huddling by fires in caves eating crudely cooked meat and wearing untreated, crudely-cut furs and hunting (and fighting each other) with thrown rocks, clubs, and sharpened sticks.

It'll devolve into some parts of the country not enforcing laws,some not paying taxes similar to the Articles of Confederation. Also little could be changed because everyone would have to consent to change anything which they'll only do if it's in no ones interest to maintain the current laws which it rarely is. (One example from the EU, they have a traveling circus from Brussels to Strasbourg 12x a year releasing a ton of carbon and we can't stop that because France won't agree to end it)

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

One needed constitutional change is the protection of MALE RIGHTS. FEMINISM HAS DESTROYED SOCIETY AND ENSLAVED MEN.

Even Jaclyn Friedman acknowledged the righteousness of our valiant struggle

"The list of grievances for MRAs is long. It includes the elevated rate of suicide for men, educational discrimination against boys, economic and workplace conditions for men, violence against men, false rape reporting, fathers’ rights in custody battles, rates of male imprisonment and prison conditions, and the horrors of war. Many of these issues deserve a thoughtful response and the force of an organized movement for address them."

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

One needed constitutional change is the protection of MALE RIGHTS. FEMINISM HAS DESTROYED SOCIETY AND ENSLAVED MEN.

Feminism evolved from millennia of patriarchal history where had absolutely no rights, or very few. It was originally (and, in many cases, still is, define vilification by the reactionary far-right using a very few extremist examples they say are universal of the movement) a movement to acquire originally voting rights and the right to work outside the home, then the right be considered a person in court, then the right initiate divorce from their husband, protection from domestic abuse and onward. and not have sexual consent automatically always assumed with their husband, then equal treatment in the work and equal (still not accomplished), reproductive rights over their own bodies (varies by country in accomplishment), etc. The woman who shot Andy Warhol and her SCUM Manifesto, and other extremist, and relatively, rare examples aside, there's not that much demanded that's unreasonable. Also, please look at the Forbes 500 list of the wealthiest people in the world, the major political, military, and ESPECIALLY religious figures in the world, and the gender hugely and disproportionately on those lists, and the gender that owns, collectively, 93% of all private property in the world, and then tell me again, with a straight face, that men have no rights and are enslaved...

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

Feminism evolved from millennia of patriarchal history where had absolutely no rights, or very few. It was originally (and, in many cases, still is, define vilification by the reactionary far-right using a very few extremist examples they say are universal of the movement) a movement to acquire originally voting rights and the right to work outside the home, then the right be considered a person in court, then the right initiate divorce from their husband, protection from domestic abuse and onward. and not have sexual consent automatically always assumed with their husband, then equal treatment in the work and equal (still not accomplished), reproductive rights over their own bodies (varies by country in accomplishment), etc. The woman who shot Andy Warhol and her SCUM Manifesto, and other extremist, and relatively, rare examples aside, there's not that much demanded that's unreasonable. Also, please look at the Forbes 500 list of the wealthiest people in the world, the major political, military, and ESPECIALLY religious figures in the world, and the gender hugely and disproportionately on those lists, and the gender that owns, collectively, 93% of all private property in the world, and then tell me again, with a straight face, that men have no rights and are enslaved...

You have no sense of hyperbole

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

It'll devolve into some parts of the country not enforcing laws,some not paying taxes similar to the Articles of Confederation. Also little could be changed because everyone would have to consent to change anything which they'll only do if it's in no ones interest to maintain the current laws which it rarely is. (One example from the EU, they have a traveling circus from Brussels to Strasbourg 12x a year releasing a ton of carbon and we can't stop that because France won't agree to end it)

They wouldn't ALL have to consent. Only a majority of them would, so that the majority of regions of the (as I'd envision such a thing being regionally divided, like the Swiss Federation Council) would have to be in agreement. I just believe a single executive alone CANNOT possibly singular represent the nation and it's interests as a single individual, and thus cannot sincerely represent the nation abroad or be a rallying and unifying leader by themselves domestically.

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

You have no sense of perspective and proportion, which in my mind is far worse.

Still there is systematic discrimination against men

One is in regards to rape of males by females

"Male victims of sexual abuse by females often face social, political, and legal double standards." - Wikipedia

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

They wouldn't ALL have to consent. Only a majority of them would, so that the majority of regions of the (as I'd envision such a thing being regionally divided, like the Swiss Federation Council) would have to be in agreement. I just believe a single executive alone CANNOT possibly singular represent the nation and it's interests as a single individual, and thus cannot sincerely represent the nation abroad or be a rallying and unifying leader by themselves domestically.

So basically a parliamentary democracy? Or more like voting on cabinet members directly, or a council of governors? Or do some or all of these fit what you're talking about?

And on a completely unrelated note, what are the post counts for the "Political _____" titles?

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

Still there is systematic discrimination against men

One is in regards to rape of males by females

"Male victims of sexual abuse by females often face social, political, and legal double standards." - Wikipedia

I don't know about that. Men, on average, make more money in the same job, for the work, than women. Men have huge, if informal, unofficial, and nepotistic, advantages in areas like high corporate positions, politics, computer technology, and the military, and there are still some jobs that are still only available to men period (albeit mostly religious positions, but given how powerful religion is becoming as a force in the world in the world again). You're looking at the trees (and, then, again, only a hand-picked grove), I'm looking at the forest - and from the forest, men still have a HUGE edge in society, careers, wealth, power, etc.

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

I don't know about that. Men, on average, make more money in the same job, for the work, than women. Men have huge, if informal, unofficial, and nepotistic, advantages in areas like high corporate positions, politics, computer technology, and the military, and there are still some jobs that are still only available to men period (albeit mostly religious positions, but given how powerful religion is becoming as a force in the world in the world again). You're looking at the tree, I'm looking at the forest - and from the forest, men still have a HUGE edge in society, careers, wealth, power, etc.

Actually the US is less religous it's just that religous people are more hawkishly religous now.

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

So basically a parliamentary democracy? Or more like voting on cabinet members directly, or a council of governors? Or do some or all of these fit what you're talking about?

And on a completely unrelated note, what are the post counts for the "Political _____" titles?

No, there would be a collective Executive Council, separate from Congress or State Governors, who would collectively, as equals, be the executive head, with one elected from a different region (say, Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Heartland/Southwest, and West Coast (including non-contiguous States, just as an example).

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

No, there would be a collective Executive Council, separate from Congress or State Governors, who would collectively, as equals, be the executive head, with one elected from a different region (say, Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Heartland/Southwest, and West Coast (including non-contiguous States, just as an example).

I think that's a recipe for inter-regional strife TBH

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

Actually the US is less religous it's just that religous people are more hawkishly religous now.

Still, you can't be Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox bishop (or even priest), a preacher in MOST protestant denominations, a Mormon bishop or apostle, a Jewish rabbi, an Islamic imam, or many non-Abrahamic religious titles, even in the U.S., unless you're a man.

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

Still, you can't be Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox bishop (or even priest), a preacher in MOST protestant denominations, a Mormon bishop or apostle, a Jewish rabbi, an Islamic imam, or many non-Abrahamic religious titles, even in the U.S., unless you're a man.

There are valid reasons for orthodox Rabbis and probably other religions as well

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, MRA said:

Still there is systematic discrimination against men

One is in regards to rape of males by females

"Male victims of sexual abuse by females often face social, political, and legal double standards." - Wikipedia

Because we all know Wikipedia should be trusted as a scholarly source :P.

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

I think that's a recipe for inter-regional strife TBH

It's better, in my opinion, than a single leader who CAN'T represent or lead the nation effectively because they don't have enough popular support on many given areas, but they are Constitutionally declared to be the representative of the nation abroad and the chief policy-maker and unifying head of the nation, despite the fact the title and position becomes ingenuine in that light.

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

There are valid reasons for orthodox Rabbis and probably other religions as well

That's not the point I'm making here. As I said - I'm looking at the forest, and everyone insists on drawing from hand-picked groves of trees.

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

There are valid reasons for orthodox Rabbis and probably other religions as well

And given this specific decision was made in a day and age when women were not allowed to publicly hold any positions or responsibility, were not allowed to own property or decide whom they would marry, and in fact, were considered property, more or less, legally speaking, in pretty much every culture in the world at that time, I'd be quite suspect of the actual reasons for this decision were and if they still belong in a modern world. I know, for instance, the "ban on women in Christian clergy" was not actually the world of Christ, and he had actually intended for Mary Magdellan to be a very important and senior member of the church he was the ban. The ban, in this, is traced to a word by Paul that's taken completely out of context, because it was meant as a shot-term solution to a specific problem in the Early Church and was not (contrary to many Christians') meant to be a permanent, or even long-term, state of affairs. 

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

And given this specific decision was made in a day and age when women were not allowed to publicly hold any positions or responsibility, were not allowed to own property or decide whom they would marry, and in fact, were considered property, more or less, legally speaking, in pretty much every culture in the world at that time, I'd be quite suspect of the actual reasons for this decision were and if they still belong in a modern world. I know, for instance, the "ban on women in Christian clergy" was not actually the world of Christ, and he had actually intended for Mary Magdellan to be a very important and senior member of the church he was the ban. The ban, in this, is traced to a word by Paul that's taken completely out of context, because it was meant as a shot-term solution to a specific problem in the Early Church and was not (contrary to many Christians') meant to be a permanent, or even long-term, state of affairs. 

This was by the OU in 2015 for valid reasons

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...