Jump to content
270soft Forum

What Amendments to the US Constitution Would You Like to See?


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, servo75 said:

I'm okay as long as their legal permanent residents and can pass the citizenship exam. But you must at least show legal permanent status (not visa), pass a civics exam, and be resident in the United States for 5 years or more. At a very minimum. Someone who is not a U.S. national shouldn't have a say in the government of a country that they are only visiting and/or are not in legally.

In theory, you can currently obtain voting rights after 5 years of holding permanent resident status (a green card) anyways.  Of course you have to :

1.  File taxes every year

2.  Do not take any state or federal assistance

3.  Meet poverty line, residence, etc. requirements,

4.  Pass the citizenship interview/exam

Usually a straight path to citizenship if you do these four things as a permanent resident in the US.  Obviously, the waters get much murkier when talking about DACA or any of the other, much more complex, situations surrounding immigration into the US.

16 hours ago, servo75 said:

Because this:

DeadGrandmaVoting.jpg

It makes voter fraud more likely, and really helps their get-out-the-vote campaign for the dead. This whole "voter ID requirement = racism" is a laughable sham. We need voter ID to do 100 other things in this country, and to say that blacks aren't capable of getting IDs is racist in and of itself. If "getting out the vote" is so important, then you'd find one afternoon a four year period to get off your couch and get down to a motor vehicle agency. These are the same people who were prattling on about "integrity of our election process" when accusing Trump of colluding with Russia.

Won't comment on any of the internal situations surrounding voting in the US in particular, but I just find it really weird that some are opposed to requiring an ID to vote.  As I said earlier, it is just a routine thing where I am that no one seems to put any thought into lol.  Not sure if there are any other countries in the world that do not require some form of national ID to vote?

 

9 hours ago, Edouard said:

Just to say, if the electoral college exists, it is for one main thing now.

If a proportionnal system appears, this will be the death of the two party system.

Maybe in some statewide races, but the two major parties in the US are big tent coalitions anyways.  You have progressive, middle, and blue dog wings of the Democrat party, while the Republicans have libertarian, pro-business, social conservative, and war hawk (or neocons I guess would be the modern term) wings in their party.  Both the US Libertarian Party and and US Greens are memes on the federal level, and would probably only garner small portions of seats in a US "Parliament" anyways, which would end up gravitating them back to the big two anyways.  Much different political sphere when it comes to multi-party support than Canada or the UK.  The NDP is considered a credible party (though seemingly bankrupt now) party in Canada, there is no equivalent in the US.

 

4 hours ago, Patine said:

Isn't "he" already, in full violation of Constitutional law and principal of due process. I'm talking to you, former Traitor-in-Chief, George W. Bush...

They are passing similar legislation all over the world now, even many of these small banana republic nations in the Caribbean have their own version of the PATRIOT Act now...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A two-round popular vote election like in France for the Presidency. Proportional allocation of House of Representatives seats. Expanding the size of the House/uncapping it, altogether.

Didn't we do this before?

Well, other than a couple of those, that's a quick way to make a nation in the context of the 21st Century utterly ungovernable...

Posted Images

13 hours ago, pilight said:

Literacy tests.  You're breaking more of Jim Crow's greatest hits.

I didn't say literary tests. I said civics tests. When I see college "educated" kids of all races who are unable to tell us how many states there are, that presents a major problem. How can one make a wise decision who should lead a government if they don't know how that government works? Jim Crow laws were intended to keep blacks from voting at a time when education was "separate but equal." Do you know of some reason in the year 2020 why someone's skin color would prevent them from naming the three branches of government? I can't think of one. The Constitution says voting cannot be denied specifically on race, gender, or age. Civics tests are perfectly Constitutional. Just like voter ID, any disparate outcome can be used to "prove" disparate intent, that doesn't make it true. And as if the solution were to lower the standards. When Jim Crow laws were in effect, you could make an argument that minorities, not being considered equal, did not have the same level of education (still a stretch). Nowadays, the very things that have been shown to improve education in poor or majority-minority communities, like school vouchers and charter schools, are vehemently opposed by the left and the teachers unions. I'm sorry but in modern America if you're going to argue "voter suppression" you're going to have to show me a law, policy or act with the suppression of a particular racial group as its stated intent, not some subjective finding of "dog whistles." I'm sick and tired of people arguing that EVERY area in which minorities don't have equal outcome is proof of some "institutional racism." That might play in Alabama in 1955, not today.

Besides, if anything this would suppress the conservative vote, right? Because after all we're the ones who are dumb and uneducated and don't believe in facts or science 😝

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

In theory, you can currently obtain voting rights after 5 years of holding permanent resident status (a green card) anyways.  Of course you have to :

1.  File taxes every year

2.  Do not take any state or federal assistance

3.  Meet poverty line, residence, etc. requirements,

4.  Pass the citizenship interview/exam

Sounds reasonable. I might even settle for just the citizenship exam. I don't think that being on assistance disqualifies someone. Yet we could give all of them free IDs mailed to their homes and that still wouldn't be enough for some.

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

Maybe in some statewide races, but the two major parties in the US are big tent coalitions anyways.  You have progressive, middle, and blue dog wings of the Democrat party, while the Republicans have libertarian, pro-business, social conservative, and war hawk (or neocons I guess would be the modern term) wings in their party.  Both the US Libertarian Party and and US Greens are memes on the federal level, and would probably only garner small portions of seats in a US "Parliament" anyways, which would end up gravitating them back to the big two anyways.  Much different political sphere when it comes to multi-party support than Canada or the UK.  The NDP is considered a credible party (though seemingly bankrupt now) party in Canada, there is no equivalent in the US.

I'd love to see many more legitimate (as in winnable) parties in the United States. I'd love to see a Congress where no party has a majority and parties would be forced to reach across the aisle and form coalitions. The two-party duopoly is the biggest thing responsible for bad governance and political disinterest in this country. Or even better yet, abolish all political parties. People wouldn't be able to vote on party lines anymore and might *shocker* actually have to research candidates. I started working on a PMI scenario titled "United States Parliament" where we had 5 or 6 parties competing for 600 seats or so in the United States. Never finished it, I should take it up again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, servo75 said:

I'd love to see many more legitimate (as in winnable) parties in the United States. I'd love to see a Congress where no party has a majority and parties would be forced to reach across the aisle and form coalitions. The two-party duopoly is the biggest thing responsible for bad governance and political disinterest in this country. Or even better yet, abolish all political parties. People wouldn't be able to vote on party lines anymore and might *shocker* actually have to research candidates. I started working on a PMI scenario titled "United States Parliament" where we had 5 or 6 parties competing for 600 seats or so in the United States. Never finished it, I should take it up again.

I'd prefer political parties be abolished, but that's not going to happen. I like the idea of a US Parliament with many medium sized to small parties. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, servo75 said:

Sounds reasonable. I might even settle for just the citizenship exam. I don't think that being on assistance disqualifies someone. Yet we could give all of them free IDs mailed to their homes and that still wouldn't be enough for some.

Not sure if the immigration laws in the US changed recently, I know enforcement varies state by state, but taking state or federal funding always disqualified someone from receiving citizenship back when I was going through the process.  Even if it may have not been explicitly said, it was always understood that way.  If someone was sponsoring your immigration during that time, that person(s) had to sign legal documentation saying that they would be responsible to refund any government assistance that was taken.  I can imagine that USCIS's point of view was that they did not want you in the country if you could not take care of yourself lol.

 

16 minutes ago, servo75 said:

I'd love to see many more legitimate (as in winnable) parties in the United States. I'd love to see a Congress where no party has a majority and parties would be forced to reach across the aisle and form coalitions. The two-party duopoly is the biggest thing responsible for bad governance and political disinterest in this country. Or even better yet, abolish all political parties. People wouldn't be able to vote on party lines anymore and might *shocker* actually have to research candidates. I started working on a PMI scenario titled "United States Parliament" where we had 5 or 6 parties competing for 600 seats or so in the United States. Never finished it, I should take it up again.

To be honest, both parties need to split.  The Democratic Party needs to split between the progressive wing and centrist/blue dog wing, while the Republican Party needs to split on the basis of libertarians/big government Republicans (kind of like American "One Nation" Tories).  Both parties seem to have unhappy spouses within them that are just staying together because of the kids (keeping voters).  First one flinches kind of situation.

I would love to play that scenario.  I am trying to finish Jamaica - 2016 now, but I am busy on a work-related project and it takes time filling in the data for 63 constituencies lol.  Labour of love for sure.

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

I am trying to finish Jamaica - 2016 now, but I am busy on a work-related project and it takes time filling in the data for 63 constituencies lol.  Labour of love for sure.

Of which, if I'm not mistaken, only 6-10 are considered "contested," and where all election victories and the razor-thin majorities of government are decided. I have read that Jamaica effectively has among the highest percentage of "safe seats," of any nation with a Westminster form of government (whereas Canada has the least, as we learned in the infamous 1993 Federal Election up here).

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

Of which, if I'm not mistaken, only 6-10 are considered "contested," and where all election victories and the razor-thin majorities of government are decided. I have read that Jamaica effectively has among the highest percentage of "safe seats," of any nation with a Westminster form of government (whereas Canada has the least, as we learned in the infamous 1993 Federal Election up here).

Correct, the 2016 election was a very close one.  I will post the wikipedia link below.  Yes, plenty of safe seats, but I usually start mines around the same time that the writs are dropped.  A month or so long campaign is good for around 10-15 flippable seats, and I personally like the razor thin kind of scenarios anyways (I figure most here like hotly contested ones as well).  I will be watching the upcoming election there closely (2021).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Jamaican_general_election

The Bahamas is like the exact opposite in recent times, government changes every 5 years lol.  Everyone expected the FNM to win in 2017, but not in a 35-4 landslide.  In 2012, the DNA played spoiler and cost the FNM quite a few seats (which led to a PLP landslide in terms of seats).  Prior to that, the FNM won a close one in 2007.  2002 had a PLP landslide thanks to Ingraham stepping down.  A government has not won reelection in the country since the Ingraham administration of 1992-2002, a sad testament to the state of Bahamian political affairs.

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

@CPE And maybe this map would be of help - it's very similar to @TheNeck's, but has the three or four biggest urban centres as separate regions.

Map - Jamaica - 1962.bmp 559.65 kB · 1 download

Thank you, I appreciate the file.  I am very familiar with graphic design, so I ended up making one of my own.  Anyone here can feel free to use it if they wish.

map.bmp

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, servo75 said:

I didn't say literary tests. I said civics tests. 

They gotta be able to read the questions, or are you OK with readers.

In any event, we all know what would happen.  It would be just like Alabama's free voter ID program.  They wouldn't offer testing in areas with high black populations while areas with low black populations would have test sessions every week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll start gather all our proposals and organizing them starting tomorrow or the next day. It might take me a few days considering all the proposals and everything else I have to do. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2020 at 6:57 PM, vcczar said:

I'd prefer political parties be abolished, but that's not going to happen. I like the idea of a US Parliament with many medium sized to small parties. 

Well, not LITERALLY a parliament, but yes.

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...