If you could introduce a Constitutional Amendment What would it be (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 25, 2024, 09:20:58 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  If you could introduce a Constitutional Amendment What would it be (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: If you could introduce a Constitutional Amendment What would it be  (Read 71470 times)
Hammy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,702
United States


« on: August 05, 2016, 01:51:28 AM »
« edited: August 05, 2016, 02:38:26 AM by Hammy »

a few amendments that come to mind at the moment, without delving into repealing existing ones:
-abolish electoral college and establish popular vote with IRV voting
-change senate terms to four years instead of six, giving each state the ability to vote in the senate every election (Class I in presidential years in all states, Class II in off years for all states--its always bugged me that in any given year 17 states have no say)
-abolish caucuses and fully closed primaries
-change the House to proportional representation (abolishing actual districts and just allocating that number of representatives to each state)



14. NO!!! The Electoral College is part of preserving our Republic against absolute democracy (America is a Repubic)

I never understood the "we're not a democracy, we're a republic" argument as any country with a president is a republic, be it a federal, direct democracy, dictatorship, etc. Democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive.
Logged
Hammy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,702
United States


« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2016, 09:55:31 PM »

No, its a very fundamental question regarding the purpose of elections and the nature of representative democracy.  If the purpose of elections is to produce representation that is acutely aware of every minute change in the body politic (like Hammy seems to imply in his arguments), then a necessary question becomes why aren't we holding elections at laughably short intervals

House elections are every two years--and everybody is up for reelection. Should we then start staggering the house seats to where 1/3 of voters have no say in any given election? The idea is to simply regulate the Senate in a similar manner as the House, giving each state a say in each elections. Simply reduce the terms by two years and hold all 50 states at intervals. I don't quite see how this is "laughably short"--simply giving each voter a say in the legislative process each election.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.019 seconds with 12 queries.