Constitutional Convention and Changes

[TheMastersSon]

To date and depending on who is asked, something around 30 U.S. states have now requested a constitutional convention for a balanced budget amendment. 34 are required to mandate a convention, and all six of the states that are currently considering their own requests are controlled by Republicans. So it's in the R's power to make it happen.

 

Once called, other changes will be open for discussion, and I'm curious to know what changes you'd make to our system if you were given the chance. At the top of my list, in addition to a balanced budget amendment would be introduction of term limits for all offices of federal government, including and especially Congress and the Supreme Court. As long as our Executive Branch is limited and the other two are not, presidents and their administrations are treated in DC as exactly what they are: visiting guests, and the only people on the entire Hill who are absolutely limited in their length of stay.

 

And as for the traditional claim that lifetime terms of office for our federal judges eliminates politics from their decisions, I offer the last 30 or 40 years of decisions as evidence that most were driven either primarily or entirely by politics.

 

So imo nobody should ever have a lifetime appointment to any office in our government. Personally I wish our Executive Branch would be abolished altogether, and move head of state duties to the majority leader of our Senate. I think it would make us consider more carefully who we elect to our House, which now pushes an agenda that, on virtually every issue, is unsupported by the American people and runs contrary to our best interests. Again I offer the last 20+ years of legislation, almost none of which benefitted anyone except multinational corporations and special interest groups.

 

I even envision a distant future where our House is either limited in their duties or, eventually, abolished altogether. With current technology there is zero reason why the American people cannot explicitly specify where our tax dollars are spent, and which bills are passed. The House's roles should be limited to authorship of bills and the committee compromise process, and nothing else imo.

 

That's my take and I look forward to reading others.

Edited October 11, 2016 by TheMastersSon

[HeyYou]

Welcome to the Incorporated states of america.......

 

Term limits for congress: Hell of an idea. I would love to see it happen. I would also like to see legalized influence peddling (lobbyists) banned as well. At least, paid lobbyists. But, that doesn't really need to be an amendment....

 

Balanced budget: I don't think this would matter at all. You know they would build some caveats into it, so they would still be able to go out of budget anytime they felt like it. Still and all, I think it would just be a gesture if one passed.

 

The Supreme court is always going to be biased one way or another, depending on who gets to appoint any replacements, as they will stick someone in there whose views most closely align with their own. Term limits for them would certainly reduce the impact any one president could have the the SC..... That may indeed be a good thing™.

 

Corporations have ran america for quite some time now. Congress is basically their puppets. After all, the corporations are the ones that put them there. I think some SERIOUS campaign finance reform would be great to have as well. Not to mention limiting political campaigns to within three months of the election... (well, maybe give pres a year.....) Currently, our congressfolk spend more time campaigning, than they do doing the countries business.

[Harbringe]

One of the problems on the federal level is the election cycle between general and mid terms. Campaigns cost so much and are now being run even up to a year or more before the election , that congressmen are required to either be raising funds for the party or if their seat is up for themselves on an almost continous cycle. Its now at the point they are spending over half their time soliciting funds and its because of this 2 year cycle they are on. The idea of the 2 year cycle was to keep Congress accountable to the people and maybe back in the day when mid term campaigns would only be 1 - 3 months long it worked , but not any longer.

 

I would get rid of mid terms , put term limits on all Congressmen and increase those terms to 5 years , including the Presidency. I would also do campaign finance reform (Citizens United has got to go) and have an independent Commission do away with all the gerrymandered districts across America (ask Canada to do it for you if you dont trust each other). Point is by doing all this there would at least be time between elections where the people you elect would be free to do the job you elected them for . Why do you think it is that most legislators don't actually read the bills they pass , they haven't got time , so they leave it up to committees or lobbyists to tell them they should or should not vote for something.

[TheMastersSon]

> (ask Canada to do it for you if you dont trust each other)

 

I'm not sure how well that idea would be received in Texas and Kansas. Or even Ohio and Pennsylvania. According to our system there can be no such thing as an "Independent Commission", the people and their elected reps are supposed to determine their own districts in states. But I agree 100% with your comments about the House, and the utter stupidity of a two-year election cycle. Anyone familiar with the body knows their re-election campaigns start the very day they take office, and the campaigning never stops. So a member's office itself is relegated to little and often nothing more than a campaign tool.

 

I like the five-year idea for everyone, with maybe 10 for senators and 20 for federal judges, but the idea is to limit damage from cronyism and corruption. It's gotten so bad in our SCOTUS that Scalia's death had to be hushed because, apparently, he passed away at a club owned by a litigant in one of their cases. Or in other words he wasn't supposed to be there at all. Etc.

[Lisnpuppy]

One of the problems on the federal level is the election cycle between general and mid terms. Campaigns cost so much and are now being run even up to a year or more before the election , that congressmen are required to either be raising funds for the party or if their seat is up for themselves on an almost continous cycle. Its now at the point they are spending over half their time soliciting funds and its because of this 2 year cycle they are on. The idea of the 2 year cycle was to keep Congress accountable to the people and maybe back in the day when mid term campaigns would only be 1 - 3 months long it worked , but not any longer.

 

I would get rid of mid terms , put term limits on all Congressmen and increase those terms to 5 years , including the Presidency. I would also do campaign finance reform (Citizens United has got to go) and have an independent Commission do away with all the gerrymandered districts across America (ask Canada to do it for you if you dont trust each other). Point is by doing all this there would at least be time between elections where the people you elect would be free to do the job you elected them for . Why do you think it is that most legislators don't actually read the bills they pass , they haven't got time , so they leave it up to committees or lobbyists to tell them they should or should not vote for something.

 

This is why I advocate limits of money spent and being paid with government money and government access instead of how it goes. Let me explain because I been thinking about this for a long time. Each candidate receives X dollars from the government pool created for such things. Each gets so much tv ad time and so much placed in certain blocks of time. Same with radio, etc. The internet would also need brought into line with this. No one could purchase more. Any private or corporate donations would with need to be made illegal (and it really bothers me that the supreme court had been treating corporations as individuals) or shared between all the candidates with one getting slightly more as the prime person being given to.

 

Everything must go through certain source board made of a few people nominated by the candidates. They would have to do something with the money for the running in a certain amount of time. They would also have a way to block the assets in something is wrong. However they could only hold up the funds for limited days then the entire body would need to vote to release and why or vote to return and why. Once someone stepped out of the running then only one of their people can stay on the committee if their original candidates pull behind someone else.

 

Look, I know there are holes in this. It has just been things I have been rattling around in my brain for a while. It started just with the control of ads paid for in tax dollars which several other countries have tried. More is needed cause money comes from all directions. Basically though, what it comes down to is not to "spend your tax dollars on some asshat I don't support," but rather to level the playing field of the huge amounts of money spent on these elections and the ability to see and or stop big money from influencing elections.

 

We often tell our children, you can grow up and be president someday. Under the current system it isn't true. If you don't have money or the ability to raise money your out. It should not be that way. You think these candidates are the best we have in the U.S. ? No..no they are not. But people that should be, can't be cause they don't have the spending power.

 

Giving money to candidates and people once in office is a huge problem and not one new to this process. It has been happening since the first Neanderthal Cave Elections when the hunters gave the cave mayor his first zebra-skin loin cloth so he would vote to allow more woolly mammoth hunting.

 

Much of this could be fixed if more people paid attention to these things but that probably will never happen.

 

Every, single penny should be able to be seen of its source. What company, what committee (and who is on it) and whatever should be known and traceable. The lobbyist system is seriously flawed. All their activity should seen including money they give to re-elections.

 

So we can keep doing what we are doing or we can try to fix it.

[Marxist ßastard]

If I were given the chance? Our presidential primary system has got to be rebuilt from scratch:

• Instead of each state and each party conducting primaries its own way (including undemocratic caucuses) and on its own schedule, things would be fixed at the federal level.
• The schedule of primaries would not favor any state unfairly – it would be randomized each election cycle, or all states would vote at once.
• Primaries would include all candidates from all parties, plus independents.
• Unlike existing first-past-the-post ”jungle primaries,” there would be an alternative vote system.
• The two candidates with the most votes (after elimination) would go on to the general, which would function as a final runoff election.
• No candidate besides those two would be allowed votes in the general election.
• Primaries would happen at most eight weeks before the general election.

What does this mean?

• No more silly, undemocratic Iowa caucuses setting the tone of the entire election.
• No more year-long election seasons. The serious campaigning happens in the eight weeks between the primaries and general.
• No more elaborate party conventions wrapped in pageantry and obscure rules about delegates. The parties vote on their platform, and candidates decide whether to run on that platform. That's it.
• No more voting based on how you predict everyone else will vote. In the primaries, you simply say who your personal first choice as president would be (even if they're a fringe candidate), then your second choice, and so on. The alternative vote system automatically takes care of all the mental calculus of ”okay, but this candidate can actually win,” by its elimination system. In the general, spoiler candidates just aren't allowed.
• People who think this is all too complicated can just skip the primaries and vote in the general instead, where they can engage in their familiar A-or-B, lesser-of-two-evils voting pattern. Their choice.

You can use most of this system in gubernatorial, congressional, senatorial, etc. races as well, all the way down to county dogcatcher #7.

 

It's a far better primary system then what we've got, and still maintains the familiar first-past-the-post mechanics for the general.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Marxist ßastard

[Deleted54170User]

5 wrote, but only 4 can vote. If a tie holds them back the 5th's will it is, and will be challenged, to decide which way to break the tie.

 

Among you 5; who holds the power of the tie breaker?