|
Post by UniversalAris on May 8, 2017 11:33:16 GMT -8
Is there an amendment that you believe should be implemented. Anything goes. As long as you try to bring a solution to a problem that is out there. This could range from human rights - environmental regulation. Here is an example:
An amendment that bans communism from ever being present in the United States.
Post your ideas below!
|
|
LSDMB
Citizen
Christian Trinitarian Universalist
Posts: 15
|
Post by LSDMB on May 8, 2017 11:46:34 GMT -8
An amendment that abolishes the electoral college.
|
|
|
Post by UniversalAris on May 8, 2017 12:19:31 GMT -8
An amendment that abolishes the electoral college. But wouldn't that make politicians only campaign to populated cities? What are the reasons or effects for this amendment?
|
|
LSDMB
Citizen
Christian Trinitarian Universalist
Posts: 15
|
Post by LSDMB on May 8, 2017 17:41:48 GMT -8
As opposed to having them only have to focus on swing states? I mean hell, I'm in Texas and if I vote for the democratic candidate my vote basically doesn't matter, if someone in California votes for the republican candidate, their vote basically doesn't matter. Furthermore, the electoral college means that a person's vote in California is only worth a quarter of what a person's vote in Wyoming is, which just seems messed up to me as well.
|
|
|
Post by UniversalAris on May 8, 2017 18:43:54 GMT -8
As opposed to having them only have to focus on swing states? I mean hell, I'm in Texas and if I vote for the democratic candidate my vote basically doesn't matter, if someone in California votes for the republican candidate, their vote basically doesn't matter. Furthermore, the electoral college means that a person's vote in California is only worth a quarter of what a person's vote in Wyoming is, which just seems messed up to me as well. So, maybe another method of democratic voting in place. What about a proportional electoral college system so you can get the electoral votes per district if you are republican and democrat. Not a winner-take-all system?
|
|
|
Post by Mittens on May 9, 2017 8:15:07 GMT -8
An amendment that prevents dynastic terms. Regardless of how good a candidate is, it should be limited to one per family. Having the same two families control the White House for so long is a no no. We nearly had yet another Clinton or another Bush. Of course, someone with the same last name can still run as long as they can prove they are not biologically related. I kid you not I saw a post on a conservative Instagram political page that showed the "perfect world" and it was a Trump dynasty of his entire family in the White House. Luckily not many felt fuzzy with the idea.
Another amendment I would pass is one that makes the EPA and other certain agencies constitutional as they are currently not according to Amendment X.
|
|
|
Post by UniversalAris on May 9, 2017 8:24:52 GMT -8
An amendment that prevents dynastic terms. Regardless of how good a candidate is, it should be limited to one per family. Having the same two families control the White House for so long is a no no. We nearly had yet another Clinton or another Bush. Of course, someone with the same last name can still run as long as they can prove they are not biologically related. I kid you not I saw a post on a conservative Instagram political page that showed the "perfect world" and it was a Trump dynasty of his entire family in the White House. Luckily not many felt fuzzy with the idea. Another amendment I would pass is one that makes the EPA and other certain agencies constitutional as they are currently not according to Amendment X. So, what would be the point at where a person could run again? After immediate family? Also that is an interesting topic. However, so more of the agencies being legalized and right of enforcement of their rules?
|
|
LSDMB
Citizen
Christian Trinitarian Universalist
Posts: 15
|
Post by LSDMB on May 9, 2017 11:27:01 GMT -8
As opposed to having them only have to focus on swing states? I mean hell, I'm in Texas and if I vote for the democratic candidate my vote basically doesn't matter, if someone in California votes for the republican candidate, their vote basically doesn't matter. Furthermore, the electoral college means that a person's vote in California is only worth a quarter of what a person's vote in Wyoming is, which just seems messed up to me as well. So, maybe another method of democratic voting in place. What about a proportional electoral college system so you can get the electoral votes per district if you are republican and democrat. Not a winner-take-all system? I would still be opposed to the electoral college on the basis that one American's vote would be roughly four times as weighted as another American's vote, but I would be far more pleased with the electoral college if, as you suggest, it utilized a proportionate representation of votes from the states rather than a winner take all system.
|
|
|
Post by UniversalAris on May 9, 2017 12:17:22 GMT -8
So, maybe another method of democratic voting in place. What about a proportional electoral college system so you can get the electoral votes per district if you are republican and democrat. Not a winner-take-all system? I would still be opposed to the electoral college on the basis that one American's vote would be roughly four times as weighted as another American's vote, but I would be far more pleased with the electoral college if, as you suggest, it utilized a proportionate representation of votes from the states rather than a winner take all system. True. But it may be necessary since most Americans are uninformed voters. I do like the idea of everyone directly voting, but since it is on a national level the population would need to be more equally distributed and people need to be well informed. I do believe the proportional system would be a fix to not changing the living status of the entire population and make it necessary for campaigns to be more directed towards everyone rather than few states as well as the politicians to be voting on the best fit president rather than what the popular vote is, I am staying neutral on this past election outcome. The well informed citizen would need to be a social change and fixed with another issue before, 'direct voting' could be implemented on that end, unfortunately.
|
|
LSDMB
Citizen
Christian Trinitarian Universalist
Posts: 15
|
Post by LSDMB on May 9, 2017 12:45:13 GMT -8
I would still be opposed to the electoral college on the basis that one American's vote would be roughly four times as weighted as another American's vote, but I would be far more pleased with the electoral college if, as you suggest, it utilized a proportionate representation of votes from the states rather than a winner take all system. True. But it may be necessary since most Americans are uninformed voters. I do like the idea of everyone directly voting, but since it is on a national level the population would need to be more equally distributed and people need to be well informed. I do believe the proportional system would be a fix to not changing the living status of the entire population and make it necessary for campaigns to be more directed towards everyone rather than few states as well as the politicians to be voting on the best fit president rather than what the popular vote is, I am staying neutral on this past election outcome. The well informed citizen would need to be a social change and fixed with another issue before, 'direct voting' could be implemented on that end, unfortunately. I don't see how having people's votes more or less weighted depending on what state they are from does to control for uninformed voting though.
|
|
|
Post by UniversalAris on May 9, 2017 13:05:54 GMT -8
True. But it may be necessary since most Americans are uninformed voters. I do like the idea of everyone directly voting, but since it is on a national level the population would need to be more equally distributed and people need to be well informed. I do believe the proportional system would be a fix to not changing the living status of the entire population and make it necessary for campaigns to be more directed towards everyone rather than few states as well as the politicians to be voting on the best fit president rather than what the popular vote is, I am staying neutral on this past election outcome. The well informed citizen would need to be a social change and fixed with another issue before, 'direct voting' could be implemented on that end, unfortunately. I don't see how having people's votes more or less weighted depending on what state they are from does to control for uninformed voting though. I thought you were referring to the politicians in the electorate that vote. They are more informed than the general populace.
|
|