Voting systems and the idea of a new constitution

[Belsnickel]

So, everyone here knows how I feel about the election and how I don't like the two-party system we have. I always advocate for the third-party/independent vote, or even the write in. I also advocate, though not as vociferously here, for a new constitution. I've been having some discussions elsewhere that has been making me rethink my attitude towards the third-party/independent vote and becoming much more in favor of a new constitution, or at the very least an amendment to change elections altogether. Though I'd like the constitution because I have other reasons.

Anyway, check out these videos on voting systems and let us know what you think.

http://www.cgpgrey.com/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom/

[McC]

A new Constitution? Seriously? You would unleash the crooks and morons in Congress on a new Constitution? Yikes.
the short sightedness of this idea is appalling.

You and your children and your children's children had better pray they don't ever get their hands on it.

What on earth would you want a Constitution to do that ours doesn't?

Man, there is such a pervasive attitude in our society now that if something isn't new, it's bad.

The document is fine. That's not what's broken. Empty both Houses and start over. That's where the problem is.

[Belsnickel]

(07-18-2016, 12:05 PM)McC Wrote: A new Constitution? Seriously? You would unleash the crooks and morons in Congress on a new Constitution? Yikes.
the short sightedness of this idea is appalling.

You and your children and your children's children had better pray they don't ever get their hands on it.

What on earth would you want a Constitution to do that ours doesn't?

Man, there is such a pervasive attitude in our society now that if something isn't new, it's bad.

The document is fine. That's not what's broken. Empty both Houses and start over. That's where the problem is.

Actually, a constitutional convention wouldn't necessarily have anyone from Congress in it. And there are plenty of things that a new constitution would be good for, but that's a different conversation for another time.

Do you have any commentary on the flaws of the first-past-the-post voting system or the alternatives to it?

[McC]

(07-18-2016, 12:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Actually, a constitutional convention wouldn't necessarily have anyone from Congress in it. And there are plenty of things that a new constitution would be good for, but that's a different conversation for another time.

Do you have any commentary on the flaws of the first-past-the-post voting system or the alternatives to it?

I say "Better the devil you know."

[Belsnickel]

(07-18-2016, 12:11 PM)McC Wrote: I say "Better the devil you know."

Even though it is unrepresentative and there are other methods that work better? Interesting.

[Au165]

(07-18-2016, 12:05 PM)McC Wrote: A new Constitution?  Seriously?  You would unleash the crooks and morons in Congress on a new Constitution?   Yikes.  
the short sightedness of this idea is appalling.

You and your children and your children's children had better pray they don't ever get their hands on it.  

What on earth would you want a Constitution to do that ours doesn't?  

Man, there is such a pervasive attitude in our society now that if something isn't new, it's bad.

The document is fine.  That's not what's broken.   Empty both Houses and start over.  That's where the problem is.

The first thing you have to do is step back from the knee jerk reaction. There are plenty of things a new constitution could be good for and plenty it wouldn't fix. I am not sure much would ever get done however because many like McC here would take the very thought as an insult. While you point out the "pervasive" attitude that if something isn't new it's bad, one could counter with the other attitude that because it's always been that way it's the best way. Neither are right in every situation which is why everything should be analyzed thoroughly before any decisions are made.

I do think that the current way our representation is compiled today is broken. I think we should look more at what it means to be a representative. I believe that all political offices should have far lower salaries. I believe that if it is truly about serving your country then it shouldn't be a career merely a service you do in an effort to server your country (like military). That would also mean a limit to service in any single position, what that number is IDK, but people who work in politics more than real jobs are not representative of the people they are there to represent. The politicians should truly be representative of people who live and WORK in the world they govern.

[McC]

(07-18-2016, 12:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Even though it is unrepresentative and there are other methods that work better? Interesting.

I'm not denying that.  It's the thought of politicians ever coming to any agreement on how to do it better.  What makes you think they would ever tear down the giant walls that protect their halls of gold?

If there's no practicality behind an idea, it's really just pie in the sky. 

[McC]

(07-18-2016, 12:21 PM)Au165 Wrote: The first thing you have to do is step back from the knee jerk reaction. There are plenty of things a new constitution could be good for and plenty it wouldn't fix. I am not sure much would ever get done however because many like McC here would take the very thought as an insult. While you point out the "pervasive" attitude that if something isn't new it's bad, one could counter with the other attitude that because it's always been that way it's the best way. Neither are right in every situation which is why everything should be analyzed thoroughly before any decisions are made.

I do think that the current way our representation is compiled today is broken. I think we should look more at what it means to be a representative. I believe that all political offices should have far lower salaries. I believe that if it is truly about serving your country then it shouldn't be a career merely a service you do in an effort to server your country (like military). That would also mean a limit to service in any single position, what that number is IDK, but people who work in politics more than real jobs are not representative of the people they are there to represent. The politicians should truly be representative of people who live and WORK in the world they govern.

There's no knee jerk reaction.  It's a lifetime of seeing how things work in Washington.  It doesn't take Einstein to know that such an endeavor would end up a party line battle that would accomplish nothing.

There's no getting to the people in power.  That's how they want it, that's how it is.

[Belsnickel]

(07-18-2016, 12:21 PM)Au165 Wrote: I do think that the current way our representation is compiled today is broken. I think we should look more at what it means to be a representative. I believe that all political offices should have far lower salaries. I believe that if it is truly about serving your country then it shouldn't be a career merely a service you do in an effort to server your country (like military). That would also mean a limit to service in any single position, what that number is IDK, but people who work in politics more than real jobs are not representative of the people they are there to represent. The politicians should truly be representative of people who live and WORK in the world they govern.

Just one of the many things that would be nice to lay out in a constitution.

(07-18-2016, 12:31 PM)McC Wrote: I'm not denying that.  It's the thought of politicians ever coming to any agreement on how to do it better.  What makes you think they would ever tear down the giant walls that protect their halls of gold?

If there's no practicality behind an idea, it's really just pie in the sky. 

Everything begins as a pie in the sky idea. I may be an idealist for some things, but if I see something that needs fixing and I have ideas, I don't give up on that. I want to try to make it work. I want to talk about it, share the idea, spread the word. The more people are in on it the more practical the idea becomes.

There is plenty of stuff out there that I don't know what would help or I don't pay enough attention to, but this is something I know we can benefit from.

[McC]

(07-18-2016, 12:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Just one of the many things that would be nice to lay out in a constitution.


Everything begins as a pie in the sky idea. I may be an idealist for some things, but if I see something that needs fixing and I have ideas, I don't give up on that. I want to try to make it work. I want to talk about it, share the idea, spread the word. The more people are in on it the more practical the idea becomes.

There is plenty of stuff out there that I don't know what would help or I don't pay enough attention to, but this is something I know we can benefit from.

And again, that is not the question.  You're asking the king to knock down the castle and that rarely happens.

[Belsnickel]

(07-18-2016, 12:46 PM)McC Wrote: And again, that is not the question.  You're asking the king to knock down the castle and that rarely happens.

No, I'm not. I fully understand that the current political powers will want nothing to do with this. You're assuming I think they would, but a constitutional convention could be done without any of the current elected officials.

[McC]

(07-18-2016, 12:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, I'm not. I fully understand that the current political powers will want nothing to do with this. You're assuming I think they would, but a constitutional convention could be done without any of the current elected officials.

And this will be done without part lines?

[Belsnickel]

(07-18-2016, 12:48 PM)McC Wrote: And this will be done without part lines?

It can be. There will be ideological differences, but those are hammered out in negotiations. If you come to it saying that political parties cannot be involved then, well, party lines don't exist. Ideological differences are much more varied than actual party lines, so it would be difficult. But most things that are worth doing are never easy.

[fredtoast]

It is silly to say that it is impossible to change the Constitution or that elected officials are not beholden to voters.

If enough people realized how much good a Constitutional amendment could achieve then they would only vote for politicians that agreed with them.


Term limits do nothing but make sure that the good elected officials get kicked out too soon. Same with lowering the pay. All that does is keep the most qualified from trying to get elected.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

What do you want changed?


If you want only the way we hold elections changed then push for an Amendment to change the law. A Constitution Convention will change everything. 


Are you willing to risk losing our right to bear arms, practice your religion, privacy and so on? Because we all know those will change once it starts.


There is way too much emotion floating around this country now and not enough logic. While we need both, emotion and logic, there must be a balance and emotion is carrying too much weight.

[Belsnickel]

(07-18-2016, 01:21 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: What do you want changed?


If you want only the way we hold elections changed then push for an Amendment to change the law. A Constitution Convention will change everything. 


Are you willing to risk losing our right to bear arms, practice your religion, privacy and so on? Because we all know those will change once it starts.


There is way too much emotion floating around this country now and not enough logic. While we need both, emotion and logic, there must be a balance and emotion is carrying too much weight.

There are a lot of things I would like to see changed, but this thread was (originally) just about the voting system which is why my OP mentions an amendment. It got railroaded though, and I went along with it, so it is what it is.

[fredtoast]

(07-18-2016, 01:21 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Are you willing to risk losing our right to bear arms, practice your religion, privacy and so on? Because we all know those will change once it starts.

No we don't.

I am pretty sure that Belsnickle is suggesting that any changes to the Constitution meet the standards set in Article Five of the current Constitution.

[Belsnickel]

(07-18-2016, 01:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No we don't.

I am pretty sure that Belsnickle is suggesting that any changes to the Constitution meet the standards set in Article Five of the current Constitution.

Actually, no. If we are talking about a new constitution entirely, Article V would not be in play. If we are talking about amendments then it would. I would rather it be done by amendments, but there are a lot of things to be looked at and would make the process very interesting.

All of that being said, we still don't know that these things would change. The First Amendment freedoms, for example, are so entrenched in our society that I think even if we completely started over they would be included.

[fredtoast]

(07-18-2016, 01:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Actually, no. If we are talking about a new constitution entirely, Article V would not be in play. If we are talking about amendments then it would. I would rather it be done by amendments, but there are a lot of things to be looked at and would make the process very interesting.

All of that being said, we still don't know that these things would change. The First Amendment freedoms, for example, are so entrenched in our society that I think even if we completely started over they would be included.

If Aeticle 5 does not apply then how do we decide if the new constitution is valid? Who gets to say what is in the new constitution?

[*Nately120*]

(07-18-2016, 12:11 PM)McC Wrote: I say "Better the devil you know."

That's loser talk.