09-23-2020, 06:42 PM
(09-23-2020, 02:36 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Ah, but statewide elections are not for one president, they're for multiple electors. There's technically multiple post to be awarded. Not to mention, the reason states began to do this was to help the dominant faction in that state.
For Senate there is only two. Like is or not our nation is a union of quasi independent states and it was very important to the Framers that those states have a large, and often disproportionate, say in the national government.
Quote:Technically the Senate is not functioning exactly as intended. We elect our Senators. The Framers intended for the elite in state legislatures to select the best people, not the masses to select whoever they want.
Sorry, but that's parsing hairs a bit. The crux of the reason the Senate exists is to give each state an equal say in the upper house. How those senators are elected/appointed is tertiary to that intent.
Quote:I also do not think it's a matter of not knowing civics but disagreeing with it. The Framers were no infallible.
Of course not, hence the constitutional amendment process. They did a damn sight better job than anyone else of their time and we still have the only government with the types of rights we enjoy on the planet. I'm talking about all rights btw.
(09-23-2020, 02:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I still maintain that this idea makes zero sense for the POTUS. The president oversees the executive branch of all of the people, not all of the states. The idea makes sense for a confederation, which we are not. The original idea made sense when the general public wouldn't know too much about the candidates, but we are a long ways off from then.
Yes, this is a fundamental difference between you and I. It oddly makes you more of a Federalist and me less of one, when I think in most circumstances the opposite is true.
Quote:It's interesting, because I agree with you, but I still think the House is a far cry from the "citizen legislators" that it was intended to be. Honestly, the only change I want for confirmations, though, is that it be made a requirement for constitutional officers to be elected with a 2/3rds vote. I don't care about lower judges or some of the other political appointees, but constitutional officers (i.e. SCOTUS) should meet a higher bar.
I honestly have zero issue with that and would be in favor of an amendment requiring this. It cuts both ways and may actually resuscitate some bi-partisanship.
(09-23-2020, 03:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 1. Single biggest reform would be publicly funded elections. If you take money out of the equation suddenly third parties have a shot.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, stop the clock. I am in complete agreement. I think all electioneering should come from a public fund. Everyone who wants to participate in an election would donate to such a fund and then all funds would be divided equally. The only exception to this would be person to person canvassing for which no one would be allowed to be paid. People should be allowed to do what they want on their own time.
Quote:2. Make all (or a large percentage) of State Representatives at large and take the top finishers from the state wide election. For example if four seats were at large then the top 4 finishers would be elected. Again this would help third parties.
Interesting idea, but would likely fuel hyper partisanship in states that lean severely in one way or another.
Quote:3. Have EC delegates awarded by percentage instead of winner take all. Right now my vote is meaningless in Tennessee because a Republican is going to win the state. The main reason voter turnout is so low in Presidential elections is that most states are already decided before the election. Instead we should make every persons vote count.
I face the exact same issue but disagree on this for reasons stated above.
Quote:Our country is so evenly divided that even a small percentage of third party seats would create a situation that forced compromise.
I agree on this, but I'd really hope it didn't become European style (especially Italian) in which there are an excessive number of parties represented in the House.
Quote:Have all tie votes in the Senate decided by a cage match between each parties champion.
I'd definitely pay to see Mitch and Bernie duke it out. Or Trump and Biden.
(09-23-2020, 03:59 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So you'd have no problem with someone like Donald Trump being president until they died?
Term limits for POTUS is a good idea, it's far too powerful a position and unseating an incumbent is difficult. Term limits for governor, mayor or Congress don't serve a valid purpose IMO. Honestly without term limits Giuliani would still be mayor of NYC, he'd still be beloved and NYC wouldn't be the utter shithole it has become under Deblasio.
(09-23-2020, 05:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The answer there is yes. I think putting an age cap on it is kind of a good middle ground. It doesn't allow for a regular cycle like set terms would, but it doesn't allow for the unexpected, either.
You'd instantly run into discrimination problems I think. We're not talking about positions that demand a certain level of physical fitness like law enforcement.
