US Bill of Rights

[Robert Maxwell]

Our existing electoral system does not protect any vulnerable minorities--in fact, its design diminishes the impact of minority votes by giving sparsely-populated states (which are overwhelmingly white) disproportionate electoral power.

(I know that's not the kind of "minority" you meant, but let's be honest about what "minority" actually means today.)

 

[RJDiogenes]

is this what you have in mind?

Seems a little complicated.

What I have in mind is something like this:

Say there's three candidates-- Smith and Jones, from the two major parties, and Hutchins, the dark horse independent. You really like Hutchins, but would rather be poked in the eye with a sharp stick than see Jones become president. You vote for Hutchins, who get 10% of the vote. Jones wins with 46% of the vote versus Smith's 44%. Bummer. All your vote did was help Jones get elected.

But if you get to tell the voting machine that Smith is your second choice, then when Hutchins loses your vote is reapplied to Smith. If all the people who voted for Hutchins also picked Smith as their second choice, which is likely, then Smith now wins with 54% of the vote versus Jones' 46%. An outcome that more reflects the feelings of the electorate.

With the Electoral College, electoral votes are apportioned by population, so more populous states have more power and much campaign strategizing is built on winning certain states or blocks of states. Worse, this creates Red States and Blue States and discourages voting by the opposition. If you're Blue and live in a Red State, then you're more likely to not bother, and vice versa.

So if we abolish the Electoral College and institute the ranking system, people are not only more likely to vote, but more likely to vote for somebody who's not a Democrat or Republican. That way, we might someday have an election where the people win, rather than some multi-million dollar ideological corporation.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

That's just instant runoff voting. I'm on my phone so no links but it's definitely not a panacea. It can still easily lead to suboptimal outcomes in terms of elected candidates accurately reflecting people's voting choices.

 

[MacLeod]

is this what you have in mind?

So if we abolish the Electoral College and institute the ranking system, people are not only more likely to vote, but more likely to vote for somebody who's not a Democrat or Republican. That way, we might someday have an election where the people win, rather than some multi-million dollar ideological corporation.

These are what we call "safe seats" in the UK. But are they really safe if turnout was 100% or is there some voter apathy at play were by as you say people don't bother to vote because they live in a "safe seat".


If a candidate wins a seat by fewer than those who failed to turnout, then in theroy it wasn't safe. Every single vote counts. Take this situation for example a local council election was decide by a deck of cards being cut after two caduidates had the same number of votes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/england/8668624.stm

The question did someone decide not to vote because they felt it was a "safe seat"?

And just as a safe seat can disinfranchise someone who supports the opposition party in a "safe seat" some might not turn out to vote for party whos safe seat it is as they believe it is a forgone conclusion.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Well, sure, you'll still have some level of apathy and quirky situations. No matter what system you use, you'll still be stuck with human candidates and human voters. But taking these two steps would still improve the situation by making every vote count and by making independent and third-party candidates viable.

 

[Sector 7]

Timelord Victorius, you are quoting the wrong individual. A moderator may be able to fix it for you.

Term limits: awful idea. Well-intended, but awful.

Campaign spending limits: nice in theory. Good luck enforcing it in this age of Super PACs and other nonsense. Candidates would just funnel the money into other "unaffiliated" organizations that nevertheless produce ads in support of them.

I can't even take seriously the idea of a Constitutional Amendment. Not in 2015 with the government and states so divided.

I did state that a Constitutional Amendment would be unlikely. This is due to those in Congress voting for their own self-interests rather than those of the citizens it represents.

Two terms in the House is just four years, which is the same as just one Presidential term and isn't even one Senate term. Unless you'd like to strengthen the executive branch, weaken Congress, and strengthen the Senate relative to the House, a uniform two-term limit for Congress is ridiculous.

In any case, any Amendment enacting term limits would change the balance of power. For it to be responsible to ratify such an Amendment (or any Amendment, for that matter) one should posses a convincing argument that things would not change for the worse. I'm not seeing that right now, in the case of any new term limit Amendment.

The Senate is called the Upper House and the House is the Lower House. The Senate has 6-year terms to create more stability than the Lower House. This is balanced by the ability to introduce legislation being held solely by the House of Representatives [Lower House].

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The Senate is called the Upper House and the House is the Lower House. The Senate has 6-year terms to create more stability than the Lower House. This is balanced by the ability to introduce legislation being held solely by the House of Representatives [Lower House].

The ability to introduce legislation wouldn't even come close balancing "stability" under two-term limits. Since both houses have to pass legislation anyway for it to become law, which house gets to introduce the legislation first is, practically speaking, irrelevant.

By the way, the Constitution only limits "Bills for raising Revenue" to originating in the House. All other bills may originate in either chamber. So, I'm assuming that as a part of your term-limit Amendment you'd offer sole origination to the House as a trade-off. No, that wouldn't be enough.

 

[Sector 7]

The Senate is called the Upper House and the House is the Lower House. The Senate has 6-year terms to create more stability than the Lower House. This is balanced by the ability to introduce legislation being held solely by the House of Representatives [Lower House].

The ability to introduce legislation wouldn't even come close balancing "stability" under two-term limits. Since both houses have to pass legislation anyway for it to become law, which house gets to introduce the legislation first is, practically speaking, irrelevant.

By the way, the Constitution only limits "Bills for raising Revenue" to originating in the House. All other bills may originate in either chamber. So, I'm assuming that as a part of your term-limit Amendment you'd offer sole origination to the House as a trade-off. No, that wouldn't be enough.

Revenue for the government is the main power of Congress, through appropriations. This makes it a significant power, as many presidents have discovered. While a president has the power to administrate, as it is the Executive branch, it is often curbed when Congress withholds funding.

 

[Mudd]

Well, this has wandered pretty far afield from the Bill of Rights.

 

[Sector 7]

Well, this has wandered pretty far afield from the Bill of Rights.

Of course, Dennis, this is The Trek BBS after all.

 

[farmkid]

People are definitely selective in the Rights they support-- freedom of religion over freedom from religion, or the restriction against cruel and unusual punishment over the right to bear arms. Like everything else, it's all about what benefits them personally.

I think the attention the various rights get also has much to do with how much people perceive that those rights are threatened. For example, the 3rd says that people can't be compelled to quarter military personnel in their homes. You never hear about that, and I even had to go look it up to remember which amendment it was, because nobody is concerned about it right now. However, if the Army decided it wanted to cut down on the cost of barracks and wanted to force people living near bases to house their people, I'm sure it would get a lot more attention. People would begin to care about it a bit more. Likewise, if there was little to no gun control, and no push to create such, the 2nd amendment would be like the 3rd currently is. People wouldn't care about it. It's only the hot issue it is because people perceive it as being threatened. I'm not old enough to remember, but I doubt there was much controversy about the 2nd amendment in 1840 when everyone had a gun.

 

[farmkid]

Two terms in the House is just four years, which is the same as just one Presidential term and isn't even one Senate term. Unless you'd like to strengthen the executive branch, weaken Congress, and strengthen the Senate relative to the House, a uniform two-term limit for Congress is ridiculous.

Perhaps the limit could be 12 years rather than 2 terms. That would be 12 years in any federal elected position, so someone could be a senator for 2 terms, or a representative for 6 terms, or a 2 years as a representative, 6 as a senator, 4 as the POTUS, or any other combination.

I'm not sure what I think about term limits in general. On the one hand, I don't think it's a great idea to have a bunch of novices running everything, and experience is rather valuable. I would hate to have someone who would obviously make a great POTUS who I would like to have for two terms, but who had already served several terms in the House, for example. On the other hand, it is pretty clear that spending more than a few years in Washington corrupts almost everyone. I think people who haven't been there long and who have to go back home and live like everyone else in a few years will be much more likely to consider what will be best for the country rather than what will line their pockets and that of their friends, or what will make the other party look bad.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

On the other hand, it is pretty clear that spending more than a few years in Washington corrupts almost everyone. I think people who haven't been there long and who have to go back home and live like everyone else in a few years will be much more likely to consider what will be best for the country rather than what will line their pockets and that of their friends, or what will make the other party look bad.

The thing is, the revolving door means that politicians at that level very often don't go back home to live like everyone else. And even beyond that, many didn't live like everyone else to begin with, and what they go back to can be that other thing.

I think that you're pointing to something worthwhile here, in that office holders should be motivated to do what's best for the country by suffering the consequences of their decisions along with everyone else. But I don't believe that term limits alone would accomplish that.

 

[RJDiogenes]

People are definitely selective in the Rights they support-- freedom of religion over freedom from religion, or the restriction against cruel and unusual punishment over the right to bear arms. Like everything else, it's all about what benefits them personally.

I think the attention the various rights get also has much to do with how much people perceive that those rights are threatened. For example, the 3rd says that people can't be compelled to quarter military personnel in their homes.

Yeah, that's not the sort of right, like freedom of speech, that people want for themselves but not for their enemies.