Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Should we get rid of the constitution
An old article, but an intriguing one. I sometimes wonder if we need reform on the level of what Peter the Great did to Russia to drag this country into the 21st century, rather the people like it or not.
The Constitution is fine; its fundamental principles have stood up remarkably well over the two and a half centuries of our nation's life. As with any governing document, it needs revisions from time to time; the most critical need right now is to declare businesses not to be people with First Amendment rights; next in line is to repeal or modify the Second Amendment.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"What we need is what is apparently half of one of the two political parties to stop trying to burn everything down to the ground in the name of bringing back America.
Also the Freedom Caucus has basically said they will not give any votes to a Republican who would even think of compromising.
I think we're heading into a government shutdown by Christmas.
Put another way, the Constitution is not our problem. The people on the Republican side who are holding the nation hostage over ideological principles aren't even remotely following it.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"There's actually some suggestions in there that I think are a terrible idea. For one, serving only one term would potentially allow lobbyists rather than lawmakers to gain all the experience in lawmaking; however flawed our lawmakers are now this is their career and it takes time to one, figure it out, and two, build the sort of relationships it takes to make things happen with your fellow lawmakers. Second, getting rid of the Senate only gets rid of representation that's meant to balance against the influence of numbers.
The Senate is, currently, significantly more representative of our nation's political demographics than the House of Representatives, thanks to gerrymandering, and even that isn't saying much.
If I were going to revise the Constitution, I'd get rid of states entirely as political entities (we could keep them for administrative purposes, I guess) and apportion Congressional votes directly by population so that each person has an approximately equal vote.
It is important to remember that the Constitution, in some respects, was founded on dangerously obsolete principles — one commonly expressed belief of the framers was that representation should be meritocratic; that the common man was too ignorant to be allowed to have equal say in government. However, that belief is not contained anywhere in its text.
edited 8th Oct '15 11:53:10 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I think nearly everyone would object to eliminating states as political entities in that manner.
Dude, it's not random straight lines. They're based on what were the realities of the times they were created. The straight lines, for instance, were drawn in a time when trains and not rivers were a way to transport goods and such. And a lot of the lines are drawn in such ways as to ensure every state has diversity to their economies.
edited 8th Oct '15 11:55:38 AM by AceofSpades
Of course they'd object. I consider that a cogent argument only in that it would make it impossible to gather the necessary votes to make such a change occur. Otherwise it's Appeal to Tradition. I'd ask them to prove that the current state-federal system has benefited the nation more than it's hindered it.
edited 8th Oct '15 11:57:50 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The main value of states as political entities seems to be to enable, e.g., North Dakotans to vote to stick it to those ignorant, lazy South Dakotans; or to enable Oklahoma to claim that "what works for Ohio doesn't work for us", as if the laws of economics and human nature change when you drive across a line on a map.
The political divisions in this country have nothing to do with states and everything to do with racial and urban/rural demographics.
edited 8th Oct '15 12:00:17 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I didn't say we'd take away state governments, just that states would no longer be jurisdictional entities when it comes to apportioning votes for national office.
I do want to get rid of the idea of state sovereignty. This way, stupidity like closing three quarters of your DMVs while passing voter ID laws would be nipped in the bud.
edited 8th Oct '15 12:05:31 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"A thing that can be solved by nixing the Electoral College and letting one vote equal one vote, which seems simpler to implement as a thing.
Mind you, doing either of those things would be like pushing a boulder up a steep hill. But the Electoral College is why things are appointed the way they are.
![]()
Yes, that is what I mean. Supply and demand don't suddenly reverse roles because you drove across a train track. Part of our problem is states trying to legislate away economic realities.
Mathematically speaking, it would probably be better to elect the President via simple majority of all voters at the polls, yes, rather than fooling around with districts and electors.
Not sure what you mean. If there are more than two declared candidates and none achieves a simple majority of votes, then a runoff might be indicated. I don't have a strict preference there. Runoff votes have the problem of attracting far lower turnout, which makes them subject to manipulation.
edited 8th Oct '15 12:18:01 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"That's my understanding of the meaning. To me, an "absolute majority" would mean half of all possible voters, not just the ones who voted.
edited 8th Oct '15 12:28:18 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Holy hell those options look even worse than Mc Karthy.