If you were a founding father

[Guest]

What governmental structures, institutions, constitutional amendments, laws, or changes or additions to our current system would you have pushed for if you were a founding father?  In other words, if you had to build a government for this country starting with a blank sheet of paper (with full knowledge of what you know now), how would you structure it?  The point of this game is to build your ideal government regardless of how likely these changes are to be made in reality.

As I've mentioned before, I would have the executive branch ran by three equal consuls instead of a single president (this idea is seen as either vaguely interesting or impractical by the folks I've mentioned it to).  I've also suggested in the past that we should increase the minimum standards for statesmen via rigorous training and evaluation in order to be eligible for high ranking office (this idea is not seen as a very good one by most people I mention it to).  Other ideas I often see suggested are that the president should be elected by direct popular vote and that we should not have political parties.  I'm indifferent on president by popular vote - I don't care much one way or the other; no political parties sounds good in theory, but I'm not sure exactly how they would be outlawed or how this policy would be enforced.  

So how would you structure your ideal government?  

 

[Chad Fuck 17558]

...I'd be all up on Martha Washington.  She was a righteous babe.

And I heard Sally Hemmings puts out.  So there's that too.

[Chooky 13302]

If I were a founding father my first course of action would've been to be horrified from being absolutely riddled with syphilis.  Then I'd be asking things like "can I just get some goddamn ice around here?"  After I came to terms with the lack of ice and all of my hideous skin bumps I'd get down to business. 

[Guest]

Like you gentlemen I would also try unsuccessfully to fuck attractive women and would not enjoy having syphilis.    

[Brisketexan 104561]

Me?  A Founding Father?  Nope.  This guy said so:

 

[Huckleberry 32694]

Man this could take a lot of time to really think through. So this is all just spitballing on the fly.

1. I think your consul idea would cause more problems than it fixes. I like the idea of inertia preventing immediate and sudden changes in Executive policy but it seems like it would just increase divisiveness.

2. Not going to take the time to get into specifics but I would include more specific details on exactly what the Executive branch is able to do. Direction of Executive policy? Yes. Foreign military operations that are wars but without using the word "war"? Hell no.

3. System for increasing the number of representatives in the House. There are too few for the population right now.

4. My Electoral College reform that I originally posted on shaggy and quoted somewhere here but can't find. (moved spoiler to end of post due to shitty board formatting)

5. Codify that the Supreme Court and the Judicial branch are the interpreters of law against the Constitution instead of relying on Marbury. Explicitly authorize judicial review in the Constitution.

6. Specific instructions in the Constitution that interstate commerce means INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Not the fact that when I sell a lemonade to you in Texas it affects the bottled water market in Massachusetts.

7. Corporations aren't people. Yes, they are made up of people, but they are not people.

I'm sure there are dozens more.

Obviously this topic comes up every four years, so here we are in 2016. In an effort to keep what could be a ridiculously long post as short as possible I will list some of the alternatives below, discussing each briefly, then conclude with the one I would favor most. This is intended to be a thought exercise where hopefully adult-type people can discuss things on a theoretical level and do so civilly. If you come into this thread and start any partisan shit then fuck you and stay out.

A. Current system

Nobody seems to like it all that much, but the people that really hate it are the ones that lose each election. I like the current system in one respect in that it is based on the idea that each State has an inherent value simply by being a member of the union but also reflects the idea that more heavily populated States reflect the will of a greater number of citizens. Detractors of the first part of that sentence like to say things like "land shouldn't have a vote" but I simply view that as far too dismissive of the idea that the nation is a union of distinct States. Those that are familiar with the political posts I've made over the years are well aware that I am a huge fan of the Federal concept in that I believe that the various States should be free to have far different laws on many topics because that presents American citizens with 50 choices of where they want to live. They can vote with their residence in such a system, and the voice of migration would over the long haul have a major say in laws and political developments.

Why do I not like it? Because despite each State's ability to determine how they apportion the delegates the vast majority go with a winner-take-all approach and I simply don't like how that completely devalues votes in States that are solidly one party or the other. I think there is a happy medium in there somewhere.

B. Straight popular vote

Nonstarter for me because as noted above I like the fact that States have inherent value. Plus logistically at some point there will be a race so close that a recount is needed and all ballots nationwide will need to be transported to one location. Just an absurd visual. Plus then you raise the question of runoff elections if it's a straight popular vote considering that 17 times nobody has received more than 50% of the popular vote. Two-round systems are used in dozens of nations where a popular vote decides the chief executive.

C. Electors assigned proportionally to popular vote

This is just putting a different label on the straight popular vote. Basically holding on to the 538 electors simply for tradition's sake. Nah.

D. Assign 2 electors to each State winner, the rest assigned proportionally

This is an attempt to mimic the fact that the electors for each State represent their two Senators and their current Representative count. The reason I don't like this one is because it ignores the fact that Congress was actually set up so that bills must pass both the Senate and the House, so while the Senate is considered the upper chamber the fact remains that they are at least nominally equal in effecting laws. Which leads me to my two favorite options, one of which is I absolutely do not favor due to political realities.

E. 2 electors assigned to each State winner, one elector assigned to the winner of each Congressional district

This one gets to the heart of the people electing the President by speaking in place of their elected Congressmen. This would actually be great in a world where Congressional districts are drawn by computer based on population maps that are devoid of political or demographic information. But holy shit can you imagine the gerrymandering fights when each district helps decide the entire Executive branch instead of merely 1/535th of Congress? So it's a no-go for now. Which leaves me with...

F. Half of a State's electors (rounded up for States with an odd number) to the winner, the remainder assigned proportionally

The Senate being traditionally the upper chamber as mentioned, a State with an odd number of electors will assign the extra elector to the State winner. The remaining electors are assigned proportionally to the popular vote within the state. For example, in 2012 the Presidential results in Texas were

Mitt Romney - 57.17%
Barack Obama - 41.38%
Other People - 1.45%

In this system that would give Romney 19 electors for the State victory, then the remaining 19 would be assigned proportionally. Romney 10.86, Obama 7.86, Other People 0.28 which leaves us with Romney 11 and Obama 8. Romney takes the Texas electors 30-8 in that election instead of 38-0. Similarly California becomes Obama 44, Romney 10, Johnson 1 instead of Obama 55-0. Since I know people will wonder, the overall count in 2012 was originally 332-206 in favor of Obama, with this system it would have been Obama 303, Romney 234, Johnson 1.

I'd be willing to calculate other elections if anyone's interested.

Obviously this will never happen but I like it best so that means it's best.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Huckleberry

[David Dennison 18652]

I don't think I would have changed anything as a founding father. I would, however, make changes now. I would get rid of the Second Amendment and the Electoral College. I would also prohibit elected representatives from drawing congressional districts. I would also amend the Constitution to make it clear that spending money is not protected speech. I'd also be inclined to scrap our entire structure in favor of a parliamentary system.

Edited July 31, 2018 by David Dennison

[Turkleton 145]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I don't think I would have changed anything as a founding father. I would, however, make changes now. I would get rid of the Second Amendment and the Electoral College. I would also prohibit elected representatives from drawing congressional districts. I would also amend the Constitution to make it clear that spending money is not protected speech. I'd also be inclined to scrap our entire structure in favor of a parliamentary system.

What about the 10th? Shouldn't that be on your list?

[David Dennison 18652]

8 minutes ago, Turkleton said:

What about the 10th? Shouldn't that be on your list?

No.

[SubliminalHorn 6673]

Proportional parliamentary system rather than the shitty FPTP system. No electoral college. 

[gsoda3 3236]

see i'd make it my mission to be THE founding father.  

 

serious answer:  knowing what we do now, one of my biggest priorities would be to eliminate funding from interest groups.  also legislation, to be passed in to law, must contain no riders or extraneous legislation that isn't germane to the main focus of the bill.

Edited July 31, 2018 by gsoda3

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Man this could take a lot of time to really think through. So this is all just spitballing on the fly.

1. I think your consul idea would cause more problems than it fixes. I like the idea of inertia preventing immediate and sudden changes in Executive policy but it seems like it would just increase divisiveness.

2. Not going to take the time to get into specifics but I would include more specific details on exactly what the Executive branch is able to do. Direction of Executive policy? Yes. Foreign military operations that are wars but without using the word "war"? Hell no.

3. System for increasing the number of representatives in the House. There are too few for the population right now.

4. My Electoral College reform that I originally posted on shaggy and quoted somewhere here but can't find. (moved spoiler to end of post due to shitty board formatting)

5. Codify that the Supreme Court and the Judicial branch are the interpreters of law against the Constitution instead of relying on Marbury. Explicitly authorize judicial review in the Constitution.

6. Specific instructions in the Constitution that interstate commerce means INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Not the fact that when I sell a lemonade to you in Texas it affects the bottled water market in Massachusetts.

7. Corporations aren't people. Yes, they are made up of people, but they are not people.

I'm sure there are dozens more.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Obviously this topic comes up every four years, so here we are in 2016. In an effort to keep what could be a ridiculously long post as short as possible I will list some of the alternatives below, discussing each briefly, then conclude with the one I would favor most. This is intended to be a thought exercise where hopefully adult-type people can discuss things on a theoretical level and do so civilly. If you come into this thread and start any partisan shit then fuck you and stay out.

A. Current system

Nobody seems to like it all that much, but the people that really hate it are the ones that lose each election. I like the current system in one respect in that it is based on the idea that each State has an inherent value simply by being a member of the union but also reflects the idea that more heavily populated States reflect the will of a greater number of citizens. Detractors of the first part of that sentence like to say things like "land shouldn't have a vote" but I simply view that as far too dismissive of the idea that the nation is a union of distinct States. Those that are familiar with the political posts I've made over the years are well aware that I am a huge fan of the Federal concept in that I believe that the various States should be free to have far different laws on many topics because that presents American citizens with 50 choices of where they want to live. They can vote with their residence in such a system, and the voice of migration would over the long haul have a major say in laws and political developments.

Why do I not like it? Because despite each State's ability to determine how they apportion the delegates the vast majority go with a winner-take-all approach and I simply don't like how that completely devalues votes in States that are solidly one party or the other. I think there is a happy medium in there somewhere.

B. Straight popular vote

Nonstarter for me because as noted above I like the fact that States have inherent value. Plus logistically at some point there will be a race so close that a recount is needed and all ballots nationwide will need to be transported to one location. Just an absurd visual. Plus then you raise the question of runoff elections if it's a straight popular vote considering that 17 times nobody has received more than 50% of the popular vote. Two-round systems are used in dozens of nations where a popular vote decides the chief executive.

C. Electors assigned proportionally to popular vote

This is just putting a different label on the straight popular vote. Basically holding on to the 538 electors simply for tradition's sake. Nah.

D. Assign 2 electors to each State winner, the rest assigned proportionally

This is an attempt to mimic the fact that the electors for each State represent their two Senators and their current Representative count. The reason I don't like this one is because it ignores the fact that Congress was actually set up so that bills must pass both the Senate and the House, so while the Senate is considered the upper chamber the fact remains that they are at least nominally equal in effecting laws. Which leads me to my two favorite options, one of which is I absolutely do not favor due to political realities.

E. 2 electors assigned to each State winner, one elector assigned to the winner of each Congressional district

This one gets to the heart of the people electing the President by speaking in place of their elected Congressmen. This would actually be great in a world where Congressional districts are drawn by computer based on population maps that are devoid of political or demographic information. But holy shit can you imagine the gerrymandering fights when each district helps decide the entire Executive branch instead of merely 1/535th of Congress? So it's a no-go for now. Which leaves me with...

F. Half of a State's electors (rounded up for States with an odd number) to the winner, the remainder assigned proportionally

The Senate being traditionally the upper chamber as mentioned, a State with an odd number of electors will assign the extra elector to the State winner. The remaining electors are assigned proportionally to the popular vote within the state. For example, in 2012 the Presidential results in Texas were

Mitt Romney - 57.17%
Barack Obama - 41.38%
Other People - 1.45%

In this system that would give Romney 19 electors for the State victory, then the remaining 19 would be assigned proportionally. Romney 10.86, Obama 7.86, Other People 0.28 which leaves us with Romney 11 and Obama 8. Romney takes the Texas electors 30-8 in that election instead of 38-0. Similarly California becomes Obama 44, Romney 10, Johnson 1 instead of Obama 55-0. Since I know people will wonder, the overall count in 2012 was originally 332-206 in favor of Obama, with this system it would have been Obama 303, Romney 234, Johnson 1.

I'd be willing to calculate other elections if anyone's interested.

Obviously this will never happen but I like it best so that means it's best.

 

1. I think we are in general agreement on the advantages and disadvantages of consuls vs president.  It seems where we disagree is on whether advantages outweigh the disadvantages.  This ties in with point 2.

2.  We are in general agreement here as well.  Problem as I see it is that with our system having the single president, by its nature the president will gain more and more power over time.  So it would be very difficult for us to codify and explicitly define now what we would like to confine the presidency to for all time.  This is essentially what happened with the intent of congress having the power to declare war with what it has morphed into with the president deciding virtually all military actions unchecked.  

3.  Not a bad idea.  Would you tie this to a number ratio such as no more than x people per house rep?

4.  Not against this idea.  Again, I think the goal should be to restrict the powers of the executive.  If we successfully achieve that, then there will be less concern over this issue.  It has become such a large focus of concern because the executive has become so powerful.

5-7.  I don't know as much about these issues or what your fundamental concern is in regards to them.  But I'm willing to concede these points if you are willing to move on point 1 ;).  

 

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3868]

[Biff Tannen 45491]

I would invest half of it in various mutual funds and take the other half over to my friend Asadulah who works in securities.  Or two chicks at the same time.

[52-80 19081]

Trial by Combat to resolve judicial matters

[RDCanecutter 26249]

I think I would have pushed us in more of a maritime direction. Not so much a strong navy though as setting up incentive for citizens to commit piracy and coastal raids followed by settlements. Pretty much swarm everything in the Caribbean from the get-go as well as nab coastal New Spain and New Granada til we cain't nab no more. Once that's all nailed down, we can always go back and take the inland square-state territories.

There'd probably be some shit about laws and constitutions, eventually, but for now, PIRATES.

[52-80 19081]

I'd fortify all my cities against barbarian raids.  Build tons of granaries to support population growth.  Steer all remaining resources towards research jn nuclear fission and space flight.  And if Mahatma Gandhi wanted some beef, I'd give the motherfucker more heat than he can handle.  

[Judge Roybeanbag 11807]

I would change the way we vote for federal candidates (House, Senate, President).  Haven't worked out details but the gist of it would be a 3-part ballot for each candidate.  One part by name (and possibly party but I'd prefer not), the 2nd and 3rd parts would be anonymous positions and policy platforms, one for domestic policy, second for foreign.   The candidates would have to state their positions on say 10 or so agreed-upon items in each of those policy sections.  

Voter turnout would probably plummet to near zero but at least we'd have a better chance of avoiding another trump.

[TwiceHorn 31265]

40 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

1. I think we are in general agreement on the advantages and disadvantages of consuls vs president.  It seems where we disagree is on whether advantages outweigh the disadvantages.  This ties in with point 2.

2.  We are in general agreement here as well.  Problem as I see it is that with our system having the single president, by its nature the president will gain more and more power over time.  So it would be very difficult for us to codify and explicitly define now what we would like to confine the presidency to for all time.  This is essentially what happened with the intent of congress having the power to declare war with what it has morphed into with the president deciding virtually all military actions unchecked.  

3.  Not a bad idea.  Would you tie this to a number ratio such as no more than x people per house rep?

4.  Not against this idea.  Again, I think the goal should be to restrict the powers of the executive.  If we successfully achieve that, then there will be less concern over this issue.  It has become such a large focus of concern because the executive has become so powerful.

5-7.  I don't know as much about these issues or what your fundamental concern is in regards to them.  But I'm willing to concede these points if you are willing to move on point 1 ;).  

 

I will elaborate on points 5-7.

5.  Judicial review is what creates the check/balance of the judicial branch over the executive and legislative branches.  It is the power of the courts to invalidate legislative and executive action as unconstitutional.  Currently, it rests solely on the common-law case of Marbury v. Madison, which decided that the overall structure of the Constitution made judicial review mandatory, though not expressly provided.  To some degree, therefore, it is precarious.

6.  Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce under Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 3.  Particularly during the FDR era, and since, whether something "affects interstate commerce," and is therefore within the power of the federal congress to regulate, took on a scope akin to the "butterfly effect."  It directly led to an unjustified and unjustifiable expansion of the federal government.

7.  When corporations were first proposed as legal entities, there was a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth about this legal creature that could do unto others without being responsible, in tort, or criminal, or other laws or senses, in the same way as an individual person.  So, the solution became to treat corporations as natural persons in most cases.  That is, they have the capacity to sue and be sued, are subject to criminal liability, etc. etc.  However, as exemplified by Hobby Lobby and Citizens United, extending the bill of rights to corporations, as if they were natural persons, is hazardous and probably contrary to original justifications and assumptions underlying the existence of corporations.  Corporations were still newish at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.  In other words, treating corporations as people was an expedient, but is not in any way mandatory.

Edited July 31, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Nivek 16853]

Tax churches.  Promote synergy.  Meet a giant fish.  Fuck its brains out.  

[Mole 4320]

1. Clear, automatic, and automated guidelines tied to population for number of congressmen. Essentially Huck's more congressmen position.

2. Clear, automatic, and automated guidelines tied to population density for drawing up congressional districts to avoid the politicization of gerrymandering.

3. I could get behind the idea of a required statesman test with the results, including answers given, made public. I wouldn't be for a minimum score, but I'd love to publish their ignorance.

4. Formal and public background checks, including school transcripts, taxes, and criminal records for certain offices.

5. And of course unlike all the racists posting here who are apparently ok with slavery, I'd abolish it from the start.  

[DixonHur 11171]

1. Abolish slavery
2. Allow women to vote
3. Codify that the US is a secular society
4. Eliminate 2nd amendment (leaving gun ownership to the states)
5. Get rid of Electoral college
6. Eliminate jus soli (at birth children would be assumed to have the citizenship of their mother, regardless of where they were physically born)
7. Nationwide election for Supreme Court openings

[staboner 4957]

1 hour ago, Aphelion said:

What governmental structures, institutions, constitutional amendments, laws, or changes or additions to our current system would you have pushed for if you were a founding father?  In other words, if you had to build a government for this country starting with a blank sheet of paper (with full knowledge of what you know now), how would you structure it?  The point of this game is to build your ideal government regardless of how likely these changes are to be made in reality.

As I've mentioned before, I would have the executive branch ran by three equal consuls instead of a single president (this idea is seen as either vaguely interesting or impractical by the folks I've mentioned it to).  I've also suggested in the past that we should increase the minimum standards for statesmen via rigorous training and evaluation in order to be eligible for high ranking office (this idea is not seen as a very good one by most people I mention it to).  Other ideas I often see suggested are that the president should be elected by direct popular vote and that we should not have political parties.  I'm indifferent on president by popular vote - I don't care much one way or the other; no political parties sounds good in theory, but I'm not sure exactly how they would be outlawed or how this policy would be enforced.  

So how would you structure your ideal government?  

 

The problem with minimum standards (or really just about any rigid process) is that is is eventually corrupted. 

I would focus on creating a decision making process that is randomized a bit and changing, versus just focusing on making the actors or departments change. Change in the process will keep the ugly parts of humans in check IMO. It will help to keep institutional corruption out of whatever cracks would form over time. So its always a democracy or some type, but how votes and decisions are tallied and decided upon is changing. Lets have a Euro-style parliamentary system for the next ten years, change to something after, etc. 

I have no details past that because it would never work. 

The obvious counter is that without grounded institutions people won't follow believe in any of them. Right now there is no way humans would believe in nonsense ^ like this. They need predictability and belief in something concrete, grounded and dependably there. 

So instead we as humans watch our governments become ineffective, overrun and/or burned to the ground because we are too stupid to admit when something is completely FUBAR. 

puff puff give

Another idea would be data checks and autocorrections built into the constitution. Never go >10% debt over annual income, etc. Particularly on things like balancing the budget where numbers can be easily constructed. Of course whoever constructed the numbers would eventually get corrupted, see above, but you can at least create some separation and change in that function over time to keep the nasty human bits off of it. 

feels good man

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I will elaborate on points 5-7.

5.  Judicial review is what creates the check/balance of the judicial branch over the executive and legislative branches.  It is the power of the courts to invalidate legislative and executive action as unconstitutional.  Currently, it rests solely on the common-law case of Marbury v. Madison, which decided that the overall structure of the Constitution made judicial review mandatory, though not expressly provided.  To some degree, therefore, it is precarious.

6.  Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce under Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 3.  Particularly during the FDR era, and since, whether something "affects interstate commerce," and is therefore within the power of the federal congress to regulate, took on a scope akin to the "butterfly effect."  It directly led to an unjustified and unjustifiable expansion of the federal government.

7.  When corporations were first proposed as legal entities, there was a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth about this legal creature that could do unto others without being responsible, in tort, or criminal, or other laws or senses, in the same way as an individual person.  So, the solution became to treat corporations as natural persons in most cases.  That is, they have the capacity to sue and be sued, are subject to criminal liability, etc. etc.  However, as exemplified by Hobby Lobby and Citizens United, extending the bill of rights to corporations, as if they were natural persons, is hazardous and probably contrary to original justifications and assumptions underlying the existence of corporations.  Corporations were still newish at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

Thanks for the explanation.  

5.  Can you give some example on how a particular event may unfold under the current situation based on Marbury v. Madison compared to how it may unfold under Huck's idea of codifying that the Supreme Court and the Judicial branch as the interpreters of law against the Constitution?

7.  Interesting.  There is a similar situation being discussed currently in animal rights.  Some animals rights activists are pushing for personhood to be bestowed upon certain animals.  Many are trying to tell them that this is actually a terrible idea and will lead to many unpleasant consequences.  For example, what if one animal kills another - should the animal be charged with murder?  How would consent between animals having sex (or consent in any other circumstance, for that matter) be determined?  What if a dog came up and licked a strange women?  If it is a legal person, then wouldn't this constitute sexual assault?  So what they are after is rights and protections and not legal personhood, or so the argument goes.  

 

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

Tax churches.  Promote synergy.  Meet a giant fish.  Fuck its brains out.  

I've seen this suggested more and more but it seems like there are many issues that its advocates seldom address.  Would you like to tax all nonprofit and 501c3 organizations or just the ones that are categorized as being religious?  If you want to tax all of them, then this has many consequences that you may not like.  If you want to tax only the ones categorized as religious, then you have to address how they shall be categorized.  If it is up to self categorization then you will create incentive for them to simply not claim to be so; if it is up to others to decide then you will have to have some auditors who determine this status and you will run into very arbitrary definitions of what constitutes religious.  Also, you would have to give some justification for why only the religious nonprofits are being selected for taxes (the actual reason of "because I'm not religious and I just don't like them" wouldn't be sufficient.)

Edited July 31, 2018 by Guest

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1. Ditch electoral college for executive branch.

2. Limit max house district size to 100,000 people. 

3. Civics test to run for office, but not to vote.

4. Retirement age limit for all judges set to 10 years below average life expectancy at appointment.

5. Ban Twitter for all who seek or hold office. 

Edited July 31, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[TwiceHorn 31265]

33 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Thanks for the explanation.  

5.  Can you give some example on how a particular event may unfold under the current situation based on Marbury v. Madison compared to how it may unfold under Huck's idea of codifying that the Supreme Court and the Judicial branch as the interpreters of law against the Constitution?

7.  Interesting.  There is a similar situation being discussed currently in animal rights.  Some animals rights activists are pushing for personhood to be bestowed upon certain animals.  Many are trying to tell them that this is actually a terrible idea and will lead to many unpleasant consequences.  For example, what if one animal kills another.  Should the animal be charged with murder?  How would consent between animals having sex (or consent in any other circumstance, for that matter) be determined?  What if a dog came up and licked a strange women?  If it is a legal person, then wouldn't this constitute this sexual assault.  So what they are after is rights and protections and not legal personhood, or so the argument goes.  

 

I've seen this suggested more and more but it seems like there are many issues that its advocates seldom address.  Would you like to tax all nonprofit and 501c3 organizations or just the ones that are categorized as being religious?  If you want to tax all of them, then this has many consequences that you may not like.  If you want to tax only the ones categorized as religious, then you have to address how they shall be categorized.  If it is up to self categorization then you will create incentive for them to simply not claim to be so; if it is up to others to decide then you will have to have some auditors who determine this status and you will run into very arbitrary definitions of what constitutes religious.  Also, you would have to give some justification for why only the religious nonprofits are being selected for taxes (the actual reason of "because I'm not religious and I just don't like them" wouldn't be sufficient.)

I am insufficiently philosophically trained or minded to elaborate much on 7.  But yes, that kind of philosophical debate occurred in the context of making corporations "legal."  And the net result or solution was to treat them as persons in many cases.  But giving them human rights is another kettle of fish entirely.

 

As to 5, because Marbury is a common-law case/holding, it could theoretically be reversed by the Supreme Court, thus abolishing judicial review.  There is also a theory (judicial opinions were imprecise, meandering rhetorical things until fairly recently), that judicial review is dependent upon the Judiciary Act of 1789, which was an act of Congress creating the lower courts (courts of appeal and district courts and granting the Supreme Court jurisdiction over them).  That Act has been amended and expanded several times over the past 230 years, but the basics of it have not changed.  Those that adhere to this theory believe that the Supreme Court and lower courts could be stripped of judicial review authority by act of Congress.  These people are dangerous radicals.

[CooterBrown 17904]

Congress meets every 3 years for 120 days.  Limit of 100 passed bills per session.  

Max of $100 cash or in-kind donation to a candidate by any single entity.  Any entity can only donate up to $10,000 total per year.

Age limit of 65 for all elected officials beyond first term.

Congressional districts are comprised of whole census blocks not to exceed 100,000 people.

Campaigning is limited to the 12 weeks preceding an election. 

Current elected officials cannot campaign for candidates. 

Former elected officials cannot be a registered lobbyist or be an employee, contractor, adviser, or board member of a registered lobbying firm. 

Limit military spending to 2% of GDP.

3% flat personal, business income, and capital gains tax when boots are on the ground overseas to pay for military expenses.

Hourly full-time minimum wage is the nationwide hourly wage to be $0.01 over poverty line.

Employers receive increased tax benefits for a higher full-time:part-time jobs ratio.

Tax rate starts at an annual income level of $1.  Everyone has skin in the game.

No tax deductions except for a retirement account contribution of up to 15% annual income.

Income tax is a simple progressive percentage of income, regardless of source.  All sources are taxed: income, capital gains, inheritance. 

 

 

[Poolflood 845]

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Man this could take a lot of time to really think through. So this is all just spitballing on the fly.

1. I think your consul idea would cause more problems than it fixes. I like the idea of inertia preventing immediate and sudden changes in Executive policy but it seems like it would just increase divisiveness.

2. Not going to take the time to get into specifics but I would include more specific details on exactly what the Executive branch is able to do. Direction of Executive policy? Yes. Foreign military operations that are wars but without using the word "war"? Hell no.

3. System for increasing the number of representatives in the House. There are too few for the population right now.

4. My Electoral College reform that I originally posted on shaggy and quoted somewhere here but can't find. (moved spoiler to end of post due to shitty board formatting)

5. Codify that the Supreme Court and the Judicial branch are the interpreters of law against the Constitution instead of relying on Marbury. Explicitly authorize judicial review in the Constitution.

6. Specific instructions in the Constitution that interstate commerce means INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Not the fact that when I sell a lemonade to you in Texas it affects the bottled water market in Massachusetts.

7. Corporations aren't people. Yes, they are made up of people, but they are not people.

I'm sure there are dozens more.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Obviously this topic comes up every four years, so here we are in 2016. In an effort to keep what could be a ridiculously long post as short as possible I will list some of the alternatives below, discussing each briefly, then conclude with the one I would favor most. This is intended to be a thought exercise where hopefully adult-type people can discuss things on a theoretical level and do so civilly. If you come into this thread and start any partisan shit then fuck you and stay out.

A. Current system

Nobody seems to like it all that much, but the people that really hate it are the ones that lose each election. I like the current system in one respect in that it is based on the idea that each State has an inherent value simply by being a member of the union but also reflects the idea that more heavily populated States reflect the will of a greater number of citizens. Detractors of the first part of that sentence like to say things like "land shouldn't have a vote" but I simply view that as far too dismissive of the idea that the nation is a union of distinct States. Those that are familiar with the political posts I've made over the years are well aware that I am a huge fan of the Federal concept in that I believe that the various States should be free to have far different laws on many topics because that presents American citizens with 50 choices of where they want to live. They can vote with their residence in such a system, and the voice of migration would over the long haul have a major say in laws and political developments.

Why do I not like it? Because despite each State's ability to determine how they apportion the delegates the vast majority go with a winner-take-all approach and I simply don't like how that completely devalues votes in States that are solidly one party or the other. I think there is a happy medium in there somewhere.

B. Straight popular vote

Nonstarter for me because as noted above I like the fact that States have inherent value. Plus logistically at some point there will be a race so close that a recount is needed and all ballots nationwide will need to be transported to one location. Just an absurd visual. Plus then you raise the question of runoff elections if it's a straight popular vote considering that 17 times nobody has received more than 50% of the popular vote. Two-round systems are used in dozens of nations where a popular vote decides the chief executive.

C. Electors assigned proportionally to popular vote

This is just putting a different label on the straight popular vote. Basically holding on to the 538 electors simply for tradition's sake. Nah.

D. Assign 2 electors to each State winner, the rest assigned proportionally

This is an attempt to mimic the fact that the electors for each State represent their two Senators and their current Representative count. The reason I don't like this one is because it ignores the fact that Congress was actually set up so that bills must pass both the Senate and the House, so while the Senate is considered the upper chamber the fact remains that they are at least nominally equal in effecting laws. Which leads me to my two favorite options, one of which is I absolutely do not favor due to political realities.

E. 2 electors assigned to each State winner, one elector assigned to the winner of each Congressional district

This one gets to the heart of the people electing the President by speaking in place of their elected Congressmen. This would actually be great in a world where Congressional districts are drawn by computer based on population maps that are devoid of political or demographic information. But holy shit can you imagine the gerrymandering fights when each district helps decide the entire Executive branch instead of merely 1/535th of Congress? So it's a no-go for now. Which leaves me with...

F. Half of a State's electors (rounded up for States with an odd number) to the winner, the remainder assigned proportionally

The Senate being traditionally the upper chamber as mentioned, a State with an odd number of electors will assign the extra elector to the State winner. The remaining electors are assigned proportionally to the popular vote within the state. For example, in 2012 the Presidential results in Texas were

Mitt Romney - 57.17%
Barack Obama - 41.38%
Other People - 1.45%

In this system that would give Romney 19 electors for the State victory, then the remaining 19 would be assigned proportionally. Romney 10.86, Obama 7.86, Other People 0.28 which leaves us with Romney 11 and Obama 8. Romney takes the Texas electors 30-8 in that election instead of 38-0. Similarly California becomes Obama 44, Romney 10, Johnson 1 instead of Obama 55-0. Since I know people will wonder, the overall count in 2012 was originally 332-206 in favor of Obama, with this system it would have been Obama 303, Romney 234, Johnson 1.

I'd be willing to calculate other elections if anyone's interested.

Obviously this will never happen but I like it best so that means it's best.

 

First, would love to buy you a beer one day.

Regarding your sixth point would (if ever argued) the 9th amendment have been a great deterrent to Wickard/Filburn if not 8 of the 9 scotus judges not been appointed by FDR?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Edited July 31, 2018 by Poolflood
Posting the 9th

[52-80 19081]

49 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

Congress meets every 3 years for 120 days.  Limit of 100 passed bills per session.  

Max of $100 cash or in-kind donation to a candidate by any single entity.  Any entity can only donate up to $10,000 total per year.

Age limit of 65 for all elected officials beyond first term.

Congressional districts are comprised of whole census blocks not to exceed 100,000 people.

Campaigning is limited to the 12 weeks preceding an election. 

Current elected officials cannot campaign for candidates. 

Former elected officials cannot be a registered lobbyist or be an employee, contractor, adviser, or board member of a registered lobbying firm. 

Limit military spending to 2% of GDP.

3% flat personal, business income, and capital gains tax when boots are on the ground overseas to pay for military expenses.

Hourly full-time minimum wage is the nationwide hourly wage to be $0.01 over poverty line.

Employers receive increased tax benefits for a higher full-time:part-time jobs ratio.

Tax rate starts at an annual income level of $1.  Everyone has skin in the game.

No tax deductions except for a retirement account contribution of up to 15% annual income.

Income tax is a simple progressive percentage of income, regardless of source.  All sources are taxed: income, capital gains, inheritance. 

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

1. Abolish slavery
2. Allow women to vote
3. Codify that the US is a secular society
4. Eliminate 2nd amendment (leaving gun ownership to the states)
5. Get rid of Electoral college
6. Eliminate jus soli (at birth children would be assumed to have the citizenship of their mother, regardless of where they were physically born)
7. Nationwide election for Supreme Court openings

For points 5 and 7, I lean more towards elitism than populism in regards to the election of these officials.  For example, I would rather have congress select by majority vote both the president and the supreme court justices rather than have them voted in via direct population voting.  

 

1 hour ago, staboner said:

Another idea would be data checks and autocorrections built into the constitution. Never go >10% debt over annual income, etc. Particularly on things like balancing the budget where numbers can be easily constructed. Of course whoever constructed the numbers would eventually get corrupted, see above, but you can at least create some separation and change in that function over time to keep the nasty human bits off of it. 

 

In principle I'm not against these ideas, but the problem is that knowing exactly what that number should be is just about impossible and then during times of crisis it would need to be waived and then it seems it would eventually just dissolve altogether.

 

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

1. Ditch electoral college for executive branch.

2. Limit max house district size to 100,000 people. 

3. Civics test to run for office, but not to vote.

4. Retirement age limit for all judges set to 10 years below average life expectancy at appointment.

5. Ban Twitter for all who seek or hold office. 

Not against 1-4.  For 5, I don't like twitter either, but I don't think it would be feasible to ban such practices.  There would be too many easy workarounds unless you just outright restricted their free speech rights.

 

59 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

Congress meets every 3 years for 120 days.  Limit of 100 passed bills per session.  

Max of $100 cash or in-kind donation to a candidate by any single entity.  Any entity can only donate up to $10,000 total per year.

Age limit of 65 for all elected officials beyond first term.

Congressional districts are comprised of whole census blocks not to exceed 100,000 people.

Campaigning is limited to the 12 weeks preceding an election. 

Current elected officials cannot campaign for candidates. 

Former elected officials cannot be a registered lobbyist or be an employee, contractor, adviser, or board member of a registered lobbying firm. 

Limit military spending to 2% of GDP.

3% flat personal, business income, and capital gains tax when boots are on the ground overseas to pay for military expenses.

Hourly full-time minimum wage is the nationwide hourly wage to be $0.01 over poverty line.

Employers receive increased tax benefits for a higher full-time:part-time jobs ratio.

Tax rate starts at an annual income level of $1.  Everyone has skin in the game.

No tax deductions except for a retirement account contribution of up to 15% annual income.

Income tax is a simple progressive percentage of income, regardless of source.  All sources are taxed: income, capital gains, inheritance. 

I think many of these ideas are too specific.  For one, tying to exact dollar amounts would get outdated very quickly due to inflation.  But even if you tied to inflation adjusted dollars of today, these specifics (such as exact percentages, tax codes, etc) I think are better left decided by law makers of the day and not built into the foundations of the system.  The system would need to be flexible enough to make changes on these issues.  

[Cacti 191]

My ideal government would involve, at least to some degree, sortition. This method of selecting political leaders would probably be more applicable on a local or state level, but here is one example where is could work on a national scale: From the article Let’s Toss for It by Sigmund Knag.

Quote

First, create a pool of qualified candidates by having each state nominate candidates from among its own judges. Second, fill the actual Supreme Court vacancy by a blind draw from that pool.

He supports that suggestion with several logical reasons but I’ll only list one (my favorite): “the justices, no longer the creatures of the federal government, would have less inclination to expand the power of the central government.”

Anyway, at first glance choosing politicians or judges by ‘lot-drawing’ may seem far-fetched and unworkable---and it may be on a national scale. But there’s no reason that a modified version of sortition wouldn’t work at the local or state level; after all, it seems to work well enough to use in our court system. That is, the way we select prospective jurors.

[Celery Man 20882]

Make Florida a territory.

 

Scratch that. Spin it off entirely.

[Nivek 16853]

22 hours ago, Aphelion said:

I've seen this suggested more and more but it seems like there are many issues that its advocates seldom address.  Would you like to tax all nonprofit and 501c3 organizations or just the ones that are categorized as being religious?  If you want to tax all of them, then this has many consequences that you may not like.  If you want to tax only the ones categorized as religious, then you have to address how they shall be categorized.  If it is up to self categorization then you will create incentive for them to simply not claim to be so; if it is up to others to decide then you will have to have some auditors who determine this status and you will run into very arbitrary definitions of what constitutes religious.  Also, you would have to give some justification for why only the religious nonprofits are being selected for taxes (the actual reason of "because I'm not religious and I just don't like them" wouldn't be sufficient.)

No sacred cows.  No sacred cows.  No sacred cows.   

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, Nivek said:

No sacred cows.  No sacred cows.  No sacred cows.   

So you are saying that you would like to tax all non profits?

[Biff Tannen 45491]

14 hours ago, Celery Man said:

Make Florida a territory.

 

Scratch that. Spin it off entirely.

[Nivek 16853]

So you are saying that you would like to tax all non profits?

Trying not to be an asshole, but I believe my 3 word response in triplicate was sufficient and direct with no ambiguity.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Trying not to be an asshole, but I believe my 3 word response in triplicate was sufficient and direct with no ambiguity.

I would prefer an asshole who clarifies their point when asked over a polite man who commincates by repeating idioms in different text styles and insists this is direct communication.  What would actually suffice is a simple yes or no answer to a simple yes or no question.  

[Huckleberry 32694]

Aphelion, you need to learn to communicate in different ways. You're probably the only person who has read this thread that is not 100% clear that he was saying tax all non-profits, and it's not because you're not smart.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

In my mind, Aphelion is Donald Sutherland in Animal House.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Aphelion, you need to learn to communicate in different ways. You're probably the only person who has read this thread that is not 100% clear that he was saying tax all non-profits, and it's not because you're not smart.

It has nothing to do with what I understand.  The issue is that it is not an engageable  position.  "I believe that we should tax nonprofit organizations and here are the reasons why.." is an engagable position.  Repeating idioms with no reasons given to support the presumed stance is not engageable.

Also, since you've been around the internet awhile and have had your own share of debates you know that sometimes people build in a certain amount of vagueness into their statements in order to evade when desired.  This happens as follows:  they say statement p which seems to reasonably imply q (but can also imply other things), then later on one will say "you claimed q" and they will say "no I didn't, I claimed p; you inferred q."  But regardless of their intentions, if someone gives statement p and from this you assume that they are implying q but you ask them to state q for the sake of clarity (as q is the statement of significance for the subject discussion) and they still refuse to state q, then you should not waste your time discussing the issue with them.  

In any case, we are not likely to get any interesting discussion out of the nonprofit subtopic at this point and I was hoping you would go into more detail on your thoughts on the subject of discussion and provide elaboration on your post above.  

 

45 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

In my mind, Aphelion is Donald Sutherland in Animal House.

In my mind you are a nice looking beagle.  

[Nivek 16853]

I believe all organizations should pay taxes, profit motives/structure are irrelevant.

[Guest]

The reason is so churches can be properly punished....um...taxed.  They are the devil.

 

 

More money to the gov't.  Less to the population... unless you're a cash only worker or underemployed... then you should get all kinds of money.

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45491]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

The reason is so churches can be properly punished....um...taxed.  They are the devil.

 

 

More money to the gov't.  Less to the population... unless you're a cash only worker or underemployed... then you should get all kinds of money.

 

 

I'm probably misunderstanding your post, but yes, they should be punished...er, taxed...for bilking stupid people who need a crutch.

[bad_teammate 13132]

1) Kill all my fellow rich landowners/slaveholders.

2) Kill myself

3) Worship Satan

[Anastasis 23393]

On 7/31/2018 at 11:08 AM, Aphelion said:

As I've mentioned before, I would have the executive branch ran by three equal consuls instead of a single president (this idea is seen as either vaguely interesting or impractical by the folks I've mentioned it to). 

Very Byzantine of you. 

[Anastasis 23393]

2 hours ago, Nivek said:

I believe all organizations should pay taxes, profit motives/structure are irrelevant.

Stupid and near sighted. Stupid and near sighted. Stupid and near sighted. 

[TwiceHorn 31265]

5 hours ago, Aphelion said:

I would prefer an asshole who clarifies their point when asked over a polite man who commincates by repeating idioms in different text styles and insists this is direct communication.  What would actually suffice is a simple yes or no answer to a simple yes or no question.  

Sacred cow actually has a religious connotation, both in the use of "sacred," and the allusion to hinduism.   So it isn't unfair to infer reference to religious non-profits.

Edited August 2, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Celery Man 20882]

i assumed he was talking about john mueller

[yoladu 4066]

https://memeguy.com/photos/images/founding-fathers-spinning-in-their-graves-thought-it-was-an-appropriate-time-to-share-it-49314.gif

[Fudge Nuggets 19146]

I would do like the Brits and make the President come in and answer questions from Congress once a week when Congress was in session.  Thinking about Trump having to face a “Question Time” grilling gives me the lulz.