Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Zardnaar, Nov 7, 2019.
Barring political fracturing and balkanization, that's true. Mind, more and more, that possibility becomes less far-fetched in my view...
Yeah, I don't have an issue with a federation having outsized representation for small polities somewhere in its system, that's what federations are for.
I just think it's completely stupid to do it for an executive presidency. It's one office, one person, there's no direct link to representation or voices, and the attempted rural weighting method actually just randomly scrambles the votes.
That and an executive president governs the entire population (even more ceremonial ones do, really), there's no clear reason to embed federal malapportionment into that vote.
Upper houses are where to do it. That's usually why they exist.
That's a scare tactic used by opponents of a new Constitutional Convention - the myth that only the 1787 Convention would or could draw up a bill of inalienable rights, and it just can't, or won't be done today.
And mine. And for the record, I'm in favor.
The best time to hold a constitutional convention is when the country is mostly united in its thinking. Today's environment would only deadlock a convention. If Millennials wait another 20 years, lots of boomers will be dead and you might have a better chance to change things.
Why do you think the whole thing needs to get thrown out and redone? I'd argue it is mostly on point with a need to probably clarify the 14th Amendment and add a beefy equal rights type amendment. Something that would basically prohibit discrimination based on sex, age, gender, sexuality, etc. I dont think the whole thing needs scrapping.
The United States Constitution was a stellar and novel document 240 years ago - a masterwork of statesmanship for the day and age. But, revolutions, reform, and socio-political tumult have hit the whole world since, and while Constitutions of many nations thereafter have only empowered tyrants and dictatorship, and some nations still lack formal, official Constitutions (including the United Kingdom and Israel, curiously), many nations have embraced new concepts of governance and administration that were mostly products of the Revolutions of 1848 and onward, and have made the U.S. Constitution seem to lag behind in a number of key areas by comparison, and greatly handicapped by it's amendment mechanism in catching up to the demands of governance in a 20th and 21st Century and needs. From the FDR era on, the U.S. Government has relied on de facto extra-Constitutional fiat powers that have grown in power and application, but the fact they're not officially Constitutional makes them more difficult to legally reign in, check, and regulate.
Is that second person pronoun use an (incorrect) assumption that I'm a Millennial?
I wouldn't take it that way. You stated a preference for change, so a comment about when you have a better chance of seeing it doesn't mean you are an integral part of the process referenced.
Tim is right. You seem to want change like many Millennials do; my use of the word refers to any of those who want a CC for a do over. How old are you?
The Senate more than covers the inequities of low population states. The EC should be abolished.
Does it? How are you measuring? I'm not saying that it doesn't, I just have no earthly idea how to support an opinion one way or the other.
I think Patine is GenX.
Plenty of liberals from that generation.
It complete counter acts the House since all states have equal rep in the Senate and all bills need to go through the senate. The only issue is we've made the executive too powerful by congress ceding its power to the president.
Well, I think there are a whole lot more issues than that, but that is certainly one of them.
I mean the idea of the Senate is to level the playing field, I'm not sure why you need the EC when you alreayd have the senate giving tiny states over representation.
I'm not either. I'm just pretty sure that the tilt, which is significantly less than the tilt in the senate, is a pretty minor procedural issue compared to the really huge issues that the current quality (or lack thereof) in the electorate present.
I'm 43, and I believe that's Generation X. At least that they started calling us when I was a teenager in the early '90's. And, for the record, there are liberals from the 19th Century...
That's within five years of being a Millennial, depending on which sources you use, but it's also a silly distinction.
True GenXers are Nirvana and F the man. Plenty of liberals.
We got all the great music, Millennials got Justin Bieber. We win!!!!!
Separate names with a comma.