- NEW!
by Tater on August 2nd, 2008
I would like to eliminate the Presidential Electoral College vote. We live in an age where we can count each person's vote and the college "voters" do not have to vote the will of the people. I also think the Presidential and Vice Presidential election should be separate. We have had some lame veeps because no Prez candidate will bring on a mate that will be better than he/she.
Where is Parris Island?
by Answerbag Staff on February 1st, 2011
| 2 people like this
Where can you find the Statue of Liberty?
by Answerbag Staff on January 31st, 2011
| 1 person likes this
What is the mileage from Scottsdale to Tombstone, Arizona?
by Answerbag Staff on January 31st, 2011
| 1 person likes this
What does C.I.A stands for?
by LoverOfSophia on February 10th, 2012
| 4 people like this
What does Nasa stands for?
by LoverOfSophia on February 10th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
You're reading If we were going to propose a new amendment to the constitution, what would be the most needed amendment and what are the pros and cons of it?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Oh yeah good idea it goes along with my answer. +6
by Ron C on September 14th, 2009
Soooo true. The College of Electorates is a completely pointless and outdated idea.
by wjomlex on October 6th, 2009
As it was originally under the Constitution, the Vice President was the first runner up in the Presidential elections. This proved to be problematic when VP's didn't support the President's agenda. So, an Amendment was passed that linked the two positions. Personally, I think that the President should have a VP that he can count on to support him. If you separate the positions again, then this will no longer be the case.
by Glenn Blaylock on October 27th, 2009
I understand your argument, Glenn. Perhaps then we should have separate elections for VP's with the highest vote getter for the party that wins the POTUS becoming VP.
I just think we need a higher quality of veep than history has provided.
by Tater on October 27th, 2009
none of these are practical in terms of passing. getting rid of the electoral college takes away power from the states with less of a population. the majority of the country may live on the coasts, but to pass an amendment you need something that's going to pass all the states
states don't want power taken away from them. they like that they have X number of votes whether or not people show up to vote, that they have two senators, even if their state population is beat out by large cities
by Slightly less anonymous on November 1st, 2009
voting separately for VP wouldn't work for a lot of reasons--it's a party system now, and no one will go for it. the presidental candidate is going to want a VP that he can trust, and who's been vetted properly etc, not whoever wins. at that point in the campaign, the parties need to get behind whoever the candidate is and show solidarity. the VP is often picked to combat perceived weaknesses and help get the P into office. biggest prob? the party comes together. you can't still have people running within the party for a position when they are all trying to get their nominated guy the win. it wouldn't work, and frankly, who would want to run for VP? to run when you could lose? it's one thing to lose the presidential nomination and be asked, and then, you were asked and are serving your country and can run for president later. or go back to the senate, whatever. but you run for VP and lose? it'd be pretty hard to get any good job in new administration or respect after that
by Slightly less anonymous on November 1st, 2009
"they like that they have X number of votes whether or not people show up to vote, that they have two senators, even if their state population is beat out by large cities"
The people in the states should be voting. They don't deserve the X votes if people aren't exercising their right to vote. And you'd have two senators regardless of whether or not the college was in play.
by wjomlex on November 5th, 2009
The whole reason for the electoral college was to insure that Presidential candidates couldn't simply ignore the small states. If Presidents were elected by a simple majority vote of the people, then the candidates could just focus on the big states. By giving them a somewhat disproportional representation in the college, it makes them more important in the election. So, it become harder to get elected if a candidate ignores them.
-
Personally, there is another change that I would make instead of eliminating the electoral college. Instead, I would pass an amendment to eliminate the winner take all system that most states have for their electors. In stead, I would prefer the electors awarded for the House districts be chosen according to how their districts vote. As it is, in a state like California, those who live in rural areas are pretty much disenfranchised by Los Angeles and the Bay Area because those two areas tend to dominate the elections.
by Glenn Blaylock on November 5th, 2009
be chosen according to how the districts vote? a lot of states do do that or primaries. but the example you gave isn't quite right. anyone whos vote isn't with the majority of the state is disenfranchised.
voters who live in rural areas may tend to vote against the majority and voters that live in la and the bay area tend to vote with it. and given the population distribution, a high percentage of rural voters may get disenfranchised. but voters aren't disenfranchised by areas. and the voters are disenfranchised not based on where they live, but how they vote
and in re senators, it's based on the same system. less populated states get payed attention to, get a vote that really matters.
by Slightly less anonymous on November 5th, 2009
"be chosen according to how the districts vote? a lot of states do do that or primaries."
-
No, that is not correct. Very few states apportion electors according to how the various Congressional districts vote. In the vast majority of states, it is winner take all for electors to the Electoral College. Additionally, primaries have nothing to do with this. Primaries are for the purpose of selecting the various party's candidates for office.
-
As for the disenfranchisement issue, anyway you cut it, those whose candidates lose will be disappointed, but this way preserves the original intent of the Electoral College (i.e. to give those that might otherwise be ignored more of a say). By completely eliminating the electoral college as is proposed in this answer, you make so that the candidates really only have to pay attention to the big cities and that will leave a large part of the population without much influence on the policies that the President sets.
by Glenn Blaylock on November 5th, 2009
it's the same system for primaries. it isn't the official electoral college, but states have a number of delegates that get to cast a vote, and the number of delegates is based on state population. the fact that it's just the primary--it's still an election, it's still important
a lot of primaries, instead of using the old winner take all system are now going along district lines, or using other split systems. it's not great system, because you can still get a winner who loses the popular vote--it would just be less likely
the problem with the way elections work, with the electoral college, any way you cut it, with starting in tiny states, is that the issues that matter to very large majorities of americans, are not the big issues there. and sometimes they'll be on the opposite side of the majority because of something local. to get started, politicians have to go there, please them, win on their issues.
by Slightly less anonymous on November 5th, 2009
is it important to listen to the minority? yes. but not at the expense of electing people who have to run to the minority just so that the majority gets a chance to hear them. we have so many problems with elections. and yes, people in the minority need to be heard. but the people robbing their voices of the minority the most are special interest groups
my biggest problem? special interest groups who keep us from having great debates about policy and ethics, and instead, make us spend our time debating over who is right about facts that can be looked up. we should listen to people who opposing opinions, we should have great debates, but we don't
by Slightly less anonymous on November 5th, 2009
I have a problem with demonizing special interest groups. Ultimately, any group of people who get together to try to influence the politicians can be called a special interest group. Right now, you have have various groups that are pushing for healthcare reform. They are special interest groups.
by Glenn Blaylock on November 6th, 2009
Then you have other groups that are fighting against the proposed reforms. They are also special interest groups. People like to demonize those groups that oppose their points of view and try to say that they have an undue influence.
by Glenn Blaylock on November 6th, 2009
There are a number of groups that I would like to see cut out of the process because I think that the push for policies that I think are dangerous. However, in all honesty, I would have to say that there are also groups that I support and, if I started silencing the opposition, then someday the same tactics could be used against me and those with whom I agree.
by Glenn Blaylock on November 6th, 2009
So, I think that it is better to simply keep promoting the values I support and let the chips fall where they may.
by Glenn Blaylock on November 6th, 2009
With respect to primaries, I think that there needs to be some reforms there. I don't think that the various states should have open primaries. I think that only those registered in a particular party should be allowed to vote in that parties primaries.
by Glenn Blaylock on November 6th, 2009
The hole purpose for primaries is for the various parties to choose their own candidates for office. Allowing people from outside of the parties to vote muddies the water and leaves in doubt whether the party has really chosen the candidate that best represents its members' wishes.
by Glenn Blaylock on November 6th, 2009
BTW, please excuse the fact that I had to post these is so many separate comments. I keep encountering a problem with AB where it won't let me post longer comments all at once despite the fact that they are still under the 1000 character limit. I don't know what the problem is, but I only have it when trying to post from my Windblows laptop. I never have the problem with my Mac.
by Glenn Blaylock on November 6th, 2009
"Allowing people from outside of the parties to vote muddies the water and leaves in doubt whether the party has really chosen the candidate that best represents its members' wishes."
People should have the right to vote and say, "these are what I think the best options are." I'm not just speaking about presidential elections. Lets take an example where there's an incumbent in one party with no real challengers. I think the incumbent is ok, but I want better. I'd vote in the primary the incumbent is in, but there's no point. The other party has two major candidates. One I like. The other I don't. Maybe no matter what, I'll end up voting for the incumbent. But I don't want to vote for the incumbent because the other choice is terrible. And if the person I vote for loses, I'd like to have some respect and trust in the person who wins. The point is, I want a choice. I want to vote for the candidate I like, even though I'm not a "member" of the of the party.
--continued--
by Slightly less anonymous on November 7th, 2009
And if that candidate wins, and runs a good campaign and at the end of the day, when I weigh things comes out on top, I want to vote for that candidate in the general election. Though, maybe the candidate wouldn't have gotten there if I couldn't vote in the primary. You might consider this muddying the waters, or keeping the party for choosing the right candidate. But I don't.
What about states where the majority of voters haven't selected a party registration? Even though most of these voters align themselves with a party, they aren't registered. So, get rid of the independents? Tell them that it costs them a primary vote? FYI, voters can just switch their registrations based on which primary they want to vote in. They'd just have to decide a little earlier. You'd want to ban that too?
--continued--
by Slightly less anonymous on November 7th, 2009
You seem to have this image of a party. you either belong to it, and can help make decisions, or you don't, and if you have a role in the decision making process, it doesn't REALLY reflect the view of the party-it's an outsider trying to mess it up. But republicans endorse democrats and the other way around. Candidates switch party affiliations, and sometimes even back again. It's not black and white, in the club or not. You don't just go to the ballot box, and hit a button for your party and the ballot gets filled out for you. And this isn't the men getting together in a room with cigar smoke and deciding who to run.
--continued--
by Slightly less anonymous on November 7th, 2009
Besides, parties choose all the time to run candidates that don't represent their platform, or that do, but don't represent its members' wishes and screw it up themselves. Parties can always, always, ALWAYS screw things up for themselves better than anyone can do it for them. Look at the recent election as an example. Or look at all the time and money spent running someone against Lieberman in the primary, just lose the general to him, and alienate someone who they need to work with etc.
If your big worry is "outsiders" changing the outcome of a primary, then you're looking at parties the wrong way, and voters the wrong way, and concerned about all the wrong things.
by Slightly less anonymous on November 7th, 2009
In re special interest groups, I'm not talking "any group of people who get together to try to influence the politicians." Technically a special interest group is just any organization that seeks to influence political decisions. Which I don't have a problem with. I think people should get involved and try and influence political decisions. I think it's great when they organize. But there's a difference between explaining the benefits of a policy to the politicians and making financial contributions, financial incentives. It shouldn't be just people with lobbyists who are heard.
--continued--
by Slightly less anonymous on November 7th, 2009
My problem with special interest groups, with lobbyists, the whole nine yards, isn't the theoretical purpose behind it. That I support. I have a problem with a small group of people getting a large voice because they have lots of money. I have a problem with a few hundred standing up and convincing people that they stand for tens of thousands, who really are in the minority, who really should be heard. But they aren't. Groups like these, the ones I'm talking about, they're loud, both metaphorically and sometimes literally. They drown out everything else. And that isn't ok.
On a side note, if the think the push in Washington on health care reform is coming from special interest groups, you're crazy. They'd have to line up behind most of the country first. Including the President. Remember him sorta running on it? Well that and the whole, CHANGE thing.
by Slightly less anonymous on November 7th, 2009
Let's look at that last point. The AARP bills itself as a group that protects the rights of senior citizens. Do you know how they make most a significant amount of their money? By selling insurance. They stand to make a ton of money from this legislation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603392.html http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_11/b3924050_mz011.htm). There are other examples of this. These groups are trying to force this reform down our throats despite what the people actually want (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Poll-Huge-majority-doesnt-want-Democrats-health-care-bill-69399612.html). The only thing that is stopping them from actually getting the legislation passed is the other groups that are willing to speak up against it.
by Glenn Blaylock on November 7th, 2009
Ok, first off, health care reform of various sorts has been an issue not just of the Obama administration, but of the Clinton, and at least as far back as the Carter administration. You're going to argue that all of those administrations, that everyone has just been catering to AARP? Wow. That's hysterical. That's freaking hysterical.
second, if you want to show that AARP and other special interest groups are trying to force legislation, because, they'd make money from it, and that the American people are against it, you're going to have to do better
by Slightly less anonymous on November 7th, 2009
"The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted October 30-November 1, with 1,018 adult Americans questioned by telephone."
people were asked:
Which of the following do you think Congress should do
*Continue working on those bills this fall and make relatively minor changes before passing final legislation
*Continue working on those bills this fall but pass final legislation only if major changes are made
*Start work on entirely new bills that would not be ready until some time next year
*Stop working on any bills that would change the country's health care system
"That means 72 percent of those surveyed either want Congress to make major changes, start over, or stop work on health care reform, versus 26 percent who want the bills passed with minor changes."
Using people who want the bills entirely remade, or major changes to say that people don't want health care reform is ridiculous.
by Slightly less anonymous on November 7th, 2009
Polls like this are really misleading. It's a small group of people asked, and the question is a bad question--it doesn't really tell you anything about their views on health care reform.
People who want single-payer health care, or universal health care aren't likely to want any of the current bills passed with only minor changes. They'll likely say either major changes, or scrap it and start over.
So basically, the first three options are people saying that they want the government to work on healthcare reform. The only differences you get are how supportive they are of the current version of the bill, but without any additional questions, you don't know what they're problems with the bill are.
It's a bad poll, on any number of counts. But even so, you cited a poll that has 72% of people for health care reform. That's a majority. You cited a poll that doesn't support your point of view, "people don't want health care reform." You got to argue better than that.
by Slightly less anonymous on November 7th, 2009
I never said that the majority don't want a reform of the healthcare system. (I have many times proposed reforms that I think would go a long way to reducing costs and making healthcare more accessible.) However, a majority don't want THIS reform and the numbers of people who don't want it are growing.
-
You and I are probably never going to agree. So, I would say that it is time to agree to disagree and let it go at that.
by Glenn Blaylock on November 8th, 2009
OK. But I'd bet the farm that a majority don't know what this reform contains. Tell me, do you read the bills that Congress is looking at? Proposed amendments? Do you even read the full text of propositions that you vote on?
And even if we suddenly got a well informed public, I doubt we'd get a majority. There are so many ways of reform, and the spectrum is so large, that there are going to be people who like most of the bill but want A, or B. Or want C removed. To get a majority on a specific bill, things would have to be dire enough for enough people, that they stop sticking on points that are only sticking points in theory. If they really understood that no reform would happen if they didn't let IT go, IT wouldn't be a sticking point. But we're not there yet, things aren't that bad. Not yet.
Congress's job is to pass a bill that is mostly ok to most people. If every person got a hand at amending bills, we'd never pass anything. As it is, Congress moves slowly enough.
by Slightly less anonymous on November 8th, 2009
And you're right, we probably won't agree on much of anything. And I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. But we agree on a lot too. We just pick out what we disagree with to argue about and don't mention the things we do agree on. Because what's the fun in that?
by Slightly less anonymous on November 8th, 2009