leftfielder.org

So, Scott disagreed with five of my proposals, really, (He didn’t agree with the abortion one, but didn’t really offer up a strong disagreement with it either, so I’ll leave that one alone) so here goes my defense:

1) Electoral College. Why get rid of it? Because I’m tired of elections being decided by white suburban voters in three counties each in FL, OH, and PA. At least let’s make elections decided by white suburban voters in all states. And I realize it isn’t quite that bad; but there exists a public perception, or at least a media perception, that things are that bad, and that perception is unhealthy, even if there were not a grain of truth to it. Besides, the original justification for the electoral college–that voters cannot be trusted and the real power should be placed in the state legislatures who take their cue from, but are not bound by, the voters–is no longer useful. Also, I used to think the same thing about rural voters, until I had three thoughts: 1) the Senate already makes rural farmers so much more politically powerful than they have any right to be, 2) rural votes get courted plenty in the primaries, and that isn’t likely to change, and 3) candidates never really spend that much time courting the rural vote in the general election, because farm votes aren’t really up for grabs in national elections.

2) Presidential Immigrants. I don’t have a good reason why it should be repealed, except perhaps that there is no good reason I can think why it shouldn’t be. I want my Constitution to be as small, meaning as few limitations on people’s rights and abilities, as possible. And for me, not allowing some people to vote because our founding fathers were worried about someone electing the King of England, is an unnecessary limit on certain people’s rights. Also, we have always had a xenophobic undercurrent in American politics, and anything that we can do to give a big “up-yours” to the anti-immigrant vibe is a good thing in my opinion. Besides, there may be many solid reasons not to allow Hiren to be president, but the fact he wasn’t born in Georgia isn’t one of them.

Oh, and to answer your question, I am pretty sure that the Constitutional line of succession is contingent upon each person in that line being eligible to fill the office. So, Kenry Hissinger would be skipped, if it went that far, and it would drop to the next eligible person.

3) Run-Offs. Strategic voting in a plurality-wins voting system dictates that you don’t vote for your favorite candidate, you vote for your favorite candidate who has some reasonable probability of winning. (Its actually a little more complicated than that, although read this book by one of my old UCSD profs if you want to get the full version.) Anyway, now let’s change our plurality system to a majority system, so you have to get 50% to win. If no one gets 50% in the first ballot, you eliminate all candidates except the top two (or alternatively all except those who get above some threshold, say 20%), and the top candidates then duke it out in another election, called a run-off election. Now, before the election, you read a poll that says that no candidate is likely to get the 50% in the first ballot. That frees you up to vote for whatever schmo you want, knowing that you will get your chance to cast your vote for the Republican or Democrat in round two. This allows third parties to gain some national recognition and build some momentum for their candidates. The Green party doesn’t have to convince people that “a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush” because in the first round it isn’t; Bush and Gore will be in the run-off whether you vote Nader or not, so go ahead; you can strategic vote in the run-off. I think it also makes allows voters to send clearer signal to the parties. If I’m unhappy with the Democrats I can vote Green and embarrass them a little in the first round, but be safe in the knowledge that I don’t guarantee a Republican victory in the process.

4) Second Amendment. All I’m saying is that we should clarify it. No one who isn’t a judge or lawyer knows what it says or understands it, and I have my doubts about some of those. Look it up in an encyclopedia and it is summarized as ‘The Right to Bear Arms”, which is really misleading. You want it to say that people should be allowed to carry whatever weapons they want, public safety be darned? Then say so. You want an amendment to allow the Alabama national guard access to nuclear missile technology to protect themselves against federal encroachment? Then say so. Right now, though, most citizens think the second amendment says a lot more than it really does, and I don’t think the confusion is good for people’s rights or public safety.

5) Term Limits. I like democracy. But democracy only functions as long as there is some stick that the voters have that they can whack their leaders with. That stick is generally called “the next election”. Candidates don’t go too far off the deep-end because they have to run for election in a couple years. So, every time a politician announces he isn’t going to run, I brace myself, because suddenly I can no longer affect his behavior. This is especially true with someone like Bush, where no one from his cabinet is likely to run for President themselves anytime soon. So yeah, some people are going to overstay their welcome, but I would rather that happen than have to spend the next four years wondering if Bush is going to decide to nuke Iran or withdraw us from the UN, just because he can. Right now, the only thing keeping Bush in check is some loyalty to the Republican Party and hope that they win the next election to make his job easier for his last two years. And the only thing keeping him in check his last two years will be some vague desire to see the country succeed or to keep himself prospering in retirement. I want stronger incentives than that, which is why I want him to keep running.

It has now been 13 years since the United States Constitution was last amended, and 34 years since Congress last passed a proposed amendment. Given that the Constitution is supposed to be a living document, that seems like way to long in my mind. So, let’s talk Constitutional changes, by asking if/how the Constitution should be amended. This is potentially a pretty large topic of conversation, so let me lay out some ground rules

First, if you want to know what kinds of amendments have been proposed in Congress over the last fifteen years, or really just want to laugh at some of the morons who have been elected in the last fifteen years, check out this website.

Second, lets propose some guidelines for what Constitutional Amendments should look like, and feel free to debate me on this list. Amendments should be things that legislatures cannot currently do. That means no making things amendments just to make it harder for your opposition to change them in the future. That’s just anti-democratic, even if it is a favorite tactic of anti-tax lobbies. Also, no making things amendments because you are afraid that the courts will rule something unconstitutional in the future. Similarly, no amendments for problems that have yet to arise. Give the current system a chance to work before you change it. Finally, no wholesale rejection of amendments because you don’t think that the Constitution ought to be amended on principal. The only writing I will take as sacrosanct is the Bible, and that especially applies to documents written in committee. If you think every proposal is dumb, then say so, but attack them on their own merits.

Third, since it worked for a previous conversation on rule changes, lets stick with Scott’s categorization about proposals:

A) No brainers

• Drop the Electoral College. I’ve come around on this one lately, but it really does segment the electorate and allow for a much more divisive brand of politics. Besides, I want every candidate to have to go make speeches in both New York City and Houston every single year.
• Allow immigrants to become president. I personally like the Twenty Year as Citizen rule that was in one of the proposals.
• To ensure that citizens of U.S. Territories can vote in elections. I’m trying to look out for you, Puerto Rico.

B) Good ideas, but not gonna happen

• Create run-offs for all national elections. Gotta get 50% to win. Help the third parties along too, which is why it won’t happen.

• Repeal the Second Amendment. Its outdated, and pretty pointless in a world of cruise missiles and nuclear deterrence. And if you really think that citizens ought to have guns, then write an amendment that gives them access to guns and specify which guns and under which conditions.
• Repeal Presidential term-limits. They create all sorts of nasty incentives, so get rid of them.

C) Wacky ideas not fully thought through.

• To give states more lee-way in regulating abortion. Most of the proposed abortion amendments go too far, both at the state level and the national level. But, the question of when life begins, and therefore when states have the right to rule that the protection of the life of the child outweighs the rights of the mother to make decisions about her own medical care, should be left to the states, I think. Different states will make different decisions, and some of them will be wrong, but I am uncomfortable with our current abortion compromise and fear that it is unstable.