Hmmm. I think an electronic townhall could work at some level. How about only allowing x number of "special voters"? If you figure there are 200 million potential voters for Fed Congressional laws, how about 1% of the populous max could be a contributor? How about the "special voters" could overide CONGRESS itself with 60% vote majority?
Hmmm. I think an electronic townhall could work at some level. How about only allowing x number of "special voters"? If you figure there are 200 million potential voters for Fed Congressional laws, how about 1% of the populous max could be a contributor? How about the "special voters" could overide CONGRESS itself with 60% vote majority?
So, 2 million special voters, 50 states that's nominally 40,000 people voting in each state max . Apportion per the House ratios, not Senate. I think it would have a reasonable chance of working if my specifications for "special voters"(above post) were accepted. It would be worth a try if nothing else. . . Say, try it at random for six months as a trial balloon, then have a referendum to include in Constitution.
So, a super democracy. Of the elite. Or the lucky. That have the ability to override the decisions of the duly elected REPRESENTATIVES of the PEOPLE in a REPUBLIC.
🤔 I’ll pass. I’m comfortable with the vision the founders left us and, as I’ve said, my main concerns at this point are repealing the 16th and including term limits.
(Although I’ll admit I’m kind’a working on a story where that sort’a oversight IS going on - tho it isn’t anywhere near the numbers you envision. In my telling I’m thinking +/- 7,000, behind the scenes throughout the known history)
Yes, quickly; anything that creates a system that deviates from 1 citizen, 1 vote should have no place in our American republican/representative governance. What you’re presenting is essentially the "super delegate" protocol of the demonratz where they can assure the candidate the party wants is chosen above what the demonrat voter wants during the primaries. Or, eventually, as the party power brokers, you can just choose the Demonrat candidate that superseded the wishes of the primary voters - as we saw in the last election cycle.
Well, I would not be for such a system you describe. Any concept like this relies on vetting and pruning and a dynamic dumping of all who fail to simply vote honestly, objectively. Possibly consequences if they FAIL or are corrupted.
Term limits of two election cycles; not re-upped for second term until 5 yrs pass?
The big idea:
-- prevent non-sensical laws, help drain the swamp
I don't pretend to have it all thought out nor would I wish to make the situation worse.
Not easy, I agree. . . term limits, more specifications for these "special voters"?@!
The answer , I believe, lies in partial implementation to experimentally VET the system to find what works. Presently, the Federal system and all other political systems make laws and implement "nationwide" or state wide, etc. Any answer for the complicated amalgam of crapp we have inherited COULD be incrementally adjusted and pruned to arrive at a MORE optimum solution. Being an engineer, I keep thinking of a "self-tuning controller" type law system.
Example: Try the Mark ONE version, figure out how it fails, tweak it. By about Mark V, it may come close. There is no way I, alone, ginning up crapp in my single brain, can hope to effect a worthwhile change in one go.
Likewise, there is no way anyone, including a Congressional committee, can do such.
Anyway, 250 years ago the fundamental fabric holding it all together was the necessity of a virtuous people.
John Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” That is the wrench you’re trying to engineer away from (as do I in my writing). The problem we have as engineers is thinking the chaos of millions can be controlled by equations - predicted, possibly, controlled, no.
What the founders hoped, prayed was that self-interest, morality, common heritage/experiences would suffice. But we’ve allowed avarice, greed (not the same as self-interest), accumulations of power to corrupt our body politic. What needs to happen is wringing out the elements that are corrupting the institution(s).
YES, I recall Adams statement. He is correct and we all know this. That being the case as a premise it is really hard to envision anything working. Back then it could very well be they did not regard populations of humans composed of the Bell shaped curve. It was easier to conceive Patriots were nearly everyone and of the sort Adams required. Reality is that any population will never be perfect and never was and, it will only be further from this point as time goes on and corruption metastasizes. We can only aspire to such an ideal.
Still, Something is required, and urgency appears in order now more than ever.
I envision a way to counteract both the DEEP state and Congress, if need be, even the President. A lever by which the countervailing powers of the 3 sectors of US gov't can hope to prevent catastrophic disruption by an off-kilter sector.
What I have tried to flesh out here is both some sort of counter to "sector-power" and an intelligent way to implement it slowly at first, then, effectively overall. I surely do not have all the answers, but surely believe we are in need. Trump's four years may be the last chance. . .
Agree that something needs to be done AND that "time is of the essence." But can’t go in the direction you’re wanting to go; that said, as I mentioned earlier it IS a element of the story I’m working on — but that’s fiction and a part of a larger story and {sigh} ; I remove the USofA out of the world for a spell, kill peoples in North America in the mid to high 6 figures, the world goes to hell when that happens — one event that WILL happen, just not in my time line (I hope).
In the real world, take a look at Mark Levin’s book, “The Liberty Amendments." If you want to see fundamental change in USofA then something needs to happen {say, my fiction} or, more likely, USofA has to hit rock bottom, like an alcoholic, and WANT to make hard choices - forcing hard changes won’t work if what it means to be USofA still has merit. People have to be dissociated from long lasting power - term limits with cooling off periods, get rid of the poverty, er, welfare system - people that cherish work don’t starve nor are they poor; I’m in favor of mandatory military service, 4 years, after the equivalence of high school, and before going off to university - the intent here is that men and women learn a trade, mingle between the haves and those that have less (in my fiction while a child of a citizen has citizenship, suffrage only comes from successfully completing their mandatory service. After the first 2 years, "military" service can take different tracks: track one, hard core military with a possibility of making it a career, or nearly so, the 2nd would be service to the country. There’s more in my fiction - these issues are not prominent, they only come in as background).
Mark, et al, including myself, are in favor of a concon (constitutional convention) but I think it’s doubtful in today’s reality for it to happen, even less so for any of it to be ratified
Don’t forget I also advocate repeal of the 17th, putting senators back in the control of the states instead of pimping themselves out for the people like the house - imagine how the political divide would look if senators were chosen by legislatures and not the people - hint: more legislature are ‘right" or center right than not. Also, the amount of money spent on elections would become a relative trickle if that occurred AND reps could only serve two terms.
it appears we agree on pretty much everything. . .
Your point about hitting rock bottom, to me, seems about the only way to effect the major changes required. A concon-- nope. Too much chance for it to go sideways for both parties; low likelihood happening.
Lots of people have reservations about a concon; but for a concon to form there needs to be an agreed upon script, an agreed upon agenda. A concon cannot go beyond that agreed upon agenda - it cannot go "sideways.
Personally, I think a subset of interrogatory questioning of these potential candidates should include that you actually love your own penis, and dont have an overwhelming desire to chop your own junk off, wear womens clothes, and warpaint thick as a Ben Moore test wall.
Safeguards, guardrails, processes could be developed rather quickly, including setting up factors which monitor all groups who routinely spend millions on influencing govt officials.
Hmmm. I think an electronic townhall could work at some level. How about only allowing x number of "special voters"? If you figure there are 200 million potential voters for Fed Congressional laws, how about 1% of the populous max could be a contributor? How about the "special voters" could overide CONGRESS itself with 60% vote majority?
So, 2 million special voters, 50 states that's nominally 40,000 people voting in each state max . Apportion per the House ratios, not Senate. I think it would have a reasonable chance of working if my specifications for "special voters"(above post) were accepted. It would be worth a try if nothing else. . . Say, try it at random for six months as a trial balloon, then have a referendum to include in Constitution.
⁉️⁉️⁉️⁉️
So, a super democracy. Of the elite. Or the lucky. That have the ability to override the decisions of the duly elected REPRESENTATIVES of the PEOPLE in a REPUBLIC.
🤔 I’ll pass. I’m comfortable with the vision the founders left us and, as I’ve said, my main concerns at this point are repealing the 16th and including term limits.
(Although I’ll admit I’m kind’a working on a story where that sort’a oversight IS going on - tho it isn’t anywhere near the numbers you envision. In my telling I’m thinking +/- 7,000, behind the scenes throughout the known history)
Did you look at my special voter specifications at all-- above?
Yes, quickly; anything that creates a system that deviates from 1 citizen, 1 vote should have no place in our American republican/representative governance. What you’re presenting is essentially the "super delegate" protocol of the demonratz where they can assure the candidate the party wants is chosen above what the demonrat voter wants during the primaries. Or, eventually, as the party power brokers, you can just choose the Demonrat candidate that superseded the wishes of the primary voters - as we saw in the last election cycle.
Where does it end?
Well, I would not be for such a system you describe. Any concept like this relies on vetting and pruning and a dynamic dumping of all who fail to simply vote honestly, objectively. Possibly consequences if they FAIL or are corrupted.
Term limits of two election cycles; not re-upped for second term until 5 yrs pass?
The big idea:
-- prevent non-sensical laws, help drain the swamp
I don't pretend to have it all thought out nor would I wish to make the situation worse.
OK, so now we have a super- super- set of "voters" making sure the initial super voters vote properly.
p-rog, I’m sympathetic with your argument and what you’re trying to accomplish, it’s the same internal discussion I’ve been having
How do you get those special people to avoid the pitfalls of being corrupted by those responsibilities influencing?
Not easy, I agree. . . term limits, more specifications for these "special voters"?@!
The answer , I believe, lies in partial implementation to experimentally VET the system to find what works. Presently, the Federal system and all other political systems make laws and implement "nationwide" or state wide, etc. Any answer for the complicated amalgam of crapp we have inherited COULD be incrementally adjusted and pruned to arrive at a MORE optimum solution. Being an engineer, I keep thinking of a "self-tuning controller" type law system.
Example: Try the Mark ONE version, figure out how it fails, tweak it. By about Mark V, it may come close. There is no way I, alone, ginning up crapp in my single brain, can hope to effect a worthwhile change in one go.
Likewise, there is no way anyone, including a Congressional committee, can do such.
p-rog, do you see why the founders’ plan, our Constitution, is so valuable (and so fragile.
Damn, fat fingers, small screen 😖
Anyway, 250 years ago the fundamental fabric holding it all together was the necessity of a virtuous people.
John Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” That is the wrench you’re trying to engineer away from (as do I in my writing). The problem we have as engineers is thinking the chaos of millions can be controlled by equations - predicted, possibly, controlled, no.
What the founders hoped, prayed was that self-interest, morality, common heritage/experiences would suffice. But we’ve allowed avarice, greed (not the same as self-interest), accumulations of power to corrupt our body politic. What needs to happen is wringing out the elements that are corrupting the institution(s).
YES, I recall Adams statement. He is correct and we all know this. That being the case as a premise it is really hard to envision anything working. Back then it could very well be they did not regard populations of humans composed of the Bell shaped curve. It was easier to conceive Patriots were nearly everyone and of the sort Adams required. Reality is that any population will never be perfect and never was and, it will only be further from this point as time goes on and corruption metastasizes. We can only aspire to such an ideal.
Still, Something is required, and urgency appears in order now more than ever.
I envision a way to counteract both the DEEP state and Congress, if need be, even the President. A lever by which the countervailing powers of the 3 sectors of US gov't can hope to prevent catastrophic disruption by an off-kilter sector.
What I have tried to flesh out here is both some sort of counter to "sector-power" and an intelligent way to implement it slowly at first, then, effectively overall. I surely do not have all the answers, but surely believe we are in need. Trump's four years may be the last chance. . .
Agree that something needs to be done AND that "time is of the essence." But can’t go in the direction you’re wanting to go; that said, as I mentioned earlier it IS a element of the story I’m working on — but that’s fiction and a part of a larger story and {sigh} ; I remove the USofA out of the world for a spell, kill peoples in North America in the mid to high 6 figures, the world goes to hell when that happens — one event that WILL happen, just not in my time line (I hope).
In the real world, take a look at Mark Levin’s book, “The Liberty Amendments." If you want to see fundamental change in USofA then something needs to happen {say, my fiction} or, more likely, USofA has to hit rock bottom, like an alcoholic, and WANT to make hard choices - forcing hard changes won’t work if what it means to be USofA still has merit. People have to be dissociated from long lasting power - term limits with cooling off periods, get rid of the poverty, er, welfare system - people that cherish work don’t starve nor are they poor; I’m in favor of mandatory military service, 4 years, after the equivalence of high school, and before going off to university - the intent here is that men and women learn a trade, mingle between the haves and those that have less (in my fiction while a child of a citizen has citizenship, suffrage only comes from successfully completing their mandatory service. After the first 2 years, "military" service can take different tracks: track one, hard core military with a possibility of making it a career, or nearly so, the 2nd would be service to the country. There’s more in my fiction - these issues are not prominent, they only come in as background).
Mark, et al, including myself, are in favor of a concon (constitutional convention) but I think it’s doubtful in today’s reality for it to happen, even less so for any of it to be ratified
Don’t forget I also advocate repeal of the 17th, putting senators back in the control of the states instead of pimping themselves out for the people like the house - imagine how the political divide would look if senators were chosen by legislatures and not the people - hint: more legislature are ‘right" or center right than not. Also, the amount of money spent on elections would become a relative trickle if that occurred AND reps could only serve two terms.
it appears we agree on pretty much everything. . .
Your point about hitting rock bottom, to me, seems about the only way to effect the major changes required. A concon-- nope. Too much chance for it to go sideways for both parties; low likelihood happening.
p-rog:
Lots of people have reservations about a concon; but for a concon to form there needs to be an agreed upon script, an agreed upon agenda. A concon cannot go beyond that agreed upon agenda - it cannot go "sideways.
"https://conventionofstates.com/news/a-convention-of-states-can-be-limited" should answer your concerns
Personally, I think a subset of interrogatory questioning of these potential candidates should include that you actually love your own penis, and dont have an overwhelming desire to chop your own junk off, wear womens clothes, and warpaint thick as a Ben Moore test wall.
So, James Goodrich, we're watching you !!!
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Safeguards, guardrails, processes could be developed rather quickly, including setting up factors which monitor all groups who routinely spend millions on influencing govt officials.