COOnstitutional Convention

[stessier]

And if a legislator doesn't have to worry about re-election, why worry about pesky things like answering to their constituents?

Wow, and I thought the OP was cynical!

[NickAragua]

WaPo

A 2006 NCSL study of term limits found they had little impact on the diversity of chambers and increased the importance of nonpartisan staff and lobbyists. Most observers said the power of lobbyists rose with limits, as new lawmakers relied on them for their policy expertise. But lobbying simultaneously became harder because relationships were so short-lived.

“Although term-limited legislators may need the policy and procedural expertise that lobbyists hold more than their non-term-limited counterparts do, they also are more likely to be suspicious of lobbyists,” the report’s authors wrote. “This creates a new and unique tension in the legislator-lobbyist relationship.”

Those findings were supported by a 2010 Wayne State University study. The influence of lobbyists in Michigan was not only maintained, but it may have been magnified by term limits, a research team found in rounds of interviews with lawmakers there. Lobbyists were also among the three most-cited determinants of whether a bill made it to the floor, they found.

And if a legislator doesn't have to worry about re-election, why worry about pesky things like answering to their constituents? I'm sure they're much more interested in securing a post-public service job.

Heh, maybe there should be an "exit vote". When a legislator ends his term-limited tenure, they get a simple thumbs up or down vote from their constituents. Thumbs up is good. Thumbs down means you get flogged in public or tarred and feathered. Or just thrown in prison for as many years as you spent in office.

[Isgrimnur]

And if a legislator doesn't have to worry about re-election, why worry about pesky things like answering to their constituents?

Wow, and I thought the OP was cynical!

I don't trust anyone to have my best interest at heart, and I'm usually not disappointed.

[Rip]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism ... nstitution

Although I have no idea what will happen tonight, based on the insane, anti-Constitutional, and un-American proposals being floated by the New York Times, Vox.com, and CNN, I do know what the media believe will happen: a historic shellacking is in store for Democrats and President Obama.
How else to explain why the New York Times wants to forever cancel the midterm election. You read that right, cancel them. Outright. According to the Times, midterm elections no longer make sense. The problem is that the midterm electorate "has been whiter, wealthier, older and more educated than during presidential elections."
Mind you, no one is stopping the non-white, non-old, or non-educated (i.e., Democrats) from voting in midterms. There is no law against Democrats voting (except for that pesky citizenship stuff). The only problem, according to our media overlords, is that voting every two years is something conservative-leaning voters are more willing to do than Democrats.
The answer to this hideous crisis, obviously, is to rewrite the Constitution so that voting is more convenient for Democrats -- meaning you only have to make that arduous journey to the polling place once every 4 years instead of 2. The way to do this is easy: Congressional terms become 4 years instead of 2, and Senate terms move from 6 to 4 or 8.
And…
Voila! Democracy is fixed.

HAHAHA, they saw you guys coming.

[Holman]

The Breitbart people don't know what an op-ed contributor is?

[GreenGoo]

HAHAHA, they saw you guys coming.

Well no duh, it's everything BreitBart wrote when Obama took the white house. No wonder they saw it coming. They already had crib notes on it from their own articles.

I love hearing how everything old is new again, and how everyone is a genius for "predicting" it.

[El Guapo]

Rip, my main concern is with legislative gridlock, which has been the case for the past several years before this election, and which is virtually certain to continue for years after this election.

In addition, I am genuinely interested in how you would alter the constitution if you had the power.

[Rip]

Rip, my main concern is with legislative gridlock, which has been the case for the past several years before this election, and which is virtually certain to continue for years after this election.

In addition, I am genuinely interested in how you would alter the constitution if you had the power.

I wouldn't alter it for the most part. I would seek to have us follow it a little more closely.

Did you not understand the article? They are mocking the fact that the Democrats and their media mouthpieces who want to change it because they feel that is why the elephants won so big.

You know the same way you guys are embellishing the thought of changing it as a way to cope with your grief over this huge Republican win.

[El Guapo]

Rip, my main concern is with legislative gridlock, which has been the case for the past several years before this election, and which is virtually certain to continue for years after this election.

In addition, I am genuinely interested in how you would alter the constitution if you had the power.

I wouldn't alter it for the most part. I would seek to have us follow it a little more closely.

Did you not understand the article? They are mocking the fact that the Democrats and their media mouthpieces who want to change it because they feel that is why the elephants won so big.

You know the same way you guys are embellishing the thought of changing it as a way to cope with your grief over this huge Republican win.

My mastery of English is unparalleled, so yes I understood the article. The point of this thread is that gridlock is enduring so it would be great (if I could wave a magic wand) to reshape the constitution in a way that would not result in enduring gridlock as far as the eye can see. It's great that the NY Times has a semi-related op ed that Breitbart finds amusing, though.

[Rip]

Rip, my main concern is with legislative gridlock, which has been the case for the past several years before this election, and which is virtually certain to continue for years after this election.

In addition, I am genuinely interested in how you would alter the constitution if you had the power.

I wouldn't alter it for the most part. I would seek to have us follow it a little more closely.

Did you not understand the article? They are mocking the fact that the Democrats and their media mouthpieces who want to change it because they feel that is why the elephants won so big.

You know the same way you guys are embellishing the thought of changing it as a way to cope with your grief over this huge Republican win.

My mastery of English is unparalleled, so yes I understood the article. The point of this thread is that gridlock is enduring so it would be great (if I could wave a magic wand) to reshape the constitution in a way that would not result in enduring gridlock as far as the eye can see. It's great that the NY Times has a semi-related op ed that Breitbart finds amusing, though.

But of course your magical method of ending gridlock ends in some way to hinder conservatives. How convenient.

So let me ask this, would having conservatives in charge be preferable to gridlock?

[Holman]

Did you not understand the article? They are mocking the fact that the Democrats and their media mouthpieces who want to change it because they feel that is why the elephants won so big.

It's the Breitbart people who don't understand the article. You can relax; they're just trying to scare you.

Printing this editorial doesn't mean the the NYT endorses it. It's from an "op-ed contributor," in this case a Duke Poli Sci professor who is proposing something electorally radical. The paper is putting it up there to provoke conversation about the meaning of elections, not as a serious proposal. (If you haven't noticed, the NYT also regularly publishes editorials by conservatives. This doesn't mean they represent the voice of the paper.)

[El Guapo]

Rip, my main concern is with legislative gridlock, which has been the case for the past several years before this election, and which is virtually certain to continue for years after this election.

In addition, I am genuinely interested in how you would alter the constitution if you had the power.

I wouldn't alter it for the most part. I would seek to have us follow it a little more closely.

Did you not understand the article? They are mocking the fact that the Democrats and their media mouthpieces who want to change it because they feel that is why the elephants won so big.

You know the same way you guys are embellishing the thought of changing it as a way to cope with your grief over this huge Republican win.

My mastery of English is unparalleled, so yes I understood the article. The point of this thread is that gridlock is enduring so it would be great (if I could wave a magic wand) to reshape the constitution in a way that would not result in enduring gridlock as far as the eye can see. It's great that the NY Times has a semi-related op ed that Breitbart finds amusing, though.

But of course your magical method of ending gridlock ends in some way to hinder conservatives. How convenient.

So let me ask this, would having conservatives in charge be preferable to gridlock?

How so? A core point of the Guapo plan is just to enable more majority rule, by diminishing the ability of a legislative minority to veto legislation. That majority could either be conservative or liberal - for example, if the filibuster hadn't existed in 2005, we'd probably have privatized social security right now. I assume that any change along those lines would ensure some policies that I dislike at times, but I am also comforted by my belief that it would also make it easier to reverse bad policies after subsequent elections.

Having conservatives in charge *can* be preferable to gridlock, *especially* in the long-term. I might well choose gridlock over a conservative majority for the next two years. My core concern is god knows when we get out of gridlock, and some shit just needs to get done, whether it's by liberal or conservative oriented policies. Like, gridlock might be better for a couple years, but I fear that "shit that just needs to get done somehow" is going to start piling up badly.

[Rip]

Did you not understand the article? They are mocking the fact that the Democrats and their media mouthpieces who want to change it because they feel that is why the elephants won so big.

It's the Breitbart people who don't understand the article. You can relax; they're just trying to scare you.

Printing this editorial doesn't mean the the NYT endorses it. It's from an "op-ed contributor," in this case a Duke Poli Sci professor who is proposing something electorally radical. The paper is putting it up there to provoke conversation about the meaning of elections, not as a serious proposal. (If you haven't noticed, the NYT also regularly publishes editorials by conservatives. This doesn't mean they represent the voice of the paper.)

I'm not the slightest bit worried about it actually happening, I was more amused by the timing in reference to this very thread. Did one of you guys write the op-ed?

[Rip]

Rip, my main concern is with legislative gridlock, which has been the case for the past several years before this election, and which is virtually certain to continue for years after this election.

In addition, I am genuinely interested in how you would alter the constitution if you had the power.

I wouldn't alter it for the most part. I would seek to have us follow it a little more closely.

Did you not understand the article? They are mocking the fact that the Democrats and their media mouthpieces who want to change it because they feel that is why the elephants won so big.

You know the same way you guys are embellishing the thought of changing it as a way to cope with your grief over this huge Republican win.

My mastery of English is unparalleled, so yes I understood the article. The point of this thread is that gridlock is enduring so it would be great (if I could wave a magic wand) to reshape the constitution in a way that would not result in enduring gridlock as far as the eye can see. It's great that the NY Times has a semi-related op ed that Breitbart finds amusing, though.

But of course your magical method of ending gridlock ends in some way to hinder conservatives. How convenient.

So let me ask this, would having conservatives in charge be preferable to gridlock?

How so? A core point of the Guapo plan is just to enable more majority rule, by diminishing the ability of a legislative minority to veto legislation. That majority could either be conservative or liberal - for example, if the filibuster hadn't existed in 2005, we'd probably have privatized social security right now. I assume that any change along those lines would ensure some policies that I dislike at times, but I am also comforted by my belief that it would also make it easier to reverse bad policies after subsequent elections.

Having conservatives in charge *can* be preferable to gridlock, *especially* in the long-term. I might well choose gridlock over a conservative majority for the next two years. My core concern is god knows when we get out of gridlock, and some shit just needs to get done, whether it's by liberal or conservative oriented policies. Like, gridlock might be better for a couple years, but I fear that "shit that just needs to get done somehow" is going to start piling up badly.

So we can expect you to vote Republican in two years to end gridlock?

[The Meal]

Interesting take on redistricting: wp

[Kraken]

Saw an interesting argument for drafting House representatives by lottery. The author's main point was that our representatives, being overwhelmingly old white millionaire lawyers, don't even approximately represent the populace. Of course you'd need to filter draftees to assure some minimum level of competence...but imagine how different government would be without professional politicians or party politics.

Wasn't a serious proposal but a fun thought experiment.

[stessier]

Was it Heinlein or maybe Orson Scott Card who described a system where the Representatives had to sell all their belongings upon election and buy government securities. If they government made money while they were in office, they made money. If it ran a deficit, they lost it all. The candidates were nominated by others and then it made for candidates campaigning against themselves and for their opponents.

[Alefroth]

Was it Heinlein or maybe Orson Scott Card who described a system where the Representatives had to sell all their belongings upon election and buy government securities. If they government made money while they were in office, they made money. If it ran a deficit, they lost it all. The candidates were nominated by others and then it made for candidates campaigning against themselves and for their opponents.

I don't want to be governed by people whose motivation is to make money, especially via government.

[Kraken]

Yeah, government's role is to provide functions that the marketplace can't or won't fulfill.

[Jaymann]

Guarantee equal rights for women, including the right to an abortion.

Limit right to bear arms to standard hunting rifles - no automatic or semi-automatic, no handguns, no armor-piercing ammunition.

[NickAragua]

Guarantee equal rights for women, including the right to an abortion.

Limit right to bear arms to standard hunting rifles - no automatic or semi-automatic, no handguns, no armor-piercing ammunition.

Re: rights, I would go further and "guarantee" (as much as such a thing can exist in practice, since people are dicks) equal rights to all people.

I can see the reasoning behind the other gun control stuff (though I can't say I agree with it), but could you explain the bit about armor-piercing ammunition?

Saw an interesting argument for drafting House representatives by lottery. The author's main point was that our representatives, being overwhelmingly old white millionaire lawyers, don't even approximately represent the populace. Of course you'd need to filter draftees to assure some minimum level of competence...but imagine how different government would be without professional politicians or party politics.

Wasn't a serious proposal but a fun thought experiment.

I actually have heard this before and personally love the idea, though I don't see it gaining much traction. Culturally, it would need to be like jury duty or a military draft, with a guarantee that a) you can get your job back after your term of service is up and b) if you screw up too much or intentionally, you're going to be having a nice long date in prison with a guy named "Little Bob".

[Jaymann]

Guarantee equal rights for women, including the right to an abortion.

Limit right to bear arms to standard hunting rifles - no automatic or semi-automatic, no handguns, no armor-piercing ammunition.

Re: rights, I would go further and "guarantee" (as much as such a thing can exist in practice, since people are dicks) equal rights to all people.

I can see the reasoning behind the other gun control stuff (though I can't say I agree with it), but could you explain the bit about armor-piercing ammunition?

It is readily available, and its only purpose is essentially for killing people (particularly law enforcement). Deer are not generally known to wear armor.

[NickAragua]

Guarantee equal rights for women, including the right to an abortion.

Limit right to bear arms to standard hunting rifles - no automatic or semi-automatic, no handguns, no armor-piercing ammunition.

Re: rights, I would go further and "guarantee" (as much as such a thing can exist in practice, since people are dicks) equal rights to all people.

I can see the reasoning behind the other gun control stuff (though I can't say I agree with it), but could you explain the bit about armor-piercing ammunition?

It is readily available, and its only purpose is essentially for killing people (particularly law enforcement). Deer are not generally known to wear armor.

Seems pretty specific to me. If you're going to do that, I'd suggest instead empowering an agency to maintain a list of allowed or disallowed weapon and ammunition types. That way, you don't need a constitutional amendment to reflect changes in technology (which happen a lot quicker nowadays than constitutional conventions, and the rate of technological advance will only increase in the future).

Now, of course, such an agency would probably wind up subject to the whims of corrupt politicians and lobbyists of various kinds (I imagine bullet manufacturers would have something to say on the topic). So, you're either left with a rigid (or, as is the case in the actual constitution, a very loose definition subject to wide interpretation) that can't adjust to changing times or a process highly susceptible to corruption. Such is life, I guess.

[Kraken]

Guarantee equal rights for women, including the right to an abortion.

Limit right to bear arms to standard hunting rifles - no automatic or semi-automatic, no handguns, no armor-piercing ammunition.

Re: rights, I would go further and "guarantee" (as much as such a thing can exist in practice, since people are dicks) equal rights to all people.

I can see the reasoning behind the other gun control stuff (though I can't say I agree with it), but could you explain the bit about armor-piercing ammunition?

Saw an interesting argument for drafting House representatives by lottery. The author's main point was that our representatives, being overwhelmingly old white millionaire lawyers, don't even approximately represent the populace. Of course you'd need to filter draftees to assure some minimum level of competence...but imagine how different government would be without professional politicians or party politics.

Wasn't a serious proposal but a fun thought experiment.

I actually have heard this before and personally love the idea, though I don't see it gaining much traction. Culturally, it would need to be like jury duty or a military draft, with a guarantee that a) you can get your job back after your term of service is up and b) if you screw up too much or intentionally, you're going to be having a nice long date in prison with a guy named "Little Bob".

Jury duty was indeed the model that he used. And the ancient Athenians used this method, so it's got a pedigree. Unlike jury duty, though, I would have citizens register voluntarily for the House draft. You don't want to pull somebody out of their life for four years unless they've indicated a willingness to go along with it.