Federal Government Reform

Sep 2014
2,408
548
Barsoom
#12
and there are two choices - let it fall on the federal court system or pass an amendment to the constitution to specify what the scope may be.
Probable true. I am leery of the court's involvement from a jurisdictional and seperation of powers doctrine angle. I do not have an answer, but something certainly needs to be done.
 
Likes: Ian Jeffrey
Jan 2014
16,271
6,204
south
#13
Probable true. I am leery of the court's involvement from a jurisdictional and seperation of powers doctrine angle. I do not have an answer, but something certainly needs to be done.
understand. but, since executive orders are not an expressed power, it need to be addressed. an amendment would be the reasonable course of action.
 
Likes: Tennyson
Jul 2015
32,210
23,374
Florida
#15
Still pretty new, but I thought I'd post how I believe the federal government could be reorganized to create a more equitable, and democratic system, to both eliminate the two-party framework, as well as many of the problems people have with the government today.

For the purposes of this post, I will define specific concepts at the beginning.

Instant runoff voting: A method of voting for a single-person office. Voters rank their choices for this office from first to last (depending on the cutoff point). If not candidate for this position receives a majority of the vote in the first round, then the last place candidate is eliminated. The votes of said last place candidate are then re-routed to their second choice. This process continues until one candidate has a majority of the vote.

Proportional representation: The concept of allotting representatives in a legislative body based on the proportion of the population who support a given party's platform. For instance, if 25% of voters support Party A, then said Party A should receive 25% of the seats in the legislative body. This can be achieved through multiple methods, but primarily through list voting.

List voting: A method of voting for multi-person office. Voters select a party list (closed-list), or a candidate from a party list (open-list). This vote is attributed to the party as a whole for the purposes of representation. When voting is complete, votes are tallied, and the percentage of votes a party received of the whole translates to the percentage of seats said party holds in the legislative body. This, of course, ensures a multi-party system.

D'Hondt method: A method of allocating remainders for the process of list voting. It routinely benefits larger parties more than smaller parties, and is friendlier to stable coalition governments, as opposed to the Saint-Lague method, being the opposite.

Presidency

1. The President shall be elected at-large, by popular vote, using the instant runoff voting method.

2. The President shall be elected every four years, with no restriction on number of terms.

3. The powers of the President within the cabinet shall be restricted to what Congress has explicitly allowed the President to perform.


House of Representatives

1. There shall be 601 seats in the House of Representatives.

2. Members of the House of Representatives shall serve for 4 year terms.

3. All states will be granted a minimum of 3 Representatives, with the remainder being allocated based on population.

4. All Representatives shall be elected by way of party-list proportional representation, using the D'Hondt remainder method. No district shall contain fewer than 3 Representatives, or more than 5 Representatives. Districts shall be created to be as evenly distributed, with smallest number, as possible. (Ex: 3, 3, 3...or 3, 3, 3, 4, or 3, 3, 3, 3, 4....or etc.)


Senate

1. Every Senator shall be elected by way of instant runoff voting.

2. Senators shall serve for 8 year terms.

3. Terms for Senator shall be staggered by 4 years, meaning that all 50 states will have an election for Senator every 4 years.

Maybe more thought to come out of it, but I think this would fix a ton of shit, alongside some seriouos campaign finance reform.
The first one is a HOOT. Talk about a potential for 'fraud'. Not in person but CYBER. If you do proportional representation the REPUBLICAN Party WILL LOSE. We are the majority. Everywhere.
 
Jan 2014
16,271
6,204
south
#16
I agree. But it would have to be very carefully worded.
also correct. my suggestion would be to limit executive orders to implementing the laws passed by congress - but that is only my opinion as a radical who does not feel the president is meant to "free-wheel" authority.
 
Likes: Tennyson

boontito

Future Staff
Jan 2008
104,871
93,999
Most Insidious
#17
Most of the things suggested by the OP are not mere changes to the Constitution, but in effect would require an almost entirely new constitution. Only #3 listed under "Presidency" already exists, and so needs no change.
State constitutions are different, but I still find it funny sometimes how the Federal Constitution is treated versus how state constitutions are. For example, Louisiana and Georgia are operating under their ninth state constitutions. Virginia has had seven itself. :D
 
Jan 2014
16,271
6,204
south
#18
The first one is a HOOT. Talk about a potential for 'fraud'. Not in person but CYBER. If you do proportional representation the REPUBLICAN Party WILL LOSE. We are the majority. Everywhere.
also correct. my suggestion would be to limit executive orders to implementing the laws passed by congress - but that is only my opinion as a radical who does not feel the president is meant to "free-wheel" authority.
yeah. and maybe, just maybe, the citizens would win on occasion. we definitely can't have that happening - the world would surely self-destruct.
 
Sep 2014
2,408
548
Barsoom
#19
also correct. my suggestion would be to limit executive orders to implementing the laws passed by congress - but that is only my opinion as a radical who does not feel the president is meant to "free-wheel" authority.
The Constitution was written in the common legal maxim of the founding era: in dubiis, non praesumitur pro potentia: In cases of doubt, the presumption is not in favor of a power or the presumption is always in favor of less power. The Founders started exercising this maxim with the Eleventh Amendment. The same should apply to Executive Orders.
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
73,786
42,239
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#20
I do not believe number three exists in the Constitution. The president's powers are derived from Article II, not Article I. That would be a direct violation of the seperation of powers doctrine. I may have misread your post.
I was referring to the President's constitutional duty to enforce laws. Yes, he has powers granted that are not directly related to the legislature (e.g., to appoint judges), but for the most part his job is to execute the law. Apart from his separate constitutional powers, though, he has no authority but what Congress gives him (assuming that grant of power is constitutional to begin with).

(And, of course, the part of #3 that makes no sense is where it says "[t]he powers of the President within the cabinet," since the cabinet is made up of officers appointed by the President anyway (with the Senate's consent) and they are subordinate to him.)
 
Likes: Tennyson