Would you vote for this type of Amendment to the Constitution?

NIMBY said:

Why is it that only Republican-type voters come up with these ideas?
Especially when they're out of power?
Just like with term limits in 1994 and 2010?
Ring a bell?
The two times the House changed hands !

Click to expand...

I don't vote for any republican or democrat. Nice try though.

I never say "nice try though", since I usually don't mean it.
I will continue to maintain that "term-limits" has always been a part of the GOP agenda since Gingrich's contract ON America in 1994.

Most GOPs in Illinois started using "BLUE" signs last decade and removing the word Republican.
I'm proud to be a Democrat and don't understand GOP voters running from their brand .

Kal'Stang said:

I don't vote for any republican or democrat. Nice try though.

Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:

This amendment would ban all political parties from running for any federal or state political position. No more Democrats, no more Republicans, no more Green Party or Libertarian or Socialist or any of the other myriad other parties that are out there. You could be a part of a party, but you cannot run based on that party. IE: No D or R next to the name on a ballot. The person would also be denied any sponsership of a political party by disallowing them to even speak of any political parties what so ever in any capacity or situation.

Please note that these are not the exact words to be used obviously. This is just a gist.

Click to expand...

While I understand the point you are making, I feel that such a construct would ultimately fail. Human nature is to group together, herd if you will. And to ban humans from banning together in the us versus them framework work never last.

From football, and other sports, to school cliques, to politics... Humans have the mental need to feel like a part of a group and they need their group to have an enemy. It just makes society function as it is all apart of their nature.

I like the computer redraws the political districts every 10 years but ... even then we'll have bias come into play with those who program the computers. While it may help the situation it won't solve the problem of gerrymandering. I would however, vote for the 28th Amendment to put term limits on Congress such that, no Senator or Representative of any party can serve Congress for more than 12 years, in any one or both houses. They could still run for President, be nominated by the Executive, Judicial or Legislative branch as a bureaucrat, or become a lobbyist. As part of this amendment I would also state that Congresspeople could no longer use insider information to benefit their own personal wealth - so purchases of land, stocks, bonds with insider information would be illegal and congress would be subject to the same laws as the rest of America.

Kal'Stang said:

Why? Are parties really needed that bad?

Click to expand...

Thats just it. Its easier to control people if you give them "2" choices that are the same thing. It keeps people in office and it keeps the same people in office or at least the same minded people so that no matter who wins big businesses and the people who put these guys in office are always protected.

I think something like this would actually make people think

Click to expand...

Politicians dont want that.

radcen said:

I'm doing this from memory, so bear with me. Plus, this may be state specific to the state I lived in at the time, not sure. Enough of the disclaimers...

Back in the 90s, incumbent politicians had always been listed as such on ballots. Ballots would list the party and occupation of each candidate. When the alleged incumbent backlash started many incumbents didn't want to be listed as incumbent or sitting Representative, or whatever. They wanted to be listed according to their supposed real occupation, i.e. lawyer, farmer, accountant, etc. Theoretically this would confuse voters into not knowing who the evil incumbent was and improve their chances of being re-elected. In reality, the alleged incumbent backlash never materialized as such and incumbents stopped worrying about it.

Click to expand...

If voters were really upset with their incumbent then they would know that elected official's name.It would matter if incumbent or their profession was listed next to their name.

The idea of a computer redistricting sounds good, but answer this: Who writes the program?

If it's an allegedly independent third party, who hires them?

Kal'Stang said:

This amendment would ban all political parties from running for any federal or state political position. No more Democrats, no more Republicans, no more Green Party or Libertarian or Socialist or any of the other myriad other parties that are out there. You could be a part of a party, but you cannot run based on that party. IE: No D or R next to the name on a ballot. The person would also be denied any sponsership of a political party by disallowing them to even speak of any political parties what so ever in any capacity or situation.

Please note that these are not the exact words to be used obviously. This is just a gist.

Click to expand...

Marxist, socialist, CPUSA and it's splinter groups that became known as the "New Left" stopped running as communist, socialist, etc. back during the early 1970's. They today hide behind other labels and run as Democrats. It's worked for them.

NIMBY said:

I never say "nice try though", since I usually don't mean it.
I will continue to maintain that "term-limits" has always been a part of the GOP agenda since Gingrich's contract ON America in 1994.

Most GOPs in Illinois started using "BLUE" signs last decade and removing the word Republican.
I'm proud to be a Democrat and don't understand GOP voters running from their brand .

Click to expand...

I do mean it.
And term limits isn't a bad idea really. If its good enough for the Presidency then it should be good enough for Senators and Congress critters. However I'd be quite willing to not have term limits for the Congress or Senate if they got rid of the term limits for the Presidency.

As for GOP'ers, :shrug: Since I'm not a GOP don't really care about that. I personally am against ALL parties as that just takes away from what is really important about whether to elect a candidate or not. Voting for someone because there is a D or R or what have you is imo worse than not voting at all. I would bet that if we got rid of those party affiliations half of the people on the Senate and in Congress wouldn't even have been elected. People would have to actually judge whether a person represents them or not on a politicians actual voting history and what they say they are going to do instead of just voting for "D" or "R".

CRUE CAB said:

I would be in favor of an amendment making voting mandatory.

Click to expand...

I think it is in Australia. You get fined if you don't vote.
Actually, if I remember right, you just have to go to the polling station- you can spoil your ballot if you want. Sounds like a good system to me. I wonder if it would change the outcome of elections?

Kal'Stang said:

I do mean it.
And term limits isn't a bad idea really. If its good enough for the Presidency then it should be good enough for Senators and Congress critters. However I'd be quite willing to not have term limits for the Congress or Senate if they got rid of the term limits for the Presidency.

Click to expand...

The only change I see with terms that could possibly make a difference is to increase the House term to three years.
Why--a middle year off from election-prep might actually get something done.
At this point, the GOP House is hopelessly deadlocked with itself, as we saw when we lost the grand bargain in 2011.

As for GOP'ers, :shrug: Since I'm not a GOP don't really care about that. I personally am against ALL parties as that just takes away from what is really important about whether to elect a candidate or not. Voting for someone because there is a D or R or what have you is imo worse than not voting at all. I would bet that if we got rid of those party affiliations half of the people on the Senate and in Congress wouldn't even have been elected. People would have to actually judge whether a person represents them or not on a politicians actual voting history and what they say they are going to do instead of just voting for "D" or "R".

Click to expand...

Money is all that matters in today's elections , as we have seen with the last two USSC court decisions in favor of the GOP.
In just the last few weeks, several DEM Billionaires have now joined the fight, which has Karl Rove all hot and bothered.

The one thing I miss here at dp is not knowing your past history and how people like GWB were treated on this forum.
Not to mention the lead-up to any elections.
From what I see right now, I'm betting none of them were pretty .

I vote for my GOP Rep because of "old school" reasons, especially in the primary against a TEA, and I am a Democrat.
The people he has in the field are excellent, especially with the help I got on a Veteran's situation with my parents.
He's building up stature, is one of the "young guns", is a rational Neo-Con and a Veteran of Iraq.
He supported the President over Syria and doesn't play politics with foreign policy as most of the GOP does.
He doesn't say yes to alternative energy in his CD, since that is a GOP no-no, but doesn't block AE either .

jamesrage said:

If voters were really upset with their incumbent then they would know that elected official's name.
It would matter if incumbent or their profession was listed next to their name.

Click to expand...

With the above said, I can't stand him being a clone of Paul Ryan's economics and budget.
I saw him last week at a townhall and listened to the "we have to have serious discussions" BS talking point we heard from Ryan today.

What we don't hear loudly is the beginning discussion of restructuring all public pensions.
You may remember Ryan getting lit up over trying to decrease COLA a little for Veterans last December.
How much is enough for those Officers who already have Tri-Care-For-Life?
My congressman is willing to tackle the VA and social security .

As much as I like the idea of seeing the party system abolished in it's entirety, I don't see this working. Honestly the ability to assemble into parties is the only thing keeping those outside of the mainstream corporate agenda somewhat afloat. If Libertarians, Socialists, Greens, Constitutionalists, etc ran as independents and were not allowed the benefits and funding that come with a party, they would get even less votes because those with the will and the want to do bad things will just find another way. I see this as only further screwing over the little guys. So, as much as I like the idea, I would vote no.