View Poll Results: Would you vote for this type of Amendment to the Constitution?

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    5 15.63%
  • No.

    25 78.13%
  • Other.

    2 6.25%
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 38 of 38

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

  1. #31
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

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

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    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.
    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.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  2. #32
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:00 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,396

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

    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?
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    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.
    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.

  4. #34
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,856
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by NIMBY View Post
    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 .
    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, 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".
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  5. #35
    Question authority
    Grand Mal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    on an island off the left coast of Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    16,435
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CRUE CAB View Post
    I would be in favor of an amendment making voting mandatory.
    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?
    "I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid people. I meant that stupid people are generally Conservatives."
    -John Stuart Mill-

  6. #36
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,762

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    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.
    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, 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".
    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 .
    Physics is Phun

  7. #37
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,762

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

    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 .
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    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.
    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 .
    Physics is Phun

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ask the NSA
    Last Seen
    07-24-16 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    5,849
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    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.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •