View Poll Results: Read the intro and vote accordingly

Voters
55. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1st Amendment

    4 7.27%
  • 2nd Amendment

    11 20.00%
  • 4th Amendment

    1 1.82%
  • 9th Amendment

    0 0%
  • 14th Amendment

    8 14.55%
  • Other.

    31 56.36%
Page 7 of 19 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 181

Thread: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

  1. #61
    Guru
    Alex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    06-21-16 @ 12:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,962

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    I would change the single-district voting system to proportional representation. What ever percentage of the vote a party gets, that is the percentage of seats they get. This gets more people involved in voting and gives third parties more of a voice. Voting for a third party would not feel like a wasted vote. It would be very difficult for any party to receive 50% of the seats, so they would have to form coalitions with smaller parties to get their agendas through. This is similar to most European countries.

  2. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex View Post
    I would change the single-district voting system to proportional representation. What ever percentage of the vote a party gets, that is the percentage of seats they get. This gets more people involved in voting and gives third parties more of a voice. Voting for a third party would not feel like a wasted vote. It would be very difficult for any party to receive 50% of the seats, so they would have to form coalitions with smaller parties to get their agendas through. This is similar to most European countries.
    Do that and out of 100 seats you would would have like 5 republican, 6 democrat, 1 independant, and the other 88 seats would remain empty due to the lack of voter turn-out.

  3. #63
    Guru
    Alex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    06-21-16 @ 12:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,962

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Do that and out of 100 seats you would would have like 5 republican, 6 democrat, 1 independant, and the other 88 seats would remain empty due to the lack of voter turn-out.
    Actually, voter turn-out is much higher in proportional representation because every vote means something. Voting for a third party would not be a wasted vote like in a single-member district.

    "There is much greater voter participation. In countries using PR, voter turnout is usually in the 70% to 95% range."

    Source: http://ed.labonte.com/pr.html

    I am sure that any of our European friends on this website can verify this.

  4. #64
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    38,521

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    I fail to see how this is a non-sequitur. How is proving that you are competent enough to write responsibly significantly different that proving that you are competent enough to use a gun responsibly?
    Write responsibly? Wth does that mean? Why the non sequiturs?
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  5. #65
    Banned Iriemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    12-19-15 @ 09:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,405

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex View Post
    I would change the single-district voting system to proportional representation. What ever percentage of the vote a party gets, that is the percentage of seats they get. This gets more people involved in voting and gives third parties more of a voice. Voting for a third party would not feel like a wasted vote. It would be very difficult for any party to receive 50% of the seats, so they would have to form coalitions with smaller parties to get their agendas through. This is similar to most European countries.
    That is a very thought provoking idea. We recently had a long debate about whether it made sense to vote for third or minor parties. I argued no in a close race, because a vote for a minor party takes away a vote from major candidate. Al Gore lost in 2000 because of the votes for Nader, more of which would in likelihood have gone to him and more than made the difference in Florida.

    But with proportional voting for congress, your party candidate gets in even with a small percentage, and another voice is heard and differences of opinions expressed.

    Like in Europe, it leads more to splintered groups and coalitions. But it would definitely take some of the power away from the two main parties (which is why we'd likely never see this as a real option being forwarded).

    I'd go with this suggestion for the representatives in the House at least. Good post!

  6. #66
    Guru
    FallingPianos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 11:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,341

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    Quote Originally Posted by TOJ View Post
    In most cases it is the OB that requires the c-sec. There is a possibility of a uterus rupture in VBACs and most OBs are concerned about being sued if a VBAC goes bad.
    no, I'm talking about written hospital wide policies. its true that VBACs do involve more risks, however a patient must be given the absolute right to refuse surgery.

    Quote Originally Posted by TOJ View Post
    I would not be surprised if the OB was blaming the hospital. If a woman wants a VBAC she should find another OB that is willing to take the chance. If it really is the hospital, she can find a different hospital.
    in some cases this simply isnt possible. if you live in a rural area (and rural areas are more likely to have hospitals with policies forbidding VBACs), there may be only one hospital anywhere near you.

    Quote Originally Posted by TOJ View Post
    Trying to put these kind of decisions, that change as the technology and best practices change, into the Constitution sounds like pure folly.
    I disagree. bodily sovereignty is a broad right having many applications, and its a fundamental right. its absolutely the type of thing that belongs in the constitution.

  7. #67
    Banned NguyenRhymesWithWin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    11-20-14 @ 04:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    272

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    What's the point of having freedom of speech if you're not allowed to use it to say anything that US wouldn't want you to? At that point it really seems like it ceases to be freedom of speech.
    Precisely my point. Just replace Freedom of Speech with the 2nd amendment. Unlike freedom of speech though, more people are way more likely to agree, "yeah, I think the government should have authority to chose who and who does not have guns.".

  8. #68
    Global Moderator
    Sinister
    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    133,850

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    I did not say throw the first amendment out, I said get rid of some of the loopholes that leftys like you take advantage of to circumvent the definition.........
    I'll diagram the interactions. Hatuey never said throw out the entire 1st Amendment. Neither did you. Aquapub accused liberals of being the first to attack the First Amendment. I showed he was wrong because you did. Flag burning is absolutely about the First Amendment. Though I disagree with the action, and would never do it myself, to preserve the First Amendment, I see no reason to ban it. It's no loophole. It is clear 1st Amendment expression.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    Mace Windu: Then our worst fears have been realized. We must move quickly if the Jedi Order is to survive.

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  9. #69
    Global Moderator
    Sinister
    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    133,850

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    Quote Originally Posted by aquapub View Post
    No it isn't. Flag burning is setting a symbol on fire and calling it expression. And the government is well within it's bounds to tell us where, when, and how we can express ourselves, just not what to express.
    And at this point in time, burning a flag one owns is allowed by the government to express dissent. It would seem to me that stifling this expression would be dictatorially curbing the 1st Amendment. I realize that this thread is about changing the Constitution, but is this what you are proposing?
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    Mace Windu: Then our worst fears have been realized. We must move quickly if the Jedi Order is to survive.

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  10. #70
    Clown Prince of Politics
    Psychoclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hiding from the voices in my head.
    Last Seen
    09-26-16 @ 11:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,723

    Re: What Part of the Constitution Would you change?

    Quote Originally Posted by aquapub View Post
    No it isn't. Flag burning is setting a symbol on fire and calling it expression. And the government is well within it's bounds to tell us where, when, and how we can express ourselves, just not what to express.
    The government can limit our freedom of expression when it conflicts with other people's rights. I can't walk down a residential neighborhood with a bullhorn shoutng my political beliefs in the middle of the night because I'm disturbing the peace. I can't assemble a political rally in the middle of a freeway because I'm endangering lives. I can't paint your car with pro Ron Paul slogans (oh, how I'd like to ) because its vandalizing your property.

    However, I can burn a flag because it doesn't affect you one damn bit. You don't have a right to not be offended.

    And for the record, I personally find flag burning to be detestable, but I support the right to do so. But the day they pass a ban on it, is the day I burn a flag because that would mean to me that America has truly lost its way and the flag would no longer be a symbol of a nation of freedom.
    Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

Page 7 of 19 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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