Would you modify the Founding Principles of the US?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

1. Do you think the system created by the Founding Fathers was fundamentally good? If so, is there anything you believe they should have done differently--that is--in terms of core ideas? In other words, how would you have improved the governmental model of the United States from then into perpetuity via additions to the Constitution, laws, etc?

I think Mr. Wong mentioned one time earlier that voting is a duty, and it requires skill sets, much like many occupations and activities. Like other activities, voting affects others, but the specific skill sets required for competent voting are logical, analytical skills, ethical reasoning skills, and a general knoweldge of political issues. Do you think an electorate with a combo of increased intelligence, education, and training in critical thinking/logic would have a chance at improvement in the political decision-making process?

If so, how could you use this information to improve the American political system, assuming it were possible and you could start over? Should age be the only restriction on voting, for example?

Perhaps representatives should have to pass basic logic courses and demonstrate critical reasoning skills, ethical awareness. But what about voters? Should people who don't have basic decision-making skills be counted equally?

Obviously, there might be protection issues. There would seriously need to be a way to keep checks and balances in the equation.

[Darth Wong]

Those conditions are too complex to test for on a mass scale. The only practical voter test is to make sure that he actually knows who the hell the top two or three candidates are and what they stand for. At the very least, a voter should know who and what the fuck he's voting for, otherwise he's just corrupting the democratic process.

The Founding Fathers could probably not have envisioned a future where people would mindlessly vote for a particular party regardless of what its platform is or who its candidates are.

[Simplicius]

Perhaps representatives should have to pass basic logic courses and demonstrate critical reasoning skills, ethical awareness. But what about voters? Should people who don't have basic decision-making skills be counted equally?

The simplest way to improve voter and candidate quality is to make education a more important criterion than age. If a rigorous and available system of schooling is implemented, as should be done anyway, then academic performance becomes the yardstick - say, if you complete a high school education at or above a given performance threshhold you have the right to vote, and if you complete a university education at or above a certain threshhold, you can stand as a candidate.

[FSTargetDrone]

This isn't germane to the Founding Principle themselves, but what do you think about having voting for national elections occur over a period of several days? Or, a holiday set aside for voting? Having a less than 24 hour period during one day seems crazy with such a large country as the US. Ideally, we should make it easier for (these hopefully educated on the issues) people to vote. It can be difficult for those who work all day or for single parents to find the time to vote. I see no need to rush through and get it all decided in a single day.

I would also like to see exit polls completely done away with, and discourage the reporting you see of the polls, showing percentages of what votes are going to which candidate. In short, the less done to influence the voters on the day of voting itself is a good thing, I should think.

[AK_Jedi]

This isn't germane to the Founding Principle themselves, but what do you think about having voting for national elections occur over a period of several days? Or, a holiday set aside for voting? Having a less than 24 hour period during one day seems crazy with such a large country as the US. Ideally, we should make it easier for (these hopefully educated on the issues) people to vote. It can be difficult for those who work all day or for single parents to find the time to vote. I see no need to rush through and get it all decided in a single day.

We already have a system like that in place. Its called absentee voting. You can vote absentee at a polling place several days before an election, or you can request to have an absentee packet sent to you. Actually have the full fledged polling places open for several days seems like a bad Idea to me, considering the amount of media coverage of the event, and the possibility for that coverage to change the way someone would vote.

[RedImperator]

if you complete a high school education at or above a given performance threshhold you have the right to vote, and if you complete a university education at or above a certain threshhold, you can stand as a candidate.

While I, personally, think this would be an excellent system, it is one that would almost certainly come under fire from the masses with accusations of 'elitism'. That is a bullshit argument, but without support of the masses, a Constitution would have a hard time standing in the early stages.

Actually, I'm a professional educator and it would come under fire from me because I can think of no better way to mass-disenfrancise "undesireables" than to institute an educational requirement. If the United States had a just and equitable education system, or had a reasonable chance of implementing one in the near future, my attitude would be different, but as it stands, with the gross disparities between the kind of education a middle class suburban white kid will get and the education a poor urban minority will get, it's a backdoor path to second class citizenship for millions of Americans.

Alternately, because flunking or dropping out of high school would cost a kid his future voting rights, teachers and schools would be under far more pressure than they already are to pass a kid by any means necessary. The value of a high school diploma has already been degraded to near worthlessness; the last thing anyone needs are parents screaming "But you can't flunk little Timmy! Then he'll never get to vote!" Or for that matter, teachers who think the same thing.

[Simplicius]

Going back to the OP, there are minor changes I'd make to the Constitution if I could, tightening it up a bit and incorporating a couple of centuries' worth of experience. One of my current hobby-projects is re-drafting the document to incorporate them.

Most are changes in language: inserting the word "herein" in the first sentence of Article II, to prevent Presidential overreach, is one example. I would codify the composition and current powers of the Supreme Court, and remove the ability of Congress to strip them of jurisdiction. The failure to discharge the oath of office becomes grounds for impeachment. I reword the Establishment Clause to make the role of state and religon more clear: "No public agent shall promote or disparage an establishment of religion," and add an explicit application of the Bill of Rights to the states.

The changes are small, but half the fun is figuring out whether they would have disastrous results when interpreted by a hypothetical future judiciary.

Actually, I'm a professional educator and it would come under fire from me because I can think of no better way to mass-disenfrancise "undesireables" than to institute an educational requirement. If the United States had a just and equitable education system, or had a reasonable chance of implementing one in the near future, my attitude would be different, but as it stands, with the gross disparities between the kind of education a middle class suburban white kid will get and the education a poor urban minority will get, it's a backdoor path to second class citizenship for millions of Americans.

Hence my qualification of "a robust and available system;" I wouldn't find my proposal acceptable unless one had to make special effort not to get a good education.

Alternately, because flunking or dropping out of high school would cost a kid his future voting rights, teachers and schools would be under far more pressure than they already are to pass a kid by any means necessary. The value of a high school diploma has already been degraded to near worthlessness; the last thing anyone needs are parents screaming "But you can't flunk little Timmy! Then he'll never get to vote!" Or for that matter, teachers who think the same thing.

This, however, I cannot answer.

While I, personally, think this would be an excellent system, it is one that would almost certainly come under fire from the masses with accusations of 'elitism'. That is a bullshit argument, but without support of the masses, a Constitution would have a hard time standing in the early stages.

The elitism argument is simply refuted in an ideal educational system; claims of elitism ring hollow when a good education can be had by all. Real life is an entirely different case, and goes beyond simple constitutional issues to fundamental political philosophy.

[Edward Yee]

Even if there were to be an education requirement I would restrict the requirement to only free/public schooling...

[Darth Wong]

Even if there were to be an education requirement I would restrict the requirement to only free/public schooling...

So what happens to all of the private schoolers and homeschoolers? Disenfranchised for life? Bad idea.

As I said, a perfectly reasonable minimum requirement is that the voters know who and what the fuck they're voting for. If they don't know the names and platforms of the top candidates, they shouldn't be allowed to vote. The whole idea of voting implies that the voter actually knows who and what he's voting for, instead of mindlessly checking off boxes belonging to a certain party because that's what he's done since birth.

[Broomstick]

On a slightly different note - I really wish they had EXPLICITLY written in a right to privacy because I am fucking sick of the government putting prying fingers into all the various aspects of my life. I also wish that the right to privacy would apply to private corporations who have no fucking business tracking my every want, need, and desire in an attempt to sell me more shit I don't need.

Yes, I'm very cranky tonight. Also, not up to serious debating, so I'm just throwing it out for now as something that has pissed me off for a long time. If ya'll want to argue about it, go right ahead. Maybe I'll join the party later on.

[FSTargetDrone]

On a slightly different note - I really wish they had EXPLICITLY written in a right to privacy because I am fucking sick of the government putting prying fingers into all the various aspects of my life. I also wish that the right to privacy would apply to private corporations who have no fucking business tracking my every want, need, and desire in an attempt to sell me more shit I don't need.

This sort of thing (especially electronic privacy) is really something that needs addressing. Obviously the Founders (doesn't that sound Star Trekkish? ) had no concept of preventing identity theft and the like, but solid protections of these things would be welcome.

[LordChaos]

With regaurds to limiting it via education : bad idea. there have been (and undoubtabley will be) many individuals who for one reason or another found themselves in a possition where graduating HS was not an option, but have gone on to be intelligent, productive, contributing members of society. (my father was one such example).

I think Wong is right with regaurds to the only relivent limite on voter intelligence : do they know what they are voting on?

Only changes I'd make would be to incorporate term limites for all elected offices, limite the maximum number of years someone can be in an appointed possision (such as judges), clean up some of the wording (such as just what the limites of federal government is), and put a "we mean exactly what this says and nothing else" to eliminate most of the "interpetation" rulings.

I'd like to incorporate some of the later amendments right from the start, but some of them, like it or not, would have been deal killers in that day and age.

[Edward Yee]

Eep -- thanks for pointing that out, Darth Wong. My intent was to have the requirement be such that one wouldn't need an education only available at an expensive college (or if need be even a public college), but I hadn't considered private schools and homeschooling. While I didn't mean to exclude them, I hadn't considered the effect my as-posted take would have.

[Zed Snardbody]

I want the government clearly defined as being secular, and I want a clearer second amendment, something along the lines of:

The government shall have the right to form and keep an army, navy, or other militia as it sees fit and the people shall be permitted to keep and bear arms.

There, simple, and ends a lot of the bullshit about there being a pause, or it only relating to the military and all that other jazz.


I want term limits too on the House and the Senate.

And I want an 30 week work year out of congress. 30 weeks out of the year they need to be in DC.

I would also have one senator elected by the people of the state, and the second senator appointed either by the governor of the state or the legislature of the state. One senator is there to represent the state on behalf of the people, the other is there to represent the state on behalf of the government of said state.

[Lord Insanity]

Zed Snardbody wrote:

I want the government clearly defined as being secular

Well the first amendment does start: "Congress shall make no law respecting any establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exersise thereof..."

Maybe its just me but I think that is fairly concise, now if only the government would follow it.

and I want a clearer second amendment, something along the lines of:

The government shall have the right to form and keep an army, navy, or other militia as it sees fit and the people shall be permitted to keep and bear arms.

There, simple, and ends a lot of the bullshit about there being a pause, or it only relating to the military and all that other jazz.

Well that isn't quite acturate as the government (according to the constitution as it is) is not allowed to maintain a standing army except in wartime. Even then the whole point of the second amendment was that the "militia" the government has the right to call up and form an army with, was clearly labled as everyone who is not an elected offical. ie. "A well regulated militia being nessesary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The United States is supposed to be organized like the anceint Grecco-Roman city-states. Everyone is part of the military for defence by virture of the fact they own their own weapons, and the Government can only wage war so long as the cause rallies enough people behind it into an army. Kind of puts a lot of current event into perspective doesn't it.

As far as what I would add to the constitution, it would be to make this far more clear. Elected representatives must vote based on what a majority of their constituents want (so longs as it does not violate the rights of others) rather than the personal or party beliefs of said representative. Any representative that wishes to be a politician would be banned from public service.

[Spyder]

Even if there were to be an education requirement I would restrict the requirement to only free/public schooling...

So what happens to all of the private schoolers and homeschoolers? Disenfranchised for life? Bad idea.

As I said, a perfectly reasonable minimum requirement is that the voters know who and what the fuck they're voting for. If they don't know the names and platforms of the top candidates, they shouldn't be allowed to vote. The whole idea of voting implies that the voter actually knows who and what he's voting for, instead of mindlessly checking off boxes belonging to a certain party because that's what he's done since birth.

What they could do is set up a system where you're given a set of choices and the pros and cons for each choice of which you must somehow demonstrate comprehension. The winning candidate is decided based on which one matches the criteria.