Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[martinuzz]

I don't think that the definition of fair has that much of an impact on global warming turning Florida into a unfarmable desert.

But yeah, in my example I was not thinking along the extreme lines of 'restricting water' meaning 'having no water at all'. I was thinking more like it meaning 'needing to switch to a different crop that uses less water'.

But okay, as for the original question of this thread:

I would change the 5th amendment from:
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

to

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against him/herself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or livelyhood, without due process of law; nor shall a person be deprived of his/her livelyhood, without just compensation.


because I think the protection of private property is one of the roots of misery in our western global societies.

[wierd]

You might want to also add that inanimate property cannot be held on trial, or be confiscated by the court without proper due process, and just fair market value reimbursement.

(EG, if you consider personal property to be an essential right, then Civil Forfieture is something you will want to prevent.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

[LoSboccacc]

politician are elected by a random number generator assigning seats at the houses going trough the lists of people willing to serve.

[martinuzz]

You might want to also add that inanimate property cannot be held on trial, or be confiscated by the court without proper due process, and just fair market value reimbursement.

(EG, if you consider personal property to be an essential right, then Civil Forfieture is something you will want to prevent.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

I'm perfectly okay with FININT seizing a gold plated bullet proof Rolls Royce from a suspected druglord corn farmer, and asking him to show where he got the money to buy that, but I'm not okay with the siezing of a druglord corn farmer's tractor, because he needs that to grow corn. I'm not sure about gold-plated, bullet proof tractors though 

Civil forfeiture should be exclusive to FININT though, not just any local cop. And be used sparsely and proportionally.

[Strife26]

I'd think that a line specifically listing that property may only be confiscated from someone convicted of a crime would be reasonable.

[sluissa]

politician are elected by a random number generator assigning seats at the houses going trough the lists of people willing to serve.

Secretly it excludes those willing to serve. Politics should be the domain of those who don't want to be there. Or as a wiser man said more eloquently, "It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."

[Bohandas]

Election reform:

Elections are run in two steps. First an open election between anyone who wants to run like we have now, followed by a second vote a week later exclusively between the two highest scorers in the first phase of the election. This is so that people won't be obligated to throw their vote away voting against the republicans or against the democrats or whatever and can thus vote for whomever they actually want. Also both elections will be on sundays (mostly, see below), it'll be a national/federal holiday, and the polls will remain open for 36 hours.

EDIT:
Another election reform possibility would be an outright ban on organized political parties like many of the founding fathers wisely wanted.

[wobbly]

Election reform:

Elections are run in two steps. First an open election between anyone who wants to run like we have now, followed by a second vote a week later exclusively between the two highest scorers in the first phase of the election. This is so that people won't be obligated to throw their vote away voting against the republicans or against the democrats or whatever and can thus vote for whomever they actually want. Also both elections will be on sundays (mostly, see below), it'll be a national/federal holiday, and the polls will remain open for 36 hours.

EDIT:
Another election reform possibility would be an outright ban on organized political parties like many of the founding fathers wisely wanted.

Isn't it just simpler to use preferential voting like in Australia. You number your preferences in order. The person with the least votes is eliminated. Anyone who voted for that candidate has their vote shifted to their 2nd preference etc. etc. Saves having to vote twice, achieves pretty much the same thing.

[miauw62]

politician are elected by a random number generator assigning seats at the houses going trough the lists of people willing to serve.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_(short_story)

[Strife26]

Election reform:

Elections are run in two steps. First an open election between anyone who wants to run like we have now, followed by a second vote a week later exclusively between the two highest scorers in the first phase of the election. This is so that people won't be obligated to throw their vote away voting against the republicans or against the democrats or whatever and can thus vote for whomever they actually want. Also both elections will be on sundays (mostly, see below), it'll be a national/federal holiday, and the polls will remain open for 36 hours.

EDIT:
Another election reform possibility would be an outright ban on organized political parties like many of the founding fathers wisely wanted.

You're going to ban a free association of people? How many boy scouts need to get elected before they become an illegal organization?

[Skyrunner]

Three.

Also: I think australian system of preferential voting would be cool.

[LoSboccacc]

politician are elected by a random number generator assigning seats at the houses going trough the lists of people willing to serve.

Secretly it excludes those willing to serve. Politics should be the domain of those who don't want to be there. Or as a wiser man said more eloquently, "It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."

true, but in a open random system outliers would be included, as opposed to the winner takes all system which is usual of democracy.

[SaberToothTiger]

The 1337,420th Amendment:

"Don't be an arse."


10/10 would make america proud again

[Antioch]

I would reform their voting system

I would abolish the winner takes it all voting system and replace it with a single transferable vote system for the presidential election.

And introduce a multi-party election system with proportional representation for their senate/parliament, probably with a vote threshold of around 5%.

[Strife26]

And how exactly would that work? Who registers and what constitutes a party? What happens to direct election of Senators?