Something different

Something different (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

TheHeretic -> Something different (4/10/2011 7:41:40 AM)
Just a strange idea to play with on a Sunday morning. When the US Constitutional system was first set up, our bicameral legislature had one body elected by the people on a two-year cycle, and a smaller body, appointed by the states, on a staggered six year cyce. The smaller body was supposed to be the the more deliberative, with much greater consistency in the membership. Well, the appointments from the states became a subject of much cronyism and corruption, so the people took over that election as well. So now we get a room full of bandwagon yahoos at both ends of the building. What if we took a whole different approach to filling the Senate? A lottery. We set some basic standards to be eligible to have names go into the hat, such as, minimum residency in the state, a minimum IQ (120 and above?), and no felony convictions. At the end of the term, the people of the state can vote to recertify, or draw again. What do you think?

Real0ne -> RE: Something different (4/10/2011 7:55:08 AM)
presuming the first thing you do is get rid of electronics voting machines and go to a numbered receipted vote.... The first thing that needs to be done is realize that any constitution creates a citizenship where you become a paying club member no different than signing up for sams club discounts with one HUGE exception. When this club is called government unlike sams club you are FORCED to buy their services at the end of the barrel of a gun regardless if you join the club or not. Now you can look at the articles of confederation to verify that little nugget. Once you agree to be a "citizen", oh wait that constitution says the second your ass hits the table you are a subject-citizen. (just like when your cattle has calves, the second its born its yours) Then there is the problem that NO constitution was ratified by the so called "People", they were ratified by delegates who certified that its what the people wanted and you can scour the national archives and you will find NO ZIPPO NADA evidence the people ever voted on any of it, including the state constitutions. and we all now know how valid a "government certification" is... in as much as recalls are concerned, yeh they should have the ability for a recall vote whenever they want when a percentage of voters file a petition. and the supreme court deciding who won an election is atrocious. but what are you going to do about the articles of confederation that grants power to the legislatures ALONE to determine taxes? You have the original 13 states, (The United States of America) then you have the remaining states (The United States) and the words state is really E-State abridged. Lots of issues need to be looked at and this is the zit on the wing on the fly on the tip of the iceberg.

TheHeretic -> RE: Something different (4/10/2011 8:02:49 AM)
Thanks as always for your valuable contributions to us all, Real.

Real0ne -> RE: Something different (4/10/2011 8:12:20 AM)
quote: Reality is not obligated to conform to the mapquest directions Any time Rich! [image]local://upfiles/59055/8C4A60AE23E64CEA8DC10414B73E8D65.jpg[/image] since its probably not obvious, a constitutor creates a constitution usu for the payment of debt. ironically...........its article 8 in the wisconsin constitution as well! quote: Articles of Confederation Article VIII. All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the united States in congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated <--PROPERTY TAXES!!!!! according to such mode as the united States in congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint. The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the united States in congress assembled. [8\|] quote: STATE OF WISCONSIN CONSTITUTION ARTICLE VIII. FINANCE Rule of taxation uniform; income, privilege and occupation taxes. SECTION 1. [As amended Nov. 1908, April 1927, April 1941, April 1961 and April 1974] The rule of taxation shall be uniform but the legislature may empower cities, villages or towns to collect and return taxes on real estate located therein by optional methods. Taxes shall be levied upon such property with such classifications as to forests and minerals including or separate or severed from the land, as the legislature shall prescribe. (now I dont see the word "People" in there anywhere nor have I seen any referendums on taxation! Its on autopilot!) Taxation of agricultural land and undeveloped land, both as defined by law, need not be uniform with the taxation of each other nor with the taxation of other real property. Taxation of merchants’ stock−in−trade, manufacturers’ materials and finished products, and livestock need not be uniform with the taxation of real property and other personal property, but the taxation of all such merchants’ stock−in−trade, manufacturers’ materials and finished products and livestock shall be uniform, except that the legislature may provide that the value thereof shall be determined on an average basis. Taxes may also be imposed on incomes, privileges and occupations, which taxes may be graduated and progressive, and reasonable exemptions may be provided. [1905 J.R. 12, 1907 J.R. 29, 1907 c. 661, vote Nov. 1908; 1925 J.R. 62, 1927 J.R. 13, vote April 1927; 1939 J.R. 88, 1941 J.R. 18, vote April 1941; 1959 J.R. 78, 1961 J.R. 13, vote April 1961; 1971 J.R. 39, 1973 J.R. 29, vote April 1974] imagine that! Wisconsin wasnt real creative. LOL seems we have a debt to pay that cant be paid and have no say so in the process! Now I know that voters are really stoopid but who would vote themselves to pay all those taxes and remove the power from the people and put is squarely in the hands of the constitutors, errm I mean legislators? Bring back the original 13th, no fucking attorneys in government! tweet! tweety tweet tweet! recall em all!

TheHeretic -> RE: Something different (4/10/2011 9:07:06 AM)
Well that's just fascinating, Real. It's always nice to hear from the keepers of obscure knowledge. Got it. The lottery would be rigged anyway.

rulemylife -> RE: Something different (4/10/2011 9:16:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic What if we took a whole different approach to filling the Senate? A lottery. We set some basic standards to be eligible to have names go into the hat, such as, minimum residency in the state, a minimum IQ (120 and above?), and no felony convictions. At the end of the term, the people of the state can vote to recertify, or draw again. What do you think? Who would determine the participants in the lottery, or would it be open to anyone?

TheHeretic -> RE: Something different (4/10/2011 9:31:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Who would determine the participants in the lottery, or would it be open to anyone? The more open, the better, to my way of thinking, within the restrictions ultimately determined. I'd think the Secretary of State for the various states would be tasked with administering the registration and drawing, but there might be a better way, somewhere. Got a suggestion?

rulemylife -> RE: Something different (4/10/2011 9:57:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Who would determine the participants in the lottery, or would it be open to anyone? The more open, the better, to my way of thinking, within the restrictions ultimately determined. I'd think the Secretary of State for the various states would be tasked with administering the registration and drawing, but there might be a better way, somewhere. Got a suggestion? Just an observation. I think it would make it far too random and we would end up with a greater percentage of idiots in Congress than we have now.

Real0ne -> RE: Something different (4/10/2011 9:58:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Well that's just fascinating, Real. It's always nice to hear from the keepers of obscure knowledge. Got it. The lottery would be rigged anyway. well yeh it would be rigged actually. Another Example of the 1 Minute E Voting Machine Hack Princeton University Warning on E-Voting Machine Hack Shows Human Touch Can Be a Good Thing Who's Counting: Hacking Diebold Voting Machines "It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." (Josef Stalin) Do you honestly believe there would ever be an electronic voting system that would not have a back door? LOL I have some ally gator land for ya if you do! Even has a bridge that I will toss in for free! also its only obscure to those who have never read or understood the constitution. its all there just people dont read it. Labeling it "obscure" especially in a constitution thread is just an erroneous discount.

kdsub -> RE: Something different (4/10/2011 10:00:15 AM)
Wouldn’t it be a lot better to limit political contributions to individuals with a $2,000 limit. Then make lobbying a twenty year in the slammer offense. Then our elected officials would beholden to one group only… the electorate. We need people to represent different views and a lottery system would make that impossible. Butch

DarkSteven -> RE: Something different (4/10/2011 11:14:52 AM)
Rich, you are basically proposing an election with a random selection. The huge minus is that the people's control over their representatives would be lost. The huge plus is that the politicians would not need massive war chests, with the associated fundraising and obligations to the donors' blocs. I'm gonna have to think about this one. But I'd add to the requirements the ability to pass a top secret security clearance. Get rid of the drunks and adulterers.

slvemike4u -> RE: Something different (4/10/2011 11:33:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Just a strange idea to play with on a Sunday morning. When the US Constitutional system was first set up, our bicameral legislature had one body elected by the people on a two-year cycle, and a smaller body, appointed by the states, on a staggered six year cyce. The smaller body was supposed to be the the more deliberative, with much greater consistency in the membership. Well, the appointments from the states became a subject of much cronyism and corruption, so the people took over that election as well. So now we get a room full of bandwagon yahoos at both ends of the building. What if we took a whole different approach to filling the Senate? A lottery. We set some basic standards to be eligible to have names go into the hat, such as, minimum residency in the state, a minimum IQ (120 and above?), and no felony convictions. At the end of the term, the people of the state can vote to recertify, or draw again. What do you think? I read somewhere,or heard,that something akin to 90% of those that actually win lotteries....are made instant millionaires by the luck of the draw.....declare bankruptcy within 5 years ! With that in mind Rich......I must say I take a rather dim view of your lottery scheme. Even with a pool restricted to those with rather healthy IQ scores.....far too much is unknown,far too much left to chance. Though we seem as a people to do a piss poor job on the character issue,surely leaving this to fickle lady luck would be a step backwards.

Louve00 -> RE: Something different (4/10/2011 11:38:13 AM)
You can please all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time. Abraham Lincoln said this (if you substitute the word "please" with the word "fool". I think someone's always going to be around to bitch about this, that or anything else they may not like. In fact, I think like minded people are always going to congregate and form their own conclusions and try to dominate the scenario. I also think some people are easily led or swayed by others...ie...don't think for themselves, but just go along with the loudest crowd. That is just the nature of people. I think there is always going to be a crowd content with the status quo, and there are always going to be rebels, who look to change things (hopefully) for the better. While I too, would like to see political parties become obsolete and our voting would be more geared toward the causes we believe in. Those causes are still going to reflect an opposition to change and a pro-stance toward change. And mix in with those two tangents, the paranoid conspiracists...and we'll eventually (or always?) be right back where we started from. We're all too spoiled to give a little for the sake of a cause, unless its a cause we like. Doing away with political parties, with no consideration of a cause, and leaving it solely to chance by way of a lottery would still make some unhappy, some happy, and some ready to create chaos because they didn't get their way.

Real0ne -> RE: Something different (4/10/2011 11:53:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Rich, you are basically proposing an election with a random selection. The huge minus is that the people's control over their representatives would be lost. The huge plus is that the politicians would not need massive war chests, with the associated fundraising and obligations to the donors' blocs. I'm gonna have to think about this one. But I'd add to the requirements the ability to pass a top secret security clearance. Get rid of the drunks and adulterers. and what "control" do you have over them now? ohaha care bailout borders patriot act and the beat goes on! makes no difference which isle is in.

mnottertail -> RE: Something different (4/11/2011 6:46:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne [image]local://upfiles/59055/8C4A60AE23E64CEA8DC10414B73E8D65.jpg[/image] reed is not equal to read red is not equal to read A con-STIT-U-tor stands (makes good pledges) of a constituency. Thats what you got there. A con-STIT-U-tor is nothing to do with a con-STIT-OO-shun.

slvemike4u -> RE: Something different (4/11/2011 6:55:49 AM)
Wasn't a bad idea for a thread Rich...but in execution....well RealOne showed up and that was that [:D]

mnottertail -> RE: Something different (4/11/2011 6:59:40 AM)
Regarding the OP, Rich---- Sort of like it with provisos, I would like to make it more draft like, like a military service, where in you get three hots and a flop, a living wage, nothing extreme, but dependent expenses and so on.....and you re-up (with the vote) and when you are done you are done. Great idea in the main.

Termyn8or -> RE: Something different (4/11/2011 7:03:02 AM)
"and no felony convictions." Why ? That constitutes a bill of attainder which is unlawful here. Not the this law is followed, but it is still the law. Want details ? T^T

mnottertail -> RE: Something different (4/11/2011 7:05:53 AM)
Yes I want details, because it is hardly a bill of attainder to have someone who stands convicted of a felony under the law exempted. We do that in many areas already.

Termyn8or -> RE: Something different (4/11/2011 7:07:48 AM)
"Now you can look at the articles of confederation to verify that little nugget" You mean the creation of the oppositon, which was the south ? Or to you mean the original articles of confederation, which eventually became the founding documents of our country ? T^T

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875