That includes most of the human race.If I were to make a political party, I would enforce the death sentence for anyone who didn't think for him or herself. Unfortunately, most of the party members would have to be executed, making this the most self-destructive party ever.
A few more modifications:
- Begin the long process of switching gasoline powered cars to more environmentally friendly ones, and replace the old factories in Detroit with new ones that create these types instead, so that jobs won't be lost.
- Being to phase out IQ tests, as they are really not a fair assessment of ones intelligence.
- Begin to use the ACT over the SAT when applying for colleges.
- Though this one is probably VERY hard to do, find an alternative to the Electoral College: This would actually force nominees to campaign in more states, ones that until now have been rendered insignificant because of their few Electoral votes and might lead to more voter turn out. Also, would avoid a future conflicts a la` Bush-Gore 2000.
Take care all.
Taken from a paper I wrote last year:Originally Posted by The Captain
In general, three different ideas have been the most supported thus far: a direct election, a district method (currently used by Maine and Nebraska), or a proportional method.
The direct election is the most unlikely of the three to be realized, because it requires a constitutional amendment to repeal the Electoral College. Small states, too, would lose a considerable amount of voting power and would probably be reluctant to have that taken from them. Proponents, however, hail the direct vote as the closest system to the old adage, “one man, one vote.” The problem that detractors have with this is the remarkable similarities between the Electoral College and the U.S. Senate. If the Electoral College were to be removed, the Senate would theoretically follow because of the problem of over-representation that exists in that institution. Naturally, no one would ever think of dismantling Congress, and supporters of the College suggest that this system works the same way. With checks and balances, the legislature and the executive should be no different from each other.
The district method refers to the allocation of electors’ votes by congressional districts. The remaining two electors (parallel to the two state senators) would vote according to the majority vote statewide. Put simply, one candidate could win 21 California congressional districts and earn 21 electoral votes, while another candidate could win the remaining 31 districts and earn 31 electoral votes. After that is settled, the majority vote (we’ll say 60% for the first candidate and 40% for the second) would determine the final two electoral votes (in this case, the first candidate with 60%). Maine and Nebraska, as mentioned before, already use this method, and there is legislation pending in 22 other states.
Proportional voting calls for reform to distribute elector votes to reflect the voting percentages in the state. From the above example, the candidate with 60% of the vote would theoretically win 32 votes, while the candidate with 40% would earn the other 22 votes. This method has admitted not be researched enough but, like district voting, would only require legislation in the separate states to take effect. Each method would be legal, provided the supporters take the right steps to implement them, because the Supreme Court decisions McPherson v. Blacker (1892) and Ray v. Blair (1952) provided states with the leverage to choose their electors as they see fit and require those electors to vote according to their pledges.
Reformers, larger in number, have been able to capture the American public’s attention. Politicians and citizen groups dismayed over the results of the 2000 election comprise of the vast majority of these reformers, including John Anderson (an Independent presidential candidate in 1980) and powerful groups like the League of Women Voters. The few College supporters, however, are dismayed at the thought of reform because of the importance of the College to the national government’s federal system. By replacing the current system with a direct election, it would betray the original purpose laid out by Hamilton back in the late 1700s: to represent every individual state’s choice. As mentioned before, the College wasn’t designed to reflect the nation as a whole, but was rather invented to protect each state’s interest by using Congress (through electors) as a measure of letting the people vote for an executive leader. The fervor behind reform, however, seems to conveniently ignore history in favor of the “here and now.”
" As mentioned before, the College wasn’t designed to reflect the nation as a whole, but was rather invented to protect each state’s interest by using Congress (through electors) as a measure of letting the people vote for an executive leader. The fervor behind reform, however, seems to conveniently ignore history in favor of the “here and now.” "
It's very ironic how little faith the founding fathers really had with regards to the common citizen.
Take care all.
I'm sorry, I've just read this. I should have replied earlier.
No offense to people attending religious schools or working there. It's just that over here, there were many problems with a particular muslim school recently, where they were teaching things that disagreed with local law, claiming it was part of the religion. If people from all religions would attend the same schools, that couldn't happen.
But perhaps banning them would be wrong. I should change that policy. As long as they're not teaching violence or hate (which that muslim school was), they're all right, especially since the public school system isn't all that great.
To do is to be. (Sokrates)
To be is to do. (Sartre)
Do be do be do. (Sinatra)
My thoughts exactly. It'd be foolish to punish all private schools for the actions of one.But perhaps banning them would be wrong. I should change that policy. As long as they're not teaching violence or hate (which that muslim school was), they're all right, especially since the public school system isn't all that great.
I would hope it goes without saying that any institution that breeds violence and hatred should be banned from society, yet, we let them fall through the cracks more often than not, if we as a society can turn these terrible feelings toward a common target. It happened with Slavery, with women for a time, and now, with anyone of Middle-Eastern background or affiliation. The reverse is also true, now probably more than ever, with some blacks using reverse-racism on whites, and certain Arabs plotting the deaths of "infidels". Will this cycle ever end? Why are the young always left to deal with the problems of those who come before? Does no one in power right now have any idea what this hatred and separation will do to the future?
We, as the future, must take a stand against the hatred, against the oppression, and show that as a people, not under a flag, or a religion, but as a world, can co-exist and make our lives happy and not full of fear and blind prejudice. Together, I do believe we can accomplish this.
Take care all.
Wow, it's amazing how much stuff people would ban if they had a chance. Some of them are good ideas but infringe on other people's civil liberties (capping salaries, banning smoking nationwide, aptitude test to be able to vote). I don't know whether to find this gleeful banning philosophy interesting or scary.
[qq=Anaralia]Wow, it's amazing how much stuff people would ban if they had a chance. Some of them are good ideas but infringe on other people's civil liberties (capping salaries, banning smoking nationwide, aptitude test to be able to vote). I don't know whether to find this gleeful banning philosophy interesting or scary.[/qq]
To explain my opinion on smoking:
Smoking kills people. No question about it. Smoking AROUND other people kills them. I don't want to be murdered by something that I don't have a choice on. Thus, less people will die if smoking is banned nationwide. Of course, I only said in public places, because on private property...you can do what you want. Kill yourself for all I care.
As distasteful as I find smoking, and as much as I hate smoking and the scent of smokers, they do have the right to smoke in a public place, as it is open to everyone and they have the right to smoke there. Private places can and do ban smoking in some or all areas, I just wish there were more places that did do this.Smoking kills people. No question about it. Smoking AROUND other people kills them. I don't want to be murdered by something that I don't have a choice on. Thus, less people will die if smoking is banned nationwide. Of course, I only said in public places, because on private property...you can do what you want. Kill yourself for all I care.
I agree 100% that smoking should be banned for the reasons stated by KB. Is smoking REALLY a right? Where in the Constitution is the right to smoke?
The reason smoking is legal is because the government can impose a large tax upon it and profit. Banning smoking would hurt the government more than people's rights, frankly, and that's why it's still legal.
As for the salary cap. I believe the NFL, NBA, and NHL have caps, and I haven't heard any sort of legel problem with that either. The MLB needs to curb the over-spending in my opinion, and need to impose a cap.
Finally, with the IQ tests for voting, I'm still on the fence there. I see why it would be a good idea, but that, IS indeed crossing the line with regards to civil liberties. Perhaps, if a law was passed that made it clear what exactly voting privileges are, then people wouldn't take it for granted, and they'd actually vote.
Take care all.
As distasteful as I find smoking, and as much as I hate smoking and the scent of smokers, they do have the right to smoke in a public place, as it is open to everyone and they have the right to smoke there. ~ Behold The Void
So I have the right to assault people in public places? Or maybe to kill people in public places? Because, you know, it's in public so I have the right.
Or maybe not.
[Qq=Behold the Void]As distasteful as I find smoking, and as much as I hate smoking and the scent of smokers, they do have the right to smoke in a public place, as it is open to everyone and they have the right to smoke there. Private places can and do ban smoking in some or all areas, I just wish there were more places that did do this.[/Qq]
People also have an unalienable right to breathe. If I wish to breath clean air, then I should have that right above a person who wishes to breathe air full of poison. One could even argue that smoking in a public place is terrorism. You're releasing a poison in a public place which kills people. Whether or not it's intentional is another story.
My point wasn't against any of those ideas specifically, I only wanted to point out the trend of wanting to create laws much, much more restricting than those we already have, and gave three examples off the top of my head, because I'm too lazy to go back and read the thread again.
And now, I'll shut up until I think of some ideas of my own for a political party.
Indeed, it does seem that the vast majority of people here seem to think that stricter laws are needed to improve society, yet while at the same time, attempting to create more freedom. Seems almost a Catch-22.
Take care all.
Posting Permissions
