This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Poll on "revolutionary" ideas

#1StriderIIIPosted 7/13/2011 3:26:09 PM
There are several "big" ideas that I have seen proposed on various political blogs, and most of them attempt to be non-partisan. Well, I wanted to do a poll of 261 to see what sort of people support these ideas. Please respond saying which issues you support, then how you describe your own political standings. Thank you!

#1 - Increasing the size of the US House:
Different proposals state that we should increase the size by various amounts, to 650, 1500, or even 6500!
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
"The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights intended that the total population of Congressional districts never exceed 50 to 60 thousand. Currently, the average population size of the districts is nearly 700,000 and, consequently, the principle of proportionally equitable representation has been abandoned. "

#2 - Repealing the 17th amendment: This is the amendment that made appointment of senators be by direct vote of the people rather than by the state's legislature as described in the constitution.
http://www.restorefederalism.org/2009/03/repeal-17th.html
"The framers originally sought to prevent the overreach of government by creating an elegant framework to distribute power as widely as possible through a structured competition of natural self-interests. It is for this reason that the framers preserved the integrity of the states, these independent but united “laboratories of democracy”, and it is this federal system that the 17th Amendment (which provides for the direct, popular election of U.S. Senators) destroyed. "

#3 - Fair Tax: This proposes we eliminate all current taxes and replace them with essentially a sales tax. There would be a monthly prebate check given to all citizens that would cover the cost of sales tax for somebody living at poverty level.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
"The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment. "

#4 - Instant Runoff Voting (IRV): This allows people to put multiple choices on their voting card. If no candidates win 50% of the popular vote, then people's second picks can have a factor.
http://www.fairvote.org/instant-runoff-voting/
"Three is a crowd in a plurality voting system. It allows someone to win even when the last choice of a majority of voters. By discouraging new candidates, plurality voting suppress new ideas and dissenting opinion. It encourage campaigns built around negative attacks.
In contrast, instant runoff voting (IRV) upholds the goals of majority rule and voter choice. IRV alleviate concerns about the dreaded “spoiler effect” and encourages winning candidates to reach out to more people. Unlike traditional runoff elections, it accomplishes these goals in a single election."
#2joeo124Posted 7/13/2011 4:29:02 PM(edited)
I'm liberal and support 1 and 4. I am strongly against 2 and 3.

Edit- changed second 4 to 3. Typo
---
"Or you can be like Iceland and be a bunch of democratic elves living under mushrooms"- my IR Professor
#3wedgeskywalker9Posted 7/13/2011 4:15:37 PM
I'm in support of number 2. The way I see it, the house is supposed to represent the mood of the country at any given moment, hence the short terms and the large number of people so as to represent as many as possible. The Senate should be the more sane house, in which appointments are decided based more on merit than on who runs the best campaign and shouldn't be subject to the mood swings of the country.
---
Official Iron Man of C&GN
"I use hand grenades for the Piccaso look." - Kroguys on home decoration in Fallout 3
#4WolfpackXPosted 7/13/2011 4:23:11 PM(edited)
Eliminate 1, 2, and 4.

Replace them with a single option to change both houses of Congress to a national system of Proportional Representation.

I don't know enough about 3 to comment.
---
But officer, she walked into the knife... twenty seven times.
WoT Politics: Board 408, arguing since 2001.
#5Genesis DragonPosted 7/13/2011 4:24:34 PM

From: wedgeskywalker9 | #003
I'm in support of number 2. The way I see it, the house is supposed to represent the mood of the country at any given moment, hence the short terms and the large number of people so as to represent as many as possible. The Senate should be the more sane house, in which appointments are decided based more on merit than on who runs the best campaign and shouldn't be subject to the mood swings of the country.



Can't happen as long as state governments are elected by the people. It's basically the same thing, only with more cronyism in addition to the insanity.
---
Using my brain of course
http://fulltimeink.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/kyra_using_brain.jpg
#6sfcalimariPosted 7/13/2011 4:38:06 PM
2 and 3 are neocon wet dreams.
---
http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/7074/stewbeef.png
#7mizukage2Posted 7/13/2011 4:43:47 PM(edited)
#1 - Increasing the size of the US House:
Different proposals state that we should increase the size by various amounts, to 650, 1500, or even 6500!
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
"The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights intended that the total population of Congressional districts never exceed 50 to 60 thousand. Currently, the average population size of the districts is nearly 700,000 and, consequently, the principle of proportionally equitable representation has been abandoned. "


Apathetic, mostly. Though increasing the house by enough to match that would be patently insane. It already has a few hundred members last I checked. We would have to multiply membership by nearly 14 to match the founders.

#2 - Repealing the 17th amendment: This is the amendment that made appointment of senators be by direct vote of the people rather than by the state's legislature as described in the constitution.
http://www.restorefederalism.org/2009/03/repeal-17th.html
"The framers originally sought to prevent the overreach of government by creating an elegant framework to distribute power as widely as possible through a structured competition of natural self-interests. It is for this reason that the framers preserved the integrity of the states, these independent but united “laboratories of democracy”, and it is this federal system that the 17th Amendment (which provides for the direct, popular election of U.S. Senators) destroyed. "


Hell no, I like my direct vote thank you very much. I don't want politicians electing each other, we have enough 'you scratch my back I scratch yours' garbage as it is. And in fact, the set said system up to make damn sure no uppity 'peasant' could get into office because they would have to convince the gentleman's club they were a cool dude instead of someone that actually gave a damn about those unofficial serfs.


#3 - Fair Tax: This proposes we eliminate all current taxes and replace them with essentially a sales tax. There would be a monthly prebate check given to all citizens that would cover the cost of sales tax for somebody living at poverty level.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
"The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment. "


This would just encourage the rich to keep on hoarding their money and spending it over seas since that would mean they had to pay no taxes. Find a way to pull off the legal, diplomatic, and logistics nightmare of setting up some sort of tariff like tax for foreign purchases and we will talk.

#4 - Instant Runoff Voting (IRV): This allows people to put multiple choices on their voting card. If no candidates win 50% of the popular vote, then people's second picks can have a factor.
http://www.fairvote.org/instant-runoff-voting/
"Three is a crowd in a plurality voting system. It allows someone to win even when the last choice of a majority of voters. By discouraging new candidates, plurality voting suppress new ideas and dissenting opinion. It encourage campaigns built around negative attacks.
In contrast, instant runoff voting (IRV) upholds the goals of majority rule and voter choice. IRV alleviate concerns about the dreaded “spoiler effect” and encourages winning candidates to reach out to more people. Unlike traditional runoff elections, it accomplishes these goals in a single election."


Sounds good to me
---
http://gerardwhyte.net/images/misc/reaganomics.jpg
#8StartrekkyPosted 7/13/2011 4:41:19 PM
I'm a liberal and I support 1 and 4. 2 and 3 seem awful.
---
With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably. --Picard
#9blacktrancePosted 7/13/2011 5:02:02 PM
I'm a (classical) liberal and I oppose 1 and 2 and support 3 (with some reservations) and 4.
---
"With enough brutal force the thieving rabble can be kept in line." - Rebelscum
#10SirThinkALotPosted 7/13/2011 5:46:02 PM
I'd support all 4. Although #3 with somewhat less enthuasium.
---
Read my blog: http://sirthinkalotsthoughts.blogspot.com/
PSN name: SirThinkALot