Should the Citizens Party support a National Popular Vote Plan?
Is it time to abolish the electoral college?
7 states have voted to enact the National Popular Vote Plan and it is making progress in other states. Should the Citizens Party support such a plan? Please discuss the pros and cons of switching to a system that would elect our President by popular vote.
That is an interesting idea, Ernest G. Sych. I would support such a ballot option, I think. "None of the above" is a definite signal of indication of the Majority Will Of The American People. A indication that also says We are still in this.
To enable more candidates to run for office, like Hunter advocates, is an important idea too.
there are, of course, numerous things which would, in my opinion, make voting much more fair. the unfortunate thing in this discussion is the fact that making such changes will involve changes in the constitution - and those changes would be opposed by congress. there is, of course, a legal way around that, but it will not be easy and will require huge efforts of the citizens to force the changes. but, it can be done. the entire problem with that course of action is if you're going to choose that route, you will most likely have only one shot at it, so you better make it your best shot. better to make all the changes in one attempt, because you may not get another one.
Maybe determine which of the changes would enable other changes to follow?
Maybe a Constitutional change that makes it unlawful to inhibit or block any changes brought forth by The Active Majority Will Of The American People?
This would lawfully establish a permanent gate, for "Good" Change in Our Social Contract.
As far as I know, in the present efforts for Article V and Constitutional Convention action, no proposals for the Right For Change has been made.
I would support this good idea, as a step in the right direction.
well, most of the petitions for an Article V convention include a statement of "and other things which may come under consideration". that kinda opens the door to changing almost anything - which is why congress will fight tooth and nail to prevent such a convention from starting.
The only email traffic i am getting, regarding "Article V" is from the following:
I will go back and try to find the reference for change that you have indicated. Though this site has a definite restrictive "right wing flavor" to it...tends to blame the Federal Government for all Our Problems and mentions nothing about corporate influences in Our Problems.
Would you please provide links to the sites that have made this sub-proposal?
that's a tricky subject - not for me, but for even constitutional scholars. there has never been an Article V convention, and the constitution is not definite about what can be discussed or even passed. based on this, the two trains of thought emerge. for reference I refer you to the following link.
there are some who feel the tally should be by subject matter, and some who say there is no constitutional requirement to do so. it's uncharted territory. I would suggest you read the link and others (Wikipedia has a good one) and see what you think. my personal opinion, based on the lack of details in the constitution, is there are no limits, once convened, that such a convention is required to "stay on a particular subject" and that other subject matter is up for discussion. but neither my view or the opposing view is specified in the constitution.
Thanks for the link, Ernest G. Sych. I'll check it out.