142

I grew up in Pittsburgh.

Hamilton was the devil there…memories of the Whiskey Rebellion ran long and deep.

1 Like
143

My idea of term limits (like a normal term limit, mine would also require a constitutional amendment):

Extreme campaign finance/election reform.

  1. Only actual living US Citizens can donate to a candidates campaign. Limited to the FDIC insurance amount per election cycle (that’s 250k if I remember right).
  2. PAC, Political paries, businesses, or any other entity may not mention any candidate or politician in any form of advertising. They may do issue orriented advertising only.
  3. Donations to political candidates can ONLY come from those that can vote for the candidate. AKA house members can accept donations from only those registered to vote in their distaric. Senate memeber can accept donations only from those registered to vote in the state. This part of the amendment would apply to any local, state, or federal election where the politician has voters in a boundry.
  4. No straight part option on any ballot.
  5. No party affiliation listed next to any candidate on a federal ballot

Then and only then will you find out if a politician is representing the people who can vote for them.

144

Yes, the Constitution was about compromise…that’s why they needed the BoR’s. :wink:

145

I think a good part of what went wrong in the French Revolution was forcing power away from the church.

The Church never had as much of a grasp of power here than it did in France

146

Very good.

I agree with everything you said except your 5th point. Indicating a candidate’s party affiliation provides voters with more information. If a voter generally prefers Republican positions then they should know who is most likely to support those positions. And, of course, that works both ways.

147

I disagree. way you describe it gives the voter the “eh, they might match my political leanings, so I’ll vote for them.”

1 Like
148

Yes, that’s exactly what I mean.

Not every voter is as informed about the issues as you or I but that doesn’t mean they should not be able to vote. And giving them more information is a good thing.

149

You don’t need to know much. Jo bob is the dem candidate. Well I’ll vote dem. You should at LEAST know that much about a candidate.

150

Then why not indicate their party affiliation?

151

As I said, the VOTER should be able to know that much on their own at the bare minimum.

If the voter is looking at a list of 3 names, they SHOULD be able to know what one might be thinking like them (aka same party)

152

I don’t disagree. Then what’s the point of hiding their party?

153

If the voter is looking at a list of three names. And they don’t even know who is the same party as them, and they don’t want to take a crap shoot in picking the correct one, then they should leave that part blank on the ballot.

1 Like
154

IMO they shouldn’t be voting at all.

1 Like
155

I will concede your 5th point if it means we get the first 4. :+1:

156

You don’t get to determine other people’s voting criteria.

157

Opinions vary.

158

At least I have one…

159

That makes you unique among men, for sure.

160

Or maybe I’m not afraid to express them…unlike some.

161

Completely uninformed voters don’t add anything. They may have the right to vote but we would all be better off if they stayed home.

1 Like