That’s not workable.
First, minds can easily change in the closing weeks of a campaign and the military mail service can often take six weeks or more to get a letter from a forward base back to the US.
You would be disenfranchising Americans working all over the world or stationed overseas while on active duty.
When you replace a multi-term liberal legislator with a new liberal legislator, the results are pretty much the same. 
Get rid of anchor babies
Change the definition of “instant” to mean to immediately after all votes are counted.
Don’t worry, by the time this new system is established we’ll have figured out how to have electronic hack-proof voting.
Not even possible. Anything that can access a network or that can be accessed can be hacked.
I think its going to happen eventually.
Based on nothing at all factual.
What? No it doesn’t. It isn’t a charge against our rights.
Off the top my head I will get rid of all term limits, make all debates federally run, remove all campaign contributions and PACs (We only get a certain limit of dollar amount to run on for each party equally)
The name sounds too close to being something out of a military dictatorship and undermines the principle of civilian control of the military.
Fifty-five percent is an inappropriate number. It should rather be of the form (n+1)÷(2×n+1) where n∈ℤ+.
Surely there should be some things that the president should be able to do without interference.
Too close to inprisonment.
This I can agree with.
It’s terribly hard on all of them.
I can’t. The legislative branch doesn’t want the little accountability they have now.
Facts? It’s the ■■■■■■■ future! Your guesses are as good as mine. I’m not going to let your myopia rain on my parade.
You really think that in 50-100 years from now assuming humans are still around and society is thriving that we’ll still be voting with paper ballots?
That’s kind of how it is. In the sense of instant runoff the idea is that the runoff happens instantly vs making everyone vote again. Even in our current system we announce the winner before all votes are counted unless its too close to call.
We can start by repairing the damage we did with the 17th amendment. We must return the voice of the states back to the federal government to prevent further usurpation of states authorities in favor of “extra-constitutional” (really UNConstitutional) authorities assumed by the federal government in opposition to the 9th and 10th amendments.
I propose an amendment which will add a 3rd US Senator appointed by the legislatures of the states. We will never be able to repeal the 17th, but perhaps this will be enough to return some of the states voices back into the federal system.
I propose a 2nd amendment which would double the number of representatives. The number of people each representative “represents” has increased exponentially to the point where representatives no longer represent people in their districts so much as “interests” in their districts. This will also have the effect of lessening partisan gerrymandering as the smaller you slice the pie the harder it will be to carve.
The world is smaller and much faster moving than when we were founded, and a change needs to be made to the CinC authority also. One that gives the President the authority to use force to “…repel invasion and prevent attacks on the US, it’s territories and it’s people.”
We also need to add at the end of the 10th ."…and shall not be usurped by the federal government except by amendment and agreement of the states".
Lastly, we need to knee cap the courts. We need an amendment that declares the acts of congress to be non-severable and unable to be remedied by any order of the court. If any part of a law is unconstitutional, then the entire law is unconstitutional. Remedy for such must initiate in the congress in the normal manner of passing laws.
When you replace a multi-term legislator with a new legislator, you get a legislator who has less experience with the legislative system than the multi-multi-term lobbyists.
In CA, the teacher’s unions and the prison guard’s union’s influence has increased since term limits.
I worry that that restricting a challenger’s ability to electioneer would increase the incumbent advantage. The challenger would have 3 months to connect with the voters, the incumbent would have their whole term to connect with the voters.
Hear him! Hear him!
