From a legal perspective,what would stop a United States voter from offering conditional choices...

From a legal perspective,what would stop a United States voter from offering conditional choices? You give your primary a conditional acceptance with a reduced term. Then you allow them a one year sentence and re-evaluate your decision based on their performance.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_PAC
twitter.com/AnonBabble

the option to shift faster and re-evaluate strategy on a national perspective

when the constitution was signed, we didnt have mass communication and expression of interest in a collectable form. but we do now. so why cant this change?

perhaps the whole concept of an election needs to change. when we can expose the flaws given the time and effort of our collective mass, what would stop us from re writing the rules?

It's not so much that anything is stopping it, more that there aren't any existing provisions. The constitution would permit the addition of amendments to modify the parameters of a presidential election, it's just that any such amendment would need to be accepted on a large enough scale to gain enough traction to be instituted.

shorter term, with the collective ability to cut the damages if they become excessive.

It isn't a legal mechanism we have.

In order for there to be a mechanism like that, what you need is a procedure for failure to comply. That is what a law ACTUALLY is. A law is not "you can't do that". A law is "if you do this, you will suffer this consequence".

We would need to pass a law which created this mechanism. And it is possible that it wont be legal to make this law - i am not sure if it would be constitutional.

well there are a few shitty choices lined up for this years shit show. how do we limit damages, because that is the fastest way to correcting our path

how do we introduce a failure to comply metric?

Well, one way to do it is just by voting. I believe england has a similar system. It's possible to unelect their prime minister just by having a vote of "no confidence".

However, that does create the opportunity that people's ignorance can unelect a person who objectively did their job correctly and well.

American McGee's Alice was such a good game.

i agree, an uninformed vote is just as dangerous as a non vote. but in all cases we need a way to benchmark success of initiatives. then allow public information to decide if it is of acceptible value, and a means to redact and change terms.

Tf is going on in here

totally a great game...

Well we don't really haaaaave a method of judging success objectively in our political system in general. But, you could add as a stipulation to whatever goal you're asking for some statistical metric, unique to the goal when you're creating the conditional, that a person would be judged by.

I'll level with ya, im a neighbour from the north, but the outcome is concerning. I voted for trudeau, but I also want a way to shut that light off it becomes a problem.

Huh?

so its a question i will also seak answer for here. But I am interested in what that change requires, what it would look like, and what is the possible outcome.

Like the conditional could be "increase GDP by 5%" or "reduce income inequality by 10%". The stipulation would need to be intelligently created. You can't ask for too much - but how much is too much for many goals is greatly a matter of opinion. Like bernie sanders wanted to give us single payer or a public option, but many many in the establishment were of the opinion that it couldn't be done. And it's not a simple question as to who is right. True, all the other modern nations have single payer and it works. But our legal system may be such a cacophonous clusterfuck of corruption and bureaucracy that it may not be possible to untie that web in a short period of time.

understood. but its a rock and a hard place coming. so what do we need to do to put a conditional acceptance in place

It'sssss nooot good.

Laws like this are usually made by congress. And they don't just formulate or pass a law because you came up with a good idea. What issues they confront are most of the time whatever is the political annoyance or cultural problem of the time. To get them to consider doing something like this, it would have to become a giant cultural question that all the media is talking about, and the prominent political elites are talking about. Only then, would it become something congress would actually consider.

On the other hand it is possible to pass an amendment to the constitution by going through the states. This is reeeeeeeeeeally difficult. It's explained in article V of the constitution. You can ask that a state call a limited constitutional convention for amending the constitution, and if the measure is passed in both houses of the state legislature, the state will officially call for a convention.

When you can get 2/3rds of all the states to call for a convention, they can create an amendment, and if 3/4ths of the states sign it, it becomes an amendment, bypassing the federal government, and the presidential veto.

i believe that the public should be allowed to decide the outcome of the term based on its actions conducted through the accepted terms and initial platform, and how it did based on the time offered. so perhaps that means the term shortens. and the ability to re-elect lengthens based on performance.

There are two more options. You can get a politician to make it one of their issues. Like, if you had presidential candidate bring up the issue, then you might be able to get people to talk about it and congress to vote on it.

Or, you can introduce a smaller version of the system in a state - as like an experiment. And if that method is met with great enthusiasm and multiple states adopt it, the national conversation can be directed into passing it as a federal law, applying to all politicians.

well, if you couldn't throw as elaborate of a party because a 4 year party isn't as robust or glamorous as a one year party, how would that change the candidates approach?

Unfortunately, what you really want here is something that would require radical reformation of the government.

We would just need to adopt the english style of government. Where we elect a president for as long as they have high approval rating, and they lose their position when their approval rating goes too low and a vote of no confidence is called for.

Is that a bad thing? (asking innocently)

Oh, no no. It's fine. It's a dramatic change, it would require a massive cultural movement, but there is nothing wrong with altering the government.

Something you might also want to look into is the concept of first-past-the-post voting, and it's problems. It's the way we do things, and it results in a lot of trouble.

CPG grey did a series talking about it, and some of its alternatives.

youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Im not willing to vote for a brand, nor would i accept someone who has proven trust issues, so in the end we have a choice. What we really need is a way to change directions when we feel uncomfortable.

Do you think we need a new Constitutional Convention that America's issues are that bad?

fight or flee

No, i don't. I think the main problem that is preventing our government from working well is money in politics. Our system of government isn't the best system theoretically possible, but it isn't a system which is so horribly bad that we really need to change it - or that it'd be worth the turmoil in changing it.

But because of money in politics, because candidates need to raise a ton of money to be elected, and because it is nearly impossible to prove that a politician is being bribed on a federal level, all the politicians in our federal government are forced to work only for the people who give them their large campaign donations.

There is statistical evidence, based on years of decisions by congress and the preferences of rich donors, that our government basically just does what the rich donors want and ignores what the people want.

If we established clean elections and made raising money for elections illegal, it would make our government, whatever inherent flaws it has, totally fine.

great video

The money in politics problem is so core to why we can't get what we want, that even if we established any other type of voting system, even conditional one which you are suggesting - all it would do is make their juggling act harder.

Because 95% of the time, whoever raises more money for their campaign, wins the election. They can just buy more attacks ads to destroy their opponent and people just aren't educated enough in politics to make informed decisions in spite of that - they're not bad people, they just don't have the time.

So if we made requirements for politicians to adhere to our wishes more, what they would be forced to do is somehow balance what we want, with the special interests that funded their campaign.

Politicians are already under great pressure to do good and still do enough to get their donors to keep giving them enough money to get re-elected. They're not HAPPY about this. That they HAVE to do what rich donors want in order to get the money to get re-elected just so they can have a CHANCE to do what they actually RAN for. But they absolutely must in order to be elected. They will LOSE if they stand on principle.

How about another event like 11/9 or something like that? Will it take something like that to bring major change to this country?

Well, another 9/11 would bring change, but i don't think that a terrorist attack, even a large one, would cause us to alter our government. Rather, it would just reinforce the current system.

There are people out there attempting to get a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics, and they have made some progress.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_PAC

Wasn't there a landmark SCOTUS ruling that pointedly represents this problem? What kind of group did the plaintiffs represent?

It is discussed in the article i linked. It's called Citizens United v. FEC. It essentially stated that spending money in politics is a form of freedom of speech, so one cannot regulate it, because it constitutes an infringement of the 1st amendment.

Isn't that a major hurdle towards achieving certain, specific change?

Yes it is. Which is why a constitutional amendment is required to overturn it. Only thing that can overrule a supreme court decision is an amendment. No law we make can overrule them.

Wouldn't amendments require something such as ? You can't leave that job to Congress, could you or anyone that's not on the inside of it all and benefiting from the status quo?

In article V, there is a mechanism described, where you can call a limited constitutional convention. It's not like the constitutional convention they called where they dumped the old system of government(where the federal government was incredibly weak) and reformulated it into the one we currently have. It is limited, and only applies to formulate a specifically stated amendment.

Well, I guess we might need one after all if it's such an emergency.