What would you change II

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Wherein the author resumes his discussion about more amendments to the Constitution.

http://porkbrainsandmilkgravy.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-would-you-change.html

Item 1

You can't vote for president. No. You can't. You vote instead to tell someone else who you want for president. It's called the Electoral College.

In some states, the Electoral College voters are not required to vote the way the people want. It's true. In some states, the law requires them to vote as the people want.

Some state could literally vote 100 percent for candidate and the electoral college voters could vote for another candidate and that be legal

Lotsa people would like to do away with the electoral college and turn to a popular election.

If that happens, the presidential campaign would be even MORE centralized. The prez candidates would not bother to visit the very smallest states and spend time in the big states.

A better way is to modify the Electoral College. Give each state an EC vote that comes from a Congressional District. We'd see far more of the candidates then.

Lots of people are upset that corporations got some of the same privileges as humans in the Citizens United case. An amendment to limit campaign contributions from corporations, to my thinking, also has to be tied to the third proposal to wit: deny corporations the rights of citizens.

Define corporation. G'head. When you get done defining it, I'll poke so many holes in your definition it would make Swiss cheese boggle.

If you object to the massive amount of money being spent on political campaigns, then vote for someone who doesn't have such support. Do your own research on candidates rather that relying on TV spots and internet rumors.

Citizens United tries to do that very thing.

Don't ask government to think for you, which is what you do when you want to restrict corporations in the manner above.

The last one, prohibit members of Congress from lobbying once they leave office, I rather like, but once again people are asking government to think for them.

Define lobbyist. When you get done, I'll take my drill and fill your argument full of holes.

In looking at most of the amendments in the NPR story, I see most of 'em as an attempt to take back government, a concept I heartily approve of. At the same time, these amendments require an educated voter. Again, I heartily approve.


I just don't believe people will bother to learn what they need to know.