Crazy views.

[Doc_Brown]

End the Fed.

Craaaaaaaaazy idea!

Good idea!

Seconded!

[thegreekdog]

My crazy ideas:

(1) Supreme Court justices should only be permitted to apply the Constitution's plain language to a case, rather than deciding that the Constitution says something it does not. As an alternative to judicial amendments of the Constitution, to the extent the American public wants to change the Constitution, the various representatives should draft and submit for voter approval amendments to the Constitution (in other words, I want this thing to work the way it is supposed to work).

(2) The president should have a line item veto.

(3) All bills should be published on the internets for a reasonable time (7 days) before being voted upon by the Senate or House. This would permit the general public to voice their opinions to their representatives prior to the vote. By the way, we have a similar thing for federal regulations (a proposed regulation goes out, there is some large period of time for people to send comments, then the thing is enacted or revised accordingly).

(4) All campaign monies given to any political candidate should be published and audited by a private company.

[thegreekdog]

By the way, why is your immediate reaction to uninformed voters to have them do a quiz? Why isn't your immediate reaction "we should educate voters?" Further, I've found in my limited experience that the people that actually vote are the people that are actually informed. The people that are uninformed don't usually vote.

[Snorri1234]

Because telling people that their vote is only worth 3/5ths of a normal vote is unconstitutional, discriminatory and just flat out wrong.

I generally have a very hard time telling if you are being sarcastic or not. If not, how is it discriminatory in any way?

Because it directly discriminates against the poor and minorities. Ignoring that many people don't choose to be educated badly is ignoring reality. If we take as a given that voting is important, then what you're saying is basically that minorities and poor people aren't as important as others.

It's also unfair towards people who simply don't care about certain issues. Why should one be punished because he doesn't care whether the president wants to give animals rights? The amount of topics a president talks about is so vast that any questionaire will neccesarily be biased a certain way, not even biased against a certain party, just biased against a certain viewpoint. Thus, it would be discriminating against those people who don't neccesarily agree with you on what the important points are.

[Snorri1234]

(4) All campaign monies given to any political candidate should be published and audited by a private company.

Uh....aren't donations allready published?

[AAFitz]

I've been noticing lately that most people seem to have some crazy radical views, even if they are very conservative. After hearing some of my friends talk about some of theirs, I was wondering what other insane ideas are out there.

Here is one of mine as to how we should elect presidents within the US:
1. Get rid of the electoral college, get the vote directly from the people.
2. To vote, you have to take a 20 multiple choice question test (let's assume it is unbiased and available in all languages) about your candidates views. The percentage that you get correct is the percentage that your vote counts.

The test questions would be along the lines of "What is your view on healthcare?" and the response would be almost a quote from the candidate. Basically, if you don't know what you're voting for, your vote only gets counted based on the things that you know. This way, we'll have less idiots voting for some candidate just because he/she is part of their party.

Would we be able to write the answers to their core beliefs on our hand..... I mean... they seem to need to.

hold for link please

[jay_a2j]

My crazy idea:


A balanced budget Amendment. The Government should not be allowed to spend more than it takes in. With the ONLY exception being defense of the USA. (and by USA I mean US soil)

[jonesthecurl]

Because telling people that their vote is only worth 3/5ths of a normal vote is unconstitutional, discriminatory and just flat out wrong.

I generally have a very hard time telling if you are being sarcastic or not. If not, how is it discriminatory in any way?

Because it directly discriminates against the poor and minorities. Ignoring that many people don't choose to be educated badly is ignoring reality. If we take as a given that voting is important, then what you're saying is basically that minorities and poor people aren't as important as others.

It's also unfair towards people who simply don't care about certain issues. Why should one be punished because he doesn't care whether the president wants to give animals rights? The amount of topics a president talks about is so vast that any questionaire will neccesarily be biased a certain way, not even biased against a certain party, just biased against a certain viewpoint. Thus, it would be discriminating against those people who don't neccesarily agree with you on what the important points are.

and: if you wanted to disenfrnachise a group under such a system, there would be two easy ways: undereducate them: ask questions in your qualifying paper that will eliminate them.

(e.g. "Do you believe in "one nation under God"?") - that should throw out the atheists...

[Woodruff]

1. Get rid of the electoral college, get the vote directly from the people.

I like this idea, now that we have the technology to pull it off. However, I very much fear for the use of the same technology in elections, given how easily they can be corrupted with the corruption remaining VERY difficult to detect.

2. To vote, you have to take a 20 multiple choice question test (let's assume it is unbiased and available in all languages) about your candidates views. The percentage that you get correct is the percentage that your vote counts.

I definitely don't care for this one. Elitism sucks.

Woodruff, you give the appearance of being elitist with some of your posts.

I'm not elitist, I'm just smarter than everyone else. <big grin>

[Woodruff]

As entertaining of an idea as the 20 question test sounds, it is however quite illegal. In its core however it is a good idea. Maybe a data sheet could be provided at the poll booths that summed up a politicians views. Politics isn't my thing feel free to chew up the idea if you feel it to be necessary.

Rather than the "views", I'd rather that data sheet contain how each politician ACTUALLY VOTED on various topics. Far more revealing information there.

[AAFitz]

My crazy idea:


A balanced budget Amendment. The Government should not be allowed to spend more than it takes in. With the ONLY exception being defense of the USA. (and by USA I mean US soil)

So you dont think that if a country decided to take over the entire mideast, that it might be somehow in the US interests to actually maybe stop them... or can we only spend the money to defend Virginias beach, because that is the only thread to the US, its actual soil?

[Doc_Brown]

My crazy idea:


A balanced budget Amendment. The Government should not be allowed to spend more than it takes in. With the ONLY exception being defense of the USA. (and by USA I mean US soil)

So you dont think that if a country decided to take over the entire mideast, that it might be somehow in the US interests to actually maybe stop them... or can we only spend the money to defend Virginias beach, because that is the only thread to the US, its actual soil?

I think he's saying that we shouldn't saddle our kids and grandkids with a few extra trillion dollars in debt so that we can defend someone else's desert sand dune while simultaneously ensuring that our kids and grandkids will have a few million additional enemies for the next few decades. That's the way I read it anyway!

[SultanOfSurreal]

My crazy ideas:

(1) Supreme Court justices should only be permitted to apply the Constitution's plain language to a case, rather than deciding that the Constitution says something it does not. As an alternative to judicial amendments of the Constitution, to the extent the American public wants to change the Constitution, the various representatives should draft and submit for voter approval amendments to the Constitution (in other words, I want this thing to work the way it is supposed to work).

what the hell does that series of words you just typed there even mean? are you saying we should enshrine strict constructionism in the constitution? not even scalia is a strict constructionist, when it suits his agenda.

the constitution is a living document and it should serve the changing needs of society. society should not be bent to conform exactly to words on a 250 year old piece of parchment.

(2) The president should have a line item veto.

why not just abolish the legislature altogether

(3) All bills should be published on the internets for a reasonable time (7 days) before being voted upon by the Senate or House. This would permit the general public to voice their opinions to their representatives prior to the vote. By the way, we have a similar thing for federal regulations (a proposed regulation goes out, there is some large period of time for people to send comments, then the thing is enacted or revised accordingly).

http://thomas.loc.gov

(4) All campaign monies given to any political candidate should be published and audited by a private company.

campaign contributions are fairly well regulated as it is, but the kind of manpower needed to fully audit every political candidate in the nation is way too much. i thought you hated the irs and the fed, now you want to create a bureaucracy about five times as large and powerful.

[thegreekdog]

Sultan, we're not supposed to comment on crazy ideas. We're just supposed to post our crazy ideas. YOU'RE RUINING THE THREAD!!!

[Gregrios]

I've been noticing lately that most people seem to have some crazy radical views, even if they are very conservative. After hearing some of my friends talk about some of theirs, I was wondering what other insane ideas are out there.

Here is one of mine as to how we should elect presidents within the US:
1. Get rid of the electoral college, get the vote directly from the people.
2. To vote, you have to take a 20 multiple choice question test (let's assume it is unbiased and available in all languages) about your candidates views. The percentage that you get correct is the percentage that your vote counts.

The test questions would be along the lines of "What is your view on healthcare?" and the response would be almost a quote from the candidate. Basically, if you don't know what you're voting for, your vote only gets counted based on the things that you know. This way, we'll have less idiots voting for some candidate just because he/she is part of their party.

jesus, there is nothing more singularly nauseating than advocating for the end of universal suffrage. i see people say shit like this all the fucking time and it never fails to turn my stomach.

you are what's wrong with democracy. no joke.

...but would you respect a person who reframes from saying while actually achieving this goal assuming it were possible?

[SultanOfSurreal]

Sultan, we're not supposed to comment on crazy ideas. We're just supposed to post our crazy ideas. YOU'RE RUINING THE THREAD!!!

i see

well, since i have no crazy views, i suppose i'll have to post somewhere else

[thegreekdog]

Sultan, we're not supposed to comment on crazy ideas. We're just supposed to post our crazy ideas. YOU'RE RUINING THE THREAD!!!

i see

well, since i have no crazy views, i suppose i'll have to post somewhere else

I would love to see a thread titled "The Ways SultanOfSurreal Would Fix the United States." Or world, whichever you'd like.

[PLAYER57832]

2. To vote, you have to take a 20 multiple choice question test (let's assume it is unbiased and available in all languages) about your candidates views. The percentage that you get correct is the percentage that your vote counts.

The test questions would be along the lines of "What is your view on healthcare?" and the response would be almost a quote from the candidate. Basically, if you don't know what you're voting for, your vote only gets counted based on the things that you know. This way, we'll have less idiots voting for some candidate just because he/she is part of their party.

Problem is its impossible to find someone who truly represents all our views, so we tend to pick a few issues about which we CAN be informed and that really matter to us. That's not so terrible unless and until it becomes a blind "vote for one issue and one issue only"..

[PLAYER57832]

I honestly would like to see a test , a very basic test (racially nuetral, with adjustments for various disabilities, etc.)

That yes, would cover a bit about the candidates views, but also just how our government works, etc. But it would be a "pass/fail" not a percentage vote.

[jay_a2j]

I think he's saying that we shouldn't saddle our kids and grandkids with a few extra trillion dollars in debt so that we can defend someone else's desert sand dune while simultaneously ensuring that our kids and grandkids will have a few million additional enemies for the next few decades. That's the way I read it anyway!

Exactly, however this concept is lost with tax and spend democrats (and republicans) who think, "Aaaa we'll just PRINT more money."

[Phatscotty]

End the Fed.

Craaaaaaaaazy idea!

Good idea!

Seconded!

thirdeded

[Phatscotty]

TERM LIMITS!

ok now you can lock me up

[Pedronicus]

My crazy idea is that all Americans who voted for the guy who didn't get in, stop fucking posting and just accept that the party they wanted to win wasn't fucking good enough to win.

[Woodruff]

I definitely don't care for this one. Elitism sucks.

Woodruff, you give the appearance of being elitist with some of your posts.

I must admit though that I am quite curious to hear which of my views you would consider to be elitist. Care to share?

[jay_a2j]

TERM LIMITS!

Wow, another outstanding idea!