four amendments I would like to see added to the Constitution.

[Exilednight]

1. All elections will be publicly funded. Candidates qualify by achieving 10% in public polling.

2. No member of either house of congress shall make no more than 10% of the average pay of the hourly worker, nor will they profit from private sector entities while serving.

3. There shall be a minimum of four public debates for the general presidential election with the last debate taking place no later than 2 weeks before elections.

4. Voting will last for a minimum of five days, not exceeding 10 days, nor shall any polling take place 30 days prior to the first election day.

[gollygee]

1. Is #2 a typo?

It would mean that only people who were already very wealthy would be able to ever run for office.

I like the general movement you're going in though. 5 days of voting! And I'd add that any voter IDs should be provided without any difficulty and at the government's expense.

[Exilednight]

3. no it's not. congressional pay should be tied to performance of the

Economy. Any official travel could be payed out through desperate funds, along with monies for district offices and staff.

[gollygee]

4. 10% of the average salary is like $4500

People can't live on that, so they'd already have to be rich before running. Working people could never hold office.

[Exilednight]

6. I didn't word it properly. the national average plus 10'%.

[gollygee]

7. Oh ok, I thought you probably meant more like that. (Edited to add more)

Although I wonder how helpful that is. Rich people don't care how much it pays. They're in it for the power. The only people this would affect are people who might decide they won't run because it doesn't pay enough, and those will be working or middle class people.

I get the idea but I don't want to see working and middle class people become LESS represented in government. I'd want to see changes that led to more representation.

[demmiblue]

11. I agree.

People of lesser means are already at a disadvantage in even being able to start building a career in politics. Besides, DC is expensive!

I have no problem with the current pay structure.

[Exilednight]

17. easily fixed. whomever is elected can spend no more than what they earn

While serving.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

35. You'll need another amendment then

Limiting how much of their own money people can spend? Seriously?

[Exilednight]

36. elected officials, who aren't civilians. People in the military have

Many restrictions on them that go against the Constitution, yet no one is arguing those rules should be changed.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

38. Elected officials are civilians n/t

[Exilednight]

44. No they're not. They're privy to information we are not when it comes to governing.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

46. Doesn't matter

They're still civilians.

The President is privy to information that we aren't when it comes to governing - does that mean he's not a civilian?

[Exilednight]

56. He is not.

[gollygee]

58. Yes he is

http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/13-commander-of-armed-forces.html

The Commander-in-Chief a Civilian Officer.—Is the Commander-in-Chiefship a military or a civilian office in the contemplation of the Constitution? Unquestionably the latter. An opinion by a New York surrogate deals adequately, though not authoritatively, with the subject: “The President receives his compensation for his services, rendered as Chief Executive of the Nation, not for the individual parts of his duties. No part of his compensation is paid from sums appropriated for the military or naval forces; and it is equally clear under the Constitution that the President’s duties as Commander in Chief represent only a part of duties ex officio as Chief Executive [Article II, sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution] and that the latter’s office is a civil office. [Article II, section 1 of the Constitution ... .] The President does not enlist in, and he is not inducted or drafted into, the armed forces. Nor, is he subject to court-martial or other military discipline. On the contrary, Article II, section 4 of the Constitution provides that ‘The President, [Vice President] and All Civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.’ . . . The last two War Presidents, President Wilson and President Roosevelt, both clearly recognized the civilian nature of the President’s position as Commander in Chief. President Roosevelt, in his Navy Day Campaign speech at Shibe Park, Philadelphia, on October 27, 1944, pronounced this principle as follows:–‘It was due to no accident and no oversight that the framers of our Constitution put the command of our armed forces under civilian authority. It is the duty of the Commander in Chief to appoint the Secretaries of War and Navy and the Chiefs of Staff.’ It is also to be noted that the Secretary of War, who is the regularly constituted organ of the President for the administration of the military establishment of the Nation, has been held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be merely a civilian officer, not in military service. (United States v. Burns, 79 U.S. 246 (1871)). On the general principle of civilian supremacy over the military, by virtue of the Constitution, it has recently been said: ‘The supremacy of the civil over the military is one of our great heritages.’ Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 325 (1945).”199

[Rosco T.]

24. the proper phrasing then is "110%"

[Exilednight]

29. that leaves it open to interpretation, see examples below.

Using round numbers, let's say that the average hourly workers yearly salary is 100,000/ year.

Is 110% equal to $110000, or is 110% equal to 100,000 + 110,000 (110% of 100,000)?

It could be argued both ways and we all know that judges lean towards the higher number.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

39. Math is not open to interpretation

110% of $100,000 is $110,000.

100% of $100,000 is $100,000

210% of $100,000 is $210,000

[Exilednight]

41. Answer the following:

I pay 50 cents for a widget and then sell it to you for $2.00. What percentage is my profit?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

42. 300% n/t

[Exilednight]

43. If you're a retailer it's only 75%. They audit using $2.00 as the value. Manufacturers audit using

50 cents as the value, so it would be 300% if I were the manufacturer.

Same item, same price but different perspective.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

45. Bullshit

If I pay .50 for something and sell it for $2.00, the profit is $1.50 or 300%.

[Exilednight]

49. Get an MBA and run a retail establishment. In retail, the only way to achieve 100% profit is to get

The merchandise for free.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

50. Again, bullshit n/t

[Exilednight]

52. Here's a link to help you out.

So, let’s say a retailer buys a product from you for $5 and then sells it for $7.50.
Your wholesale price to the retailer: $5 (WHOLESALE PRICE)
+ The retailer’s profit dollars on the sale: $2.50 (PROFIT DOLLARS)
= The retailer’s selling price on the shelf: $7.50 (RETAIL PRICE)

Margin:
Remember? MARGIN = PROFIT DOLLARS / RETAIL PRICE
So, you’ll calculate that $2.50 of PROFIT DOLLARS as a percentage of their RETAIL PRICE ($7.50) to get the Margin
So, $2.50 / $7.50 = 33%
So, this sales arrangement will give the retailer a 33% MARGIN

Markup:
Remember? MARKUP = PROFIT DOLLARS / WHOLESALE PRICE
So, you’ll calculate that $2.50 of PROFIT DOLLARS as a percentage of WHAT THEY PAID YOU, the vendor ($5.00) to get the Markup
So, $2.50 / $5.00 = 50%
So this sales arrangement will give the retailer a 50% MARKUP

In both cases, you are still selling for $5, and the retailer is still making $2.50 on any $7.50 sales. The difference is simply which process the retailer uses to calculate that $7.50 is the right selling price for their store. (Why does this matter? See below.)

http://yummyyammy.com/setting-pricesmargin-vs-markup/

[SickOfTheOnePct]

59. Here's some third grade math to help you out

100% of $100,000 = $100,000

10% of $100,000 = $10,000

110% = 100% + 10%

110% X $100,000 = (100% X $100,000) + (10% X $100,000) =

($100,000) + ($10,000) = $110,000

There is no possible way to make 110% of $100,000 equal $210,000

[HERVEPA]

27. So go back and edit it.

[rjsquirrel]

2. I'm sure congress

will get right on these nice Bernie wins the presidency.

[Javaman]

5. 5. Election day will become a national holiday. nt

[Eleanors38]

22. ^^^ This.

[Ilsa]

51. Yes!!! This is the way to do it, and

Let it be two days if necessary.

[TrappedInUtah]

8. Abolish the electoral college

Our system will always be a joke until the electoral college is gone and we have runoff style elections.

[libtodeath]

9. Food,safe shelter and healthcare are inalienable rights that the government protects and ensures.

[Igel]

18. They're entirely "alienable."

Somebody has to act to strip you of freedom of speech. You're free to worship as you see fit, unless somebody gets in your way. Put you in the middle of a forest by yourself, you have these rights. Nobody provides them. They just have to stay out of the way.

The obligations these rights impose is to not interfere.

But if nobody provides you with healthcare, you don't have any. If crops fail, there's a famine and you have no food. Safe shelter isn't something that you just stumble across. If you have a right to these, the corresponding "inalienable" right is to be free to pursue them. If you have a right to having healthcare provided, then somebody must provide it. Same for food and shelter. That means somebody has to have an inalienable obligation.

It's been found that we have a right to reproduction. However, if you're a male I'd be hard put to say that some woman must provide her uterus to make that right an inalienable one.

[libtodeath]

21. Did I not write that the government ensures?

[Initech]

10. No equal rights amendment?

Equality for everyone regardless of race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation should be written in the Constitution before all the others.

[Exilednight]

15. I sort of agree, but there's one problem. you can't

put forth an amendment that has zero chance of passing and nix every other idea. Granted, politicians would not like these changes, but I believe you can get a groundswell of support from the populace, no matter their political allegiance, to support these four items.

Among the constituency there would be great support and lots of pressure could be applied, but you will not get amendments with a strict partisan bias through our system.

[gollygee]

28. You think your other four suggestions are more likely?

They have zero chance of passing too.

This is a really disappointing post. You're all about amendments that benefit you, but an amendment for equal rights is over the top.

[Exilednight]

30. how do you know whether an equal right will or will not benefit me?

[gollygee]

34. Unlikely

At least the more you have to lose from a lack of equal rights, the more expendable you think fighting for them is.

That might be the most awkward sentence I've ever written. Sorry for that.

[Nye Bevan]

12. Does #1 mean that private election-related expenditure would become illegal? (nt)

[Exilednight]

13. yes. it would still allow for issues campaigning, but no advocation for a candidate.

[Nye Bevan]

14. So nobody would be allowed to publish a book that promoted a candidate during election season,

right?

And if a publisher did flout the law and publish such a book, presumably all copies would be seized by the police, and the publisher arrested?

[Exilednight]

16. there's a distinction between paid political advertising and sellimg

Of books. Someone pays for a commercial for me to watch, I pay for a book to educate myself.

[mopinko]

26. so then, how does a candidate make it to 10%

without spending any money? i have never really thought public funding was a good idea. i, personally, cherish my right to support candidates w my small contributions.
perhaps a mixed system, but with real teeth in the limits of personal contributions to candidates AND to pacs/parties.

[Exilednight]

32. hold rallies and town halls and go door to door. there are plentu

Of free spaces for such things.

[mopinko]

33. you still have to rent rooms and feed volunteers.

you cannot get to 10% without money, unless you are like trump.

[fleur-de-lisa]

19. I love your suggestions . . .

and would only add term limits for both houses of congress.

[Exilednight]

20. I sway back and forth on term limits. Many of our founding

Fathers made a career out of politics, and they managed to do great things, and less than admirable things. I see the point, but part of me wishes that Obama had the ability to run for another term.

[avebury]

23. I thank God that we have term limits in Oklahoma.

That is the only way that we can get the really really bat shit crazy state legislators out of the Capitol.

Yes more will take their place but we sweep out what we can.

[firebrand80]

25. Disagree with the restrictions on polling in #4

Taking polls is a huge part of campaign strategy. It's the major way candidates stay connected to what ordinary people are thinking.

[Exilednight]

31. polls influence rhetoric, not policy, and 30 days is not unreasonable.

[pnwmom]

37. Right. They should all get priority over the Equal Rights Amendment.

And apparently you only want the super-wealthy to be in Congress, since you think they should only be paid 10% of the average hourly pay.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

48. Well, in all fairness

he really meant 110%...or 210%...or 110%=210%...

In his world, 110% can also mean 210%.

[GulfCoast66]

40. #2 is nuts.

That would be a hell of a pay cut for many here. Making my house payment would take a pretty high percent of my pay. And most of the smart people I trust enough to be in congress would fall into the same category.

You would have a richer congress than now.

[3catwoman3]

53. How about limiting campaigning...

...to 3 months before the election? That it - 3 months. No more. I am soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo tired of people running for office the whole time they are IN office.

[MichMan]

54. Makes it nearly impossible to challenge aan incumbent

I'm confused about the polling mentioned in both #1 & #4?

1) If you need to poll 10% to get public funds and private funds are prohibited ......

4) and there is no polling until 30 days before the election......


This only gives candidates a 30 day window to submit for funds, receive them, initiate a campaign and then to campaign in all 50 states before the election

I guess it would be hugely popular with incumbents!

[Exilednight]

55. 30 days prior all polling would stop.

Maybe I need to reword this for people.

[Yo_Mama]

57. Double negative on No 2 - changes meaning. Terrible idea, anyway.

Correctly phrased it would be a disaster - only wealthy people would be able to serve. I don't want a constitutionally mandated government of rich people for rich people.

You'd have squadrons of Goldman Sachs functionaries with all their wealth temporarily in Treasuries. That and public employees. A horrible, horrible combination which would hand the government over to the oligarchs.