How to best shorten the nomination/election process in the US?

[Lancer]

You kidding? Its 3 weeks too long.

[Zkribbler]

How to best shorten the nomination/election process in the US?

Have a king. Election time = 0.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Maniac


(c) public funding; candidates can't use and accept private money.

Small 1st Amendment problem with that. Same goes for Seedle's "reading-only" proposal.

[-Jrabbit]

How do you propose the primaries be folded into this picture?

How do we get a from-left-field VP candidate vetted in 3 weeks?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Solomwi

Small 1st Amendment problem with that. Same goes for Seedle's "reading-only" proposal.

Not so much. It's only a court interpretation that equates money with speech. An act of Congress can overturn it and require the courts to interpret it accordingly.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles

Originally posted by Solomwi

Small 1st Amendment problem with that. Same goes for Seedle's "reading-only" proposal.

Not so much. It's only a court interpretation that equates money with speech. An act of Congress can overturn it and require the courts to interpret it accordingly.

Nope. The ruling was based upon the Court's interpretation of the Constitution.

We'll need either: a second ruling by the Court re-interpreting the same provision or or a constitutual amendment.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
How do you propose the primaries be folded into this picture?

How do we get a from-left-field VP candidate vetted in 3 weeks?

Who cares? Just schedule everything really tight. We'll end up with politicos that screw us over either way, but this way we don't have to get BSed for over a year.

[Aeson]

Election by... draft lottery

[Lancer]

Only military and veterans may vote.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Nope. The ruling was based upon the Court's interpretation of the Constitution.

We'll need either: a second ruling by the Court re-interpreting the same provision or or a constitutual amendment.

All Congress has to do is pass a law saying money isn't speech and forbid the courts from hearing any case which deals with this issue. It's perfectly legal and constitutional.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Lancer
Only military and veterans may vote.

no no no...

There's no vote. Ping pong balls... everyone eligible is issued a unique sequence of numbers. (You can pick your lucky numbers unless they're already taken.) You tune in on Tuesday and find out if you're going to be President or not.

[Lancer]

You mean, I could be president?

[Aeson]

I'd much rather win Powerball... more money and no responsibility... don't waste your lucky numbers on the White House

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles

Originally posted by Solomwi

Small 1st Amendment problem with that. Same goes for Seedle's "reading-only" proposal.

Not so much. It's only a court interpretation that equates money with speech. An act of Congress can overturn it and require the courts to interpret it accordingly.

The court's interpretation merely recognizes that a spade is a spade, so to speak. One of the McConnellv. FEC opinions states the case pretty well, but I can't remember which off the top of my head. Even if you're right, that doesn't address at all external expenditures, a loophole big enough to drive a truck through in either case.

It would be interesting to see the fallout from your jurisdiction-stripping scenario, though. The Court pretty well got away with ignoring Congress' orders on detainee cases. I suspect they'd have even less trouble with an issue as fundamental as free speech.

[MORON]

SURPRISE ELECTIONS