Constitutional Amendment I Will Support

[Gary Sisco]

I'd support a constitutional amendment that requires not only a none of the above choice in presidential elections (or Congressional, too, for that matter) but also another election, with different candidates, if none of the above is the winning choice of the people.

That at least would force the parties to actually think about who they're running and why, particularly if public funds are removed from the picture so the parties have to pay their own way, not only in campaigns but for primaries, conventions, etc., which are all strictly party business anyway, and therefore shouldn't be funded by public money. There's nothing in the Constitution about parties. The word isn't even in it.

[clinthopson]

Wht this country needs is a law probiting gerrymandering and requiring that all election districts be based solely on contiguous political boundaries.

[Monte Smith]

What this country needs is to find a fat, blonde high school chick with low self-esteem and fuck her in the ass.

[Juju]

Monte, at least ur arguments and are consistent, if not always relevant. We can always count on you to give us that oh so important insight.

[Gary Sisco]

He's a nattering nabob and hence doesn't count, anyway.

[Monte Smith]

Oh, the negativity!