this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
162 points (88.9% liked)

Asklemmy

49218 readers
934 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 4) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

Remember, no English downloadfile

[โ€“] lettruthout@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Didn't Iceland do this a few years ago, after their economy crashed?

load more comments (3 replies)
[โ€“] ryannathans@aussie.zone 2 points 2 years ago

Actual human rights

[โ€“] rchive@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

There are lots of good ideas out there, I'll just add some that are pretty niche:

  1. Anything that is legal to do for free is also legal to do for money.
  2. All laws must have a justification for them written into something like a preamble. If the justification turns out not to be true, winning something like a basic law suit against the law is all that is needed to have the law struck down. No need to wait for legislators to pass a repeal bill or for a very specific case to make its way to a supreme court.
[โ€“] darcy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

copy the old one verbatim (it is flawless)

/s โ†โ†

[โ€“] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.fmhy.net 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Our Constitution as it is is pretty good, so wisdom would be to tread lightly. I think the only change I would make is to prohibit primary elections. That would be considered a right, as in, no person or group may deny a candidate with sufficient signatures the right to appear on the ballot. I would also mandate some sort of ranked choice voting or instant runoff election. These two changes would be to fix the problem of having to vote against a bad guy rather than voting for a good guy. It far too often ends with the second worst candidate who goes into the primary, coming out victorious. We should be electing the best, not the second worst.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: โ€น prev next โ€บ