Electoral reforms that would be actually helpful
Thread Rating:
2) Hold the election the day after Tax Day
3) Remove all limits to campaign contributions, except that every last penny accepted must be accounted for to its ultimate source. That is, if a group contributes any money to candidate X, then X is responsible for tracing the origin of the money to the individual(s) who contributed it. No money may be spent until its source is traced.
Quote: Nareed
2) Hold the election the day after Tax Day
My sister work for a law firm. They would routinely send one of the partners to Canada on tax day to get an extension on the taxes (I'm not sure if it was payment or return) for the firm since one of the partners being out of the country would qualify the entire firm for the extension for the corporate tax.
I suppose that loophole is gone now with online filing, but nowadays you can vote early anyway so the timing wouldn't have as much of an impact as you would want. I'm not one of those anti-tax people anyway. And we pay quarterly taxes 4 times a year so "Tax Day" is no big deal for us; just our accountant.
Quote: JoeTheDragonget rid of the electoral college or make so there is no winner take all for a state.
Actually what one could do on the Electoral College is to give the popular vote winner an additional 537 electoral votes to mathematically rule out the person who comes in second. Since it would be hard to get the EC repealed it would probably be easier to get it modified in that way.
Quote: BigJerActually what one could do on the Electoral College is to give the popular vote winner an additional 537 electoral votes to mathematically rule out the person who comes in second. Since it would be hard to get the EC repealed it would probably be easier to get it modified in that way.
Would require a constitutional amendment. The ec works as intended. Which is why the left hates it.
Quote: AZDuffmanWould require a constitutional amendment. The ec works as intended. Which is why the left hates it.
I think the modification to the EC would be easier though. Regardless it's still going to be hard.
BTW whether I am left or right I think the EC is BS.
Quote: NareedI said reforms that would be helpful. Ditching the Electoral College in favor of mob rule wouldn't help.
Not mob rule. But how would it be mob rule?
Quote: BigJerI think the modification to the EC would be easier though. Regardless it's still going to be hard.
BTW whether I am left or right I think the EC is BS.
I don't see how. Constitutional Ammendment either way. No way 1/4 of the states are going to allow their interests to be marginalized this way. Without the EC, small states would be ignored. The Founders knew what they were doing, even if some people do not like it.
Quote: AZDuffmanI don't see how. Constitutional Ammendment either way. No way 1/4 of the states are going to allow their interests to be marginalized this way. Without the EC, small states would be ignored. The Founders knew what they were doing, even if some people do not like it.
Quite the opposite. Now a big state like New York is ignored. Since it is clear that the Dems will have the state, and the magnitude of the victory is irrelevant, it is ignored. If it matterred if the Dems won by 1,000,000 instead of 800,000, then it would not be ignored. Utah, a small state, is ignored because of the electoral college. Same reasoning, just change Democrat to republican. The electoral college makes the candidates only care about the close states.
So if there are say, 6 candidates, and there are 3 tiers you can rank them #1, #2, #3. From there, there are two good ways to handle it. Either count everybody's top choice, then eliminate the last place finisher. Re-tally the count, (if your #1 is eliminated your #2 is counted.) Complete these runoffs until there are 2 candidates left, and give the majority winner the office. Alternatively, count each ranking as more than 1 vote. #1 gets 3, #2 gets 2, #3 gets 1. Personally, I like the second system better but understand that it may be too complex for many people to understand. (simplicity is often key.)
Encourages more policital parties and activities, and I believe, would lead to better politicians.
Using this system, though, may result in the HoR deciding many elections under the current rules, so I'd suggest that IRV apply to the Electoral College, as well.
These systems foster more diverse political action, rather than what is essentially two party control over the government.
Quote: SOOPOOQuite the opposite. Now a big state like New York is ignored. Since it is clear that the Dems will have the state, and the magnitude of the victory is irrelevant, it is ignored. If it matterred if the Dems won by 1,000,000 instead of 800,000, then it would not be ignored. Utah, a small state, is ignored because of the electoral college. Same reasoning, just change Democrat to republican. The electoral college makes the candidates only care about the close states.
I wish I lived in a state that was ignored! You can have the steady stream of mail, TV ads, and traffic problems caused by candidate's visits any time!
Quote: BigJerNot mob rule. But how would it be mob rule?
Oh, very well: "democracy" It's the same thing.
Quote: SOOPOOQuite the opposite. Now a big state like New York is ignored. Since it is clear that the Dems will have the state, and the magnitude of the victory is irrelevant, it is ignored.
I think that it should remain the decision of the state as to how to apportion (as in the constitution), but I strongly feel that the state should put to vote whether the election 4 years from now should go winner take all. Many people will be more interested in seeing one man one vote in principal.
State - Obama , McCain
Texas 11, 21 (2 to McCain)
California 42, 11 (2 to Obama)
New York 25, 4 (2 to Obama)
Florida 10, 15 (2 to Obama)
In Florida is an example of a state where Obama one a minority of the congressional districts, but won the majority of the state votes. Under the systems in Maine and Nebraska Obama would get 10+2=12, and McCain would have earned 15+0=15.
Had they put it up for vote in 2008 and voted to partition the electoral vote, then some Obama supporters might be happy they voted for a partition. If Romney wins the state, they will at least get some EV's for Obama.
Quote: SOOPOOQuite the opposite. Now a big state like New York is ignored. Since it is clear that the Dems will have the state, and the magnitude of the victory is irrelevant, it is ignored. If it matterred if the Dems won by 1,000,000 instead of 800,000, then it would not be ignored. Utah, a small state, is ignored because of the electoral college. Same reasoning, just change Democrat to republican. The electoral college makes the candidates only care about the close states.
Not at all. NY gets ignored because it population chooses to vote one way all of the time. Same with Utah for that matter. But lets look at this via the Electoral College.
Without the EC, the candidates might as well focus on NY more, since even a marginal gain %-wise yields far more votes. So even a conservative candidate would spende more time there as in UT there is one principal city, Salt Lake City, and not nearly the population. One candidate would be able to promise say more welfare payments and the other a new highway to connect upstate to the port of NYC. Meanwhile they would ignore UT, tell them to go pound all their salt as there is just not the population base to shift things nationally.
Now, they know once NY is tied up they must focus somewhere else. Instead of more and more time in NYC, they move to OH and MO. The EC gives needed balance, protecting the interests of the minority while ensuring majority rule.
Quote: AZDuffmanWould require a constitutional amendment. The ec works as intended. Which is why the left hates it.
Actually, there is a way to make the national popular vote the winner without amending the Constitution. Since the Constitution says that each state determines how its electors are chosen, if states with a majority of the electoral votes all agree that whoever "wins the national popular vote" gets all of their electoral votes, then the national popular vote winner gets elected President.
In fact, there's an organized effort to do just that.
Quote: Boney526I don't have big problems with the electoral college, but I do think that a great reform would be to have a ranking system (either 2 or 3 tiered) for Federal Elections, and Instant Runoff Voting (IRV).
So if there are say, 6 candidates, and there are 3 tiers you can rank them #1, #2, #3. From there, there are two good ways to handle it. Either count everybody's top choice, then eliminate the last place finisher. Re-tally the count, (if your #1 is eliminated your #2 is counted.) Complete these runoffs until there are 2 candidates left, and give the majority winner the office. Alternatively, count each ranking as more than 1 vote. #1 gets 3, #2 gets 2, #3 gets 1. Personally, I like the second system better but understand that it may be too complex for many people to understand. (simplicity is often key.)
Encourages more policital parties and activities, and I believe, would lead to better politicians.
Using this system, though, may result in the HoR deciding many elections under the current rules, so I'd suggest that IRV apply to the Electoral College, as well.
These systems foster more diverse political action, rather than what is essentially two party control over the government.
I used to be for IRV before I was against it. It doesn't do what a lot of people think it should. I'll PM you some YouTube links of someone who is not BSing but just gives the straight facts one how elections could still be thrown by a third party etc. Also a lot of places have rescinded IRV.
Quote: Boney526I don't have big problems with the electoral college, but I do think that a great reform would be to have a ranking system (either 2 or 3 tiered) for Federal Elections, and Instant Runoff Voting (IRV).
My main problem with IRV (which, IIRC, is used (3-tier system) in San Francisco to elect members to its Board of Supervisors) is, how soon before you get enough people who think, "I'll put my favorite first, followed by a couple of candidates I don't think have any chance (just to be sure the candidates I think are the biggest threat to my choice don't get my vote)," that you actually elect somebody that nobody really wanted?
Quote: BigJerI used to be for IRV before I was against it. It doesn't do what a lot of people think it should. I'll PM you some YouTube links of someone who is not BSing but just gives the straight facts one how elections could still be thrown by a third party etc. Also a lot of places have rescinded IRV.
I would be interested. I haven't done too much research on IRV, I just think it's superior to just one vote. There are other systems I think would get better results, if only people would be interested in multiple voting rounds. - Unlikely and unpractical.
Quote: ThatDonGuyMy main problem with IRV (which, IIRC, is used (3-tier system) in San Francisco to elect members to its Board of Supervisors) is, how soon before you get enough people who think, "I'll put my favorite first, followed by a couple of candidates I don't think have any chance (just to be sure the candidates I think are the biggest threat to my choice don't get my vote)," that you actually elect somebody that nobody really wanted?
I don't think you should have to place rankings beyond 1. But I guess that's a potential downside that I hadn't thought of.
The notion that states award their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, BTW, cannot be taken seriously. Consider, a state may vote, say, 52-48 (ignoring third parties) for one candidate, yet have its electors vote for the other candidate. That would mean the state would disregard its own election results.
Quote: ThatDonGuyActually, there is a way to make the national popular vote the winner without amending the Constitution. Since the Constitution says that each state determines how its electors are chosen, if states with a majority of the electoral votes all agree that whoever "wins the national popular vote" gets all of their electoral votes, then the national popular vote winner gets elected President.
In fact, there's an organized effort to do just that.
I have heard about this effort for years. IMHO a state has to be crazy to pass this. Also IMHO it is an end-run around the Constitution. My prediction is if it passes an election will go against the Democrat and you will see either lawsuits or a move to repeal. Just like in MA where they passed a law prohibiting the govenor from appointing a replacement senator when Kerry was running then repeaked it when Kennedy died.
Quote: AZDuffmanI have heard about this effort for years. IMHO a state has to be crazy to pass this. Also IMHO it is an end-run around the Constitution.
I don't think the voluntary switch movement is an end run around the constitution. At the same time it is completely ineffective. Without some push there is no incentive.
Quote: NareedI don't see any problem with the electoral college at all, nor so I understand why people insist on straight majority rule.
The notion that states award their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, BTW, cannot be taken seriously. Consider, a state may vote, say, 52-48 (ignoring third parties) for one candidate, yet have its electors vote for the other candidate. That would mean the state would disregard its own election results.
There is no federal law that dictates how a state should award their electoral votes. As far as the constitution is concerned the electors could vote their personal preference. Many people think that in the official tie scenario (where Obama wins NJ, OH, and WI) and Romney wins the other states, that a Republican elector might be bribed or persuaded to vote for Obama. There have been quite a number of faithless electors in the past, but none have had an impact on the outcome of the election. None have been prosecuted under state law (as I said, it is not a federal crime).
Quote: pacomartinThere is no federal law that dictates how a state should award their electoral votes.
Yadda, yadda, yadda, when a state votes 52-48 and the people see their votes awarded to the candidate who got 48, they'll protest so loudly you'll be able to hear them in Alpha Centauri
Quote:Many people think that in the official tie scenario [snip!]
You mean, many in the media think that. they'd love it, too. many in the media also fantasized about faithless electors handing Al Gore the presidency back in 2000.
Quote:There have been quite a number of faithless electors in the past, but none have had an impact on the outcome of the election.
There have been faithless electors who've used their position to make a statement. Not to affect anything. I highly doubt anyone would dare be faithless if that would turn an election. And you can be sure the nine votes that really matter would loudly say something about it if things ever got to that point.
(How come my Firefox spell checker does not recognize either "yadda yadda" or "Centauri"?)
Quote: NareedYadda, yadda, yadda, when a state votes 52-48 and the people see their votes awarded to the candidate who got 48, they'll protest so loudly you'll be able to hear them in Alpha Centauri
Any change in any shape or form to voting results in massive protests and lawsuits. Pennsylvania recently passed a law requiring photo identification to vote, and it was struck down in the courts.
But a state could theoretically decide to award all of it's electoral votes to the candidate that wins the most congressional districts, instead of the one who wins the popular vote. The state would, in effect, be mirroring the rule for national elections within it's own state. There would be wild protests and challenges in court. My point is that it wouldn't violate federal law.
If California gives an electoral college vote to each congressional district, there would also be protests you hear at Alpha Centauri, but it would not violate federal law.
1787 to get the little states to agree to the Constitutional Convention.
That was then, this is now. It doesn't serve any purpose now that can
be supported with an intelligent argument.
The President is the President of the entire nation, and the entire nation
should have an equal say in the election. IE, a popular vote. IE,
a democratic election. One vote is one vote.
The states can, and do, elect their own governors.
I'd also say that it is pretty bizarre that a tiny state gets the same # of
Senators as a huge state like Texas or California. But once again,
a compromise that made sense 200+ years ago makes no practical
sense now.
ps: Nareed, don't you live in Mexico ? At least I had that impression.
So why do you care about an Electoral College in the US of A ? Just
curious.
Quote: JohnnyQThe concept of the Electoral College, I believe, served its purpose back in
1787 to get the little states to agree to the Constitutional Convention.
That was then, this is now. It doesn't serve any purpose now that can
be supported with an intelligent argument.
The President is the President of the entire nation, and the entire nation
should have an equal say in the election. IE, a popular vote. IE,
a democratic election. One vote is one vote.
The states can, and do, elect their own governors.
I'd also say that it is pretty bizarre that a tiny state gets the same # of
Senators as a huge state like Texas or California. But once again,
a compromise that made sense 200+ years ago makes no practical
sense now.
ps: Nareed, don't you live in Mexico ? At least I had that impression.
So why do you care about an Electoral College in the US of A ? Just
curious.
Senators being equal makes perfect sense if you understand the purpose. The house is supposed to represent the people and the senate the states. The senate was made to be a brake on the actions of the house.
Quote: AZDuffmanSenators being equal makes perfect sense if you understand the purpose. The house is supposed to represent the people and the senate the states. The senate was made to be a brake on the actions of the house.
Thank-you for the history lesson. Yet
surprisingly, I still disagree.
The state legislatures make state laws.
Congress makes National Laws.
Why should the good people of Vermont
have as much say as California, based on
their representation in the Senate, when
the population of CA is 59 times higher
than Vermont ?
For your homework assignment, go back
to my post and read the first sentence.
Class dismissed.
Quote: slytherI'm with Nareed. There's no way any state should (please pardon my hyperbole) cede it's voting sovereignty to the rest of the nation by letting the rest of the nation decide how my state doles out it's electoral votes. Of course my state of Washington has signed up to do just that. *sigh*
It's way too late to start, but have you considered for the next election campaigning for people to vote for a write-in candidate that would reflect this unwelcome development? say, "California's Choice" or "My Vote Doesn't Count Anyway."
Better yet would be a ballot measure to repeal such idiocy, if that's possible up there.
Quote: JohnnyQThank-you for the history lesson. Yet
surprisingly, I still disagree.
The state legislatures make state laws.
Congress makes National Laws.
Why should the good people of Vermont
have as much say as California, based on
their representation in the Senate, when
the population of CA is 59 times higher
than Vermont ?
For your homework assignment, go back
to my post and read the first sentence.
Class dismissed.
Before you dismiss class you need to learn the lesson
The PEOPLE are represented by the House. They get proportional representation
The STATES are represented by the Senate. This is supposed to keep the House from mandating states do things that will hurt the state
It balances things out. Otherwise the House could say pass a per-state allocation to say each state provide the same number of military conscripts. This would hurt small states. This is why the need for balance.
Quote: AZDuffmanOtherwise the House could say pass a per-state allocation to say each state provide the same number of military conscripts. This would hurt small states. This is why the need for balance.
Interesting Example.
Q: So why haven't 30 big states joined forces
to pass a (filibuster proof) bill requiring all
states to provide the same # of military
conscripts, provide the same amount of
tax revenue, etc.
A: Because these examples are ludicrous.
It was a compromise made over 200
years ago, and the compromise served
its purpose then. And now we're
stuck with it.
We might have to agree to disagree
on this one.
Class re-dismissed.
Quote: JohnnyQIt was a compromise made over 200
years ago, and the compromise served
its purpose then. And now we're
stuck with it.
What has changed so that the compromise now doesn't make sense? Are you arguing from a counterfactual that we live in the present day but with 50 independent, non-United States?
Quote: MathExtremistAre you arguing from a counterfactual that we live in the present day but with 50 independent, non-United States?
Well let me start by saying I'm not sure what that means.
So, class back in session, please take your seats and we'll
get started !
I am suggesting that we are mature
enough as a country, 200 years later, to have the President
elected by a popular vote.
It doesn't make sense that an obsolete system still elects
our President.
Quote: JohnnyQWell let me start by saying I'm not sure what that means.
Then how are you in a position to lecture?
Quote:So, class back in session, please take your seats and we'll
get started !
I am suggesting that we are mature
enough as a country, 200 years later, to have the President
elected by a popular vote.
It doesn't make sense that an obsolete system still elects
our President.
Please justify your position that the electoral college system is obsolete.
If the other guy gets the popular vote and does not become President, then the Electoral College is not obsolete.
As for Congress...to get fresh blood in there, reform the House in such a way as to get rid of the gerrymandering, add a third legislature with a closed-list PR system, make the Senate four-year terms and cut it to two terms a person, allow 12 years in the other two houses combined, and make any bill passed by all three houses OR two houses and the Presidents signature law. (Yes, it's an idea that only a caffeine addict could love.)
Quote: hwccdealer
As for Congress...to get fresh blood in there, reform the House in such a way as to get rid of the gerrymandering, add a third legislature with a closed-list PR system, make the Senate four-year terms and cut it to two terms a person, allow 12 years in the other two houses combined, and make any bill passed by all three houses OR two houses and the Presidents signature law. (Yes, it's an idea that only a caffeine addict could love.)
The gerrymandering is done at the state level. The Senate needs to be kept at 6 years because the idea is change is supposed to be slow and bills are NOT supposed to be passed. We pass too many laws.
I would support 12 years in the House and 12 in the Senate for any one person. We would exempt anyone now in office both to get it passed and avoid a "bubble" of all new people. I do want people to stay around long enough for continuity and just understand how things are supposed to work.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe gerrymandering is done at the state level.
All this stuff would probably require amending the Constitution to happen, so if we're going in that far, we might as well fix things that are broken, such as gerrymandering. The problem is, I'm not entirely sure how to fix it without creating ridiculous oversight.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe Senate needs to be kept at 6 years because the idea is change is supposed to be slow and bills are NOT supposed to be passed. We pass too many laws.
Which house is stopping bills from being passed depends on a lot more than the Senate being six years. What I'm trying to do is get more dopes out as quickly as possible, and more frequent elections are one way of many to do so. Allowing the people to recall a Senator is another.
Quote: AZDuffmanI would support 12 years in the House and 12 in the Senate for any one person. We would exempt anyone now in office both to get it passed and avoid a "bubble" of all new people. I do want people to stay around long enough for continuity and just understand how things are supposed to work.
If we change the rules, grandfathering in the current crop of dopes is necessary. I would support two terms in the Senate and a limit on the House, at least on consecutive terms the way some states limit their governorship (i.e. a person can serve more than two terms, just not consecutively.)
Quote: hwccdealerAll this stuff would probably require amending the Constitution to happen, so if we're going in that far, we might as well fix things that are broken, such as gerrymandering. The problem is, I'm not entirely sure how to fix it without creating ridiculous oversight.
Well the SCOTUS ruling may be of help, but it will be hard to fix since it is hard to precisely define.
Quote:Which house is stopping bills from being passed depends on a lot more than the Senate being six years. What I'm trying to do is get more dopes out as quickly as possible, and more frequent elections are one way of many to do so. Allowing the people to recall a Senator is another.
No, you are misunderstanding what I am saying. The Senate was set to overlapping terms to avoid wholesale changes in "wave elections." With a stolen election in MN and flipper-Specter we saw enough damage in 2009.
Quote:If we change the rules, grandfathering in the current crop of dopes is necessary. I would support two terms in the Senate and a limit on the House, at least on consecutive terms the way some states limit their governorship (i.e. a person can serve more than two terms, just not consecutively.)
Term Limits at the state level has been found unconstitutional, will take a massive change, perhaps a Tea-Party wave, to do this.
Quote: AZDuffmanWell the SCOTUS ruling may be of help, but it will be hard to fix since it is hard to precisely define.
No kidding. Sounds like states may be a little more free to draw districts as they please. This sort of thing is very hard to get rid of in an SMDP format drawn up in this way, especially when everything has to be decided by population.
Quote: AZDuffmanNo, you are misunderstanding what I am saying. The Senate was set to overlapping terms to avoid wholesale changes in "wave elections." With a stolen election in MN and flipper-Specter we saw enough damage in 2009.
This is also true, as it only allows for one-third of the Senate to be elected at any given time. That said, a "throw the bum out" provision is not entirely a bad thing.
Quote: AZDuffmanTerm Limits at the state level has been found unconstitutional, will take a massive change, perhaps a Tea-Party wave, to do this.
For the House and Senate, this is true, since the requirements for Congress are expressly stated in the Constitution. Of course, until recent times, no such limits were needed, since people regularly voted the bums out.
While it would probably take an amendment to the Constitution or something close to it to make a significant change, it would take a large shift in the actions of the average American to accomplish it.
That would make the Republican and Democrats pay to nominate their own candidates a few months before the primaries and it would make other candidates have a better chance of winning without being loyal to a party!
Also divide the Electoral College up by % of vote in the state. Any odd numbers would go to the overall winner of the state. That would make the Major parties and candidates for president campaign (spend money) in marginal states. Several states would benefit form this because a lot of money is collected in those states but spent elsewhere.
