Electioneering

[AVG-JOE]

Interesting ideas. (Insert your preferred Deity here) knows SOMEthing needs to change.

I firmly believe, however, that any changes like those above are going to become just another game of corruption for the well-to-do to play unless we first start with a fair and simple tax code, and public budgets that are balanced by law.

As long as politicians have the power to customize the tax code for friends, supporters and those who're willing to pay for special treatment, it matters little how we choose them, big money will purchase corrupting influence because of the potential for avoiding the paying of a fair tax for years.

Same thing with balancing public budgets. As long as politicians have the power to spend money that they are unwilling or unable to collect from their current constituencies in the form of deficit spending, it matters little how those politicians are chosen.

There are symptoms and there are diseases. Right now, the disease is corruption and everyone seems to want to treat the symptoms. Our politicians obviously can't handle the power to customize taxes and to deficit spend without giving in to the corrupting influence of the well-heeled, so those powers need to be removed first, then we can discuss the modernization of our election processes.

Just my 2 cents...

 

[Statistikhengst]

I just want to throw a couple of quick thoughts out. Having read the legislative section, I don't believe in term limits : I think they are a way of telling voters they cannot vote for the person they want. I can understand the desire for them, as we have too many entrenched politicians, but I would like to see a different solution to that problem if possible.

The other thing is that I don't understand how the 'ticket' option would be viable. What does the alternate person do while the elected official is in office? What if the alternate is unable to take over when the situation arises? It seems too difficult to me.

I have more to read, but I'm watching the little one now and can't go too deeply into anything.

I thought about just responding with tl;dr, for the humor.

Ding, ding!!! Happy bells for the first person to actually pose a question based on the material.

I didn't broach that, hoping a smart soul would bring it up. Which you just did!

2 things:

-the alternate would need to keep his day job!!
-and should the alternate no longer be available for any reasons, then a special election would indeed have to be called. But at least we could lower the number of special elections this way. Which saves time and $$$ and stress.

-this could also have postive implications for a political party in a highly competitive district.

Lets say that two Republicans duke it out in the primaries for a congressonal seat in Wisconsin, in a district that is R+1 maybe, very swingy. Now, after a long fought primary battle, one of the two dudes wins, but the party is split. Meanwhile, the Democrat flew through his primary unopposed. One way to unify the GOP in this case COULD be for the winner of the GOP primary to select the loser of the primary to be his alternate, which could bring out some unity votes for his party in the Fall.


Food for thought.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Suggestion to folks posting....I would suggest to EDIT OUT Statistikhengst' original OP post. When replying
Otherwise your post will get lost in scrolling and scrolling past the original writing.
My 2 cents.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Interesting ideas. (Insert your preferred Deity here) knows SOMEthing needs to change.

I firmly believe, however, that any changes like those above are going to become just another game of corruption for the well-to-do to play unless we first start with a fair and simple tax code, and public budgets that are balanced by law.

As long as politicians have the power to customize the tax code for friends, supporters and those who're willing to pay for special treatment, it matters little how we choose them, big money will purchase corrupting influence because of the potential for avoiding the paying of a fair tax for years.

Same thing with balancing public budgets. As long as politicians have the power to spend money that they are unwilling or unable to collect from their current constituencies in the form of deficit spending, it matters little how those politicians are chosen.

There are symptoms and there are diseases. Right now, the disease is corruption and everyone seems to want to treat the symptoms. Our politicians obviously can't handle the power to customize taxes and to deficit spend without giving in to the corrupting influence of the well-heeled, so those powers need to be removed first, then we can discuss the modernization of our election processes.

Just my 2 cents...

I share many of your thoughts, but pols are also being forced to play into such a system in the first place in order to get elected. Break the cycle, break the habit.

 

[BDBoop]

Totally, TOTALLY agree with symptom vs disease. Very good point.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Suggestion to folks posting....I would suggest to EDIT OUT Statistikhengst' original OP post. When replying
Otherwise your post will get lost in scrolling and scrolling past the original writing.
My 2 cents.

Yes, or just quote the paragraph you really want to hit on.

For this reason, I broke down the OP into 5 posts....

 

[Statistikhengst]

Ok, it's going on 1 am here, I am whipped like Mondale (just a joke, don't throw rotting fruit), but I hope that people give great input and ask maybe some questions. And tomorrow I will read through and reply.

I know it is a helluva lot to read, but this is one case where you need to step back and take in the entire picture, otherwise the component parts don't make as much sense.

G-night, y'all.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Oh, and one point I find fascinating is the idea of the NATIONAL SENATORS.

 

[Politico]

Lots more politicians just what we need... it'd be better to divide by district the electoral college and award the them by district instead of winner take all. That would give everyone a voice instead of states like California where conservatives are overrun by liberals or visa versa in TX. Also there are 2 senators per state for a reason. That's the way the founders wanted it, and the way it should be. It gives the smaller states more of a voice. If you came up with this all yourself ? Impressive.. I haft to give you credit for that.

The post is way to long winded to read. But if more politicians is what he's proposing that not going to happen. The system is the way the founders made it.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Interesting ideas. (Insert your preferred Deity here) knows SOMEthing needs to change.

I firmly believe, however, that any changes like those above are going to become just another game of corruption for the well-to-do to play unless we first start with a fair and simple tax code, and public budgets that are balanced by law.

As long as politicians have the power to customize the tax code for friends, supporters and those who're willing to pay for special treatment, it matters little how we choose them, big money will purchase corrupting influence because of the potential for avoiding the paying of a fair tax for years.

Same thing with balancing public budgets. As long as politicians have the power to spend money that they are unwilling or unable to collect from their current constituencies in the form of deficit spending, it matters little how those politicians are chosen.

There are symptoms and there are diseases. Right now, the disease is corruption and everyone seems to want to treat the symptoms. Our politicians obviously can't handle the power to customize taxes and to deficit spend without giving in to the corrupting influence of the well-heeled, so those powers need to be removed first, then we can discuss the modernization of our election processes.

Just my 2 cents...

I share many of your thoughts, but pols are also being forced to play into such a system in the first place in order to get elected. Break the cycle, break the habit.

Who in their right mind would give millions to a campaign knowing that such a donation would have ZERO effect on the tax obligation of the giver.

Limiting the ability of an American to give to political campaigns is not the answer, the answer is limiting the influence those donations can purchase.

 

[Gracie]

You put a lot of thought into those posts, Stat. Brava for your patience and common sense.

With that said...will anything ever come of your ideas and suggestions? Probably not in my lifetime.
I am not "as in" to politics as most here...all I know is, the electoral vote thing SUCKS. We in california are still at the polls and the president is already known before we can even place our vote. That stinks. So it doesn't really matter WHO I want to vote for. It wouldn't count.

 

[Mertex]

I read most of it....didn't see anything about re-districting...is that something you plan to address?

 

[Derideo_Te]

on some great ideas and responses from GW and GT too.

I tagged some additional members whom I believe could make some excellent contributions. (Used the [Tag Users] function at the top since that is what it is for.)

Some of what you suggest is going to require Constitutional Amendments and that means that this is going to be difficult to implement. Not impossible, but harder than necessary. Overall I agree that we are way overdue for a complete overhaul.

My suggestions actually piggyback on the concept of voter involvement in elections via the internet and using unique ids similar to SSNs.

1. Compulsory voting for all citizens. Doesn't matter if you vote for Mickey Mouse but you must cast a ballot. This eliminates parties having to focus on "turnout". If everyone must vote then turnout becomes a non-issue.

2. Voting via the Internet is something that needs to done sooner rather than later. Yes, it is feasible and it eliminates the BS about long waiting lines and voting hours and all the rest of the ways that politicians are using to mess with voting rights. If we trust the internet to make credit card purchases (sometimes for thousands of dollars) then why can't we have a similar secure system for voting? Eliminates weather concerns too. Best of all counting electronic votes can be tallied in seconds and there are no "hanging chads" and other nonsense. Polls close and vote counts are known nationwide.

3. Allow permanent residents to vote in non Federal and non State wide elections. These are taxpayers too and since their taxes pay local municipal taxes and for schools it only makes sense that they should be allowed to enter the electoral process in this manner. (BTW this is already allowed in some states.) This is all part and parcel of greater involvement in the process rather than less.

Right now part of what is messing up the system is the deliberate and malicious process of driving voters away. A vote lost for your opponent is a vote gained for yourself. If voting becomes compulsory the incentive to drive away voters falls away (and so does the money to make that happen.)

The use of the Internet for voting eliminates the excuse for not voting. Every place that offers WiFi now becomes a potential polling station. College dorms, coffee shops, libraries, shopping malls and yes, in the comfort of your own home. Once again greater involvement across all registered voters means that trying to appeal on single issues to drive "turnout" becomes a non issue and again, it undercuts the benefit of outside funding.

Internet voting doesn't require a constitutional amendment. It can be implemented sooner rather than later and it makes the most sense to begin here because it will increase voter turnout simply because it makes it easier. It also increases voting in primary elections which are notorious for low turnout. This can eliminate a subset of the voters being able to restrict the choices of the greater electorate.

Anything that increases involvement in the election process means a democracy where votes count more than dollars. That is where we must begin in my opinion.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I read most of it....didn't see anything about re-districting...is that something you plan to address?

There was mention in one of the openers decrying the practice of Gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering sucks.

 

[dreolin]

Also an option, although, technically, the law prohibits the use of SSN for anything other than SS.

But there is a lot more in the entire OP, spread out over five postings, than just this point.

I know there was a lot more, but I'm not studied and versed on the Electoral College enough to make a refreshing post in regard to an entire overhaul.

Good read, though.

I barely glanced at it. I need to actually read it when I'm not otherwise occupied - and now's not good.

It is a heck of a lot to digest and I have a son coming home on leave that I haven't seen in two years.

I did read a lot of it. Seems like a precursor to a civil war when we readjust Senate seats and you will get into state rights issues.

 

[BDBoop]

I know there was a lot more, but I'm not studied and versed on the Electoral College enough to make a refreshing post in regard to an entire overhaul.

Good read, though.

I barely glanced at it. I need to actually read it when I'm not otherwise occupied - and now's not good.

It is a heck of a lot to digest and I have a son coming home on leave that I haven't seen in two years.

I did read a lot of it. Seems like a precursor to a civil war when we readjust Senate seats and you will get into state rights issues.

Congratulations!!!!!

 

[Nosmo King]

I don't agree that making wholesale changes to the constitution is the right way to go. Neither do I think that this is the fault of the voter. Restricting access to the polls by elaborate ID measures answer a problem we do not have, namely voter fraud.

The problem as I see it is the money. Money spent on ads and campaigns. If contributions from individuals AND corporations was restricted to a three digit number, we could eliminate checkbook politics.

Perhaps it's the length of the campaign that makes the money so needed. If we had one national day for primaries, in May perhaps, and a national moratorium on campaigning until early August, long drawn out budgets for media buys would dry up and take the cash with them.

 

[MarcATL]

This thread is a project I have been working on for months, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Putting it out on USMB is a promise I made to [MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION].

From the moment a US-Representative is sworn in, he or she is already planning and fundraising for the NEXT election. Huge PACS and Super-PACS are scrounging for money all year long. The media machine for all political parties is set to full-blast 24/7. Polling for the next presidential election started quite literally on the day after the last presidential election! We are now living in a permanent election cycle that literally never ends. This is not healthy for us.

Liberals complain that voter suppression is happening. Conservatives complain that there is voter fraud. Both sides have some very valid complaints. The last three presidential election have seen long-lines of people waiting to vote at polling places not equipped to handle that many people. Gerrymandering has literally made about 80% of the House of Representatives „safe“. And the list goes on and on.

In fact, it is just crazy.

In many ways, we have an electoral system that is designed for failure. That was surely not the intent of the founding fathers, but this is how it is working out and I think the time for some real common sense changes has come.

In this report, Conservatives, Moderates and Liberals are all going to find some things that they like and things that they don't like, but I ask of you to read all of it and digest it before commenting.

My main contention is that there is a severe structural flaw in our system of electioneering, namely, that very little of it is set in stone in the US Constitution. What was considered checks-and-balances has now become gridlock. And the rest, because of Federalism, is left up to the individual states to decide. And out of this, a hodge-podge patchwork of electioneering has evolved into a money making-monster.

So, I am a proposing a complete overhaul of our electoral system, but not an elimination of the „Electoral College“, as we like to call it. I am going to do this in four parts. Because of the length of this all, and to make it easier for you all to quote only one section, these four parts will be spread over postings 2-5 of this thread:

I. The Legislative (posting no. 2)
II. The Executive (posting no. 3)
III. The Judicial (posting no. 4)
IV. Election rules and timelines (posting no. 5)

Many of these things are things that Larry Sabato has also suggested in his book „Toward a more Perfect Union“, but many of them are also orginal ideas of mine.

The goal of all of this is to

a.) increase the amount of undisrupted time for governing between elections.
b.) streamline the actual time frame of electioneering.
c.) unify the rules for electioneering.
d.) reduce the money chase.

I am not saying that this is the only way to do this, but I do think that much of what I suggest is worthy of real adult debate. As I already wrote, each person will probably find some things he likes and some things he doesn't like, and that is good, for such sparks intelligent debate. Furthermore, I deliberately left out a lot of the reason for WHY I feel this way about many things. I did this to spur people to question or to come up with reasons themselves.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A friendly shout-out to all of these good people, from the Right, the Left and the Middle. I hope very much that you read all 5 opening postings and then comment. This could become one of the best discussions of the year.

[MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION] [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] [MENTION=40495]AngelsNDemons[/MENTION] [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] [MENTION=26011]Ernie S.[/MENTION] [MENTION=9429]AVG-JOE[/MENTION] @Mad Cabbie [MENTION=42649]Gracie[/MENTION] [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION] [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION] [MENTION=38281]Wolfsister77[/MENTION] [MENTION=21679]william the wie[/MENTION] [MENTION=23424]syrenn[/MENTION] [MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION] [MENTION=37250]aaronleland[/MENTION] [MENTION=36767]Bloodrock44[/MENTION] [MENTION=36528]cereal_killer[/MENTION] [MENTION=40540]Connery[/MENTION] [MENTION=30999]daws101[/MENTION] [MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION] [MENTION=33449]BreezeWood[/MENTION] [MENTION=31362]gallantwarrior[/MENTION] [MENTION=24610]iamwhatiseem[/MENTION] [MENTION=46750]Knightfall[/MENTION] [MENTION=46690]Libertarianman[/MENTION] [MENTION=1322]007[/MENTION] [MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION] [MENTION=20594]Mr Clean[/MENTION] [MENTION=20704]Nosmo King[/MENTION] [MENTION=43268]TemplarKormac[/MENTION] [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] [MENTION=41494]RandallFlagg[/MENTION] [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION] Samson [MENTION=21357]SFC Ollie[/MENTION] @Sherri [MENTION=43491]TooTall[/MENTION] [MENTION=25451]tinydancer[/MENTION] [MENTION=31918]Unkotare[/MENTION] [MENTION=45104]WelfareQueen[/MENTION] [MENTION=21524]oldfart[/MENTION] [MENTION=42498]Esmeralda[/MENTION] [MENTION=43888]AyeCantSeeYou[/MENTION] [MENTION=19302]Montrovant[/MENTION] [MENTION=11703]strollingbones[/MENTION] [MENTION=18988]PixieStix[/MENTION] [MENTION=23262]peach174[/MENTION] [MENTION=13805]Againsheila[/MENTION] [MENTION=20342]Ringel05[/MENTION] [MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION] [MENTION=18905]Sherry[/MENTION] [MENTION=29697]freedombecki[/MENTION] [MENTION=22590]AquaAthena[/MENTION] [MENTION=38146]Dajjal[/MENTION] [MENTION=18645]Sarah G[/MENTION] [MENTION=46193]Thx[/MENTION] [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION] [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION] [MENTION=18990]Barb[/MENTION] [MENTION=19867]G.T.[/MENTION] [MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION] [MENTION=11278]editec[/MENTION] [MENTION=22983]Flopper[/MENTION] [MENTION=22889]Matthew[/MENTION] [MENTION=46136]dreolin[/MENTION]

Excellent thread brother.

I read through everything except the executive and timelines, I read some of the exectuive, then skimmed the rest, then read most of the timelines, then skimmed the rest.

From what I read it seems your ideas would create more fairness and equality across the board.

I particular like the part of those states with little to no people, losing the clout they currently have.

10 people shouldn't be able to have equal weight as 10000 people. Which is what we currently have.

Your ideas are good, don't think they'll be ever implemented, for that very reason. They are too sound, and politicians crave confusion.

 

[Montrovant]

On the executive section, I disagree with the ideas.

As I've said, I'm against term limits. Even our current 2 term limitation on presidents is something I disagree with. I do understand how a 1 term limit might prevent further campaigning once in office, though.

I dislike the tying of a presidential election to senate seats and governors. I think that is a terrible idea. It is giving the voters even fewer choices. If you think you have a great president but a terrible senator or governor, you cannot vote that way. You have to keep one official in office in order to keep the other. It also too closely ties state elections to federal elections.

On the judicial section, I also tend to disagree.

I find the logic of keeping the final arbiters of our laws outside the direct influence of public opinion strong. That layer of insulation against a tyranny of the majority, while it is far from perfect, I think is important. The SCOTUS should be as objective as possible. I realize that there is already strong feeling that our justices are very partisan, but I don't think having them elected will improve that situation.

Perhaps, if a change must be made, a better plan would be to have the president select a certain number of candidates and then the Senate decides which they prefer (assuming they are willing to allow any to serve). I'm not certain if that could work, I'm simply leery of elected Supreme Court justices.

 

[BlackSand]

We can tackle it in as organized fashion as you approached the topic … Little pieces at a time.
At no time should it be misconstrued that I believe your ideas are not thoughtful and well intended.
I will start where you started … Legislative.

House of Representatives

As far as increasing the number of Representatives in attempts to more closely represent the current population level … I don't see an immediate problem with that.
There may be concerns more on the logistic rather than governing level as arrangements would need to be made for obviously more representatives and staff than what currently exists.

Term limits could be handled in a much more traditional and balanced manner.
Keep the terms the traditional two years and limit them to 4 terms.
Where some people would prefer shorter term limits … That would open the door to additional corruption.
If the maximum terms were too short … Then the representatives would soon become puppets of the handlers who walk them through the process of orientation and governmental procedures.

If you still want to include the “alternate” option anyway … Whoever came in second in the primary could hold that position.
If there was no one running against the elected representative from their party in the primary … Then the elected representative should be allowed to choose their alternate at large prior to the general election.

Comments about redistricting and the absence of gerrymandering are worthy and understandable.
Any number of arrangements could be made to ensure the redistricting was done with some fairness … But with the intent to keep individual district concerns both local and accurately representative.
No attempts should be made to segment any particular area in regards to establishing any kind of desired equality.
If a district is 95% white upper middle class … Then it is representative of its own interests.
If attempts are made to dilute that percentage in favor of balance … Then you are jeopardizing an actual representation of the district.

Senate

Ditch the idea of a messing with the number of Senators for each State … That is not the purpose of the Senate.
The Senate is what ensures the interests of one state do not outweigh the interests of another state.
Accurate representation can be handled in the House of Representatives where legislation should start in the first place … And the Senate should be kept equal to ensure the legislation does not unfairly benefit one state or region over another.

Extreme example just to show what I mean …

If the states on the West and East Coast decided to pass legislation that taxed corn crops produced in the Midwest and Plains Regions without substantial representation in the Senate to combat the move … Abuse could occur.

I wouldn't rule out the addition of two more Senators per state for better representation per each district.
I would suggest that the number be able to support an equal split at all times … Although I understand your concerns about gridlock.

Gridlock is not a bad thing (I am a Conservative) … Because it indicates the desire to do something correctly more than the desire just to do something.
If any measure cannot draw the appropriate amount of support to receive bi-partisan cooperation … Then it deserves a quick and thorough death.
I don't live in a dream world where I think the perfect idea would be to require a two thirds vote for every measure.
I do think that such a requirement would eliminate the ability of Congress members blaming others in their party (or their opposing party/parties) for actions or the lack thereof … And help hold each member more accountable for their actions.

Qualifications … You left out the fact that they need to actively reside in the district they are representing when elected.
National Senators … Forget it as part of the actual Senate … Perhaps they could serve as an advisory committee in a certain capacity … But not as voting members of the Senate.

.