Fundamental Changes Needed To the Presidential Voting Process the Legislative Branch

[GHook93]

Presidental Voting Process:

There are voting districts in each state. Each votes for a separate house rep and each of these districts determines how the state will vote in the Presidental election. Electoral votes are broken up by State by how the majority of districts vote and its majority take all.

I say they should be broken up by district. Instead of a winner take all approach for each state. If the D's get 60% of CA and the Rep get 40% of CA, then the 60% of CA electoral votes for to D and 40% goes to R. The reverse for TX. This way politician won't just dismiss states because the will lose or easily win them. Republican and Democratic districts will actually mean something. Heck even an independent 3rd party could win something.

Second benefit would be that it would take away the power that the big states have in a national election. Come on CA, FL, IL, NY and TX have a little too much power in national elections. If its districted, then it more representative of the state and the nation.


Legislative Branch:
(1) Get Rid of the Senate: Why the fuck do we need two branches of congress. The Senate is where legislation goes to DIE. Senate makes it so hard to get things done, that earmarks, special gifts and water-down legislation are required to get the 60 votes. It ruins the system. A second legislative branch is not needed. It doesn't protect small state's rights, rather it fucks everyone because nothing can get through Congress and the things that do are so half-assed it screws everyone. Many moons ago they tried to get rid of it, but failed. Its a damn shame it didn't go then.

(2) Get rid of filibusters: The rationality for filibusters is that they have a right to protect free speech of Congressman. Give me a fricking break. Either get rid of the filibuster altogether or enact a time limit. Such as, here is the final bill today (no changes allowed after this point), then we have 1 month to review and discuss and then we vote, majority vote wins. Unless there is a veto then 2/3 vote required.

(3) Stop the 2 year fucking reelection thing. All House Reps do is campaign for reelection and never have time to do there jobs. We also need to stop created career politicians. Here is my plan:
(a) 5 year term limits.
(b) 2 term limits
(c) 3rd and 4th term are possible, by consenus. 6 months before the 2nd term is up a district wide vote is taken 70% of the voters must vote in favor allowing a 3rd term. 6 months before the 4th term 80% of voters must vote in favor of allowing a 4th term. This is straight vote, no quorum needed.

 

[Luissa]

Isn't this how they used to choose the nominee?

 

[ihopehefails]

I agree with that. If your are going to have the president chosen by direct popular vote then at break it down into smaller districts or just get rid of the electorial college completely.

 

[Luissa]

I agree with that. If your are going to have the president chosen by direct popular vote then at break it down into smaller districts or just get rid of the electorial college completely.

There is a purpose for the electorial college!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I disagree with dissolving the Senate. Both houses need to stay.

As for how States divide up their electoral votes, you need to go to EACH individual State. It is State not Federal Law that determines how a State counts who won what in the State. SO you would need to convince the 48 States that still have winner take all individually to change their State Law and possibly their Constitution.

 

[ihopehefails]

I agree with that. If your are going to have the president chosen by direct popular vote then at break it down into smaller districts or just get rid of the electorial college completely.

There is a purpose for the electorial college!

That is to have the governors appoint two selectors who then cast votes for the president. While I think that has a lot of advantages over direct popular vote we should just throw it away completely if we are going to use direct popular. This way everyone's vote counts.

 

[GHook93]

I agree with that. If your are going to have the president chosen by direct popular vote then at break it down into smaller districts or just get rid of the electorial college completely.

I don't think you need to get rid of the electoral colleges, but why should say CA or TX have to vote all their electoral votes one way, when a good percentage of the population wants and has voted the other way. Heck that is how its works for many states in the primary system works! In the primary system each candidate works hard for the non-winner take all states. Democrats should not just dismiss Texas because they can't win it and the Republican should not have to do the same things for CA.

 

[GHook93]

I disagree with dissolving the Senate. Both houses need to stay.

Have you ever heard that too many cooks in the kitchen spoil the bunch! Look at ever piece of important legislation. Approval by both houses kills everything and screws up everything.

Case in point: Healthcare (specifically Obamacare) and Immigration (McCain-Kennedy).

You are not going to find too many Americans that don't want healthcare reform. Both sides of the isle want it. However, when you needed so many people to agree, special interests and earmarks needed to be included. In the end came a mess of a bill.

Same happened for immigration during Bush years. Whether people want to believe it or not the vast majority of Americans (moderates, central left leaning, right, African Americans, Whites and many Latinos) want immigration reform and a protected border. But same thing happen. Too many cooks in the kitchen. Too many special interests, too many people vying for something. In the end came a bills that was half-assed.


So what is the consequence: No healthcare reform and no immigration reform!


To some the 2 parties sound like a safety nets, but be honest what is a safety net worth it nothing can ever get done because of the net! The net is then worth dick!

 

[MaggieMae]

Presidental Voting Process:

There are voting districts in each state. Each votes for a separate house rep and each of these districts determines how the state will vote in the Presidental election. Electoral votes are broken up by State by how the majority of districts vote and its majority take all.

I say they should be broken up by district. Instead of a winner take all approach for each state. If the D's get 60% of CA and the Rep get 40% of CA, then the 60% of CA electoral votes for to D and 40% goes to R. The reverse for TX. This way politician won't just dismiss states because the will lose or easily win them. Republican and Democratic districts will actually mean something. Heck even an independent 3rd party could win something.

Second benefit would be that it would take away the power that the big states have in a national election. Come on CA, FL, IL, NY and TX have a little too much power in national elections. If its districted, then it more representative of the state and the nation.


Legislative Branch:
(1) Get Rid of the Senate: Why the fuck do we need two branches of congress. The Senate is where legislation goes to DIE. Senate makes it so hard to get things done, that earmarks, special gifts and water-down legislation are required to get the 60 votes. It ruins the system. A second legislative branch is not needed. It doesn't protect small state's rights, rather it fucks everyone because nothing can get through Congress and the things that do are so half-assed it screws everyone. Many moons ago they tried to get rid of it, but failed. Its a damn shame it didn't go then.

(2) Get rid of filibusters: The rationality for filibusters is that they have a right to protect free speech of Congressman. Give me a fricking break. Either get rid of the filibuster altogether or enact a time limit. Such as, here is the final bill today (no changes allowed after this point), then we have 1 month to review and discuss and then we vote, majority vote wins. Unless there is a veto then 2/3 vote required.

(3) Stop the 2 year fucking reelection thing. All House Reps do is campaign for reelection and never have time to do there jobs. We also need to stop created career politicians. Here is my plan:
(a) 5 year term limits.
(b) 2 term limits
(c) 3rd and 4th term are possible, by consenus. 6 months before the 2nd term is up a district wide vote is taken 70% of the voters must vote in favor allowing a 3rd term. 6 months before the 4th term 80% of voters must vote in favor of allowing a 4th term. This is straight vote, no quorum needed.

Constitutional Amendments would be needed to do all of the above, which takes years. Good luck with that.

 

[MaggieMae]

I agree with that. If your are going to have the president chosen by direct popular vote then at break it down into smaller districts or just get rid of the electorial college completely.

It's always amusing that it's always the losing side that wants to abolish the electoral college. Then when they win again, it's never mentioned. Same with the filibuster rule: The majority party always HATES IT and tries to get rid of it--until they lose their majority.

 

[MaggieMae]

I agree with that. If your are going to have the president chosen by direct popular vote then at break it down into smaller districts or just get rid of the electorial college completely.

There is a purpose for the electorial college!

And for creating districts, which the Census Bureau is now determining but the results of redistricting won't be known for another four years.

 

[rightwinger]

It will take a Constitutional Amendment and there is NO WAY states with small populations would ratify it.

How else do Red States have so much clout?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It will take a Constitutional Ammendment and there is NO WAY states with small populations would ratify it.

How else do Red States have so much clout?

Getting rid of the Senate and or the Electoral College would require Constitutional Amendments. Changing how States award Electors is solely a State Matter. Each individual State is free to determine how and in what manner they select Electors for the Electoral College.

As I recall we have 2 small States that split the electors based on the vote. I think in both cases the 2 Sentorial Electors go to who won the State and House electors are split by the vote.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Leave the Electoral College alone; it's working perfectly. Also, leave the Senate alone; it sucks when you're you're in the majority and have to deal with a minority who can stop crappy legislation now, huh?

Keep it up Republicans; be the party of HELL NO!

 

[Luissa]

I agree with that. If your are going to have the president chosen by direct popular vote then at break it down into smaller districts or just get rid of the electorial college completely.

There is a purpose for the electorial college!

That is to have the governors appoint two selectors who then cast votes for the president. While I think that has a lot of advantages over direct popular vote we should just throw it away completely if we are going to use direct popular. This way everyone's vote counts.

So you want even more democracy?

The Founding Father's did not want complete democracy, which is why they set up the system the way it is. And I could play your game and call you communist, because true communism is more democracy than we currently have.

 

[GHook93]

Presidental Voting Process:

There are voting districts in each state. Each votes for a separate house rep and each of these districts determines how the state will vote in the Presidental election. Electoral votes are broken up by State by how the majority of districts vote and its majority take all.

I say they should be broken up by district. Instead of a winner take all approach for each state. If the D's get 60% of CA and the Rep get 40% of CA, then the 60% of CA electoral votes for to D and 40% goes to R. The reverse for TX. This way politician won't just dismiss states because the will lose or easily win them. Republican and Democratic districts will actually mean something. Heck even an independent 3rd party could win something.

Second benefit would be that it would take away the power that the big states have in a national election. Come on CA, FL, IL, NY and TX have a little too much power in national elections. If its districted, then it more representative of the state and the nation.


Legislative Branch:
(1) Get Rid of the Senate: Why the fuck do we need two branches of congress. The Senate is where legislation goes to DIE. Senate makes it so hard to get things done, that earmarks, special gifts and water-down legislation are required to get the 60 votes. It ruins the system. A second legislative branch is not needed. It doesn't protect small state's rights, rather it fucks everyone because nothing can get through Congress and the things that do are so half-assed it screws everyone. Many moons ago they tried to get rid of it, but failed. Its a damn shame it didn't go then.

(2) Get rid of filibusters: The rationality for filibusters is that they have a right to protect free speech of Congressman. Give me a fricking break. Either get rid of the filibuster altogether or enact a time limit. Such as, here is the final bill today (no changes allowed after this point), then we have 1 month to review and discuss and then we vote, majority vote wins. Unless there is a veto then 2/3 vote required.

(3) Stop the 2 year fucking reelection thing. All House Reps do is campaign for reelection and never have time to do there jobs. We also need to stop created career politicians. Here is my plan:
(a) 5 year term limits.
(b) 2 term limits
(c) 3rd and 4th term are possible, by consenus. 6 months before the 2nd term is up a district wide vote is taken 70% of the voters must vote in favor allowing a 3rd term. 6 months before the 4th term 80% of voters must vote in favor of allowing a 4th term. This is straight vote, no quorum needed.

Constitutional Amendments would be needed to do all of the above, which takes years. Good luck with that.

Really getting the Senate dissolved would be hard! I never though it would that! Heck getting anything done is damn near impossible and I am taking about the biggest change to the government, since the government can into being.

Another constitutional convention would be needed! The senate is not going to dissolve itself.

Constitutional convention can occur, if 2/3 of both parties of Congress vote for it OR if 2/3 of the states vote for it. Very difficult either way. Evidence of that is we have never had a 2nd constitutional convention. I would be all for it, as along as the Supremacy Clause, Privilege and Immunity Clause, Commander and Chief power and Bill of Right could not be touch.

 

[GHook93]

I agree with that. If your are going to have the president chosen by direct popular vote then at break it down into smaller districts or just get rid of the electorial college completely.

It's always amusing that it's always the losing side that wants to abolish the electoral college. Then when they win again, it's never mentioned. Same with the filibuster rule: The majority party always HATES IT and tries to get rid of it--until they lose their majority.

I won't probably be considered on the losing side and I hated it filibuster now as I have always hated it. I hate 2 house approval then and I hate it now.

 

[KissMy]

NO WAY am I down with getting rid of the electoral college! This prevents ACORN from setting up shop in one corrupt district in the country & affecting the popular vote changing the election in a big way. The way it is now fraud has to be committed in many different places to affect the vote.

We also need to maintain the Congress House & Senate checks & balances. Do not fuck with the system unless you want to wind up with a dictator.

 

[mvymvy]

The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states. Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.

Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

 

[mvymvy]

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,707 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska – 70%, DC – 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota – 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%. Support is strong in every partisan and demographic group surveyed.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See NationalPopularVote.com