What election reform would you suggest? - I have some questions and suggestion ideas

[pvsi]

What election reform would you suggest?
I would like your opinion on each and on my statement of each, please refer by the number:

1. Run of voting - isn't that already like primaries vs. elections? seems to me like nonsense, beating around the bush:

The two-round system (also known as the second ballot, runoff voting or ballotage) is a voting system used to elect a single winner where the voter casts a single vote for their chosen candidate. However, if no candidate receives the required number of votes (usually an absolute majority or 40-45% with a winning margin of 5-15%), then those candidates having less than a certain proportion of the votes, or all but the two candidates receiving the most votes, are eliminated, and a second round of voting occurs. Two-round system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. Instant Run off voting, - in my opinion while I think it's better than what we have, I believe it is not good enough because what if my opinion of candidate is in the minus - candidates publicized by the MSM still have advantage

3. There's all kinds of talk of campaign finance reform, I just found one called ACLU - they seem to understand the impact money has o





THIS IS MY SPEECH:

MESSAGE TO THE THIRD PARTIES
This is a message from the new world government to the leaders and the followers of the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, Green Party, Libertarian party and any other third and independent parties and movements in the United States that consider themselves to be independent from the establishment.
While the green party wanted to save the tree, and the libertarian party wanted to cut the tree, the establishment, led by international bankers took over our country and now they think they own most of the trees, and soon we may have to pay just to look at that tree. Until we put our beliefs aside and unite, our opinions about climate changes, gay rights, tax cuts and more taxes for the rich, constitutional rights, gun rights, the need for more government funding of social programs, absolutely do not matter, because divided we have no power. And the way establishment has elections set up, with the media telling us in advance who has and who has no chance of winning elections, we, the people who care about our nation, have absolutely no chance of winning elections, we can only enjoy to see the other side of political circus lose.

We must put our issues aside, and unite to elect an interim government that takes an oath not to pass any other laws other than the election reform. Our country will be able to survive a year or so without new laws.

WHAT KIND OF ELECTION REFORM????? - NEGATIVE VOTE OPTION - If we were to hold a referendum today on a US government, vast majority of our politicians would be out of power tomorrow, however, referendum it is said is unconstitutional.... In our changing world, do you think the people who wrote the constitution predicted that there one day will be a network such as FOX NEWS and MSNBC that can tell to the whole nation who is the predicted winner, who is ahead in the polls, who is not worth voting for because they have no chance to win anyway?
Whether we admit it or not, the media is now incorporated into our election process, and it has the power, which is greater than that of our elected politicians. But if elections will have a negative option for each of the politician on the ballot, then, all the people who disagree with the establishment media's predicted winner, will have a chance to voice their opinion as well. And what do people do when they do not have an option to vote against a candidate? they vote FOR a candidate that they do not really like, and then they are being accused of being stupid voters who elect stupid politicians. When I went to vote for the last time in 2004 in North Philadelphia, there was NO WRITE IN OPTION.

And if groups such as ACLU and others understand "the impact independent expenditures have on candidate elections" why would they not want to join together to pass a reform that would eliminate this advantage all together? I believe the only reason could be because those groups seek personal power and a career in politics themselves,

There is also talk about limiting the amount of contribution each individual can make for a candidate to $20 or $100 - to a homeless man that is still a lot of money, he would still be at a disadvantage.

 

[JoeB131]

1) Get rid of the Electoral College.

2) get rid of any contributions to PAC, 501(C)4's, or anything other than the candidates themselves. Stop pretending the transfer of wealth is "Speech".

3) Allow ALL candidates to have free airtime in equal amounts.

 

[bayoubill]

remove anyone who relies on the government for their paycheck (government employees, military personnel, welfare recipients, etc.) from the voters rolls...

 

[Nutz]

1) Get rid of the Electoral College.
.

The electoral college is the most important check on State's rights. The electoral college gives voting power to smaller states and keeps states with larger populations from deciding elections and ultimately policy.

 

[JoeB131]

1) Get rid of the Electoral College.
.

The electoral college is the most important check on State's rights. The electoral college gives voting power to smaller states and keeps states with larger populations from deciding elections and ultimately policy.

Why would a "State" need a "right". State's are imaginary entities. They only really exist on paper.

"Illinois" has never been over to my house for a cup of coffee.

What the electoral College does is take an election that should be run in all 50 states and lets about 10 states decide the election. It has a distorting view on what our problems are.

2004 SHOULD have been about how badly Bush fucked up the economy and the War. Instead it became about whether gays should be able to marry in Ohio. We're totally going to amend the constitution to keep them gays from marrying. Oh, ignore the fact Dick Cheney's daughter is a Lezbo!

 

[jwoodie]

Negative Voting: Hold a mid-term* referendum on current office holders. If a majority of voters vote no, they are prevented from running for reelection.

*Terms for the House of Representatives should be increased to four years, with half of the seats up for election every two years.

I also like Instant Runoff voting, but a negative ballot would be nothing more than a silly political gimmick, akin to Republicans voting in Democratic primaries (and vice versa).

 

[candycorn]

1) Free advertising for federal-level candidates if they get enough signatures on a petition supporting their run in a district/state/nation. This would remove money as being a "necessary evil" from the to-do list for politicians.

2) Return to the LOWV as the persons who hold Presidential elections to ensure third parties are represented if they get enough support through the petition process

3) Empower bi-partisan boards to draw House districts OR simply have a zip-code lottery where by if there are 50 zip codes in a state, and there are 5 house members...each one draws 10 out of a hat. This eliminates politically safe districts for Parties.

4) Make it to where the President-elect must have won BOTH the electoral college vote AS WELL AS the popular vote. Outside of that, the amendment allowing the House to pick the POTUS and Senate to pick VPOTUS kicks in.

5). It's not electoral but I fully endorse the idea that we have an English style questions period for the President from the Congress where the President stands in the ell and takes on question after question. I watched this the other day on CSPAN and it's remarkable how on top of the game the Prime Minister must be. There was one question from some Lord citing the strong English showing at the Oscars. He asked the PM to endorse the college that produced the winner of some award or another. The PM did 3 minutes on the programs at this college. Obama would have sat there and blinked for 3 minutes not knowing a thing about the UCLA film school or whatever it was. Then there was a question about a rail line that was cut back recently. Again, the PM was right on top of it. It was hilarious. As I understand it, the moderator rotates between parties so sometimes you get a favorable one and sometimes you get one less favorable.

 

[rightwinger]

1. Dump the Electoral College
2. Prohibit Gerrymandering
3. Allow online voting
4. Public funding of elections with no private contributions

 

[Nutz]

1) Get rid of the Electoral College.
.

The electoral college is the most important check on State's rights. The electoral college gives voting power to smaller states and keeps states with larger populations from deciding elections and ultimately policy.

Why would a "State" need a "right". State's are imaginary entities. They only really exist on paper.

"Illinois" has never been over to my house for a cup of coffee.

What the electoral College does is take an election that should be run in all 50 states and lets about 10 states decide the election. It has a distorting view on what our problems are.

2004 SHOULD have been about how badly Bush fucked up the economy and the War. Instead it became about whether gays should be able to marry in Ohio. We're totally going to amend the constitution to keep them gays from marrying. Oh, ignore the fact Dick Cheney's daughter is a Lezbo!

You have a total misunderstanding of the electoral college and the basis for our republic.

I won't get into the remedial lesson of 50 separate states that have the ability to create their own law and so on...but I will say that popular vote would do exactly the opposite of what you claim.

Obviously, you don't believe in states rights and you believe CA law should be VA or KY or NY law.

You think 10 states decide the election now? If not for the electoral college, why would a politician even worry about campaigning outside of CA, TX, NY FL and IL. Those 5 states could decide the election themselves through popular vote. Smaller population states would essentially have no say. On top of that, why would any politician care about a less populated city in those states when all they have to do is campaign and make promises in LA, NY, Dallas, Miami, and Chicago.

Are you prepared to allow this? I live in VA...I don't want elections to be determined by CA.

But then again, if I read correctly, you don't believe in state's rights. You don't think TX should have different laws and ideas than CA. It seems as if you think VA citizens should accept CA policy and have no say of their own. This is what the electoral college is about. It preserves the basis that we are 50 different states bound together by a national Constitution.

Of course, their are more complex issues, but this is not the forum for real discussions.

 

[rightwinger]

The electoral college is the most important check on State's rights. The electoral college gives voting power to smaller states and keeps states with larger populations from deciding elections and ultimately policy.

Why would a "State" need a "right". State's are imaginary entities. They only really exist on paper.

"Illinois" has never been over to my house for a cup of coffee.

What the electoral College does is take an election that should be run in all 50 states and lets about 10 states decide the election. It has a distorting view on what our problems are.

2004 SHOULD have been about how badly Bush fucked up the economy and the War. Instead it became about whether gays should be able to marry in Ohio. We're totally going to amend the constitution to keep them gays from marrying. Oh, ignore the fact Dick Cheney's daughter is a Lezbo!

You have a total misunderstanding of the electoral college and the basis for our republic.

I won't get into the remedial lesson of 50 separate states that have the ability to create their own law and so on...but I will say that popular vote would do exactly the opposite of what you claim.

Obviously, you don't believe in states rights and you believe CA law should be VA or KY or NY law.

You think 10 states decide the election now? If not for the electoral college, why would a politician even worry about campaigning outside of CA, TX, NY FL and IL. Those 5 states could decide the election themselves through popular vote. Smaller population states would essentially have no say. On top of that, why would any politician care about a less populated city in those states when all they have to do is campaign and make promises in LA, NY, Dallas, Miami, and Chicago.

Are you prepared to allow this? I live in VA...I don't want elections to be determined by CA.

But then again, if I read correctly, you don't believe in state's rights. You don't think TX should have different laws and ideas than CA. It seems as if you think VA citizens should accept CA policy and have no say of their own. This is what the electoral college is about. It preserves the basis that we are 50 different states bound together by a national Constitution.

Of course, their are more complex issues, but this is not the forum for real discussions.

States are represented in the House and Senate

The President should be a representative of the people not the states

 

[RKMBrown]

What election reform would you suggest?

2. Instant Run off voting, - in my opinion while I think it's better than what we have, I believe it is not good enough because what if my opinion of candidate is in the minus - candidates publicized by the MSM still have advantage

This is the answer.

You are mistaken, regarding your what if. Putting someone last on your list makes it a net negative as compared to the rest of the people on the ballot that you put higher.

The way a ranking would likely work is everyone's number one gets counted in the first round of calculation. If a candidate does not get 51%, a second round of calculation occurs with a determination of who had the most votes when second favorites are considered.

1st round of calculation Candidate 1 (rino) has 45%, Candidate 2 (conservative) has 35%, Candidate 3 (Conservative) has 20%.

IOW conservative vote was split, RINO won using old system.

2nd round of calculation Candidate 1 falls to 5%, Candidate 2 has 60%, Candidate 3 has 30%.

So what happened? Easy... most of the voters put candidate 2 down as their second favorite in case their primary favorite did not get 51%, almost no one put down candidate 1 as their 2nd favorite. In this case the RINO voters were split between 2, 3, and NA as their second favorite. But enough people voted for candidate 2 as their second fav. to push the best conservative over the RINO.

 

[Nutz]

Why would a "State" need a "right". State's are imaginary entities. They only really exist on paper.

"Illinois" has never been over to my house for a cup of coffee.

What the electoral College does is take an election that should be run in all 50 states and lets about 10 states decide the election. It has a distorting view on what our problems are.

2004 SHOULD have been about how badly Bush fucked up the economy and the War. Instead it became about whether gays should be able to marry in Ohio. We're totally going to amend the constitution to keep them gays from marrying. Oh, ignore the fact Dick Cheney's daughter is a Lezbo!

You have a total misunderstanding of the electoral college and the basis for our republic.

I won't get into the remedial lesson of 50 separate states that have the ability to create their own law and so on...but I will say that popular vote would do exactly the opposite of what you claim.

Obviously, you don't believe in states rights and you believe CA law should be VA or KY or NY law.

You think 10 states decide the election now? If not for the electoral college, why would a politician even worry about campaigning outside of CA, TX, NY FL and IL. Those 5 states could decide the election themselves through popular vote. Smaller population states would essentially have no say. On top of that, why would any politician care about a less populated city in those states when all they have to do is campaign and make promises in LA, NY, Dallas, Miami, and Chicago.

Are you prepared to allow this? I live in VA...I don't want elections to be determined by CA.

But then again, if I read correctly, you don't believe in state's rights. You don't think TX should have different laws and ideas than CA. It seems as if you think VA citizens should accept CA policy and have no say of their own. This is what the electoral college is about. It preserves the basis that we are 50 different states bound together by a national Constitution.

Of course, their are more complex issues, but this is not the forum for real discussions.

States are represented in the House and Senate

The President should be a representative of the people not the states

The people of which state? You think cronyism, abuse, fraud etc is bad now...let 5 states hold the power to elect a President. It's part of checks and balances. You take away the electoral college, you take away an integral part of that system. You take away the electoral college, you take away the very representation you think you are gaining...votes from citizens in smaller states will not matter.

 

[rightwinger]

You have a total misunderstanding of the electoral college and the basis for our republic.

I won't get into the remedial lesson of 50 separate states that have the ability to create their own law and so on...but I will say that popular vote would do exactly the opposite of what you claim.

Obviously, you don't believe in states rights and you believe CA law should be VA or KY or NY law.

You think 10 states decide the election now? If not for the electoral college, why would a politician even worry about campaigning outside of CA, TX, NY FL and IL. Those 5 states could decide the election themselves through popular vote. Smaller population states would essentially have no say. On top of that, why would any politician care about a less populated city in those states when all they have to do is campaign and make promises in LA, NY, Dallas, Miami, and Chicago.

Are you prepared to allow this? I live in VA...I don't want elections to be determined by CA.

But then again, if I read correctly, you don't believe in state's rights. You don't think TX should have different laws and ideas than CA. It seems as if you think VA citizens should accept CA policy and have no say of their own. This is what the electoral college is about. It preserves the basis that we are 50 different states bound together by a national Constitution.

Of course, their are more complex issues, but this is not the forum for real discussions.

States are represented in the House and Senate

The President should be a representative of the people not the states

The people of which state? You think cronyism, abuse, fraud etc is bad now...let 5 states hold the power to elect a President. It's part of checks and balances. You take away the electoral college, you take away an integral part of that system. You take away the electoral college, you take away the very representation you think you are gaining...votes from citizens in smaller states will not matter.

When you vote for Congressman or Senator you are voting for a representative of Iowa or California

Your vote for President would be as a citizen of the United States whether that citizen was from Iowa or California. The vote of a citizen in Iowa would count the same as the vote of a citizen from California

 

[pvsi]

1) Get rid of the Electoral College.

2) get rid of any contributions to PAC, 501(C)4's, or anything other than the candidates themselves. Stop pretending the transfer of wealth is "Speech".

3) Allow ALL candidates to have free airtime in equal amounts.

3 - the way I see establishment controlling opposition right now is by having a whole lot of candidates to begin with, what if there are million candidates, it will not help, I agree with your idea, but I do not see it possible, because then they will scream that you are interfering with their freedom of speech or something like that, in other words you can't dictate who can talk for how long. but if with all the talk, with all the publicity air time establishments candidates get, the people will then be also allowed to vote against them, then all their publicity and extra air time will not help, but it will agitate many voters to vote against them as well. do you agree?

 

[pvsi]

remove anyone who relies on the government for their paycheck (government employees, military personnel, welfare recipients, etc.) from the voters rolls...

WOW thank you. I agree completely - can anyone explain why this would not be right?

 

[pvsi]

1) Get rid of the Electoral College.
.

The electoral college is the most important check on State's rights. The electoral college gives voting power to smaller states and keeps states with larger populations from deciding elections and ultimately policy.

I fail to see your logic

 

[pvsi]

The electoral college is the most important check on State's rights. The electoral college gives voting power to smaller states and keeps states with larger populations from deciding elections and ultimately policy.

Why would a "State" need a "right". State's are imaginary entities. They only really exist on paper.

"Illinois" has never been over to my house for a cup of coffee.

What the electoral College does is take an election that should be run in all 50 states and lets about 10 states decide the election. It has a distorting view on what our problems are.

2004 SHOULD have been about how badly Bush fucked up the economy and the War. Instead it became about whether gays should be able to marry in Ohio. We're totally going to amend the constitution to keep them gays from marrying. Oh, ignore the fact Dick Cheney's daughter is a Lezbo!

You have a total misunderstanding of the electoral college and the basis for our republic.

I won't get into the remedial lesson of 50 separate states that have the ability to create their own law and so on...but I will say that popular vote would do exactly the opposite of what you claim.

Obviously, you don't believe in states rights and you believe CA law should be VA or KY or NY law.

You think 10 states decide the election now? If not for the electoral college, why would a politician even worry about campaigning outside of CA, TX, NY FL and IL. Those 5 states could decide the election themselves through popular vote. Smaller population states would essentially have no say. On top of that, why would any politician care about a less populated city in those states when all they have to do is campaign and make promises in LA, NY, Dallas, Miami, and Chicago.

Are you prepared to allow this? I live in VA...I don't want elections to be determined by CA.

But then again, if I read correctly, you don't believe in state's rights. You don't think TX should have different laws and ideas than CA. It seems as if you think VA citizens should accept CA policy and have no say of their own. This is what the electoral college is about. It preserves the basis that we are 50 different states bound together by a national Constitution.

Of course, their are more complex issues, but this is not the forum for real discussions.

I see you put effort in stating that electoral college helps smaller states, but I completely fail to understand your logic: the way it is NOW, smaller states have less electoral votes and are less meaningful. If there is a reason why candidates like to talk in small towns and stay away from big cities in MY VIEW is because they are afraid of the big city people, which I can understand since I lived in Philadelphia

 

[pvsi]

What election reform would you suggest?

2. Instant Run off voting, - in my opinion while I think it's better than what we have, I believe it is not good enough because what if my opinion of candidate is in the minus - candidates publicized by the MSM still have advantage

This is the answer.

You are mistaken, regarding your what if. Putting someone last on your list makes it a net negative as compared to the rest of the people on the ballot that you put higher.

No it does not - if the 5 candidates on the ballot are Mr. Scum, Mrs. Dumb, Mr. Moron and Sir Traitor, then the last on my choice still does not allow me to express myself AND THAT IS USUALLY THE CASE BECAUSE the establishment and the media ensures in advance that no decent candidate gets enough air time to become known to the people.

 

[rightwinger]

remove anyone who relies on the government for their paycheck (government employees, military personnel, welfare recipients, etc.) from the voters rolls...

WOW thank you. I agree completely - can anyone explain why this would not be right?

Veterans would love you

 

[pvsi]

You can't be loved by anyone, but when government is allowed to vote for the raises for themselves and the laws benefiting themselves while oppressing humanity, then in my view having government officials not vote in elections could not hurt.