Election Reforms I'd Like To See

[Quantum Windbag]

Real campaign finance reform. What happened to it? Both POTUS candidates are raising and spending money like it's going out of style.

I'd like to be able to hear Ron Paul and Jill Stein debate the President and Mr Romney. That will never happen until the rules are changed.


Also, some kind of assurance the election process is completely honest in every state.

What are your ideas?

Real campaign finance reform means what? You want to limit how much money candidate can raise? How much they can spend? Do you realize that limits on campaign spending never take into account the amount of money an incumbent candidate can spend on from his office? Why do you want to make things worse by making it harder to get new people in?

Tell you what, I am willing to trade you finance reform for term limits.

The debates are not controlled by the government, so any ideas I have about them are irrelevant, because what you are discussion is government actions.

Do you have any evidence that the elections anywhere in this country are not honest?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the same as yours w/ the addition of a 5 yr ban on any employment that can influence gov't (revolving door employ)

Complete financial disclosure of business AND special interest groups ties.

Already required at the federal level.

 

[Steelplate]

publicly funded elections....One pool of money per position.....President, Senate, Representative.

Each pool of money will be distributed equally amongst legitimate candidates. Any discrepencies will be investigated and their campaigns will be suspended pending the outcome of that investigation. Those found guilty of manipulation will be prosecuted.

Let's get the influence of Corporate, Union, and other special interests out of our elections and our government. We need our elected representation to be for The American People again....not for whoever greases the cogs in their campaign machine the most.

 

[dblack]

The biggest dysfunction I see with our election process is the "lesser-of-two-evils" mindset. The most fundamental structural cause of this, apart from deliberate manipulation of voters and the media, is the winner-take-all, plurality voting scheme that we use. We can, and should, replace it with something more effective. Approval voting, the various run-off systems, or rank-voting systems would all be vast improvements.

Sadly, this isn't a "sexy" topic and, instead, we are flooded with proposals that are designed to give government even more control to manipulate the democratic will of the people. In the end, the existing powers-that-be are happy with the status quo. It will take some serious hell raising to get anything changed that will benefit voters over the bankers and corporations pulling the strings.

 

[dblack]

publicly funded elections....One pool of money per position.....President, Senate, Representative.

Each pool of money will be distributed equally amongst legitimate candidates. Any discrepencies will be investigated and their campaigns will be suspended pending the outcome of that investigation. Those found guilty of manipulation will be prosecuted.

Let's get the influence of Corporate, Union, and other special interests out of our elections and our government. We need our elected representation to be for The American People again....not for whoever greases the cogs in their campaign machine the most.

I can't imagine a scenario where creating more centralized control over election funding would do anything but give more advantage to those who are good at centralized control (corporations, unions, and other power blocs).

The idea of giving equal amounts of money to all "legitimate" candidates is nonsensical. The entire question we're trying to answer with the campaigning process is who the "legitimate" candidates are. It'd be like passing a law that we can only vote for "good" candidates.

 

[Steelplate]

publicly funded elections....One pool of money per position.....President, Senate, Representative.

Each pool of money will be distributed equally amongst legitimate candidates. Any discrepencies will be investigated and their campaigns will be suspended pending the outcome of that investigation. Those found guilty of manipulation will be prosecuted.

Let's get the influence of Corporate, Union, and other special interests out of our elections and our government. We need our elected representation to be for The American People again....not for whoever greases the cogs in their campaign machine the most.

I can't imagine a scenario where creating more centralized control over election funding would do anything but give more advantage to those who are good at centralized control (corporations, unions, and other power blocs).

The idea of giving equal amounts of money to all "legitimate" candidates is nonsensical. The entire question we're trying to answer with the campaigning process is who the "legitimate" candidates are. It'd be like passing a law that we can only vote for "good" candidates.

Well, I disagree. I understand what you are saying, as a Libertarian...you are probably concerned that your chosen candidate would not be considered "legitimate". But have no fear, Libertarians, Democratic Socialists, Green Party, etc. would all be represented. Think about it.....if they were all on equal financial footing, their voices wouldn't be drowned out by "the big two".

This is why guys like your man Paul never have a chance. You have to hope for a fundamental change in the voting public for a Libertarian to have a fighting chance at the Presidency....and frankly, that's not going to happen. Plus, with all the candidates having an equal(and BUDGETED) amount of dollars.....They will have to be more wise and frugal with those dollars to make those funds last throughout the election process.

That means that "We the People" won't be bombarded with ridiculous and redundant advertising a full year before the general election. I would think that Nationally televised debates would become the focal point of the Campaign process, rather than a crap load of smear ads that really do nothing other than demonize the opposition.

I think that Primaries would be problematic. Perhaps for the Primaries, we could keep the system we have now...but excess money would go into the pool after the Primaries are over... The details would need to be ironed out, but I feel strongly that the American people would be better Represented this way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

publicly funded elections....One pool of money per position.....President, Senate, Representative.

Each pool of money will be distributed equally amongst legitimate candidates. Any discrepencies will be investigated and their campaigns will be suspended pending the outcome of that investigation. Those found guilty of manipulation will be prosecuted.

Let's get the influence of Corporate, Union, and other special interests out of our elections and our government. We need our elected representation to be for The American People again....not for whoever greases the cogs in their campaign machine the most.

What makes a candidate legitimate?

 

[Steelplate]

publicly funded elections....One pool of money per position.....President, Senate, Representative.

Each pool of money will be distributed equally amongst legitimate candidates. Any discrepencies will be investigated and their campaigns will be suspended pending the outcome of that investigation. Those found guilty of manipulation will be prosecuted.

Let's get the influence of Corporate, Union, and other special interests out of our elections and our government. We need our elected representation to be for The American People again....not for whoever greases the cogs in their campaign machine the most.

What makes a candidate legitimate?

Chosen by the people of their respective legally recognized parties through the primary process. If you want a legitimate, competitive third (or more) party(ies)...this is about the only way to do it.

 

[dblack]

Well, I disagree. I understand what you are saying, as a Libertarian...you are probably concerned that your chosen candidate would not be considered "legitimate". But have no fear, Libertarians, Democratic Socialists, Green Party, etc. would all be represented.

Who says? And who is included in "etc."? If it is existing government deciding who will be considered as "legitimate" candidates, then I think I have plenty to fear. Maybe I'm too cynical, or lacking in imagination, but I'd like to know who will be deciding what a 'legitimate party' is and how that would be implemented. How would the system to decide who is legitimate, and who is not, remain free of exactly the same political pressures corrupting our government presently?

And what about outside groups that wanted to spend money on behalf of a candidate or party, would their spending be included in the total, or even allowed? Would there be a dedicated police force assigned to silence this kind of promotion? It's hard to imagine how you can implement any meaningful controls on campaign spending without serious freedom of speech issues.

Think about it.....if they were all on equal financial footing, their voices wouldn't be drowned out by "the big two".

I've thought about it quite a lot. And I can appreciate where you're coming from. It's certainly not ideal to have big money and special interest groups deciding for us who the 'legitimate' candidates are, but replacing that dynamic with government bureaucracy sounds like something even worse.

Chosen by the people of their respective legally recognized parties through the primary process. If you want a legitimate, competitive third (or more) party(ies)...this is about the only way to do it.

Seriously, who decides what constitutes a "legally recognized party"? There would have to be some fairly stringent standards, right? And such standards would be decided by a vested political apparatus with strong motivations to squelch unwanted competition.

Without such standards, if every comer truly gets the same funds, how is that any better? Do you really want to see the American Nazi Party, or Lyndon LaRouche, or the Westboro Baptist Church getting the same share of public funds as the Democrats or the Republicans, or "legitimate" third parties like the Green Party or the Libertarian Party?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

publicly funded elections....One pool of money per position.....President, Senate, Representative.

Each pool of money will be distributed equally amongst legitimate candidates. Any discrepencies will be investigated and their campaigns will be suspended pending the outcome of that investigation. Those found guilty of manipulation will be prosecuted.

Let's get the influence of Corporate, Union, and other special interests out of our elections and our government. We need our elected representation to be for The American People again....not for whoever greases the cogs in their campaign machine the most.

What makes a candidate legitimate?

Chosen by the people of their respective legally recognized parties through the primary process. If you want a legitimate, competitive third (or more) party(ies)...this is about the only way to do it.

There you go again, using the government, incumbents, to determine who can run against the incumbents, is never going to work. They will always make sure they have the advantage, and restrict the ability of others to challenge them. Why do you think all the campaign finance reform has led to fewer candidates?

 

[Steelplate]

Well, I disagree. I understand what you are saying, as a Libertarian...you are probably concerned that your chosen candidate would not be considered "legitimate". But have no fear, Libertarians, Democratic Socialists, Green Party, etc. would all be represented.

Who says? And who is included in "etc."? If it is existing government deciding who will be considered as "legitimate" candidates, then I think I have plenty to fear. Maybe I'm too cynical, or lacking in imagination, but I'd like to know who will be deciding what a 'legitimate party' is and how that would be implemented. How would the system to decide who is legitimate, and who is not, remain free of exactly the same political pressures corrupting our government presently?

And what about outside groups that wanted to spend money on behalf of a candidate or party, would their spending be included in the total, or even allowed? Would there be a dedicated police force assigned to silence this kind of promotion? It's hard to imagine how you can implement any meaningful controls on campaign spending without serious freedom of speech issues.

Think about it.....if they were all on equal financial footing, their voices wouldn't be drowned out by "the big two".

I've thought about it quite a lot. And I can appreciate where you're coming from. It's certainly not ideal to have big money and special interest groups deciding for us who the 'legitimate' candidates are, but replacing that dynamic with government bureaucracy sounds like something even worse.

Chosen by the people of their respective legally recognized parties through the primary process. If you want a legitimate, competitive third (or more) party(ies)...this is about the only way to do it.

Seriously, who decides what constitutes a "legally recognized party"? There would have to be some fairly stringent standards, right? And such standards would be decided by a vested political apparatus with strong motivations to squelch unwanted competition.

Without such standards, if every comer truly gets the same funds, how is that any better? Do you really want to see the American Nazi Party, or Lyndon LaRouche, or the Westboro Baptist Church getting the same share of public funds as the Democrats or the Republicans, or "legitimate" third parties like the Green Party or the Libertarian Party?

They wouldn't. It would have to be an established party....or, if a new party would. be created...they would have to meet certain criteria to become an established party. I mean, I just couldn't say...I'm the founding member of the Steelplate Party....now gimme my money! If I wanted to create a "Steelplate Party", I would have to have the support....via membership....of a predetermined percentage of the population.....the thing would be to set the criteria so that Joe Schmoe can't start a new party just to grab a slice of that money, but loose enough to allow for some natural growth.

I would say, to start out....You would have Dems, GOP, Libertarian, Tea Party, and Democratic Socialists. That would create a good spectrum from far right to pretty far left. with the original Democratic and Republican Parties holding down the middle....I mean, you could even throw the Commies in there to go way left....But, I'd prefer not to. I despise Communism....and since this is all hypothetical....I choose not to include them....plus, we could implement the criteria in such a way that real extreme groups can't weasel their way in.

It would take a Constitutional Amendment for any of this to happen....so for all intents and purposes, it won't. But if the idea ever got legs, that stuff would have to be figured out by people with more knowledge and understanding of law and procedure than me.....I think that the general population should have some input....but let's face it....all of here are "shade tree" policy makers.

 

[Steelplate]

What makes a candidate legitimate?

Chosen by the people of their respective legally recognized parties through the primary process. If you want a legitimate, competitive third (or more) party(ies)...this is about the only way to do it.

There you go again, using the government, incumbents, to determine who can run against the incumbents, is never going to work. They will always make sure they have the advantage, and restrict the ability of others to challenge them. Why do you think all the campaign finance reform has led to fewer candidates?

how? Incumbents are still subject to the will of the people. I don't know why you feel so powerless when it comes to our elected officials. Every Candidate would have equal resources, there would be strict and independent oversight to make sure no one manipulates(cheats). The only advantage incumbents would have is experience....and depending on their voting record, it may not be an advantage at all.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Chosen by the people of their respective legally recognized parties through the primary process. If you want a legitimate, competitive third (or more) party(ies)...this is about the only way to do it.

There you go again, using the government, incumbents, to determine who can run against the incumbents, is never going to work. They will always make sure they have the advantage, and restrict the ability of others to challenge them. Why do you think all the campaign finance reform has led to fewer candidates?

how? Incumbents are still subject to the will of the people. I don't know why you feel so powerless when it comes to our elected officials. Every Candidate would have equal resources, there would be strict and independent oversight to make sure no one manipulates(cheats). The only advantage incumbents would have is experience....and depending on their voting record, it may not be an advantage at all.

Wrong, incumbents have all the resources of their office, including the access to free printing and mailing services to send out fliers touting all the great things they have done since the last election, a paid staff to maintain their website, answer phones, and respond to media questions, and various other advantages inherent to already being in power. You want to give them the ability to determine which candidates are legitimate?

Are you out of your mind?

 

[dblack]

I would say, to start out....You would have Dems, GOP, Libertarian, Tea Party, and Democratic Socialists. That would create a good spectrum from far right to pretty far left. with the original Democratic and Republican Parties holding down the middle....I mean, you could even throw the Commies in there to go way left....But, I'd prefer not to. I despise Communism....and since this is all hypothetical....I choose not to include them....plus, we could implement the criteria in such a way that real extreme groups can't weasel their way in.

Surely you can see the contradiction there. You despise the commies, but there are plenty of people who feel the same about Libertarians, or Democratic Socialists. Hell, I feel that way about the Democrats and Republicans. Can we keep them out of the running as well? And who's to say what's extreme? Maybe "extreme" is exactly what we need, or exactly what the people want. In that case, do we want an election board blocking it?

It would take a Constitutional Amendment for any of this to happen....so for all intents and purposes, it won't. But if the idea ever got legs, that stuff would have to be figured out by people with more knowledge and understanding of law and procedure than me.....I think that the general population should have some input....but let's face it....all of here are "shade tree" policy makers.

That's fair to say. But we can at least consider which of our ideas make sense and which don't. I think it's worthwhile to work through the practical details of how our proposals might be implemented.

 

[Steelplate]

There you go again, using the government, incumbents, to determine who can run against the incumbents, is never going to work. They will always make sure they have the advantage, and restrict the ability of others to challenge them. Why do you think all the campaign finance reform has led to fewer candidates?

how? Incumbents are still subject to the will of the people. I don't know why you feel so powerless when it comes to our elected officials. Every Candidate would have equal resources, there would be strict and independent oversight to make sure no one manipulates(cheats). The only advantage incumbents would have is experience....and depending on their voting record, it may not be an advantage at all.

Wrong, incumbents have all the resources of their office, including the access to free printing and mailing services to send out fliers touting all the great things they have done since the last election, a paid staff to maintain their website, answer phones, and respond to media questions, and various other advantages inherent to already being in power. You want to give them the ability to determine which candidates are legitimate?

Are you out of your mind?

make those expenses accountable to their alloted funds....not so difficult.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

how? Incumbents are still subject to the will of the people. I don't know why you feel so powerless when it comes to our elected officials. Every Candidate would have equal resources, there would be strict and independent oversight to make sure no one manipulates(cheats). The only advantage incumbents would have is experience....and depending on their voting record, it may not be an advantage at all.

Wrong, incumbents have all the resources of their office, including the access to free printing and mailing services to send out fliers touting all the great things they have done since the last election, a paid staff to maintain their website, answer phones, and respond to media questions, and various other advantages inherent to already being in power. You want to give them the ability to determine which candidates are legitimate?

Are you out of your mind?

make those expenses accountable to their alloted funds....not so difficult.

You want to make the routine expenses of running an office part of the campaign expenses? Good luck with that.

 

[Intense]

I want the POTUS debates to include third party and independent candidates. I want to see Dr. Jill Stein and Ron Paul debate.

Even if neither has a chance of getting elected, Stein and Paul could change the debate away from "talking points".

How about not in the Debate, but asking the Questions?

 

[Steelplate]

I would say, to start out....You would have Dems, GOP, Libertarian, Tea Party, and Democratic Socialists. That would create a good spectrum from far right to pretty far left. with the original Democratic and Republican Parties holding down the middle....I mean, you could even throw the Commies in there to go way left....But, I'd prefer not to. I despise Communism....and since this is all hypothetical....I choose not to include them....plus, we could implement the criteria in such a way that real extreme groups can't weasel their way in.

Surely you can see the contradiction there. You despise the commies, but there are plenty of people who feel the same about Libertarians, or Democratic Socialists. Hell, I feel that way about the Democrats and Republicans. Can we keep them out of the running as well? And who's to say what's extreme? Maybe "extreme" is exactly what we need, or exactly what the people want. In that case, do we want an election board blocking it?

It would take a Constitutional Amendment for any of this to happen....so for all intents and purposes, it won't. But if the idea ever got legs, that stuff would have to be figured out by people with more knowledge and understanding of law and procedure than me.....I think that the general population should have some input....but let's face it....all of here are "shade tree" policy makers.

That's fair to say. But we can at least consider which of our ideas make sense and which don't. I think it's worthwhile to work through the practical details of how our proposals might be implemented.

good Idea..... Let's set a scenario where the public demanded publicly funded elections and the USMB is Congress. We have to brainstorm a way to implement it by submitting ideas, debate the pros and cons of each idea, and vote on each item to be included into the overall plan.

Sound interesting? we could start a new thread if enough of us want to do it. In fact, maybe if enough of us find it enjoyable and informative, we could tackle some other hot button issues in this manner.

 

[Steelplate]

Wrong, incumbents have all the resources of their office, including the access to free printing and mailing services to send out fliers touting all the great things they have done since the last election, a paid staff to maintain their website, answer phones, and respond to media questions, and various other advantages inherent to already being in power. You want to give them the ability to determine which candidates are legitimate?

Are you out of your mind?

make those expenses accountable to their alloted funds....not so difficult.

You want to make the routine expenses of running an office part of the campaign expenses? Good luck with that.

Perhaps campaigning shouldn't be a routine expense of running an office

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This must be the ‘if the Citizens United decision never came down’ thread.

I want term limits.

We have term limits, they’re called elections.