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

[longknife]

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.

A huge mistake! It would put all the election results in the big cities and totally do away with representation from the Middle Americans. Results from New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and the other liberal strongholds would guarantee an election even before the votes are in.

The Founders were extremely smart in trying to balance the states versus a central government. And they also took step to prevent the mob rule of unfettered democracy.

The Electoral College is the backbone of a true representative government.

 

[pvsi]

I STILL DID NOT GET AN ANSWER FROM ANYONE ABOUT MY OP QUESTION:
How exactly would negative voting be bad for election reform?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

A huge mistake! It would put all the election results in the big cities and totally do away with representation from the Middle Americans. Results from New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and the other liberal strongholds would guarantee an election even before the votes are in.

The Founders were extremely smart in trying to balance the states versus a central government. And they also took step to prevent the mob rule of unfettered democracy.

The Electoral College is the backbone of a true representative government.

Each persons vote would count as one vote whether they lived on a farm or in a city

 

[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.

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.

Huh? Yes, it does. Just add a write in candidate as your number one vote. Otherwise you appear to be looking for a way to vote against candidates in order to be able to somehow stop other people from voting for anyone. Makes no sense. You want some sort of none of the above, with no ability for anyone else to vote? Maybe you should start your own kingdom. But yes it is exactly because of ignorant voters, that we don't have a working system such as the ranking one that you are voting against because it does not allow you to be sole decider of the election

 

[mvymvy]

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.

16% of Americans live in rural areas.

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.

In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

With a national popular vote, every voter everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every voter is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win.

Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio.

With National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Wining states would not be the goal. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states.

The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

 

[mvymvy]

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states. Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote. Since then, state laws gave the people the right to vote for President in all 50 states and DC.

The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state.

The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored.
9 states determined the 2012 election.
10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns now.
24 of the 27 lowest population states, that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections.
4 out of 5 Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising.

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. Since 1796, the Electoral College has had the form, but not the substance, of the deliberative body envisioned by the Founders. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

 

[mvymvy]

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. The candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

When states with a combined total of at least 270 Electoral College votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

 

[mvymvy]

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

 

[Truthmatters]

Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree

January 14, 2013|By David G. Savage


The Supreme Court refused to lift a consent decree that bars the Republican National Committee from targeting racial and ethnic minorities in its fight against voter fraud.

The Supreme Court refused to lift a consent decree that bars the Republican… (Caroyln Kaster / Associated&#8230


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has refused to lift a 30-year consent decree that bars the Republican National Committee from targeting racial and ethnic minorities in its efforts to end fraudulent voting.

The justices without comment turned down an appeal from RNC lawyers who said the decree has become “antiquated” and is “increasingly used as political weapon” by Democrats during national campaigns.





all we really need to do is stop the republican party from cheating Americans out of their votes

 

[mvymvy]

Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in the current handful of big states.

With National Popular Vote, when every popular vote counts equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn't be about winning a handful of battleground states.

Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaigns.

State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaigns and to presidents once in office.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions.- including not a single dollar in presidential campaign ad money after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

NationalPopularVote

 

[Truthmatters]

If our elections were not subverted by the right wing cheating this country would work fine

 

[mvymvy]

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).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls
in recent or past closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA --75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%;
in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%;
in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and
in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.

Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, and large states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

 

[Truthmatters]

do you care that the republican party has cheated in elections for decades now?

 

[RKMBrown]

Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree

January 14, 2013|By David G. Savage


The Supreme Court refused to lift a consent decree that bars the Republican National Committee from targeting racial and ethnic minorities in its fight against voter fraud.

The Supreme Court refused to lift a consent decree that bars the Republican… (Caroyln Kaster / Associated&#8230


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has refused to lift a 30-year consent decree that bars the Republican National Committee from targeting racial and ethnic minorities in its efforts to end fraudulent voting.

The justices without comment turned down an appeal from RNC lawyers who said the decree has become “antiquated” and is “increasingly used as political weapon” by Democrats during national campaigns.





all we really need to do is stop the republican party from cheating Americans out of their votes

All we really need to do is stop the democrat scumbags from cheating military service members out of their vote, and allow states to stop the democrat scumbags from illegally voting with voter registrations of dead people, voting in multiple states, and manipulating voting results by burning republican votes.

 

[pvsi]

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.

Huh? Yes, it does. Just add a write in candidate as your number one vote.
2 - Otherwise you appear to be looking for a way to vote against candidates in order to be able to somehow stop other people from voting for anyone. Makes no sense.

3 - You want some sort of none of the above, with no ability for anyone else to vote? Maybe you should start your own kingdom. But yes it is exactly because of ignorant voters, that we don't have a working system such as the ranking one that you are voting against because it does not allow you to be sole decider of the election

Last time I went to vote in 2004 in North Philadelphia, THERE WAS NO WRITE IN OPTION - THAT is how rigged US elections are.
2 - Makes no sense for me to be looking for ways to vote against candidates if they are decent candidates, makes no sense what you say.

 

[Truthmatters]

the republican party cheats and anyone who votes for a KNOWN cheating party is a traitor to our democracy

 

[Truthmatters]

stop your fucking party from cheating you traitors

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Huh? Yes, it does. Just add a write in candidate as your number one vote.
2 - Otherwise you appear to be looking for a way to vote against candidates in order to be able to somehow stop other people from voting for anyone. Makes no sense.

3 - You want some sort of none of the above, with no ability for anyone else to vote? Maybe you should start your own kingdom. But yes it is exactly because of ignorant voters, that we don't have a working system such as the ranking one that you are voting against because it does not allow you to be sole decider of the election

Last time I went to vote in 2004 in North Philadelphia, THERE WAS NO WRITE IN OPTION - THAT is how rigged US elections are.
2 - Makes no sense for me to be looking for ways to vote against candidates if they are decent candidates, makes no sense what you say.

Well then you have two problems. There should always be a write in option, even if the option is NA for none of the above. 51% voting for none of the above should result tossing all of the candidates out and starting over with an emergency election with a time limit of 3m or so, possibly with the state legislature selecting a stand in to replace the incumbent, (esp. if NA won over him).

 

[RKMBrown]

the republican party cheats and anyone who votes for a KNOWN cheating party is a traitor to our democracy

Truthmatters is a lying POS traitor to our republic.

 

[Desperado]

Some sort of IQ test proving that you are at least smarter than a rock and do not believe the Constitution is 400 years old, that the US does not have 57 States, or that Guam would capsize and sink if we sent more troops and equipment to the island.