Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

One way to reform presidential elections

augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 5:01:16 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
I find that the current system of nominating persons as candidates to the office of the President and Vice-President creates a highly partisan presidency, which is not in line with the Founders' vision of the Chief Executive Magistrate (as they called it). Having a highly partisan presidency, I believe, damages the integrity of the office.

Therefore, I believe that one alternative to nominate persons is by popular initiative via a petition:

1) a candidate must receive the support of X number of registered voters in a majority of the States;

2) there should be a minimum of five candidates up for the elections by the final day (the five candidates are determined by the number of supporters as per point 1) above;

3) no political party or caucus or convention shall be permitted to nominate a person to the office of President.

It's important to point out that this process would not exclude Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump from being nominated, given that the two major parties would be able to easily find the support for the petition. What it would do is make the candidates less beholden to political parties, and it would mean that their nomination was more legitimate as it was 'by the people.' Also, it would give the voters a choice of five persons and not two persons.

Another thing is that every person elected President should, upon being sworn in, resign as a member of the party and shall not be permitted to hold a position (either formally or informally) in any political party whilst in office. This would at least create a certain expectation that the office of the President is neutral, although I agree that this may not be the case and won't prevent the President from acting in a partisan manner.
--
If these changes were made, there would need to changes to the electoral college. Instead of directly marking on the ballot paper the candidate for whom you support (directly), the voters should directly choose the electors who would indicate on the ballot paper which nominee he or she supports for President or Vice-President. The voters choose the electors in accordance with proportional representation by means of single transferable vote. If no candidate got an absolute majority, then the electors would convene to choose the President and Vice-President. Because the electors would be pledged, chances are that the candidate who received the most votes would be President but the compromise would come down to the Vice-President.

This system would give third parties more say and voting power in the electoral college, given the voting system, and particularly if that 3rd party holds the balance of power, it may vie for the office of VP.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 5:50:30 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 5:01:16 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
I find that the current system of nominating persons as candidates to the office of the President and Vice-President creates a highly partisan presidency, which is not in line with the Founders' vision of the Chief Executive Magistrate (as they called it). Having a highly partisan presidency, I believe, damages the integrity of the office.

Therefore, I believe that one alternative to nominate persons is by popular initiative via a petition:

1) a candidate must receive the support of X number of registered voters in a majority of the States;

2) there should be a minimum of five candidates up for the elections by the final day (the five candidates are determined by the number of supporters as per point 1) above;

3) no political party or caucus or convention shall be permitted to nominate a person to the office of President.

It's important to point out that this process would not exclude Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump from being nominated, given that the two major parties would be able to easily find the support for the petition. What it would do is make the candidates less beholden to political parties, and it would mean that their nomination was more legitimate as it was 'by the people.' Also, it would give the voters a choice of five persons and not two persons.

Another thing is that every person elected President should, upon being sworn in, resign as a member of the party and shall not be permitted to hold a position (either formally or informally) in any political party whilst in office. This would at least create a certain expectation that the office of the President is neutral, although I agree that this may not be the case and won't prevent the President from acting in a partisan manner.
--
If these changes were made, there would need to changes to the electoral college. Instead of directly marking on the ballot paper the candidate for whom you support (directly), the voters should directly choose the electors who would indicate on the ballot paper which nominee he or she supports for President or Vice-President. The voters choose the electors in accordance with proportional representation by means of single transferable vote. If no candidate got an absolute majority, then the electors would convene to choose the President and Vice-President. Because the electors would be pledged, chances are that the candidate who received the most votes would be President but the compromise would come down to the Vice-President.

This system would give third parties more say and voting power in the electoral college, given the voting system, and particularly if that 3rd party holds the balance of power, it may vie for the office of VP.

So your happy with a president who represents 1/5 of the voters?
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2016 7:46:47 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
This system would give third parties more say and voting power in the electoral college, given the voting system, and particularly if that 3rd party holds the balance of power, it may vie for the office of VP.

So your happy with a president who represents 1/5 of the voters?

The situation I was referring to was one in which, say, one party obtains 40% of the vote and a 3rd party obtains the other 11 or 12%. In such case, both of those parties would need to compromise, most likely on the VP, which would fall to that 3rd party. In the example you cited, if the electoral college was that fractured, then the decision would be thrown to the House and the Senate, respectively, in accordance with the 12th Amendment.

Don't forget that the electoral college as it functions today is not what the Framers had in mind. They wanted the people to elect the electors who would then make the decision on behalf of the people of that State, acting with independent judgement, and as a deliberative body. I agree that in our democratic society, this manner of election is not feasible, so we have pledged electors; but I think that my suggestion is certainly closer to what the Framers intended compared with what we have currently.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 1:45:50 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
There are many reforms but until money bought influence is out, not much will change.

One thought I've had is an individual cannot declare a run until the 31st of December the year prior to the election. Ex: dec 31, 2015. This leaves a full year of bought and paid pac influence away, cuts the 24 hour news cycle in half, and forces those senators and governors to keep doing their d..n job instead of campaigning (absentee votes circa 2007 mr Obama?).

There's also senate and congressional reforms but they are not relevant to this thread.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 1:49:05 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 1:45:50 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
There are many reforms but until money bought influence is out, not much will change.

One thought I've had is an individual cannot declare a run until the 31st of December the year prior to the election. Ex: dec 31, 2015. This leaves a full year of bought and paid pac influence away, cuts the 24 hour news cycle in half, and forces those senators and governors to keep doing their d..n job instead of campaigning (absentee votes circa 2007 mr Obama?).

There's also senate and congressional reforms but they are not relevant to this thread.

Weighted votes are the answer to the 2 party system. Vote your ranked preference out of all the people on the ballot. That way, nobody "wastes" a vote on a 3rd choice.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 1:50:22 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 1:45:50 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
There are many reforms but until money bought influence is out, not much will change.

One thought I've had is an individual cannot declare a run until the 31st of December the year prior to the election. Ex: dec 31, 2015. This leaves a full year of bought and paid pac influence away, cuts the 24 hour news cycle in half, and forces those senators and governors to keep doing their d..n job instead of campaigning (absentee votes circa 2007 mr Obama?).

There's also senate and congressional reforms but they are not relevant to this thread.

Also, the only way to get the money out of politics is to get the government out of commerce.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 1:52:11 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 1:49:05 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/7/2016 1:45:50 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
There are many reforms but until money bought influence is out, not much will change.

One thought I've had is an individual cannot declare a run until the 31st of December the year prior to the election. Ex: dec 31, 2015. This leaves a full year of bought and paid pac influence away, cuts the 24 hour news cycle in half, and forces those senators and governors to keep doing their d..n job instead of campaigning (absentee votes circa 2007 mr Obama?).

There's also senate and congressional reforms but they are not relevant to this thread.

Weighted votes are the answer to the 2 party system. Vote your ranked preference out of all the people on the ballot. That way, nobody "wastes" a vote on a 3rd choice.

Can you give a bit more detail? This is a novel idea and I'm always open to new ideas.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 1:56:07 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 1:52:11 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/7/2016 1:49:05 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/7/2016 1:45:50 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
There are many reforms but until money bought influence is out, not much will change.

One thought I've had is an individual cannot declare a run until the 31st of December the year prior to the election. Ex: dec 31, 2015. This leaves a full year of bought and paid pac influence away, cuts the 24 hour news cycle in half, and forces those senators and governors to keep doing their d..n job instead of campaigning (absentee votes circa 2007 mr Obama?).

There's also senate and congressional reforms but they are not relevant to this thread.

Weighted votes are the answer to the 2 party system. Vote your ranked preference out of all the people on the ballot. That way, nobody "wastes" a vote on a 3rd choice.

Can you give a bit more detail? This is a novel idea and I'm always open to new ideas.

sure..say there are 4 people on the ballot, trump, hillary, johnson, Jill.

You might vote preference as 1, johnson 2, jill, 3 hillary 4, Trump

The next person votes 1, Trump 2, Johnson 3, Hillary 4, Jill

you get enough people voting 2nd choice Johnson and enough people voting Trump as last choice...then poof, Johnson is elected! and the majority will be okay with it.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 2:03:12 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 1:56:07 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/7/2016 1:52:11 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/7/2016 1:49:05 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/7/2016 1:45:50 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
There are many reforms but until money bought influence is out, not much will change.

One thought I've had is an individual cannot declare a run until the 31st of December the year prior to the election. Ex: dec 31, 2015. This leaves a full year of bought and paid pac influence away, cuts the 24 hour news cycle in half, and forces those senators and governors to keep doing their d..n job instead of campaigning (absentee votes circa 2007 mr Obama?).

There's also senate and congressional reforms but they are not relevant to this thread.

Weighted votes are the answer to the 2 party system. Vote your ranked preference out of all the people on the ballot. That way, nobody "wastes" a vote on a 3rd choice.

Can you give a bit more detail? This is a novel idea and I'm always open to new ideas.

sure..say there are 4 people on the ballot, trump, hillary, johnson, Jill.

You might vote preference as 1, johnson 2, jill, 3 hillary 4, Trump

The next person votes 1, Trump 2, Johnson 3, Hillary 4, Jill

you get enough people voting 2nd choice Johnson and enough people voting Trump as last choice...then poof, Johnson is elected! and the majority will be okay with it.

I think I get the gist: each person basically picks 1-4 and whoever has the highest (or lowest depending on how you are tallying 1 being highest or 4 being highest) is the winner?
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 2:04:30 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 1:50:22 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/7/2016 1:45:50 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
There are many reforms but until money bought influence is out, not much will change.

One thought I've had is an individual cannot declare a run until the 31st of December the year prior to the election. Ex: dec 31, 2015. This leaves a full year of bought and paid pac influence away, cuts the 24 hour news cycle in half, and forces those senators and governors to keep doing their d..n job instead of campaigning (absentee votes circa 2007 mr Obama?).

There's also senate and congressional reforms but they are not relevant to this thread.

Also, the only way to get the money out of politics is to get the government out of commerce.

Couldn't agree more which is why I want a ban on all subsidies: farm, energy, utility, etc...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 2:09:03 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 2:03:12 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/7/2016 1:56:07 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/7/2016 1:52:11 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/7/2016 1:49:05 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/7/2016 1:45:50 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
There are many reforms but until money bought influence is out, not much will change.

One thought I've had is an individual cannot declare a run until the 31st of December the year prior to the election. Ex: dec 31, 2015. This leaves a full year of bought and paid pac influence away, cuts the 24 hour news cycle in half, and forces those senators and governors to keep doing their d..n job instead of campaigning (absentee votes circa 2007 mr Obama?).

There's also senate and congressional reforms but they are not relevant to this thread.

Weighted votes are the answer to the 2 party system. Vote your ranked preference out of all the people on the ballot. That way, nobody "wastes" a vote on a 3rd choice.

Can you give a bit more detail? This is a novel idea and I'm always open to new ideas.

sure..say there are 4 people on the ballot, trump, hillary, johnson, Jill.

You might vote preference as 1, johnson 2, jill, 3 hillary 4, Trump

The next person votes 1, Trump 2, Johnson 3, Hillary 4, Jill

you get enough people voting 2nd choice Johnson and enough people voting Trump as last choice...then poof, Johnson is elected! and the majority will be okay with it.

I think I get the gist: each person basically picks 1-4 and whoever has the highest (or lowest depending on how you are tallying 1 being highest or 4 being highest) is the winner?

Correct. All the votes are weighted, so when you tally up the votes first preference is worth 4 votes, 2nd worth 3, 3rd, worth 2, and 4th worth 1.

I believe the math also works out the same if the 1st is worth 3 votes, 2nd worth 2 votes, 3rd worth 1 vote, and 4th worth zero votes.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 2:11:59 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 1:52:11 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/7/2016 1:49:05 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/7/2016 1:45:50 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
There are many reforms but until money bought influence is out, not much will change.

One thought I've had is an individual cannot declare a run until the 31st of December the year prior to the election. Ex: dec 31, 2015. This leaves a full year of bought and paid pac influence away, cuts the 24 hour news cycle in half, and forces those senators and governors to keep doing their d..n job instead of campaigning (absentee votes circa 2007 mr Obama?).

There's also senate and congressional reforms but they are not relevant to this thread.

Weighted votes are the answer to the 2 party system. Vote your ranked preference out of all the people on the ballot. That way, nobody "wastes" a vote on a 3rd choice.

Can you give a bit more detail? This is a novel idea and I'm always open to new ideas.

I'd say one bad thing would be you have to know something about every candidate, because your 2nd or 3rd choice could be the deciding factor. You can't just tunnel vision one person.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 2:16:00 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 2:11:59 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/7/2016 1:52:11 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/7/2016 1:49:05 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/7/2016 1:45:50 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
There are many reforms but until money bought influence is out, not much will change.

One thought I've had is an individual cannot declare a run until the 31st of December the year prior to the election. Ex: dec 31, 2015. This leaves a full year of bought and paid pac influence away, cuts the 24 hour news cycle in half, and forces those senators and governors to keep doing their d..n job instead of campaigning (absentee votes circa 2007 mr Obama?).

There's also senate and congressional reforms but they are not relevant to this thread.

Weighted votes are the answer to the 2 party system. Vote your ranked preference out of all the people on the ballot. That way, nobody "wastes" a vote on a 3rd choice.

Can you give a bit more detail? This is a novel idea and I'm always open to new ideas.

I'd say one bad thing would be you have to know something about every candidate, because your 2nd or 3rd choice could be the deciding factor. You can't just tunnel vision one person.

For some it would be enlightening. For others, they would take the lazy route, for sure, voting their candidate at the highest weight then just blindly filling in the rest in descending order. However, for many others it would cause critical examination at a greater level than, say... Trump/Hillary sux and are evil.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 2:21:10 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 2:16:00 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/7/2016 2:11:59 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/7/2016 1:52:11 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/7/2016 1:49:05 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/7/2016 1:45:50 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
There are many reforms but until money bought influence is out, not much will change.

One thought I've had is an individual cannot declare a run until the 31st of December the year prior to the election. Ex: dec 31, 2015. This leaves a full year of bought and paid pac influence away, cuts the 24 hour news cycle in half, and forces those senators and governors to keep doing their d..n job instead of campaigning (absentee votes circa 2007 mr Obama?).

There's also senate and congressional reforms but they are not relevant to this thread.

Weighted votes are the answer to the 2 party system. Vote your ranked preference out of all the people on the ballot. That way, nobody "wastes" a vote on a 3rd choice.

Can you give a bit more detail? This is a novel idea and I'm always open to new ideas.

I'd say one bad thing would be you have to know something about every candidate, because your 2nd or 3rd choice could be the deciding factor. You can't just tunnel vision one person.

For some it would be enlightening. For others, they would take the lazy route, for sure, voting their candidate at the highest weight then just blindly filling in the rest in descending order. However, for many others it would cause critical examination at a greater level than, say... Trump/Hillary sux and are evil.

Considering that the country views that requiring a photo id violates the voting act, this idea will never make it to the floor of the congress. Stupid people without power are easy to control.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 2:32:15 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 2:21:10 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/7/2016 2:16:00 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/7/2016 2:11:59 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/7/2016 1:52:11 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/7/2016 1:49:05 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/7/2016 1:45:50 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
There are many reforms but until money bought influence is out, not much will change.

One thought I've had is an individual cannot declare a run until the 31st of December the year prior to the election. Ex: dec 31, 2015. This leaves a full year of bought and paid pac influence away, cuts the 24 hour news cycle in half, and forces those senators and governors to keep doing their d..n job instead of campaigning (absentee votes circa 2007 mr Obama?).

There's also senate and congressional reforms but they are not relevant to this thread.

Weighted votes are the answer to the 2 party system. Vote your ranked preference out of all the people on the ballot. That way, nobody "wastes" a vote on a 3rd choice.

Can you give a bit more detail? This is a novel idea and I'm always open to new ideas.

I'd say one bad thing would be you have to know something about every candidate, because your 2nd or 3rd choice could be the deciding factor. You can't just tunnel vision one person.

For some it would be enlightening. For others, they would take the lazy route, for sure, voting their candidate at the highest weight then just blindly filling in the rest in descending order. However, for many others it would cause critical examination at a greater level than, say... Trump/Hillary sux and are evil.

Considering that the country views that requiring a photo id violates the voting act, this idea will never make it to the floor of the congress. Stupid people without power are easy to control.

Agreed.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 3:53:59 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 5:01:16 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
I find that the current system of nominating persons as candidates to the office of the President and Vice-President creates a highly partisan presidency, which is not in line with the Founders' vision of the Chief Executive Magistrate (as they called it). Having a highly partisan presidency, I believe, damages the integrity of the office.

Therefore, I believe that one alternative to nominate persons is by popular initiative via a petition:

1) a candidate must receive the support of X number of registered voters in a majority of the States;

We already have that it's called petitioning.

2) there should be a minimum of five candidates up for the elections by the final day (the five candidates are determined by the number of supporters as per point 1) above;

In most states there are at least 4. If you want more candidates then support fair ballot access laws

3) no political party or caucus or convention shall be permitted to nominate a person to the office of President.

So how should we organize factions for the long term? Answer: You can't
And parties would still endorse candidates even if they couldn't nominate them.

It's important to point out that this process would not exclude Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump from being nominated, given that the two major parties would be able to easily find the support for the petition. What it would do is make the candidates less beholden to political parties, and it would mean that their nomination was more legitimate as it was 'by the people.' Also, it would give the voters a choice of five persons and not two persons.

Right now we have 4 candidates who are capable of winning but we only treat it like two because the media only covers two and they only allow two in the debates. We also don't do much in the way of public financing and this puts the greens and libertarians at a disadvantage.

Another thing is that every person elected President should, upon being sworn in, resign as a member of the party and shall not be permitted to hold a position (either formally or informally) in any political party whilst in office. This would at least create a certain expectation that the office of the President is neutral, although I agree that this may not be the case and won't prevent the President from acting in a partisan manner.

If these changes were made, there would need to changes to the electoral college. Instead of directly marking on the ballot paper the candidate for whom you support (directly), the voters should directly choose the electors who would indicate on the ballot paper which nominee he or she supports for President or Vice-President. The voters choose the electors in accordance with proportional representation by means of single transferable vote. If no candidate got an absolute majority, then the electors would convene to choose the President and Vice-President. Because the electors would be pledged, chances are that the candidate who received the most votes would be President but the compromise would come down to the Vice-President.

A system of delegate election is used in the Pennsylvania primaries, however it is very hard for voters to discern which delegate candidate supports who. Direct election system works better.
Also there is a reason that we elect the president and Vice President as a ticket. Have you even listened to the Hamilton soundtrack?

This system would give third parties more say and voting power in the electoral college, given the voting system, and particularly if that 3rd party holds the balance of power, it may vie for the office of VP.

As a third partier myself, I can tell you that there are a few simple reforms that will open the process up to us. Instant runoff voting, open debates, fair ballot access laws, guaranteed free airtime for all candidates, and more public financing would do a lot to open up the process to third parties (specifically the libertarians and greens). They would not require any constitutional changes and these practices are already in use in countries like Ireland and Australia.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 4:05:39 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
More than 2 are allowed in a debate (Ross Perot) when there is enough interest.

Some reforms are definitely needed but the greens and libertarians and constitution parties can't even win local elections.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 9:18:15 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
As a third partier myself, I can tell you that there are a few simple reforms that will open the process up to us. Instant runoff voting, open debates, fair ballot access laws, guaranteed free airtime for all candidates, and more public financing would do a lot to open up the process to third parties (specifically the libertarians and greens). They would not require any constitutional changes and these practices are already in use in countries like Ireland and Australia.

I think you are correct, what you have proposed would lead to fairer elections. The only thing I don't like about direct election is that it tends to benefit the major parties: especially if it's a two-round election. An electoral college would at least give a 3rd party some skin in the game.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 9:24:58 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 1:50:22 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/7/2016 1:45:50 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
There are many reforms but until money bought influence is out, not much will change.

One thought I've had is an individual cannot declare a run until the 31st of December the year prior to the election. Ex: dec 31, 2015. This leaves a full year of bought and paid pac influence away, cuts the 24 hour news cycle in half, and forces those senators and governors to keep doing their d..n job instead of campaigning (absentee votes circa 2007 mr Obama?).

There's also senate and congressional reforms but they are not relevant to this thread.

Also, the only way to get the money out of politics is to get the government out of commerce.
--
It's interesting you say that. There's a book written by Mark Levin called 'The Liberty Amendments' in which one of the amendments is the following: "Congress' power to regulate commerce shall not be construed as a plenary grant of power to the Federal Government to regulate and control economic activity, but a specific grant of power limited to preventing the States from impeding commerce.... Congress' power to regulate commerce does not extend to any activity within a State, regardless of whether it affects inter-State commerce; nor shall it compel any individual or entity from participating in commerce.'
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 7:26:00 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/8/2016 9:18:15 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
As a third partier myself, I can tell you that there are a few simple reforms that will open the process up to us. Instant runoff voting, open debates, fair ballot access laws, guaranteed free airtime for all candidates, and more public financing would do a lot to open up the process to third parties (specifically the libertarians and greens). They would not require any constitutional changes and these practices are already in use in countries like Ireland and Australia.

I think you are correct, what you have proposed would lead to fairer elections. The only thing I don't like about direct election is that it tends to benefit the major parties: especially if it's a two-round election. An electoral college would at least give a 3rd party some skin in the game.

That's why I personally like the idea of a proportional electoral college and Instant Runoff voting.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 7:39:09 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/6/2016 7:46:47 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
This system would give third parties more say and voting power in the electoral college, given the voting system, and particularly if that 3rd party holds the balance of power, it may vie for the office of VP.

So your happy with a president who represents 1/5 of the voters?

The situation I was referring to was one in which, say, one party obtains 40% of the vote and a 3rd party obtains the other 11 or 12%. In such case, both of those parties would need to compromise, most likely on the VP, which would fall to that 3rd party. In the example you cited, if the electoral college was that fractured, then the decision would be thrown to the House and the Senate, respectively, in accordance with the 12th Amendment.
In your own example, the "winner" is representing much less than half the electorate. Where you are going is a coalition government (read parliamentary) system. I am not anti-parliamentary system, but it should be noted, at 240 years - our system has lasted longer than any parliamentary democracy in existence. Not too shabby.


Don't forget that the electoral college as it functions today is not what the Framers had in mind. They wanted the people to elect the electors who would then make the decision on behalf of the people of that State, acting with independent judgement, and as a deliberative body. I agree that in our democratic society, this manner of election is not feasible, so we have pledged electors; but I think that my suggestion is certainly closer to what the Framers intended compared with what we have currently.
The system was designed as a winner take all - not a parliament.

If you want more party's at the house level, IRV or any of the other voting schemes work well. At the POTUS level, the most thoughtful is two party's working to get better than 1/2 of the voters.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,915
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 7:42:14 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
I think a strict ad and finance contribution reform would get us the most benefit. There should be an equal cap for everyone, no pacs allowed, you make the most of the money. We would see a huge drop in negative ads and the candidates would be forced to run ads detailing there positions and what they are going do to rather than trying to make the other look bad or worse than they do. This could be tailored to each state based on population and size to keep things fairly even. But the money must be controlled, it has been out of hand for too long.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 7:45:40 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 2:04:30 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/7/2016 1:50:22 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/7/2016 1:45:50 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
There are many reforms but until money bought influence is out, not much will change.

One thought I've had is an individual cannot declare a run until the 31st of December the year prior to the election. Ex: dec 31, 2015. This leaves a full year of bought and paid pac influence away, cuts the 24 hour news cycle in half, and forces those senators and governors to keep doing their d..n job instead of campaigning (absentee votes circa 2007 mr Obama?).

There's also senate and congressional reforms but they are not relevant to this thread.

Also, the only way to get the money out of politics is to get the government out of commerce.

Couldn't agree more which is why I want a ban on all subsidies: farm, energy, utility, etc...

Banks?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 8:12:23 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/8/2016 7:26:00 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/8/2016 9:18:15 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
As a third partier myself, I can tell you that there are a few simple reforms that will open the process up to us. Instant runoff voting, open debates, fair ballot access laws, guaranteed free airtime for all candidates, and more public financing would do a lot to open up the process to third parties (specifically the libertarians and greens). They would not require any constitutional changes and these practices are already in use in countries like Ireland and Australia.

I think you are correct, what you have proposed would lead to fairer elections. The only thing I don't like about direct election is that it tends to benefit the major parties: especially if it's a two-round election. An electoral college would at least give a 3rd party some skin in the game.

That's why I personally like the idea of a proportional electoral college and Instant Runoff voting.

In IRV, there is STILL the potential for the 1st and 2nd candidates receive much less than 50% of the vote. I do like the schema, but its no perfect solution.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 8:21:00 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/8/2016 8:12:23 PM, TBR wrote:
At 9/8/2016 7:26:00 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/8/2016 9:18:15 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
As a third partier myself, I can tell you that there are a few simple reforms that will open the process up to us. Instant runoff voting, open debates, fair ballot access laws, guaranteed free airtime for all candidates, and more public financing would do a lot to open up the process to third parties (specifically the libertarians and greens). They would not require any constitutional changes and these practices are already in use in countries like Ireland and Australia.

I think you are correct, what you have proposed would lead to fairer elections. The only thing I don't like about direct election is that it tends to benefit the major parties: especially if it's a two-round election. An electoral college would at least give a 3rd party some skin in the game.

That's why I personally like the idea of a proportional electoral college and Instant Runoff voting.

In IRV, there is STILL the potential for the 1st and 2nd candidates receive much less than 50% of the vote. I do like the schema, but its no perfect solution.

There is no rose without a thorn.
And its far better than FPTP. And the overall goal is to get the most preferred candidate. Get the person the most people want even if they don't get their first or second choice.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 8:23:56 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/8/2016 7:45:40 PM, desmac wrote:
At 9/7/2016 2:04:30 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/7/2016 1:50:22 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/7/2016 1:45:50 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
There are many reforms but until money bought influence is out, not much will change.

One thought I've had is an individual cannot declare a run until the 31st of December the year prior to the election. Ex: dec 31, 2015. This leaves a full year of bought and paid pac influence away, cuts the 24 hour news cycle in half, and forces those senators and governors to keep doing their d..n job instead of campaigning (absentee votes circa 2007 mr Obama?).

There's also senate and congressional reforms but they are not relevant to this thread.

Also, the only way to get the money out of politics is to get the government out of commerce.

Couldn't agree more which is why I want a ban on all subsidies: farm, energy, utility, etc...

Banks?

What do you mean?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2016 1:43:08 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/8/2016 8:21:00 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/8/2016 8:12:23 PM, TBR wrote:
At 9/8/2016 7:26:00 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/8/2016 9:18:15 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
As a third partier myself, I can tell you that there are a few simple reforms that will open the process up to us. Instant runoff voting, open debates, fair ballot access laws, guaranteed free airtime for all candidates, and more public financing would do a lot to open up the process to third parties (specifically the libertarians and greens). They would not require any constitutional changes and these practices are already in use in countries like Ireland and Australia.

I think you are correct, what you have proposed would lead to fairer elections. The only thing I don't like about direct election is that it tends to benefit the major parties: especially if it's a two-round election. An electoral college would at least give a 3rd party some skin in the game.

That's why I personally like the idea of a proportional electoral college and Instant Runoff voting.

In IRV, there is STILL the potential for the 1st and 2nd candidates receive much less than 50% of the vote. I do like the schema, but its no perfect solution.

There is no rose without a thorn.
Yup. I agree.

And its far better than FPTP.
Yup. I agree in all except POTUS elections.

And the overall goal is to get the most preferred candidate. Get the person the most people want even if they don't get their first or second choice.
I don't know that we will ever see eye on this one, and I am not saying I can't be swayed, but there are some very solid reasons to keep just two party's competing for the top executive spot. Further, we are living in the most stable longest lasting democracy (republic) ever formed! I like progress, I like change, but change without real known benefits is not worth upsetting what IS working.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2016 3:00:48 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/8/2016 7:26:00 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 9/8/2016 9:18:15 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
As a third partier myself, I can tell you that there are a few simple reforms that will open the process up to us. Instant runoff voting, open debates, fair ballot access laws, guaranteed free airtime for all candidates, and more public financing would do a lot to open up the process to third parties (specifically the libertarians and greens). They would not require any constitutional changes and these practices are already in use in countries like Ireland and Australia.

I think you are correct, what you have proposed would lead to fairer elections. The only thing I don't like about direct election is that it tends to benefit the major parties: especially if it's a two-round election. An electoral college would at least give a 3rd party some skin in the game.

That's why I personally like the idea of a proportional electoral college and Instant Runoff voting.

Well, the first method is what I advocated, but not the second method.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2016 3:14:00 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
The situation I was referring to was one in which, say, one party obtains 40% of the vote and a 3rd party obtains the other 11 or 12%. In such case, both of those parties would need to compromise, most likely on the VP, which would fall to that 3rd party. In the example you cited, if the electoral college was that fractured, then the decision would be thrown to the House and the Senate, respectively, in accordance with the 12th Amendment.
In your own example, the "winner" is representing much less than half the electorate. Where you are going is a coalition government (read parliamentary) system. I am not anti-parliamentary system, but it should be noted, at 240 years - our system has lasted longer than any parliamentary democracy in existence. Not too shabby.

Not quite. Britain has had a functioning parliamentary democracy since the late 1600s. Also, parliamentary systems are known to be more effective and more efficient than presidential systems.

Also, as I will explain below, if the people don't support a candidate by a majority, then the electors will convene to deliberate to choose the President and Vice-President. If there's more than two or three candidates, then the House and Senate will vote respectively, in accordance with the 12th Amendment.


Don't forget that the electoral college as it functions today is not what the Framers had in mind. They wanted the people to elect the electors who would then make the decision on behalf of the people of that State, acting with independent judgement, and as a deliberative body. I agree that in our democratic society, this manner of election is not feasible, so we have pledged electors; but I think that my suggestion is certainly closer to what the Framers intended compared with what we have currently.
The system was designed as a winner take all - not a parliament.

Actually, it wasn't. The electoral college was designed to be a deliberative body. The best evidence of this is in the Federalist Papers No. 68 in which Alexander Hamilton explained the purpose of the electoral college. He stated that the people of each State shall choose a 'smaller' body of persons who will 'make the decision on behalf of the people of that State. The 'winner takes all' system was a later invention that came with the politicization of the office of the President.

If you want more party's at the house level, IRV or any of the other voting schemes work well. At the POTUS level, the most thoughtful is two party's working to get better than 1/2 of the voters.

Instant run-off produces a two-party system. The best way to have a multi-party system is to have proportional representation, either by part-lists as they have in Europe or by Single Transferable Vote as they have in Ireland and Australia.

The issue with the two-party system in a presidential democracy is this: what happens when one party controls the presidency and the other party controls the Congress? You get deadlock. The presidential system functions more effectively within a multi-party system, particularly if the President is a non-partisan civil officer, which again was the intention of the Framers. The Presidency is not supposed to be a political office, it's supposed to be a civil office. However, I recognize that in the current state of things, a non-partisan chief executive won't fly, so having a proportionally-elected college creates a situation in which the electors would deliberate to choose persons who have the broader support of society. In philosophical terms, the college diffuses power among several persons, thereby creating a more consensual process of choosing the President and Vice-President.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2016 3:40:18 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/9/2016 3:14:00 PM, augcaesarustus wrote:
The situation I was referring to was one in which, say, one party obtains 40% of the vote and a 3rd party obtains the other 11 or 12%. In such case, both of those parties would need to compromise, most likely on the VP, which would fall to that 3rd party. In the example you cited, if the electoral college was that fractured, then the decision would be thrown to the House and the Senate, respectively, in accordance with the 12th Amendment.
In your own example, the "winner" is representing much less than half the electorate. Where you are going is a coalition government (read parliamentary) system. I am not anti-parliamentary system, but it should be noted, at 240 years - our system has lasted longer than any parliamentary democracy in existence. Not too shabby.

Not quite. Britain has had a functioning parliamentary democracy since the late 1600s. Also, parliamentary systems are known to be more effective and more efficient than presidential systems.
Both these points are debatable. I would say the US has a very good claim as longest running democracy, and parliamentary systems have been LESS stable. Regardless, there are plenty of good things to say for parliamentary governments.


Also, as I will explain below, if the people don't support a candidate by a majority, then the electors will convene to deliberate to choose the President and Vice-President. If there's more than two or three candidates, then the House and Senate will vote respectively, in accordance with the 12th Amendment.
And again, this does nothing to better reflect the will of the people. The majority still have the potential to be misrepresented.



Don't forget that the electoral college as it functions today is not what the Framers had in mind. They wanted the people to elect the electors who would then make the decision on behalf of the people of that State, acting with independent judgement, and as a deliberative body. I agree that in our democratic society, this manner of election is not feasible, so we have pledged electors; but I think that my suggestion is certainly closer to what the Framers intended compared with what we have currently.
The system was designed as a winner take all - not a parliament.

Actually, it wasn't. The electoral college was designed to be a deliberative body. The best evidence of this is in the Federalist Papers No. 68 in which Alexander Hamilton explained the purpose of the electoral college. He stated that the people of each State shall choose a 'smaller' body of persons who will 'make the decision on behalf of the people of that State. The 'winner takes all' system was a later invention that came with the politicization of the office of the President.

If you want more party's at the house level, IRV or any of the other voting schemes work well. At the POTUS level, the most thoughtful is two party's working to get better than 1/2 of the voters.

Instant run-off produces a two-party system. The best way to have a multi-party system is to have proportional representation, either by part-lists as they have in Europe or by Single Transferable Vote as they have in Ireland and Australia.

The issue with the two-party system in a presidential democracy is this: what happens when one party controls the presidency and the other party controls the Congress? You get deadlock. The presidential system functions more effectively within a multi-party system, particularly if the President is a non-partisan civil officer, which again was the intention of the Framers. The Presidency is not supposed to be a political office, it's supposed to be a civil office. However, I recognize that in the current state of things, a non-partisan chief executive won't fly, so having a proportionally-elected college creates a situation in which the electors would deliberate to choose persons who have the broader support of society. In philosophical terms, the college diffuses power among several persons, thereby creating a more consensual process of choosing the President and Vice-President.

There is no real problem with deadlock. While it slows change, it produces more stability.