5
5
0
I posted an article earlier about polarization in America, and it brought up an interesting topic.
Our election process.
Now, I am of the opinion that our election process in it's current form subverts democracy. When only certain people can vote in certain elections we get a Presidential Election like we had in 2016, where neither candidate was qualified for the position. When the electoral votes in one state all go to a candidate who only won that state by a few thousand votes, it ignores a large number of people. When district lines can be redrawn by those in power to maintain that power, it subverts that electoral process. We may be a Republic, but we elect our officials democratically. The election process in it's current state subverts that democracy.
So, how to we go about fixing it? Well, I am sure everyone has a slightly different opinion, but here is mine.
First: We sign into law that all primaries and caucuses are open, meaning anyone can vote for a party primary regardless of political affiliation. Republicans can vote in Democrat primaries and Democrats can vote in Republican primaries and Independents can vote in both. Each person has 1 vote per primary, meaning you can vote in multiple primaries.
UPON FURTHER REVIEW! I have changed my mind, thank you fellow RPers for showing me the possible consequences of this change, you have made your points and I agree. I do however believe that Independents like me should be able to vote in primaries, whichever state you may be in.
Second: The electoral college needs to be reworked, so that a candidate gets a % of electoral college votes based on the % of popular votes they get in any given state. For example, say Trump won California by only 2% of the vote. California has 55 EC votes. Trump would receive 30 EC votes and Hillary would receive 25. The number of EC required to win the election stays the same. That way every individual vote counts instead of all EC votes going to one person in any state.
Third: Completely and totally outlaw gerrymandering. Make it so that even trying to redraw district lines to suit your own needs is a Federal offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
As I said, this is only my opinion. I am sure you have your own. I am open to suggestions and would really like to hear your opinions on this matter. Our country was built on the idea that everyone matters, and that you have a say in how you are governed. I think our current political landscape subverts that idea.
Our election process.
Now, I am of the opinion that our election process in it's current form subverts democracy. When only certain people can vote in certain elections we get a Presidential Election like we had in 2016, where neither candidate was qualified for the position. When the electoral votes in one state all go to a candidate who only won that state by a few thousand votes, it ignores a large number of people. When district lines can be redrawn by those in power to maintain that power, it subverts that electoral process. We may be a Republic, but we elect our officials democratically. The election process in it's current state subverts that democracy.
So, how to we go about fixing it? Well, I am sure everyone has a slightly different opinion, but here is mine.
First: We sign into law that all primaries and caucuses are open, meaning anyone can vote for a party primary regardless of political affiliation. Republicans can vote in Democrat primaries and Democrats can vote in Republican primaries and Independents can vote in both. Each person has 1 vote per primary, meaning you can vote in multiple primaries.
UPON FURTHER REVIEW! I have changed my mind, thank you fellow RPers for showing me the possible consequences of this change, you have made your points and I agree. I do however believe that Independents like me should be able to vote in primaries, whichever state you may be in.
Second: The electoral college needs to be reworked, so that a candidate gets a % of electoral college votes based on the % of popular votes they get in any given state. For example, say Trump won California by only 2% of the vote. California has 55 EC votes. Trump would receive 30 EC votes and Hillary would receive 25. The number of EC required to win the election stays the same. That way every individual vote counts instead of all EC votes going to one person in any state.
Third: Completely and totally outlaw gerrymandering. Make it so that even trying to redraw district lines to suit your own needs is a Federal offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
As I said, this is only my opinion. I am sure you have your own. I am open to suggestions and would really like to hear your opinions on this matter. Our country was built on the idea that everyone matters, and that you have a say in how you are governed. I think our current political landscape subverts that idea.
Elections
Law
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 16
7
7
0
The electoral college was instituted for the exact purpose of not letting the popular vote determine the next president. Everyone, in essence, does not matter. But if we go with what you're suggesting, why have the EC at all? Why not just go to a popular vote and be done with it?
And if we let Republicans vote in Democrat primaries and vice versa, you're going to skew all kinds of elections. Each party will simply vote for the candidate that their respective candidate has the best chance of beating. That doesn't help get the most qualified candidate elected.
I wish we could do away with parties altogether and just vote for the person with the best ideas. But that seems impossible.
And if we let Republicans vote in Democrat primaries and vice versa, you're going to skew all kinds of elections. Each party will simply vote for the candidate that their respective candidate has the best chance of beating. That doesn't help get the most qualified candidate elected.
I wish we could do away with parties altogether and just vote for the person with the best ideas. But that seems impossible.
(7)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
Cpl Tom Surdi - The EC is specifically so that states like Montana can still have a say. If you changed the EC in the manner you're suggesting, CA, NY, TX and FL would elect every single president in perpetuity. No thanks.
(2)
(0)
Cpl Tom Surdi
SN Greg Wright - You're wrong. The EC in it's current state, these states can actually win someone an election and invalidate every other state, along with 13 other states. And I am currently writing a new post that will prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. So stay tuned for it.
And I was wrong, a candidate only needs to win 11 states to take the 270 EC votes needed to win an election.
And I was wrong, a candidate only needs to win 11 states to take the 270 EC votes needed to win an election.
(0)
(0)
PFC Jim Wheeler
My preferred method would be to remove party affiliation from the ticket. I don't believe it to be possible to remove party affiliation, because people will naturally gravitate towards those with similar ideas and create a new party, but if we get rid of the "R" or "D" next to the candidate, it will make it impossible for people to just vote for a party instead of actually knowing something about the candidate.
(1)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
Cpl Tom Surdi - The math is simple. In any case, the point is moot. To change the EC, you'd have to get 2/3'rds of the states to agree to it, and that'd require some 20 states to give up their power voluntarily. Never happen. Has there ever been a human in history that voluntarily gave up power they have?
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
You are leaving out perhaps the most important item and that is legal citizens are the ONLY ones allowed to vote. No ID, no voting privileges. No more vouching, or picture less ID's. No electric bill from your home. ID's only and they will be checked for proper address, citizenship and those lacking either of these two items will be deported at our immigration services earliest opportunity. Then and only then will we elect representatives who truly represent us and not an ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION POPULATION as it currently does now.
(4)
(0)
Maj John Bell
PO2 Robert Aitchison - I submit that anyone without a valid photo ID is already disenfranchised. The number of everyday things they cannot do without photo ID is substantial. Every state has a "walking ID" with a minimal fee, usually $5-$10. If they cannot afford that fee they are probably on assistance in which case many states either waive the fee, or offer assistance in paying the fee and assist in the cost of obtaining the necessary documentation.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone who is so indigent:
_They cannot materially improve their life by finding a way to get to government assistance
_They cannot find a way to get to a government office to apply for assistance
_They cannot find a program to assist them in acquiring vetted documentation that acquire the necessary documentation for a valid photo ID.
_They cannot afford the minimal fee for a "Walker's" ID or get assistance in waiving the fee or find assistance in paying the fee.
I also find it difficult to believe that anyone who finds the above too difficult is going to go to the trouble to make it to their polling station to cast a ballot.
Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know every indigent person in the US. But no one has shown me a single solitary person who proves my belief incorrect.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone who is so indigent:
_They cannot materially improve their life by finding a way to get to government assistance
_They cannot find a way to get to a government office to apply for assistance
_They cannot find a program to assist them in acquiring vetted documentation that acquire the necessary documentation for a valid photo ID.
_They cannot afford the minimal fee for a "Walker's" ID or get assistance in waiving the fee or find assistance in paying the fee.
I also find it difficult to believe that anyone who finds the above too difficult is going to go to the trouble to make it to their polling station to cast a ballot.
Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know every indigent person in the US. But no one has shown me a single solitary person who proves my belief incorrect.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Cpl Tom Surdi
PFC Jim Wheeler - No matter what we do, a system will still have flaws, no system is perfect. But if we can change the system to be more fair, we have a duty to do it. Not doing it because the next system may have some flaws is no reason not to try and fix it.
(0)
(0)
PFC Jim Wheeler
SPC David Willis I am not sure that is strictly true. Many people (perhaps most?) don't understand, or care about, gerrymandering. Thus, it would be unlikely that most politicians would ever have been elected to fix it. Without there being a massive public movement to make gerrymandering illegal, there is no reason to believe any politician will redraw districts in a way that will negatively affect their re-election hopes.
That may be changing, as more people talk about the problem, but Americans are pretty apathetic when it comes to governance, so I doubt it.
That may be changing, as more people talk about the problem, but Americans are pretty apathetic when it comes to governance, so I doubt it.
(0)
(0)
SPC David Willis
PFC Jim Wheeler - Well sure Ill agree with you there, but those that do understand what it is shouldn't be apathetic about it. Its one of those things that could help your guys this time but next time could help the other guys. It takes a desire to see things fixed long-term to address things like this or small constitutional liberties being taken.
(0)
(0)
PFC Jim Wheeler
SPC David Willis the problem with that, as I see it, is that it doesn't affect the majority of people in a given state.
Hopefully, I can explain this well via text.
Take TX for example. We haven't had a Democrat win a statewide office here since 1994. Thus, the majority of our state (or, at minimum the majority of our voters) are Republicans. This leads to the majority of our state representatives being Republicans, which allows Republicans to draw the districts that will keep Republicans in office. Because of that, the majority of voters (who wr have established as Republican voters) won't care, because it helps, not hurts, them.
Hopefully, I can explain this well via text.
Take TX for example. We haven't had a Democrat win a statewide office here since 1994. Thus, the majority of our state (or, at minimum the majority of our voters) are Republicans. This leads to the majority of our state representatives being Republicans, which allows Republicans to draw the districts that will keep Republicans in office. Because of that, the majority of voters (who wr have established as Republican voters) won't care, because it helps, not hurts, them.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google