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
Sorry, I had a hard time getting past that point in your question where you mention "democracy". We are not a democracy and I don't want any part of a democracy. The you mention that "neither candidate was qualified for the position [President]". How so? Both were natural born citizens. The irony is that both were "democratically" selected by their respective parties. Then, the ultimate irony comes when you suggest that we have open primaries. Now, if you truly want to subvert the democratic processes of electing government officials, that's the way to do it. Outlaw gerrymandering? Good luck with that.
(4)
(0)
Maj John Bell
I am unable to find it now, but there is/was a website that showed a "geographically pixelated" population distribution. A mathematical formula then combined the weighted pixels to form the simplest shaped congressional districts, with the smallest amount of overall deviation of the norm. The software supposedly had no way to input any knowledge of the "political pre-disposition" of any given "pixel."
I do not know how the software determined "simplest shape" or what was an acceptable deviation from the norm.
It seems like a few mathematicians should be able to put something together.
I do not know how the software determined "simplest shape" or what was an acceptable deviation from the norm.
It seems like a few mathematicians should be able to put something together.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
Maj John Bell - I'm certain that a team of mathematicians could scientifically distribute the population into equal-sized voting districts without "prejudice" for demographic factors, but would that be fair? Shouldn't people of similar circumstances be able to coalesce into groups of mutual interest? For example, people living in an urban environment might be "fairly" distributed along with those in an adjacent rural setting and end up being represented by elected officials with no interest in their peculiar needs?
(0)
(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)
2
2
0
Well considering we live in a Constitutional Republic as our founding fathers interned not in a Democracy like many would love for a short time, the current process works to say the least. Its nice how there were no issues with it before 2016 then wham, there is a problem from the Butt Hurt Legions. We have Trump in office because other previous mistakes and the business as usual mind set with politicians. He is by no means the perfect President but he is a breath of fresh air in the open sewer pit that is DC. As for the Electoral College, it did what it was supposed to do, prevent this popular vote BS from taking over as it would in a DEMOCRACY. What really needs to happen is a house cleaning in both parties, get rid of the entrenched cradle to grave office squatters that become Millionaires while in office. If this ever happens then GOOD Politicians won't be infected by the selfish power hungry around them.
(2)
(0)
Cpl Tom Surdi
Yes, we are a republic, but we elect our officials democratically.
And no, I had a problem with it when Bush lost the popular vote but still won the election. And I voted for him. I am not opposed to the EC, I think it is still relevant. I just think it needs to be reworked to accommodate the changes to our population density and where that density is. The EC in it's current state is just outdated.
And no, I had a problem with it when Bush lost the popular vote but still won the election. And I voted for him. I am not opposed to the EC, I think it is still relevant. I just think it needs to be reworked to accommodate the changes to our population density and where that density is. The EC in it's current state is just outdated.
(0)
(0)
1SG Dennis Hicks
Cpl Tom Surdi - Actually we don't do it democratically that's why we have the EC, if we did it Democratically we would be a shit show on wheels and not the small yellow buss with a slow leak in two tires. The problem with population density begins when certain folks set up enclaves in cities and rule the whole state as shown by the shit hole cities we have in the US. Do I have a better system, no I am not anywhere near smart enough to design one or even envision one that could stand a chance against the entrenched one we have now. I am forced to be happy for the bandages and aspirin that we use to keep the current system on life support. I am one of those that tends to stay away from large groups of folks who only want to control everyone around them according to their emotional drama of the day, hour or second.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Not a fan of the open primary idea. I am a registered independent, so I get where you are coming from as some states don't allow independents to vote in the primary, but the reason they use closed primaries is so that the opposing party can't vote a lame duck candidate as the opposing party's nominee. It would certainly not lead to a better election process if each party always fielded the absolute worst candidates because of that.
As to your original question though, that was sort of the whole point. The founders didn't want open democracy (and neither do I, honestly). Are there things that could change to make our nation better? Probably. In fact, things have changed drastically since our founding with direct election of Senators and laws that require the EC to cast their votes certain ways.
As to your original question though, that was sort of the whole point. The founders didn't want open democracy (and neither do I, honestly). Are there things that could change to make our nation better? Probably. In fact, things have changed drastically since our founding with direct election of Senators and laws that require the EC to cast their votes certain ways.
(2)
(0)
Cpl Tom Surdi
You make a good point about Primaries, I did think of that. But in that case, it would be the people subverting their own democracy and not the system. When the problem is the system itself it takes choice away, while not nearly perfect I prefer the idea of people being the problem and not the system. If you can't take your vote seriously, then why vote at all. Yes, I know my idea is an extreme leap of faith, but I prefer to believe (naively as it may be) that people take their duty seriously. There is some compromise in there though. Maybe all primaries should be open to card carrying independents. So we too can have a choice.
When the EC was created, it took into account densely populated areas, small areas. The problem now is that we have densely populated states. As you know, the EC takes into mind voting districts, each state gets a certain number of districts based on population. The more districts you have the more votes a state has. So we have traded in not electing by popular vote, but by state vote, especially when the candidate gets ALL of the EC votes in that state, this winner takes all mentality is not working anymore.
When the EC was created, it took into account densely populated areas, small areas. The problem now is that we have densely populated states. As you know, the EC takes into mind voting districts, each state gets a certain number of districts based on population. The more districts you have the more votes a state has. So we have traded in not electing by popular vote, but by state vote, especially when the candidate gets ALL of the EC votes in that state, this winner takes all mentality is not working anymore.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Cpl Tom Surdi - The Electoral College has always been an election directly by the States, through electors, not the people. Up until the middle of the 19th century, electors were not chosen directly by the people, they were chosen by their state legislatures. The founding fathers gave weight to States based on their population. But there has never been a Federal Election where every State had the same number of votes as every other State.
In the first Presidential election under the Constitution, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia had the most electoral votes, 10 each. Delaware cast the least with 3. New York was deadlocked and did not cast any votes. North Carolina and Rhode Island had not yet ratified the Constitution and did not cast any votes.
Any State that does not care to cast its electoral votes in one block is free to do so now. The Constitution expressly leaves that power in the hands of each state. Nebraska and Maine split their electoral votes.
In the first Presidential election under the Constitution, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia had the most electoral votes, 10 each. Delaware cast the least with 3. New York was deadlocked and did not cast any votes. North Carolina and Rhode Island had not yet ratified the Constitution and did not cast any votes.
Any State that does not care to cast its electoral votes in one block is free to do so now. The Constitution expressly leaves that power in the hands of each state. Nebraska and Maine split their electoral votes.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Nothing wrong with the election process, it is candidate selection that is screwed up. Candidates should be chosen from a pool entirely by the voters and they are not. The Party intervenes or puts it's thumb on the scale in each case. Additionally, it should be against the rules that a Socialist or Communist can run as a Democrat. Democrat Primary should be for Democrats only, Republican Primary for Republicans only no exceptions. Had we run under those rules we would not have had Hillary Clinton nor would we have had Bernie Sanders AND Trump would not be in Office right now. If you want to blame anyone for this fiasco the blame goes to Debbie Wasserman-Shultz.........100%. She made sure the Democratic side was F'd up from the beginning and it spilled over to the Republican side because Hillary was such an atrocious candidate .
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Cpl Tom Surdi, I'll give you my thoughts on your proposals.
Open primaries: No. The purpose of the primary is to select the candidate to represent the party in the General Election. Open primaries would allow ambitious party officials to pack the opposition slate with people they thought they could beat in the General. For example, an open primary system might have encouraged lots of Republicans to vote in the Democrat primary for "Crazy Bernie" because they believed any Republican could beat a Socialist in the General. I suppose the Democrats could then have voted for Bush so the Republicans would have a candidate on their ticket equal to Hillary in energy, ambition, and position on most issues. Not the mess I would want. If independents think they are being disenfranchised, they should pick a party!
I like your idea on the Electoral College.
Gerrymandering is in the eye of the beholder. Both parties do it. The Democrats are feeling the sting of losing a lot of State Legislature seats in the last 10 years. As a President said, "Elections have consequences." Possibly a panel of judges in each state could draw the election districts more fairly, but the State legislature would still have to vote for them. I don't see an easy way out of this one except to win elections at the State level.
Open primaries: No. The purpose of the primary is to select the candidate to represent the party in the General Election. Open primaries would allow ambitious party officials to pack the opposition slate with people they thought they could beat in the General. For example, an open primary system might have encouraged lots of Republicans to vote in the Democrat primary for "Crazy Bernie" because they believed any Republican could beat a Socialist in the General. I suppose the Democrats could then have voted for Bush so the Republicans would have a candidate on their ticket equal to Hillary in energy, ambition, and position on most issues. Not the mess I would want. If independents think they are being disenfranchised, they should pick a party!
I like your idea on the Electoral College.
Gerrymandering is in the eye of the beholder. Both parties do it. The Democrats are feeling the sting of losing a lot of State Legislature seats in the last 10 years. As a President said, "Elections have consequences." Possibly a panel of judges in each state could draw the election districts more fairly, but the State legislature would still have to vote for them. I don't see an easy way out of this one except to win elections at the State level.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Tom Surdi
Several people have made that comment about primaries, and after further review I agree. I am mostly saying that because I am a registered independent and cannot vote in Iowa primaries unless I am affiliated with a party. This really gets under my skin as I have no say one way or the other about who I get to vote for in the end. And most of the time, I don't like who gets chosen simply because neither of them share my ideas or policies.
As for your Gerrymandering, i believe it is the responsibility of each State's Supreme Court to draw the district lines.
As for your Gerrymandering, i believe it is the responsibility of each State's Supreme Court to draw the district lines.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I have no problem with the electoral college, I have no problem with not being able to vote in a primary(I am registered independent, not much for me to vote on) but I do have a problem when a party knowingly stacks the deck against a candidate in a primary in favor of another. That is why parties have primaries is to find out who the candidate should be. Now I agree on the gerrymandering but both sides continue to do this, not sure how you can stop them.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
You have to step back a little as much of the subversion comes from infighting within parties. Look at DNC - I'd bet if Sanders didn't have the DNC's "support" as a democrat candidate he would have beating Trump. Electorial college or not - your own party shouldn't be the one you have to look out for. I'd say the same goes for Trump as the dossier started out as a Republican effort. With friends like that who needs enemies.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google