Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(22,582 posts)
Sun Jul 30, 2017, 01:22 PM Jul 2017

How about changing elections in all states to at-roam legislatures (no geo boundaries), limits on $?

Not really sure how 'at-roam' works (someone maybe fill me in?), but since gerrymandering seems to be rampant, and done for multiple reasons (deny the voting rights of fellow citizens, and preserve a seat for a particular party), why not go to a total 'at-roam' process in all states, w/ no geo boundaries?

Also, dark money is flooding our election processes, especially since 'Citizens United'. If corporate or the like can donate unlimited amounts of $, and the other side/parties are forced to raise similar amounts of dark money, in order to effectively compete, the average citizen is left in the dust, w/ effectively no voice. This seems wrong and contrary to what the US Constitution and Amendments suggest (one person/one vote), and is impeding our freedom of speech kind of, isn't it?

There needs to be either limits on donations since the donating has evolved far beyond the abilities of what an average citizen with a median income in within a particular jurisdiction can donate, resulting in effect, elections up for sale to the highest bidder, possibly by folks / entities not even closely representing the views of the citizens of these jurisdictions.

There was a time that elections were somewhat dependent on public financing, but that went by the wayside as more and more candidates bypassed this since they could raise more money going a different route.

Perhaps make public money only means of campaign financing (as well as limiting amount of $ and length of election cycles). This would somewhat ensure no conflicts of interests exist against those of a particular jurisdiction, that is, what the actual citizens of a state want/do not want.

Or, in interests of 'Citizens United' concept, allow money (no more dark money) in up to a certain limit, and then after each election cycle, all unused campaign money goes immediately to each jurisdiction (instead of candidates, since money is really for the office being run for, and not the candidate themselves), kind of like the lottery, where winnings supposedly finances our schools, etc.

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How about changing elections in all states to at-roam legislatures (no geo boundaries), limits on $? (Original Post) SWBTATTReg Jul 2017 OP
Not sure that is a good idea MichMan Jul 2017 #1
yes, possible SWBTATTReg Jul 2017 #2


(12,118 posts)
1. Not sure that is a good idea
Sun Jul 30, 2017, 03:30 PM
Jul 2017

Does this mean that an inner city might be represented by someone from the other side of the state in a more rural area or vice versa? That doesn't sound like the representatives would be accountable to the communities they serve.


(22,582 posts)
2. yes, possible
Sun Jul 30, 2017, 05:42 PM
Jul 2017

points to divide between cities and rural areas doesn't it? Thing is, cities usually dump out folks over weekends and city folks flock to country for fishing hunting etc. and spend lots of money

both sides need to work together

good point on your part


Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Election Reform»How about changing electi...