Things I'd like to fix about our system of government.

[crispini]

I'm just sitting here making a mental wish list. If I had the power to wave a wand. No practical considerations about how this would happen or anything. Here they are:

1) No gerrymandering. Redistricting would be done by a strictly bipartisan committee but they would NOT be allowed to draw weird districts; they could just take population, etc. into account.

2) Get rid of all electronic voting (this doesn't need much explanation.)

3) Lobbyists? Toast. No more lobbying. And, actually, I'd go so far as to say, no campaign contributions by corporations.

4) Actually, I'd just go for federal funding of elections. Every candidate in the race gets X dollars to use as they please, plus a generous allotment of airtime. It's our airwaves, fuck the broadcasters if they don't like it.

5) The Presidential debates go back to being moderated by the League of Women Voters.

6) Consider ways to make the ballot simpler. For example there are quite often a TON of judicial candidates on the ballot. Makes it confusing, especially since judicials can't campaign in any issues-based way. I'd consider moving away from election of judges.

7) I haven't quite made up my mind about IRV and/or mandatory voting, but I'd be open to being convinced.

Anywho. Thoughts? And if you had a magic wand, what would be on your list? :D

[deadparrot]

1. No more electoral college.

Sorry, I think it's bullshit. No matter who it is, the person with the most popular votes should be president.

[Jamnt]

2. I thought I heard somewhere..

that Colorado is splitting the electoral vote based on the percentage of the popular vote. Did that happen?

[crispini]

3. I don't think it passed. nt

[newyawker99]

21. Hi Jamnt!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[crispini]

4. That's a good one.

I'd agree.

[lovelaureng]

10. I like this point as well.

Get rid of them permanently.

[welshTerrier2]

5. "Every candidate in the race gets X dollars"

i strongly support public funding but your statement about "every candidate" is a little more generous than i would be ...

third party candidates should be given equal amounts of free tv time if they can get some kind of minimal number of petition signatures or votes from a previous election ... the time would decrease as the election got closer unless they could meet progressively higher numbers of signatures ... also, some form of public funding should be provided ...

and maybe the top two third party candidates should be given tv time for a presidential debate immediately before or after the debate of the two candidates from the major parties ... the goal is to let some fresh ideas really get an airing before the American people ...

i also strongly support Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) ...

[crispini]

9. Ok, yes, they have to be legitimate candidates.

I think that the criteria for getting on the ballot should be the same for all candidates, be they one of the 2 parties or otherwise.

I haven't really looked into IRV myself yet. Doesn't it seem complicated?

[dcfirefighter]

6. point by point

1) gerrymandering is useless with proportional representation from multi-member districts

2) ev isn't the problem. it's the black box that is the problem

3) how? How would a group of people with a common concern get their views heard? I have no problem with the no contributions from corporations, though there are ways around this as well.

4) I'm ok with federal funding of elections as well, though there should be some means to screen fringe candidates out. I don't think they should receive an allotment of air time - I think that those who hold the broadcast licenses should pay annual rent for their use.

5) OK, or some other means to get an actual debate.

6) no. make it more complex. make people rank their choices.

7) IRV isn't as good as Condorcet (Ranked-Pairs). Mandatory voting is quite authoritarian, along the lines of mandatory national service.

[crispini]

11. Can you explain #1 to me?

The words make sense but the idea doesn't yet.

2- Agree.

3- Well, maybe it's just the whole Washington office, insider up on the hill image of lobbyists I have. For example, I have no problem with groups that encourage their members to write their representatives. But I dislike the whole air of "deals being made in back rooms" that comes with the idea of lobbyists.

4- Agree.

6- Don't you think that a really long ballot is kind of hard for people? I mean, all of those races to get spun up on. We will have 45 contested judicial races in 2006 in our county. It just seems like a very high expectation.

7- I'll have to look in to Condorcet. But I think that goes with #6. If the ballot is easier don't you think participation will go up? I would like to see participation go up. I think that can only help us. (Thus, toying with the idea of mandatory voting.)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

7. Elections should be on Saturday so that more people can vote

[crispini]

12. Yes, I like that one. nt

[-..__...]

8. All 50 primaries/caucuses are held on the same day.

No exit polling.

No announcing of vote results until at least 60% of the votes on the West coast have been reported/tabulated.

[crispini]

13. As far as all primaries held the same day,

wouldn't that make participation in the primary prohibitively expensive? I would like to see us rotate the lead states in the primary so that they all get a turn. But I would like us to always choose a couple of small(er) states in the mix to give candidates who have less money a chance to get in the mix.

Why no exit polling?

I agree with your #3.

[-..__...]

15. Level the playing field

wouldn't that make participation in the primary prohibitively expensive?

To whom? the candidates?

Each and every one gets the same period of time to campaign when and where they choose.


Why no exit polling?

Are they ever reliable or trustworthy? Can they ever be unbiased or unslanted? It helps to minimize the apehaetic voter who thinks "well, the other guy is winning so why should I even bother to vote" attitude.

Keep'em guessing and there's a better chance of them showing up to pull the lever.

[crispini]

17. Yes, to the candidates.

Time may be equal, but what about money? I'm thinking Presidential now, since we're talking about a 50 state primary. Where would the candidates get the money to campaign, in a national primary? They would have to either be independently wealthy themselves, or be beholden to wealthy interests.

As far as the exit polls, I thought that the whole point was that they ARE unbiased and unslanted -- when done correctly -- and they are used as a check on the fairness of the elections in some countries. Now, not *announcing* the results of the exit polls until a certain point, I can buy that.

[The Doctor.]

14. Treat ALL contributions as though for a candidate...

Put corporations on an even footing with everyone else by restricting ALL donations to $2000 per candidate/per election cycle.

Watch what happens when politicians don't depend on corporate money to win elections.

[crispini]

18. That would be good. nt

[KingFlorez]

16. No electoral college and Addtional Member system

I would like to see all these ideas used.

1. Abolish the electoral college
2. Use AMS for the House of Reps. with a district seat vote and a party list vote.
3. Non-partisan redistricting by population and geographic experts

[crispini]

19. What are the advantages of AMS?

I looked it up on Wikipedia so I understand what it means but I'm not sure why it would be desirable.

[KingFlorez]

20. It would reduce the two-party system

I think the two-party system reduces accountability. If there is a third party that gains seats, there will less autocracy.