# Electioneering



## Statistikhengst

This thread is a project I have been working on for months, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Putting it out on USMB is a promise I made to    [MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION].

From the moment a US-Representative is sworn in, he or she is _already_ planning and fundraising for the NEXT election.  Huge PACS and Super-PACS are scrounging for money all year long. The media machine for all political parties is set to full-blast 24/7. Polling for the next presidential election started quite literally on the day after the last presidential election! *We are now living in a permanent election cycle that literally never ends. This is not healthy for us.*

Liberals complain that voter suppression is happening. Conservatives complain that there is voter fraud. Both sides have some very valid complaints. The last three presidential election have seen long-lines of people waiting to vote at polling places not equipped to handle that many people. Gerrymandering has literally made about 80% of the House of Representatives &#8222;safe&#8220;. And the list goes on and on.

In fact, it is just crazy.

In many ways, we have an electoral system that is designed for failure. That was surely not the intent of the founding fathers, but this is how it is working out and I think the time for some real common sense changes has come.

In this report, Conservatives, Moderates and Liberals are all going to find some things that they like and things that they don't like, but I ask of you to read all of it and digest it before commenting.

*My main contention is that there is a severe structural flaw in our system of electioneering*, namely, that very little of it is set in stone in the US Constitution. What was considered checks-and-balances has now become gridlock. And the rest, because of Federalism, is left up to the individual states to decide. And out of this, a hodge-podge patchwork of electioneering has evolved into a money making-monster.

So, I am a proposing a complete overhaul of our electoral system, but not an elimination of the &#8222;Electoral College&#8220;, as we like to call it. I am going to do this in four parts. Because of the length of this all, and to make it easier for you all to quote only one section, these four parts will be spread over postings 2-5 of this thread:

*I.   The Legislative* (posting no. 2)
*II.  The Executive* (posting no. 3)
*III. The Judicial *(posting no. 4)
*IV.  Election rules and timelines* (posting no. 5)

Many of these things are things that Larry Sabato has also suggested in his book &#8222;Toward a more Perfect Union&#8220;, but many of them are also orginal ideas of mine.

The goal of all of this is to

a.) increase the amount of undisrupted time for governing between elections.
b.) streamline the actual time frame of electioneering.
c.) unify the rules for electioneering.
d.) reduce the money chase.

I am not saying that this is the only way to do this, but I do think that much of what I suggest is worthy of real adult debate. As I already wrote, each person will probably find some things he likes and some things he doesn't like, and that is good, for such sparks intelligent debate. *Furthermore, I deliberately left out a lot of the reason for WHY I feel this way about many things. I did this to spur people to question or to come up with reasons themselves*.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A friendly shout-out to *all* of these good people, from the Right, the Left and the Middle. I hope very much that you read all 5 opening postings and then comment. This could become one of the best discussions of the year.

   [MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION]   [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]   [MENTION=40495]AngelsNDemons[/MENTION]   [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]   [MENTION=26011]Ernie S.[/MENTION]   [MENTION=9429]AVG-JOE[/MENTION] @Mad Cabbie   [MENTION=42649]Gracie[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]   [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION]   [MENTION=38281]Wolfsister77[/MENTION]   [MENTION=21679]william the wie[/MENTION]   [MENTION=23424]syrenn[/MENTION]   [MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION]   [MENTION=37250]aaronleland[/MENTION]  [MENTION=36767]Bloodrock44[/MENTION]   [MENTION=36528]cereal_killer[/MENTION]   [MENTION=40540]Connery[/MENTION]   [MENTION=30999]daws101[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION]   [MENTION=33449]BreezeWood[/MENTION]   [MENTION=31362]gallantwarrior[/MENTION]   [MENTION=24610]iamwhatiseem[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46750]Knightfall[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46690]Libertarianman[/MENTION]   [MENTION=1322]007[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20594]Mr Clean[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20704]Nosmo King[/MENTION]   [MENTION=43268]TemplarKormac[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION]   [MENTION=41494]RandallFlagg[/MENTION]   [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION] Samson   [MENTION=21357]SFC Ollie[/MENTION] @Sherri   [MENTION=43491]TooTall[/MENTION]   [MENTION=25451]tinydancer[/MENTION]   [MENTION=31918]Unkotare[/MENTION]   [MENTION=45104]WelfareQueen[/MENTION]   [MENTION=21524]oldfart[/MENTION]   [MENTION=42498]Esmeralda[/MENTION]   [MENTION=43888]AyeCantSeeYou[/MENTION]   [MENTION=19302]Montrovant[/MENTION]   [MENTION=11703]strollingbones[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18988]PixieStix[/MENTION]   [MENTION=23262]peach174[/MENTION]   [MENTION=13805]Againsheila[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20342]Ringel05[/MENTION]   [MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18905]Sherry[/MENTION]   [MENTION=29697]freedombecki[/MENTION]   [MENTION=22590]AquaAthena[/MENTION]   [MENTION=38146]Dajjal[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18645]Sarah G[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46193]Thx[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]   [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]   [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18990]Barb[/MENTION]   [MENTION=19867]G.T.[/MENTION]   [MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION]   [MENTION=11278]editec[/MENTION]   [MENTION=22983]Flopper[/MENTION]   [MENTION=22889]Matthew[/MENTION] [MENTION=46136]dreolin[/MENTION]


----------



## Statistikhengst

Since the Constitution starts with the Legislative branch, I am going to as well.

When our Republic was founded, the ratio between Representative and the represented was circa 1 to 31,000.  Now, it is 1 to 719,000. That is absolutely ridiculous and I am absolutely sure our founding fathers never intended for things to go this way. If we are to claim to be a Republic based on Representative Democracy, then the one part of government that SHOULD grow with time would be the House of Representatives. After all, it is the part of Government that is supposed to be the closest of all to we the people.

*The House of Representatives* should have *1,000* Representatives. That is still a ratio of 1 to 313,000 people, ten times as much as in 1789, but still considerably better than today.

With redistricting done at a national level with a Super-Computer with only three parameters:

-State borders
-population
-geography and logical connectivity

A computer, rather than the statehouses, would set the congressional district boundaries. Race, gender, age, social status and partisan breakdown would play no role in the drawing of congressional boundaries, but geographical obstacles would. For instance, if at all possible, a district would not be drawn with a mountain chain splitting it into two halves. Additionally, Gerrymandering would never ever happen again. And for this reason, the Census should be changed from a once in a decade occurence to always be set to be one year before a Presidential election year.  More on this in Election Rules and timelines

The 1000 representatives would be for all 50 US states, DC AND all US Territories where citizens have been issued a US-Passport, for instance, Puerto Rico and Guam.

*Representative Term:* 3 years.
*Requirements: *at least 30 years old, US citizenship
*Term limit:* 3 terms maximum, maximum 10 years.  See: Ticket

"Ticket"

Representatives would be elected as a ticket, meaning a candidate + an alternate, whose name would be on the ticket, so that if the candidate elected would leave office during his term for any reason, the alternate would assume that Representative's duties. This would eliminate a lot of special elections. 

If a representative were to leave office in his third year and the alternate then takes office, that person could then still run for and win up to 3 terms on his own. But if the Representative were to leave office in the 2nd year of his term and the alternate took office, than that person would only be able to run for 2 terms on his own. Thus, a term limit of 3 terms, but possibly 10 years total.

You can go to this wikipedia page and see the populations of the states in descending order. If you look at each state's % of the national population and move the decimal place over to the right by one number, then you would see the number of representatives at the current time under this system:

List of U.S. states and territories by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

*California*, our nation's most populous state, is currently, officially 11.91% of the US population, so it would have 119 of 1000 representatives.

*Wyoming*, our nation's least populous state, 61 times smaller than California by population, is 0.18% of the population and would have 2 representatives.

119 / 2 = a little less than 61. So, the proportion between California and Wyoming would now be correct in terms of representation.


The reason why there are currently two Senators for all states is based on a compromise reached while writing the constitution so that the smaller states could feel that their interests were not being steamrolled by the larger states. However, if you look at the 1800 census:

1800 United States Census - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

You will see that Virginia, the most populus state at the time, was only 10 times larger than Delaware, the smallest state. But of the 16 states, 5 of them were very close to each other in size. Now, in 2014, our largest state is 61 times larger than the smallest. That is a disparity that our founding fathers never imagined would happen. Because of the filibuster rule, 41 senators from the 20 smallest states +1 other state, representing 10% of the US population, can bring everything to a complete stillstand. Neither of these two conditions is acceptable. Both of them are damaging our Democracy.

*The US Senate* should have 160 Senators.

I am going to break this down very specifically, according to the 2010 census:

The top nine states, which currently acount for 50.26% of the US population, would have *FIVE* Senators apiece (or 45 Senators total):

California (11.91%)
Texas (8.04%)
New York (6.19%)
Florida (6.01%)
Illinois (4.10%)
Pennsylvania (4.06%)
Ohio (3.69%)
Michigan (3.16%)
Georgia (3.10%)

This is how that 50.26% of our population looks like on a map:







That would be 45 of 160 Senators, or 28.12% of the Senate. But a prerequisite for this would be that a state must at least be 3.0% of the US population. If a state falls under 3.0%, then it loses a Senator in the next cycle. 

Notice again: the nine powerhouse states of the Union, equaling almost exactly 50% of the US population, still only get 28% representation in the Senate.

_125 Senators to go._

The bottom nineteen states, each of which is under or at 0.90% of the US population, plus DC as well would have *TWO* Senators apiece (or 40 Senators total):

Wyoming (0.18%)
DC (0.19%)
Vermont (0.20%)
North Dakota (0.21%)
Alaska (0.23%)
South Dakota (0.26%)
Delaware (0.29%)
Montana (0.32%)
Rhode Island (0.34%)
New Hampshire (0.42%)
Maine (0.42%)
Hawaii (0.43%)
Idaho (0.51%)
Nebraska (0.58%)
West Virginia (0.59%)
New Mexico (0.66%)
Nevada (0.86%)
Utah (0.88%)
Kansas (0.91%)
Arkansas (0.93%)

Those 19 states +DC account for 9.41% of the US Population. I will say that again. Those 20 "states" COMBINED account for 9.41% of the US population.

This is how that 9.41% of our population looks like on a map:






Now, let's compare the top 9 with the bottom 19:

Ratio in population between the top ten states (combined) and the bottom twenty "states" (combined)

50.26 / 9.41 = 5.34

Ratio in number of Senators between the top ten states (combined) and the bottom 19 states (combined):

45 / 40  = 1.13

*In other words, the top 9 states combined are 5 times larger than the 20 bottom states combined, but in the Senate, they are almost equally represented.  In other words, the smaller states still have more electoral firepower, but less than at current time.*

Here is a map of the top 9 + the bottom 20:






Geographically, in terms of land-mass, the two colors look pretty evenly matched (well, the size of Alaska is misrepresented on the map, but anyway....), but the dark red states combined have FIVE times as much population as the gold states.

That makes 85 out of 160 Senators.  The remaining 75 senators come from the remaining 22 states, with either FOUR or THREE Senators, in order of population.  It would probably look like this:

9 States with *FOUR* Senators (states with between 2% and 3% of the population, circa), totaling 36 senators:

North Carolina (3.05%)
New Jersey (2.81%)
Virginia (2.56%)
Washington State (2.15%)
Massachusetts (2.09%)
Indiana (2.07%)
Arizona (2.04%)
Tennessee (2.03%)
Missouri (1.91%)


That makes 121 Senators. 39 more to go:


13 States with *THREE* Senators (or 39 Senators total):


Maryland (1.85%)
Wisconsin (1.82%)
Minnesota (1.70%)
Colorado (1.61%)
Alabama (1.53%)
South Carolina (1.48%)
Louisiana (1.45%)
Kentucky (1.39%
Oregon (1.22%)
Oklahoma (1.20%)
Connecticut (1.14%)
Iowa (0.97%)
Mississippi (0.95%)

Here are how those 22 states look on a map:






Total: 160.

Here is the complete map of states with 5, 4, 3 or 2 Senators per state:






Now, many arguments could be brought against this, but it actually would _increase_ the chances for the challenging party in a large state to actually pick up a Senate seat or two. In California, a deep blue state, with 5 Senators instead of 2, the Republicans could have a real chance at winning a senate seat or two. Likewise, in Texas, a deep red state, the Democrats could do the same.

*Senate Term: *6 years
*Requirements:* at least 37 years old, US citizenship
*Term limits:* 2 terms (maximum 15 years)

Senators would be elected ALL AT ONCE for 6 year terms, with a possible 3 year extension, depending upon the presidency. There should be no more staggering of the Senate into A, B and C cycles.  

Like US-Representatives, Senators would be elected as a "ticket" for each seat. See ticket above. This means that for every Senate seat, two names would be on the ballot for each party: one for the candidate and one for the designated alternate, so that, should the candidate, if he wins, leave office for any reason before the end of his term, the alternate would finish out the term and thus eliminate the need for a special election. So, the same reasoning used for the House of Representatives in terms of  maximum of years in office applies here as well,  but there is an addition reason found under the EXECUTIVE.

*"National Senators"​*
The US Senate should be enhanced by all former US Presidents and Vice-Presidents still living, who, without election, can become NATIONAL SENATORS upon leaving office until their death. This service, however, would be voluntary. In the last 60 years, at any one given time, we have had no more than 5 former presidents and 5 former Vice-Presidents living, so the Senate, officially at 160, could theoretically be 170. NATIONAL SENATORS would be eligible to vote on any issues that come forth in the Senate, but they would not be allowed committee seats. National Senators would also serve as electors in the so-called Electoral College, and would have the right to cast their electoral vote according to their conscience, but they would likely be very, very inclined to cast their electoral vote for the winner of the National Popular Vote, since they would be considered NATIONAL SENATORS.  More about this under: the Executive. 


I would expect that we could have a lively discussion as to why I propose this idea.


----------



## Statistikhengst

*The Executive:*

*Presidential / Vice-Presidential Term:* 6 years
*Requirements:* at least 40 years old, US citizenship, if naturalized, must be US citizen at least 20 years before Inauguration day.
*Term limit:* 1 term, with a possible 3 year extension (maximum 9 years) 
*Special Condictions:* ticket-flip allowed.

The President and Vice-President of the United States should be elected for a SIX year term. The National general election would of course coincide with the election of the ENTIRE Senate of 160 Senators and the Entire House of Representatives, with 1,000 Representatives. Also, all State gubernatorial races would be decided in the same election, for Governorships/Lt. Governorships would all be 6 year terms as well.

The President and the Vice-President would be elected by winning a majority of the so-called Electoral College, which would be 1180 electors. Magic number: 591

But wait, you say, the HOR would have 1,000 members and the Senate has 160. That only makes 1,160. But in each cycle, there would be a certain number of NATIONAL SENATORS also in the mix (described above, in the SENATE) and added to that number would be the number of automatic electors that would bring the number to 1180. Those electors would be electronic electors.

Example:

The Senate has 160 members, and let's say that 3 living former presidents and 4 living former Vice Presidents have decided to serve as National Senators. That brings the Senate, officially, to 167. The remaining 13 electors would be electronic, and would automatically be cast for the winner of the national popular vote. In this way, the chance of an electoral backfire would be zero. Also, the National Senators, by law, would be required to indicate their decision within one half hour after the final polls have closed in Alaska on election night, so that in the case of an incredibly tight race, there would be no last minute jockeying for the electoral vote of a National Senator.

Though a President and his Vice-President serve only one term, there is the possibility of a term-extension, and here is where this all gets very interesting.

*PRESIDENTIAL EXTENSION*

In the _fifth year_ of a  six-year presidential term, by the end of June, the sitting president decides whether or not to apply for a confirmation election in November of that year. The confirmation election is a straight up and down vote of confidence/no-confidence in the Presidential ticket currently governing. 

-There would be no opposition candidates on the ballot. 
-There would be a 62% hurdle for the sitting president to overcome. Should the President win 62% of the vote in the confirmation election, then his term would be automatically extended for another three years. If not, then the standard presidential election would take place in the sixth year of his term.

But this also has other implications: if a Presidential ticket gets 62% of the vote and an extended term, then automatically, by law, all Senators serving at that time would also get the same extension. And, all governorships would also be extended by three years as well. _So, the voters, in voting to extend the President's term, would also be saying that they want the status quo the way it is._

*TWO EXAMPLES*

Example 1:

John Doe is elected in 2024 and inaugurated on January 20th, 2025. His term is for six years, until January 20th, 2031. 

In June of 2029, he makes the application for an confirmation election and wins 62.8% of the vote. He then serves out the rest of his term until January 20th, 2031 and on that day, is inaugurated for 3 more years, until January 20, 2034, which means that the next presidential election would take place in November of 2033. But the elections for the House of Representatives would still take place in November of 2030. The Senate would also hang onto the results of the Presidential confirmation election: if he wins, then they get to stay on another three years. Ditto for the Governors.

Example 2:

John Doe is elected in 2024 and inaugurated on January 20th, 2025. His term is for six years, until January 20th, 2031. In June of 2029, he makes the application for an confirmation election and wins only 54% of the vote and therefore does not pass the 62% hurdle. This means that his term ends on January 20th, 2031 and the regularly scheduled presidential election of 2030 would take place. And of course, he is not eligible to be on the ballot for President.

_*Why 62%?*_

Well, no President in our history has won with more than 61.04% of the popular vote. If a President is _*so*_ well loved and the approval of him is _*so*_ high so that it looks like a massive landslide for him anyway, then it saves the opposition time and money to prepare for the next open election. Plus, with the bar set that high, any president who scores 62% deserves to have the Senate that was elected with him stay with him. 

Conversely, a President who had not been doing well during his term and can read the tea-leaves telling him that he would do poorly in a confirmation election would probably not even try. All of these things would force a President to concentrate on governing and not just winning a re-election, because in a confirmation election, the only person a President is running against is himself.

What this all means is also less campaigning and more governing.

*"Ticket-Flipping"*

So, a president can only serve one term, but what if it were to work out that the sitting Vice President were to be doing an extremely competent job and would be thinking about a run on his own? Remember, this has happened already in our history in 1940 (John Nance Garner, unsucessfully for the nomination against FDR), 1960 (Nixon), 1988 (Bush 43) and 2000 (Gore). Though a President can only serve one term as president, it WOULD be allowable for the ticket to flip.

Let's use Ronald Reagan, one of our most popular presidents of all time, as an example:

Under this system, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush would have won a six year term. Reagan, seeing only a slight chance of cracking 62% ( I think he would have made 62% in such a confirmation election, myself), elects to not apply for the confirmation election, but in talks with his Vice-President, the two decide to flip the ticket for the next general election: Bush / Reagan. In this way, Reagan could have served 6 years as president and 6 years as Vice-President. And Bush would have served 6 years as Vice-President and 6 years as President.

What would that do for us? Well,* it would make the candidates and the voters take a much harder look at the Vice-Presidential candidates*, realizing that a potential president needs to be within that person. And the whole thing would make voters take it more seriously, for they would be voting in a person for not four, but rather, six years.

With this system, there is a national election every three years (House of Representatives), and the presidential elections either every six years, with an occasional 3 year jump.* This gives the nation more than one extra year of calm between elections, something I think we sorely need.*

More on this in the rules section.


----------



## Statistikhengst

*The Judicial*

Term: 18 years (24 years for the Chief Justice)
Requirements: 40 years old, US citizen
Term limit: 1 term

The Supreme Court should be* expanded to 15 justices* + 2 alternates. Majority vote: 8, abstentions not allowed under any circumstance. For this reason, a 16th and 17th alternate judge would also be elected to decide on a case where a judge would decide to abstain, and they would rule in his stead. This would mean that ALL SC cases would have a vote of 15 voices, without exception. No 15 voices, no ruling, that simple.

Supreme Court Justices, other than the Chief justice, would be allowed to serve a maximum of 18 years, or possibly, 3 presidential terms. The Chief justice would be allowed to serve  a maximum of 24 years, or possibly four presidential terms.

Supreme Court judges would be elected, but through a system of lists and then an election. Supreme Court judges would no longer be appointed by the President, nor would they be confirmed by the US Senate.

Someone wanting to be a judge would need to apply. His credentials would then go through a House committee, a Senate committee and then a Presidential committee.

A final list of 60 names would be provided for election day, the voters would select 15 of the 60 names (maximum) and the top 15 vote getters would be elected. Numbers 16 and 17 would be alternate judges. However, the sitting president would get to decide which justice would be the Chief Justice out of those elected to the Supreme Court, and that appointment would be approved by the US Senate. Should a justice leave before the end of his term for any reason, then the next highest vote-getter on the list (that would be nr. 16, for starters) would assume the position. 

Judges would be elected in the MIDDLE of a presidential term, in other words, in the election for the House of Representatives. This means that elected Supreme Court justices would likely straddle the terms of two or three presidents.

I would like to note that many nations elect their judges, rather than appointing them.


----------



## Statistikhengst

*Election Rules and timelines.*


*Primary elections:* 

-The nation is divided into 5 geographic zones. Each zone has it's primary all on the same day. Zones such as:

-The Northeast /Acela States
-The South
-The Midwest
-The Breadbasket and Big Sky States
-The West Coast and beyond.

Here would be one possible, and very logical map:







-The order of the zones is determined by a lottery ball machine, just like the one used for the lotto. 5 balls go into the machine, the first one that comes out with the zone name on it is the zone that holds the first of* 5 -and only 5- primary Tuesdays*, and so forth. The lottery will be drawn on New Years's day of election year. Each state gets to decide whether primary or caucus, but they will be held for that zone on that day. No &#8222;first in the nation&#8220; states any more. In this way, the candidates themselves do not know until New Years Day where to sink in their money, anyway, so instead of patronizing one region in order to get the upper hand, they stick to their general message and apply it to the ENTIRE nation.

-All pacs, polling and advertising for candidates would be illegal until New Years Day of election year.

-Primary 1: the third tuesday of February
-Primary 2: the first Tuesday of March
-Primary 3: the third Tuesday of March.

-Then, there is a one month break between the 3rd and fourth primary.

-Primary 4: the third Tuesday in April. 
-Primary 5: the first Tuesday in May. 

And a make-up date for any primaries cancelled due to inclement weather anywhere in the USA, and also for any run-offs, would be on the third Tuesday of May. Polling times and such: see: General Election

The National Conventions for all Parties would be held in June and must be completed by July 1st.

*General Election:*

The month of July and the first three weeks of August would be open for General Election fundraising. Official begin of the general election season: Labor Day.

Election Day: First Sunday in November, from 06:00 am till 9:30 pm for all time-zones, without exception. Early voting for all 50 states plus DC allowed for 21 days until election day. For states that do mail-in voting, 9:30 pm would be the cutoff for mail delivery. Provisional ballots allowed for all 50 states plus DC. Overseas and military ballots must be time-stamped by 9:30 PM EDT and must be turned in within 5 days of the election.

-*Voter ID*, a uniform form of ID used throughout the USA, also required to vote in all 50 states plus DC would be required. 

-*Automatic voter registration* for all citizens when they reach the age of 18, with notification of such and information about polling place per postcard. The ID card for voting would be an exact duplicate of the first page of an American Passport, which means when you get a voter ID, it is easy to also apply for your passport at the same time and all of these things can be processed at BMV or SOS offices throughout the land. _Oregon is currently the first state in the Union to seriously consider automatic voter registration, starting next year._

-The same Super-computer that did the redistricting also does a computation as to how many voting machines and precincts are necessary in order to get voting done by 9:30 pm and basta, done!

-Exit polling for all 50 states plus DC becomes mandatory for all national elections. Exit polling results are first allowed to be broadcast after the polls close in Alaska.

-The Networks would be forbidden to make any state calls until at least 45 minutes after poll closings and at least 25% of ballots from that state have been counted - and  - the exit polling shows at least a +7 margin for the same candidate who is winning in the actual ballot count. This means that the first calls of the night, starting for all states in the Eastern Time zone, would be at 10:15 PM, and not one minute earlier. States that straddle two time zones would close in the time zone that is the most westerly of the two.

-National Popular vote running tallies would also not be published until at least 25% of the nation has reported in.

This methodology, though it may seem boring and lets us have less suspense, allows for the process to be  done more quietly. In the event of a big win for someone, where the call for President usually happens around 11 pm, it would only be delayed until 1 or 2 am EDT.

For every single race in the nation, any margin under +0.5% would mean an automatic recount, without exception, but only once all provisional and absentee and overseas ballots are accounted for. Any candidate can also request a recount from between +0.5% and +1.0%, but then he must pay for it.

Due date for every state to submit final canvasses from the General election: Second Sunday in December, exactly 5 weeks after the election.

The electors would still meet in their respective states, but law would dictate that they must vote for the winner of the vote in their state, and in order to ensure that there are no &#8222;faithless electors&#8220;, the final slate of electors will be electronic across the board. So, the elector signing ceremonies would be mere formalities.

*All of these suggestions of mine would make elections cleaner, fairer and more sane. It would eliminate a huge part of the money chase for election and would destroy the permanent election cycles that we are now suffering.

If you are going to elect someone to do a job as a public servant, then you also have to give him time to actually do the job without having to be torn to pieces by a crazy, hodge-podge election process that has grown into a veritable monster.*


----------



## gallantwarrior

The "fix" is so simple, it's painful.  Given our technology, one-person, one-vote should be the way to go.  Each registered voter is issued a one-time only access password.  After they have presented appropriate identification proving their bona fides, they may then use that password to cast their vote.  This prevents others from "buying" passwords to tip the vote.  Once a password has been used, it is no longer valid.  The reason for an electoral college is long gone.


----------



## G.T.

Attach an online Vote with the Social Security number.

Only allow the Voter to vote once. 

Allow appeals and investigations if a Voter claims they did not Vote, when their SS# was indeed used.


----------



## BDBoop

Did you two actually read everything he said, or just knee-jerk a response. I'm curious.


----------



## Statistikhengst

gallantwarrior said:


> The "fix" is so simple, it's painful.  Given our technology, one-person, one-vote should be the way to go.  Each registered voter is issued a one-time only access password.  After they have presented appropriate identification proving their bona fides, they may then use that password to cast their vote.  This prevents others from "buying" passwords to tip the vote.  Once a password has been used, it is no longer valid.  The reason for an electoral college is long gone.




Absolutely an option. But I wrote about a lot more than that.


----------



## Statistikhengst

G.T. said:


> Attach an online Vote with the Social Security number.
> 
> Only allow the Voter to vote once.
> 
> Allow appeals and investigations if a Voter claims they did not Vote, when their SS# was indeed used.




Also an option, although, technically, the law prohibits the use of SSN for anything other than SS.

But there is a lot more in the entire OP, spread out over five postings, than just this point.


----------



## G.T.

Statistikhengst said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Attach an online Vote with the Social Security number.
> 
> Only allow the Voter to vote once.
> 
> Allow appeals and investigations if a Voter claims they did not Vote, when their SS# was indeed used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also an option, although, technically, the law prohibits the use of SSN for anything other than SS.
> 
> But there is a lot more in the entire OP, spread out over five postings, than just this point.
Click to expand...


I know there was a lot more, but I'm not studied and versed on the Electoral College enough to make a refreshing post in regard to an entire overhaul. 

Good read, though.


----------



## BDBoop

G.T. said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Attach an online Vote with the Social Security number.
> 
> Only allow the Voter to vote once.
> 
> Allow appeals and investigations if a Voter claims they did not Vote, when their SS# was indeed used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also an option, although, technically, the law prohibits the use of SSN for anything other than SS.
> 
> But there is a lot more in the entire OP, spread out over five postings, than just this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know there was a lot more, but I'm not studied and versed on the Electoral College enough to make a refreshing post in regard to an entire overhaul.
> 
> Good read, though.
Click to expand...


I barely glanced at it. I need to actually read it when I'm not otherwise occupied - and now's not good.


----------



## Statistikhengst

gallantwarrior said:


> The "fix" is so simple, it's painful.  Given our technology, one-person, one-vote should be the way to go.  Each registered voter is issued a one-time only access password.  After they have presented appropriate identification proving their bona fides, they may then use that password to cast their vote.  This prevents others from "buying" passwords to tip the vote.  Once a password has been used, it is no longer valid.  *The reason for an electoral college is long gone.*




This is a thought I had for a number of years, but I am not so sure anymore. I think the best thing to do is not to end the EC, but rather, to mend it.

The "Electoral College", a term we like to use, but which does not exist in the Constitution as a term at all, is a good way to keep 100s of splinter parties from forming. And I think that is a good thing.


----------



## Statistikhengst

BDBoop said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also an option, although, technically, the law prohibits the use of SSN for anything other than SS.
> 
> But there is a lot more in the entire OP, spread out over five postings, than just this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know there was a lot more, but I'm not studied and versed on the Electoral College enough to make a refreshing post in regard to an entire overhaul.
> 
> Good read, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I barely glanced at it. I need to actually read it when I'm not otherwise occupied - and now's not good.
Click to expand...



The thread is not gonna run away... lots of stuff here to think about ... am throwing a lot of ideas out there for people to digest, to enjoy, to debate, and so forth...


----------



## iamwhatiseem

First and foremost, thank you for the obvious considerable thought and effort for writing such a thread.
Secondly, thanks for the invite.
And finally, a small suggestion if I may...I would suggest breaking up the main segments into different threads. Reason being of course there is a TON of talking points here. I fear the thread will be jumbled like a kaleidoscope - difficult to discuss this way.
Just an opinion. 
More discussion to come.


----------



## Statistikhengst

iamwhatiseem said:


> First and foremost, thank you for the obvious considerable thought and effort for writing such a thread.
> Secondly, thanks for the invite.
> And finally, a small suggestion if I may...I would suggest breaking up the main segments into different threads. Reason being of course there is a TON of talking points here. I fear the thread will be jumbled like a kaleidoscope - difficult to discuss this way.
> Just an opinion.
> More discussion to come.




It's late where I live and I am too tired to consider unthreading, but thanks for your input.

Actually, I think we can following the various conversations all at once, since the proposed changes in electioneering affect all the component parts, for instance, the lenght of a Senate Term would be dependent on a Presidential Confirmation election, etc....

Have fun read, lots to chew on!!


----------



## Jroc

Lots more politicians just what we need... it'd be better to divide by district the electoral college and award the them by district instead of winner take all. That would give everyone a voice instead of states like California where conservatives are overrun by liberals or visa versa in TX. Also there are 2 senators per state for a reason. That's the way the founders wanted it, and the way it should be. It gives the smaller states more of a voice. If you came up with this all yourself ? *Impressive*.. I haft to give you credit for that.


----------



## Montrovant

I just want to throw a couple of quick thoughts out.  Having read the legislative section, I don't believe in term limits : I think they are a way of telling voters they cannot vote for the person they want.  I can understand the desire for them, as we have too many entrenched politicians, but I would like to see a different solution to that problem if possible.

The other thing is that I don't understand how the 'ticket' option would be viable.  What does the alternate person do while the elected official is in office?  What if the alternate is unable to take over when the situation arises?  It seems too difficult to me.

I have more to read, but I'm watching the little one now and can't go too deeply into anything.

I thought about just responding with tl;dr, for the humor.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Jroc said:


> Lots more politicians just what we need... it'd be better to divide by district the electoral college and award the them by district instead of winner take all. That would give everyone a voice instead of states like California where conservatives are overrun by liberals or visa versa in TX. Also there are 2 senators per state for a reason. That's the way the founders wanted it, and the way it should be. It gives the smaller states more of a voice. If you came up with this all yourself ? *Impressive*.. I haft to give you credit for that.




Some of these ideas, as I wrote in the OP, are from Larry Sabato and his excellent book. Thanks for the kind words.

I did indeed address the issue of 2 Senators per state. Did you read it?

Yes, Electoral College, but by congressional district, would also be a possibility.

It would have only changed the results in 2000: Gore would have won, if I recall correctly.

I dunno, maybe they would be less "politicians" and more "public servants" if the system of electioneering were more sane to begin with. Furthermore, being one of 1,000 reps carries less clout than being 1 of 435 - you have to work harder to actually make a record for yourself, maybe actually read legislation and such.  So, instead of getting more politicians, maybe we would have more public servants.

But that cuts both ways: our elected officials also deserve an informed electorate worth serving, and not an apathetic, uninformed electorate that is highly reactionary.


----------



## Ernie S.

Statistikhengst said:


> Since the Constitution starts with the Legislative branch, I am going to as well.
> 
> When our Republic was founded, the ratio between Representative and the represented was circa 1 to 31,000.  Now, it is 1 to 719,000. That is absolutely ridiculous and I am absolutely sure our founding fathers never intended for things to go this way. If we are to claim to be a Republic based on Representative Democracy, then the one part of government that SHOULD grow with time would be the House of Representatives. After all, it is the part of Government that is supposed to be the closest of all to we the people.
> 
> *The House of Representatives* should have *1,000* Representatives. That is still a ratio of 1 to 313,000 people, ten times as much as in 1789, but still considerably better than today.
> 
> With redistricting done at a national level with a Super-Computer with only three parameters:
> 
> -State borders
> -population
> -geography and logical connectivity
> 
> A computer, rather than the statehouses, would set the congressional district boundaries. Race, gender, age, social status and partisan breakdown would play no role in the drawing of congressional boundaries, but geographical obstacles would. For instance, if at all possible, a district would not be drawn with a mountain chain splitting it into two halves. Additionally, Gerrymandering would never ever happen again. And for this reason, the Census should be changed from a once in a decade occurence to always be set to be one year before a Presidential election year.  More on this in Election Rules and timelines
> 
> The 1000 representatives would be for all 50 US states, DC AND all US Territories where citizens have been issued a US-Passport, for instance, Puerto Rico and Guam.
> 
> *Representative Term:* 3 years.
> *Requirements: *at least 30 years old, US citizenship
> *Term limit:* 3 terms maximum, maximum 10 years.  See: Ticket
> 
> "Ticket"
> 
> Representatives would be elected as a ticket, meaning a candidate + an alternate, whose name would be on the ticket, so that if the candidate elected would leave office during his term for any reason, the alternate would assume that Representative's duties. This would eliminate a lot of special elections.
> 
> If a representative were to leave office in his third year and the alternate then takes office, that person could then still run for and win up to 3 terms on his own. But if the Representative were to leave office in the 2nd year of his term and the alternate took office, than that person would only be able to run for 2 terms on his own. Thus, a term limit of 3 terms, but possibly 10 years total.
> 
> You can go to this wikipedia page and see the populations of the states in descending order. If you look at each state's % of the national population and move the decimal place over to the right by one number, then you would see the number of representatives at the current time under this system:
> 
> List of U.S. states and territories by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *California*, our nation's most populous state, is currently, officially 11.91% of the US population, so it would have 119 of 1000 representatives.
> 
> *Wyoming*, our nation's least populous state, 61 times smaller than California by population, is 0.18% of the population and would have 2 representatives.
> 
> 119 / 2 = a little less than 61. So, the proportion between California and Wyoming would now be correct in terms of representation.
> 
> 
> The reason why there are currently two Senators for all states is based on a compromise reached while writing the constitution so that the smaller states could feel that their interests were not being steamrolled by the larger states. However, if you look at the 1800 census:
> 
> 1800 United States Census - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> You will see that Virginia, the most populus state at the time, was only 10 times larger than Delaware, the smallest state. But of the 16 states, 5 of them were very close to each other in size. Now, in 2014, our largest state is 61 times larger than the smallest. That is a disparity that our founding fathers never imagined would happen. Because of the filibuster rule, 41 senators from the 20 smallest states +1 other state, representing 10% of the US population, can bring everything to a complete stillstand. Neither of these two conditions is acceptable. Both of them are damaging our Democracy.
> 
> *The US Senate* should have 160 Senators.
> 
> I am going to break this down very specifically, according to the 2010 census:
> 
> The top nine states, which currently acount for 50.26% of the US population, would have *FIVE* Senators apiece (or 45 Senators total):
> 
> California (11.91%)
> Texas (8.04%)
> New York (6.19%)
> Florida (6.01%)
> Illinois (4.10%)
> Pennsylvania (4.06%)
> Ohio (3.69%)
> Michigan (3.16%)
> Georgia (3.10%)
> 
> This is how that 50.26% of our population looks like on a map:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be 45 of 160 Senators, or 28.12% of the Senate. But a prerequisite for this would be that a state must at least be 3.0% of the US population. If a state falls under 3.0%, then it loses a Senator in the next cycle.
> 
> Notice again: the nine powerhouse states of the Union, equaling almost exactly 50% of the US population, still only get 28% representation in the Senate.
> 
> _125 Senators to go._
> 
> The bottom nineteen states, each of which is under or at 0.90% of the US population, plus DC as well would have *TWO* Senators apiece (or 40 Senators total):
> 
> Wyoming (0.18%)
> DC (0.19%)
> Vermont (0.20%)
> North Dakota (0.21%)
> Alaska (0.23%)
> South Dakota (0.26%)
> Delaware (0.29%)
> Montana (0.32%)
> Rhode Island (0.34%)
> New Hampshire (0.42%)
> Maine (0.42%)
> Hawaii (0.43%)
> Idaho (0.51%)
> Nebraska (0.58%)
> West Virginia (0.59%)
> New Mexico (0.66%)
> Nevada (0.86%)
> Utah (0.88%)
> Kansas (0.91%)
> Arkansas (0.93%)
> 
> Those 19 states +DC account for 9.41% of the US Population. I will say that again. Those 20 "states" COMBINED account for 9.41% of the US population.
> 
> This is how that 9.41% of our population looks like on a map:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, let's compare the top 9 with the bottom 19:
> 
> Ratio in population between the top ten states (combined) and the bottom twenty "states" (combined)
> 
> 50.26 / 9.41 = 5.34
> 
> Ratio in number of Senators between the top ten states (combined) and the bottom 19 states (combined):
> 
> 45 / 40  = 1.13
> 
> *In other words, the top 9 states combined are 5 times larger than the 20 bottom states combined, but in the Senate, they are almost equally represented.  In other words, the smaller states still have more electoral firepower, but less than at current time.*
> 
> Here is a map of the top 9 + the bottom 20:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geographically, in terms of land-mass, the two colors look pretty evenly matched (well, the size of Alaska is misrepresented on the map, but anyway....), but the dark red states combined have FIVE times as much population as the gold states.
> 
> That makes 85 out of 160 Senators.  The remaining 75 senators come from the remaining 22 states, with either FOUR or THREE Senators, in order of population.  It would probably look like this:
> 
> 9 States with *FOUR* Senators (states with between 2% and 3% of the population, circa), totaling 36 senators:
> 
> North Carolina (3.05%)
> New Jersey (2.81%)
> Virginia (2.56%)
> Washington State (2.15%)
> Massachusetts (2.09%)
> Indiana (2.07%)
> Arizona (2.04%)
> Tennessee (2.03%)
> Missouri (1.91%)
> 
> 
> That makes 121 Senators. 39 more to go:
> 
> 
> 13 States with *THREE* Senators (or 39 Senators total):
> 
> 
> Maryland (1.85%)
> Wisconsin (1.82%)
> Minnesota (1.70%)
> Colorado (1.61%)
> Alabama (1.53%)
> South Carolina (1.48%)
> Louisiana (1.45%)
> Kentucky (1.39%
> Oregon (1.22%)
> Oklahoma (1.20%)
> Connecticut (1.14%)
> Iowa (0.97%)
> Mississippi (0.95%)
> 
> Here are how those 22 states look on a map:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total: 160.
> 
> Here is the complete map of states with 5, 4, 3 or 2 Senators per state:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, many arguments could be brought against this, but it actually would _increase_ the chances for the challenging party in a large state to actually pick up a Senate seat or two. In California, a deep blue state, with 5 Senators instead of 2, the Republicans could have a real chance at winning a senate seat or two. Likewise, in Texas, a deep red state, the Democrats could do the same.
> 
> *Senate Term: *6 years
> *Requirements:* at least 37 years old, US citizenship
> *Term limits:* 2 terms (maximum 15 years)
> 
> Senators would be elected ALL AT ONCE for 6 year terms, with a possible 3 year extension, depending upon the presidency. There should be no more staggering of the Senate into A, B and C cycles.
> 
> Like US-Representatives, Senators would be elected as a "ticket" for each seat. See ticket above. This means that for every Senate seat, two names would be on the ballot for each party: one for the candidate and one for the designated alternate, so that, should the candidate, if he wins, leave office for any reason before the end of his term, the alternate would finish out the term and thus eliminate the need for a special election. So, the same reasoning used for the House of Representatives in terms of  maximum of years in office applies here as well,  but there is an addition reason found under the EXECUTIVE.
> 
> *"National Senators"​*
> The US Senate should be enhanced by all former US Presidents and Vice-Presidents still living, who, without election, can become NATIONAL SENATORS upon leaving office until their death. This service, however, would be voluntary. In the last 60 years, at any one given time, we have had no more than 5 former presidents and 5 former Vice-Presidents living, so the Senate, officially at 160, could theoretically be 170. NATIONAL SENATORS would be eligible to vote on any issues that come forth in the Senate, but they would not be allowed committee seats. National Senators would also serve as electors in the so-called Electoral College, and would have the right to cast their electoral vote according to their conscience, but they would likely be very, very inclined to cast their electoral vote for the winner of the National Popular Vote, since they would be considered NATIONAL SENATORS.  More about this under: the Executive.
> 
> 
> I would expect that we could have a lively discussion as to why I propose this idea.



I have to leave for an appointment, but will return for more than a cursory look later.
My first comment is that the Constitution was set up specifically to give smaller states a disproportionate share in the Senate to counteract the more populous states' disproportionate share in the House.

The new country was a federation of distinct states with a purposely weak central government.

I vote no to messing with the Senate with the exception that I do support the repeal of the 17th Amendment.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Interesting ideas.  (Insert your preferred Deity here) knows SOMEthing needs to change.

I firmly believe, however, that any changes like those above are going to become just another game of corruption for the well-to-do to play unless we first start with a fair and simple tax code, and public budgets that are balanced by law.

As long as politicians have the power to customize the tax code for friends, supporters and those who're willing to pay for special treatment, it matters little _how_ we choose them, big money will purchase corrupting influence because of the potential for avoiding the paying of a fair tax for years.

Same thing with balancing public budgets.  As long as politicians have the power to spend money that they are unwilling or unable to collect from their _current_ constituencies in the form of deficit spending, it matters little _how_ those politicians are chosen.

There are symptoms and there are diseases.  Right now, the disease is corruption and everyone seems to want to treat the symptoms.  Our politicians obviously can't handle the power to customize taxes and to deficit spend without giving in to the corrupting influence of the well-heeled, so those powers need to be removed first, then we can discuss the modernization of our election processes.

Just my 2 cents...


----------



## Statistikhengst

Montrovant said:


> I just want to throw a couple of quick thoughts out.  Having read the legislative section, I don't believe in term limits : I think they are a way of telling voters they cannot vote for the person they want.  I can understand the desire for them, as we have too many entrenched politicians, but I would like to see a different solution to that problem if possible.
> 
> The other thing is that I don't understand how the 'ticket' option would be viable. * What does the alternate person do while the elected official is in office?  What if the alternate is unable to take over when the situation arises?  It seems too difficult to me.*
> 
> I have more to read, but I'm watching the little one now and can't go too deeply into anything.
> 
> I thought about just responding with tl;dr, for the humor.




*Ding, ding!!! * Happy bells for the first person to actually pose a question based on the material.

I didn't broach that, hoping a smart soul would bring it up. Which you just did!  

2 things:

-the alternate would need to keep his day job!! 
-and should the alternate no longer be available for any reasons, then a special election would indeed have to be called. But at least we could lower the number of special elections this way. Which saves time and $$$ and stress.

-this could also have postive implications for a political party in a highly competitive district.

Lets say that two Republicans duke it out in the primaries for a congressonal seat in Wisconsin, in a district that is R+1 maybe, very swingy. Now, after a long fought primary battle, one of the two dudes wins, but the party is split. Meanwhile, the Democrat flew through his primary unopposed. One way to unify the GOP in this case COULD be for the winner of the GOP primary to select the loser of the primary to be his alternate, which could bring out some unity votes for his party in the Fall.


Food for thought.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

*Suggestion to folks posting....I would suggest to EDIT OUT Statistikhengst' original OP post. When replying
Otherwise your post will get lost in scrolling and scrolling past the original writing.*
  My 2 cents.


----------



## Statistikhengst

AVG-JOE said:


> Interesting ideas.  (Insert your preferred Deity here) knows SOMEthing needs to change.
> 
> I firmly believe, however, that any changes like those above are going to become just another game of corruption for the well-to-do to play unless we first start with a fair and simple tax code, and public budgets that are balanced by law.
> 
> As long as politicians have the power to customize the tax code for friends, supporters and those who're willing to pay for special treatment, it matters little _how_ we choose them, big money will purchase corrupting influence because of the potential for avoiding the paying of a fair tax for years.
> 
> Same thing with balancing public budgets.  As long as politicians have the power to spend money that they are unwilling or unable to collect from their _current_ constituencies in the form of deficit spending, it matters little _how_ those politicians are chosen.
> 
> There are symptoms and there are diseases.  Right now, the disease is corruption and everyone seems to want to treat the symptoms.  Our politicians obviously can't handle the power to customize taxes and to deficit spend without giving in to the corrupting influence of the well-heeled, so those powers need to be removed first, then we can discuss the modernization of our election processes.
> 
> Just my 2 cents...



I share many of your thoughts, but pols are also being forced to play into such a system in the first place in order to get elected. Break the cycle, break the habit.


----------



## BDBoop

Totally, TOTALLY agree with symptom vs disease. Very good point.


----------



## Statistikhengst

iamwhatiseem said:


> *Suggestion to folks posting....I would suggest to EDIT OUT Statistikhengst' original OP post. When replying
> Otherwise your post will get lost in scrolling and scrolling past the original writing.*
> My 2 cents.




Yes, or just quote the paragraph you really want to hit on.

For this reason, I broke down the OP into 5 posts....


----------



## Statistikhengst

Ok, it's going on 1 am here, I am whipped like Mondale (just a joke, don't throw rotting fruit), but I hope that people give great input and ask maybe some questions. And tomorrow I will read through and reply.

I know it is a helluva lot to read, but this is one case where you need to step back and take in the entire picture, otherwise the component parts don't make as much sense.

G-night, y'all.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Oh, and one point I find fascinating is the idea of the NATIONAL SENATORS.


----------



## Politico

Jroc said:


> Lots more politicians just what we need... it'd be better to divide by district the electoral college and award the them by district instead of winner take all. That would give everyone a voice instead of states like California where conservatives are overrun by liberals or visa versa in TX. Also there are 2 senators per state for a reason. That's the way the founders wanted it, and the way it should be. It gives the smaller states more of a voice. If you came up with this all yourself ? *Impressive*.. I haft to give you credit for that.



The post is way to long winded to read. But if more politicians is what he's proposing that not going to happen. The system is the way the founders made it.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Statistikhengst said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting ideas.  (Insert your preferred Deity here) knows SOMEthing needs to change.
> 
> I firmly believe, however, that any changes like those above are going to become just another game of corruption for the well-to-do to play unless we first start with a fair and simple tax code, and public budgets that are balanced by law.
> 
> As long as politicians have the power to customize the tax code for friends, supporters and those who're willing to pay for special treatment, it matters little _how_ we choose them, big money will purchase corrupting influence because of the potential for avoiding the paying of a fair tax for years.
> 
> Same thing with balancing public budgets.  As long as politicians have the power to spend money that they are unwilling or unable to collect from their _current_ constituencies in the form of deficit spending, it matters little _how_ those politicians are chosen.
> 
> There are symptoms and there are diseases.  Right now, the disease is corruption and everyone seems to want to treat the symptoms.  Our politicians obviously can't handle the power to customize taxes and to deficit spend without giving in to the corrupting influence of the well-heeled, so those powers need to be removed first, then we can discuss the modernization of our election processes.
> 
> Just my 2 cents...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I share many of your thoughts, but pols are also being forced to play into such a system in the first place in order to get elected. Break the cycle, break the habit.
Click to expand...


  Who in their right mind would give millions to a campaign knowing that such a donation would have ZERO effect on the tax obligation of the giver.

Limiting the ability of an American to give to political campaigns is not the answer, the answer is limiting the influence those donations can purchase.


----------



## Gracie

You put a lot of thought into those posts, Stat. Brava for your patience and common sense.

With that said...will anything ever come of your ideas and suggestions? Probably not in my lifetime.
I am not "as in" to politics as most here...all I know is, the electoral vote thing SUCKS. We in california are still at the polls and the president is already known before we can even place our vote. That stinks. So it doesn't really matter WHO I want to vote for. It wouldn't count.


----------



## Mertex

I read most of it....didn't see anything about re-districting...is that something you plan to address?


----------



## Derideo_Te

on some great ideas and responses from GW and GT too. 

I tagged some additional members whom I believe could make some excellent contributions. (Used the [Tag Users] function at the top since that is what it is for.)

Some of what you suggest is going to require Constitutional Amendments and that means that this is going to be difficult to implement. Not impossible, but harder than necessary. Overall I agree that we are way overdue for a complete overhaul. 

My suggestions actually piggyback on the concept of voter involvement in elections via the internet and using unique ids similar to SSNs. 

1. Compulsory voting for all citizens. Doesn't matter if you vote for Mickey Mouse but you must cast a ballot. This eliminates parties having to focus on "turnout". If everyone must vote then turnout becomes a non-issue.

2. Voting via the Internet is something that needs to done sooner rather than later. Yes, it is feasible and it eliminates the BS about long waiting lines and voting hours and all the rest of the ways that politicians are using to mess with voting rights. If we trust the internet to make credit card purchases (sometimes for thousands of dollars) then why can't we have a similar secure system for voting? Eliminates weather concerns too. Best of all counting electronic votes can be tallied in seconds and there are no "hanging chads" and other nonsense. Polls close and vote counts are known nationwide. 

3. Allow permanent residents to vote in non Federal and non State wide elections. These are taxpayers too and since their taxes pay local municipal taxes and for schools it only makes sense that they should be allowed to enter the electoral process in this manner. (BTW this is already allowed in some states.) This is all part and parcel of greater involvement in the process rather than less.

Right now part of what is messing up the system is the deliberate and malicious process of driving voters away. A vote lost for your opponent is a vote gained for yourself. If voting becomes compulsory the incentive to drive away voters falls away (and so does the money to make that happen.) 

The use of the Internet for voting eliminates the excuse for not voting. Every place that offers WiFi now becomes a potential polling station. College dorms, coffee shops, libraries, shopping malls and yes, in the comfort of your own home. Once again greater involvement across all registered voters means that trying to appeal on single issues to drive "turnout" becomes a non issue and again, it undercuts the benefit of outside funding.

Internet voting doesn't require a constitutional amendment. It can be implemented sooner rather than later and it makes the most sense to begin here because it will increase voter turnout simply because it makes it easier. It also increases voting in primary elections which are notorious for low turnout. This can eliminate a subset of the voters being able to restrict the choices of the greater electorate. 

Anything that increases involvement in the election process means a democracy where votes count more than dollars. That is where we must begin in my opinion.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Mertex said:


> I read most of it....didn't see anything about re-districting...is that something you plan to address?



There was mention in one of the openers decrying the practice of Gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering sucks.


----------



## dreolin

BDBoop said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also an option, although, technically, the law prohibits the use of SSN for anything other than SS.
> 
> But there is a lot more in the entire OP, spread out over five postings, than just this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know there was a lot more, but I'm not studied and versed on the Electoral College enough to make a refreshing post in regard to an entire overhaul.
> 
> Good read, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I barely glanced at it. I need to actually read it when I'm not otherwise occupied - and now's not good.
Click to expand...


It is a heck of a lot to digest and I have a son coming home on leave that I haven't seen in two years.

I did read a lot of it. Seems like a precursor to a civil war when we readjust Senate seats and you will get into state rights issues.


----------



## BDBoop

dreolin said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know there was a lot more, but I'm not studied and versed on the Electoral College enough to make a refreshing post in regard to an entire overhaul.
> 
> Good read, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I barely glanced at it. I need to actually read it when I'm not otherwise occupied - and now's not good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a heck of a lot to digest and I have a son coming home on leave that I haven't seen in two years.
> 
> I did read a lot of it. Seems like a precursor to a civil war when we readjust Senate seats and you will get into state rights issues.
Click to expand...


Congratulations!!!!!


----------



## Nosmo King

I don't agree that making wholesale changes to the constitution is the right way to go.  Neither do I think that this is the fault of the voter.  Restricting access to the polls by elaborate ID measures answer a problem we do not have, namely voter fraud.

The problem as I see it is the money.  Money spent on ads and campaigns.  If contributions from individuals AND corporations was restricted to a three digit number, we could eliminate checkbook politics.  

Perhaps it's the length of the campaign that makes the money so needed.  If we had one national day for primaries, in May perhaps, and a national moratorium on campaigning until early August, long drawn out budgets for media buys would dry up and take the cash with them.


----------



## MarcATL

Statistikhengst said:


> This thread is a project I have been working on for months, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Putting it out on USMB is a promise I made to    [MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION].
> 
> From the moment a US-Representative is sworn in, he or she is _already_ planning and fundraising for the NEXT election.  Huge PACS and Super-PACS are scrounging for money all year long. The media machine for all political parties is set to full-blast 24/7. Polling for the next presidential election started quite literally on the day after the last presidential election! *We are now living in a permanent election cycle that literally never ends. This is not healthy for us.*
> 
> Liberals complain that voter suppression is happening. Conservatives complain that there is voter fraud. Both sides have some very valid complaints. The last three presidential election have seen long-lines of people waiting to vote at polling places not equipped to handle that many people. Gerrymandering has literally made about 80% of the House of Representatives safe. And the list goes on and on.
> 
> In fact, it is just crazy.
> 
> In many ways, we have an electoral system that is designed for failure. That was surely not the intent of the founding fathers, but this is how it is working out and I think the time for some real common sense changes has come.
> 
> In this report, Conservatives, Moderates and Liberals are all going to find some things that they like and things that they don't like, but I ask of you to read all of it and digest it before commenting.
> 
> *My main contention is that there is a severe structural flaw in our system of electioneering*, namely, that very little of it is set in stone in the US Constitution. What was considered checks-and-balances has now become gridlock. And the rest, because of Federalism, is left up to the individual states to decide. And out of this, a hodge-podge patchwork of electioneering has evolved into a money making-monster.
> 
> So, I am a proposing a complete overhaul of our electoral system, but not an elimination of the Electoral College, as we like to call it. I am going to do this in four parts. Because of the length of this all, and to make it easier for you all to quote only one section, these four parts will be spread over postings 2-5 of this thread:
> 
> *I.   The Legislative* (posting no. 2)
> *II.  The Executive* (posting no. 3)
> *III. The Judicial *(posting no. 4)
> *IV.  Election rules and timelines* (posting no. 5)
> 
> Many of these things are things that Larry Sabato has also suggested in his book Toward a more Perfect Union, but many of them are also orginal ideas of mine.
> 
> The goal of all of this is to
> 
> a.) increase the amount of undisrupted time for governing between elections.
> b.) streamline the actual time frame of electioneering.
> c.) unify the rules for electioneering.
> d.) reduce the money chase.
> 
> I am not saying that this is the only way to do this, but I do think that much of what I suggest is worthy of real adult debate. As I already wrote, each person will probably find some things he likes and some things he doesn't like, and that is good, for such sparks intelligent debate. *Furthermore, I deliberately left out a lot of the reason for WHY I feel this way about many things. I did this to spur people to question or to come up with reasons themselves*.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> A friendly shout-out to *all* of these good people, from the Right, the Left and the Middle. I hope very much that you read all 5 opening postings and then comment. This could become one of the best discussions of the year.
> 
> [MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION]   [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]   [MENTION=40495]AngelsNDemons[/MENTION]   [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]   [MENTION=26011]Ernie S.[/MENTION]   [MENTION=9429]AVG-JOE[/MENTION] @Mad Cabbie   [MENTION=42649]Gracie[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]   [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION]   [MENTION=38281]Wolfsister77[/MENTION]   [MENTION=21679]william the wie[/MENTION]   [MENTION=23424]syrenn[/MENTION]   [MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION]   [MENTION=37250]aaronleland[/MENTION]  [MENTION=36767]Bloodrock44[/MENTION]   [MENTION=36528]cereal_killer[/MENTION]   [MENTION=40540]Connery[/MENTION]   [MENTION=30999]daws101[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION]   [MENTION=33449]BreezeWood[/MENTION]   [MENTION=31362]gallantwarrior[/MENTION]   [MENTION=24610]iamwhatiseem[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46750]Knightfall[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46690]Libertarianman[/MENTION]   [MENTION=1322]007[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20594]Mr Clean[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20704]Nosmo King[/MENTION]   [MENTION=43268]TemplarKormac[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION]   [MENTION=41494]RandallFlagg[/MENTION]   [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION] Samson   [MENTION=21357]SFC Ollie[/MENTION] @Sherri   [MENTION=43491]TooTall[/MENTION]   [MENTION=25451]tinydancer[/MENTION]   [MENTION=31918]Unkotare[/MENTION]   [MENTION=45104]WelfareQueen[/MENTION]   [MENTION=21524]oldfart[/MENTION]   [MENTION=42498]Esmeralda[/MENTION]   [MENTION=43888]AyeCantSeeYou[/MENTION]   [MENTION=19302]Montrovant[/MENTION]   [MENTION=11703]strollingbones[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18988]PixieStix[/MENTION]   [MENTION=23262]peach174[/MENTION]   [MENTION=13805]Againsheila[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20342]Ringel05[/MENTION]   [MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18905]Sherry[/MENTION]   [MENTION=29697]freedombecki[/MENTION]   [MENTION=22590]AquaAthena[/MENTION]   [MENTION=38146]Dajjal[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18645]Sarah G[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46193]Thx[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]   [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]   [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18990]Barb[/MENTION]   [MENTION=19867]G.T.[/MENTION]   [MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION]   [MENTION=11278]editec[/MENTION]   [MENTION=22983]Flopper[/MENTION]   [MENTION=22889]Matthew[/MENTION] [MENTION=46136]dreolin[/MENTION]


Excellent thread brother.

I read through everything except the executive and timelines, I read some of the exectuive, then skimmed the rest, then read most of the timelines, then skimmed the rest.

From what I read it seems your ideas would create more fairness and equality across the board.

I particular like the part of those states with little to no people, losing the clout they currently have.

10 people shouldn't be able to have equal weight as 10000 people. Which is what we currently have.

Your ideas are good, don't think they'll be ever implemented, for that very reason. They are too sound, and politicians crave confusion.


----------



## Montrovant

On the executive section, I disagree with the ideas.

As I've said, I'm against term limits.  Even our current 2 term limitation on presidents is something I disagree with.  I do understand how a 1 term limit might prevent further campaigning once in office, though.

I dislike the tying of a presidential election to senate seats and governors.  I think that is a terrible idea.  It is giving the voters even fewer choices.  If you think you have a great president but a terrible senator or governor, you cannot vote that way.  You have to keep one official in office in order to keep the other.  It also too closely ties state elections to federal elections.

On the judicial section, I also tend to disagree.

I find the logic of keeping the final arbiters of our laws outside the direct influence of public opinion strong.  That layer of insulation against a tyranny of the majority, while it is far from perfect, I think is important.  The SCOTUS should be as objective as possible.  I realize that there is already strong feeling that our justices are very partisan, but I don't think having them elected will improve that situation.

Perhaps, if a change must be made, a better plan would be to have the president select a certain number of candidates and then the Senate decides which they prefer (assuming they are willing to allow any to serve).  I'm not certain if that could work, I'm simply leery of elected Supreme Court justices.


----------



## BlackSand

We can tackle it in as organized fashion as you approached the topic  Little pieces at a time.
At no time should it be misconstrued that I believe your ideas are not thoughtful and well intended.
I will start where you started  Legislative.

*House of Representatives*

As far as increasing the number of Representatives in attempts to more closely represent the current population level  I don't see an immediate problem with that.
There may be concerns more on the logistic rather than governing level as arrangements would need to be made for obviously more representatives and staff than what currently exists.

*Term limits* could be handled in a much more traditional and balanced manner.
Keep the terms the traditional two years and limit them to 4 terms.
Where some people would prefer shorter term limits  That would open the door to additional corruption.
If the maximum terms were too short   Then the representatives would soon become puppets of the handlers who walk them through the process of orientation and governmental procedures.

If you still want to include the alternate option anyway  Whoever came in second in the primary could hold that position.
If there was no one running against the elected representative from their party in the primary  Then the elected representative should be allowed to choose their alternate at large prior to the general election.

Comments about redistricting and the absence of gerrymandering are worthy and understandable.
Any number of arrangements could be made to ensure the redistricting was done with some fairness  But with the intent to keep individual district concerns both local and accurately representative.
No attempts should be made to segment any particular area in regards to establishing any kind of desired equality.
If a district is 95% white upper middle class  Then it is representative of its own interests.
If attempts are made to dilute that percentage in favor of balance  Then you are jeopardizing an actual representation of the district.

*Senate*

Ditch the idea of a messing with the number of Senators for each State  That is not the purpose of the Senate.
The Senate is what ensures the interests of one state do not outweigh the interests of another state.
Accurate representation can be handled in the House of Representatives where legislation should start in the first place  And the Senate should be kept equal to ensure the legislation does not unfairly benefit one state or region over another.

*Extreme example just to show what I mean *

If the states on the West and East Coast decided to pass legislation that taxed corn crops produced in the Midwest and Plains Regions without substantial representation in the Senate to combat the move  Abuse could occur.

I wouldn't rule out the addition of two more Senators per state for better representation per each district.
I would suggest that the number be able to support an equal split at all times  Although I understand your concerns about gridlock.

*Gridlock* is not a bad thing (I am a Conservative)  Because it indicates the desire to do something correctly more than the desire just to do something.
If any measure cannot draw the appropriate amount of support to receive bi-partisan cooperation  Then it deserves a quick and thorough death.
I don't live in a dream world where I think the perfect idea would be to require a two thirds vote for every measure.
I do think that such a requirement would eliminate the ability of Congress members blaming others in their party (or their opposing party/parties) for actions or the lack thereof  And help hold each member more accountable for their actions.

*Qualifications*  You left out the fact that they need to actively reside in the district they are representing when elected.
*National Senators * Forget it as part of the actual Senate  Perhaps they could serve as an advisory committee in a certain capacity  But not as voting members of the Senate.

.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Statistikhengst said:


> *The Judicial*
> 
> Term: 18 years (24 years for the Chief Justice)
> Requirements: 40 years old, US citizen
> Term limit: 1 term
> 
> The Supreme Court should be* expanded to 15 justices* + 2 alternates. Majority vote: 8, abstentions not allowed under any circumstance. For this reason, a 16th and 17th alternate judge would also be elected to decide on a case where a judge would decide to abstain, and they would rule in his stead. This would mean that ALL SC cases would have a vote of 15 voices, without exception. No 15 voices, no ruling, that simple.
> 
> Supreme Court Justices, other than the Chief justice, would be allowed to serve a maximum of 18 years, or possibly, 3 presidential terms. The Chief justice would be allowed to serve  a maximum of 24 years, or possibly four presidential terms.
> 
> Supreme Court judges would be elected, but through a system of lists and then an election. Supreme Court judges would no longer be appointed by the President, nor would they be confirmed by the US Senate.
> 
> Someone wanting to be a judge would need to apply. His credentials would then go through a House committee, a Senate committee and then a Presidential committee.
> 
> A final list of 60 names would be provided for election day, the voters would select 15 of the 60 names (maximum) and the top 15 vote getters would be elected. Numbers 16 and 17 would be alternate judges. However, the sitting president would get to decide which justice would be the Chief Justice out of those elected to the Supreme Court, and that appointment would be approved by the US Senate. Should a justice leave before the end of his term for any reason, then the next highest vote-getter on the list (that would be nr. 16, for starters) would assume the position.
> 
> Judges would be elected in the MIDDLE of a presidential term, in other words, in the election for the House of Representatives. This means that elected Supreme Court justices would likely straddle the terms of two or three presidents.
> 
> I would like to note that many nations elect their judges, rather than appointing them.


Youve obviously put a lot of time, effort, and consideration into this project, its both commendable and appreciated.   

However

Your reforms concerning the judiciary are comprehensively unacceptable  Federal judges and justices of the Supreme Court should never be elected, and their terms should indeed be for life. 

To subject Federal judges and justices to elections and term limits would undermine the rule of law and threaten the very foundation of the Republic, and our civil liberties along with it.   



> If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78


----------



## Shrimpbox

First of all Stat needs a round of applause for his effort and his good intentions. If everyone put half as much effort as he did on his five posts we would probably not have an election problem. Thanks stat

Having said that I pretty much disagree with most of his points.

I like the idea of  changing the primary election into regional affairs, but here is a point. Let's say the west coast gets first dibs and one democrat gets the overwhelming majority of primary votes.( or a republican for that matter) would this so cripple ones opponents that the rest of the primaries would be a forgone conclusion. Also would the way the regions are drawn up would they favor metro areas so much that candidates would only campaign in the cities. Maybe you could set primaries up by alphabetical order 12 at a time for four primaries.

I am not going to bloviate too much in one post cause their is so much to chew on. I am going to come from a different angle. The democrats have shown us that a campaign has to resemble American Idol to be successful. Style is more important than substance. This is not the fault of the constitution or the electoral process, but it has given us the the most mediocre political class in my lifetime as well as a president with no leadership  abilities to break political impasses. More on correcting this later.

There should be a box on every ballot that you can check if you do not want any political anything to contact you about elections until one year before an election. Give us a break please.

Anyone who thinks having over a thousand national political office holders is going to be an improvement over the present system is fooling themselves. We have so much dead wood already in the house and senate. Additionally most citizens cant keep up with the the candidates already presented much less thousands more.

Lastly what stat suggests is more of a parliamentary system that would encourage the creation of many more parties and a whole lot more gridlock.

Still stat I tip my hat to you, great job of trying to do something.


----------



## Spoonman

we need term limits.  right now we have a stable of old guard in there. half these guys are well past retirement age. no new fresh ideas are getting through.  even if you are a bright young star with good ideas and willing to be non partisan, you are shut down b the old school.  its poison and congress is locked up as a result.  even the supreme court has become partisan. there is no way the court should be allowed to become either too liberal or too conservative.  it ceases to become and impartial body. the supreme court is just as partisan as congress.   we need to do away with the electoral.  90% of the states are usually decided before the election even starts. it stifles people from getting out to vote. Conservatives in NY or CA say why bother, the state is going blue, and I'm sure liberals in TX say why bother, it's going red.  we need to get the vote back in the hands of the people. all the people.  Right now the vote comes down to a handful of states and that is where the campaigning is focused. the goal is to win those states to win the election.  the dynamic has to be changed so the goal is to win based on what the majority of americans want.


----------



## Nosmo King

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Judicial*
> 
> Term: 18 years (24 years for the Chief Justice)
> Requirements: 40 years old, US citizen
> Term limit: 1 term
> 
> The Supreme Court should be* expanded to 15 justices* + 2 alternates. Majority vote: 8, abstentions not allowed under any circumstance. For this reason, a 16th and 17th alternate judge would also be elected to decide on a case where a judge would decide to abstain, and they would rule in his stead. This would mean that ALL SC cases would have a vote of 15 voices, without exception. No 15 voices, no ruling, that simple.
> 
> Supreme Court Justices, other than the Chief justice, would be allowed to serve a maximum of 18 years, or possibly, 3 presidential terms. The Chief justice would be allowed to serve  a maximum of 24 years, or possibly four presidential terms.
> 
> Supreme Court judges would be elected, but through a system of lists and then an election. Supreme Court judges would no longer be appointed by the President, nor would they be confirmed by the US Senate.
> 
> Someone wanting to be a judge would need to apply. His credentials would then go through a House committee, a Senate committee and then a Presidential committee.
> 
> A final list of 60 names would be provided for election day, the voters would select 15 of the 60 names (maximum) and the top 15 vote getters would be elected. Numbers 16 and 17 would be alternate judges. However, the sitting president would get to decide which justice would be the Chief Justice out of those elected to the Supreme Court, and that appointment would be approved by the US Senate. Should a justice leave before the end of his term for any reason, then the next highest vote-getter on the list (that would be nr. 16, for starters) would assume the position.
> 
> Judges would be elected in the MIDDLE of a presidential term, in other words, in the election for the House of Representatives. This means that elected Supreme Court justices would likely straddle the terms of two or three presidents.
> 
> I would like to note that many nations elect their judges, rather than appointing them.
> 
> 
> 
> Youve obviously put a lot of time, effort, and consideration into this project, its both commendable and appreciated.
> 
> However
> 
> Your reforms concerning the judiciary are comprehensively unacceptable  Federal judges and justices of the Supreme Court should never be elected, and their terms should indeed be for life.
> 
> To subject Federal judges and justices to elections and term limits would undermine the rule of law and threaten the very foundation of the Republic, and our civil liberties along with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I agree.  Dipping the judiciary into morass of electioneering isn't going to make them clean.  If money is the root of electioneering evils, giving money from vested interests like PACs and Wall Street would taint rulings and give corrupt law the imperamator of judicial enforcement and legitimacy.


----------



## TemplarKormac

For Senators and Representatives, I would make a tweak to the numbers. Instead of the 1,000 representatives, I would standardize the amount to 500 (just 65 more than the 435 we have currently). Or 10 representatives covering 10 distinct districts in their states, regardless of population, meaning equal representation regardless of population. Furthermore, of those 10 representatives, each party would get to vote for 5 of them. Meaning that at no point in time in any state would one party have an advantage over the other. The districts would be drawn to encompass equal portions of the respective state's population, and would remain permanent.

I would keep the 2 year cycle, for 8 years could a senator or representative remain at his position, or four two-year terms. I would outlaw gerrymandering altogether. These districts would not change for any reason whatsoever. Instead of having so many moving parts for the electorate to discern, make the electoral process more static. Many people decide not to vote because of issues like this. 

I would actually keep the 100 senators. You would have 2 senators from each state regardless of population size. One Republican, one Democrat; as with representatives, both parties would have a representative they would vote into the Senate. At no point in time would a party hold the advantage in one state or another, or in either house. 

All votes would require a 60-40 margin in the Senate, and a minimum of a 275-225 vote in the House to pass any legislation. In my opinion, having 1,000 representatives complicates the electoral process. Having 160 Senators is I feel in excess, and also complicates the electoral process. Personally, I feel all of this number crunching to be unnecessary. 

By not allowing one party to have an advantage, it forces them to act for the good of their constituents. I would make it illegal to lie under oath, meaning that a Senator or Representative should set attainable goals for his term in office. Bribery and gift giving for votes will be outlawed. Breaching an oath of office would immediately warrant a 20 year prison term, and a revocation of elected status. I would eliminate arm twisting. I would make a law requiring each member of congress to vote of his own accord, and that accepting bribes, gifts or sweetheart deals would be illegal. 

Each Senator and representative would conduct a referendum vote for their respective state, so as to assess the pertinent issue at hand at that current time, and bring this issue to the attention to the governor, and eventually to the President himself. 


As for elections, I feel the electoral college should be eliminated. The presidency should determined by a straight up and down popular vote. A term should constitute 8 years instead of two four year terms. A runoff would constitute a result of 50.5% to 49.5% result (including Vice President). If either candidate fails to attain 51% of the vote, a minimum of 1 runoff would occur. Should the margin fail to exceed 51% for either candidate once again , the house should elect elect the president, confirmation would require a supermajority vote of 301-199. Given that, you would force everyone to think hard about the person(s) they put in the White House.


----------



## TemplarKormac

And Stat, this is one hell of a post you made here. I commend you for putting your back into it.


----------



## Barb

> Liberals complain that voter suppression is happening. Conservatives complain that there is voter fraud. Both sides have some very valid complaints.



I disagree with this. It is all well and fine (as well as academically sound) to _acknowledge_ and answer every argument, but it is technically incorrect to give every argument the same weight of legitimacy if they do not, in fact, equal out.


----------



## Barb

> I would expect that we could have a lively discussion as to why I propose this idea.





> Gerrymandering would never ever happen again.



Yes! and to most of the rest, including term limits and:



> Senators would be elected ALL AT ONCE for 6 year terms



But 



> The US Senate should be enhanced by all former US Presidents and Vice-Presidents still living



is troubling, even as a volunteer post, as there is too much possibility for conflict of interests between whatever business, board, trust, etc...that they may be involved in or profiting from.


----------



## Statistikhengst

AVG-JOE said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting ideas.  (Insert your preferred Deity here) knows SOMEthing needs to change.
> 
> I firmly believe, however, that any changes like those above are going to become just another game of corruption for the well-to-do to play unless we first start with a fair and simple tax code, and public budgets that are balanced by law.
> 
> As long as politicians have the power to customize the tax code for friends, supporters and those who're willing to pay for special treatment, it matters little _how_ we choose them, big money will purchase corrupting influence because of the potential for avoiding the paying of a fair tax for years.
> 
> Same thing with balancing public budgets.  As long as politicians have the power to spend money that they are unwilling or unable to collect from their _current_ constituencies in the form of deficit spending, it matters little _how_ those politicians are chosen.
> 
> There are symptoms and there are diseases.  Right now, the disease is corruption and everyone seems to want to treat the symptoms.  Our politicians obviously can't handle the power to customize taxes and to deficit spend without giving in to the corrupting influence of the well-heeled, so those powers need to be removed first, then we can discuss the modernization of our election processes.
> 
> Just my 2 cents...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I share many of your thoughts, but pols are also being forced to play into such a system in the first place in order to get elected. Break the cycle, break the habit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who in their right mind would give millions to a campaign knowing that such a donation would have ZERO effect on the tax obligation of the giver.
> 
> Limiting the ability of an American to give to political campaigns is not the answer, the answer is limiting the influence those donations can purchase.
Click to expand...


It limits the ability to give only in term of the time frame, not in term of the amount of dollars.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Gracie said:


> You put a lot of thought into those posts, Stat. Brava for your patience and common sense.
> 
> With that said...will anything ever come of your ideas and suggestions? Probably not in my lifetime.
> I am not "as in" to politics as most here...all I know is, the electoral vote thing SUCKS. We in california are still at the polls and the president is already known before we can even place our vote. That stinks. So it doesn't really matter WHO I want to vote for. It wouldn't count.




Well, actually, in 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012 the call for the President was either when the polls closed or somewhat after:

2000, December 13
2004, the day after the election at around 3 pm EDT
2008, 11:00 pm EDT
2012 11:18 pm EDT

Also, in 1992, Clinton went over the top at 10:58 pm EDT.

True, in 1996, he was called at 9:25 pm as the polls on the West Coast and beyond were still open.

Thanks for the kind words


----------



## Statistikhengst

Mertex said:


> I read most of it....didn't see anything about re-districting...is that something you plan to address?




Right at the top of posting number 2:



> With redistricting done at a national level with a Super-Computer with only three parameters:
> 
> -State borders
> -population
> -geography and logical connectivity
> 
> A computer, rather than the statehouses, would set the congressional district boundaries. Race, gender, age, social status and partisan breakdown would play no role in the drawing of congressional boundaries, but geographical obstacles would. For instance, if at all possible, a district would not be drawn with a mountain chain splitting it into two halves. Additionally, Gerrymandering would never ever happen again. And for this reason, the Census should be changed from a once in a decade occurence to always be set to be one year before a Presidential election year. More on this in Election Rules and timelines


----------



## Statistikhengst

Derideo_Te said:


> on some great ideas and responses from GW and GT too.
> 
> I tagged some additional members whom I believe could make some excellent contributions. (Used the [Tag Users] function at the top since that is what it is for.)
> 
> Some of what you suggest is going to require Constitutional Amendments and that means that this is going to be difficult to implement. Not impossible, but harder than necessary. Overall I agree that we are way overdue for a complete overhaul.
> 
> My suggestions actually piggyback on the concept of voter involvement in elections via the internet and using unique ids similar to SSNs.
> 
> 1. Compulsory voting for all citizens. Doesn't matter if you vote for Mickey Mouse but you must cast a ballot. This eliminates parties having to focus on "turnout". If everyone must vote then turnout becomes a non-issue.
> 
> 2. Voting via the Internet is something that needs to done sooner rather than later. Yes, it is feasible and it eliminates the BS about long waiting lines and voting hours and all the rest of the ways that politicians are using to mess with voting rights. If we trust the internet to make credit card purchases (sometimes for thousands of dollars) then why can't we have a similar secure system for voting? Eliminates weather concerns too. Best of all counting electronic votes can be tallied in seconds and there are no "hanging chads" and other nonsense. Polls close and vote counts are known nationwide.
> 
> 3. Allow permanent residents to vote in non Federal and non State wide elections. These are taxpayers too and since their taxes pay local municipal taxes and for schools it only makes sense that they should be allowed to enter the electoral process in this manner. (BTW this is already allowed in some states.) This is all part and parcel of greater involvement in the process rather than less.
> 
> Right now part of what is messing up the system is the deliberate and malicious process of driving voters away. A vote lost for your opponent is a vote gained for yourself. If voting becomes compulsory the incentive to drive away voters falls away (and so does the money to make that happen.)
> 
> The use of the Internet for voting eliminates the excuse for not voting. Every place that offers WiFi now becomes a potential polling station. College dorms, coffee shops, libraries, shopping malls and yes, in the comfort of your own home. Once again greater involvement across all registered voters means that trying to appeal on single issues to drive "turnout" becomes a non issue and again, it undercuts the benefit of outside funding.
> 
> Internet voting doesn't require a constitutional amendment. It can be implemented sooner rather than later and it makes the most sense to begin here because it will increase voter turnout simply because it makes it easier. It also increases voting in primary elections which are notorious for low turnout. This can eliminate a subset of the voters being able to restrict the choices of the greater electorate.
> 
> Anything that increases involvement in the election process means a democracy where votes count more than dollars. That is where we must begin in my opinion.




All interesting ideas, all of which I have also considered.

Compulsory voting already exists in these lands:

Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Cyprus, Ecuador, Fiji, Greece, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Mexico, Nauru, Peru, Singapore, Turkey and Uruguay.

I am researching right now how effective this is. Until I have some firm data, I can't say much.

Each one of those lands has some form of penalty for non-voting.  Not sure if that is the way to go.

Germany has non-compulsory voting, and yet, voter turnout is usually 80%.

I do not believe that permanent residents should be allowed to vote. If they really want to vote, then they should apply for US-American citizenship.

Voting per internet will occur one day, but this will require a national ID system, which many Conservatives bawk at. Some people have already bandied about the idea of using the SSN as ID, but I want to mention again that this is currently illegal to do under US law.

And yes, of course, most all of what I am proposing would require either a constitutional amendment or better yet, a Constitutional Convention.

My ONLY goal is to make elections cleaner, more efficent, less costly and also to increase the actual time spent governing rather than being worried about the next election.


----------



## Statistikhengst

AVG-JOE said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read most of it....didn't see anything about re-districting...is that something you plan to address?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was mention in one of the openers decrying the practice of Gerrymandering.
> 
> Gerrymandering sucks.
Click to expand...



Yes, it does. It is time for Gerrymandering to go forever, which is exactly what redistricting using only a super-computer and the three parameters I stated would do.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Nosmo King said:


> I don't agree that making wholesale changes to the constitution is the right way to go.  Neither do I think that this is the fault of the voter.  Restricting access to the polls by elaborate ID measures answer a problem we do not have, namely voter fraud.
> 
> The problem as I see it is the money.  Money spent on ads and campaigns.  If contributions from individuals AND corporations was restricted to a three digit number, we could eliminate checkbook politics.
> 
> *Perhaps it's the length of the campaign that makes the money so needed*.  If we had one national day for primaries, in May perhaps, and a national moratorium on campaigning until early August, long drawn out budgets for media buys would dry up and take the cash with them.




Yes, adressed under rules in posting number 5.

A timeline that shortens the campaigns and also shortens the amount of fundraising time.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Montrovant said:


> On the executive section, I disagree with the ideas.
> 
> As I've said, I'm against term limits.  Even our current 2 term limitation on presidents is something I disagree with.  I do understand how a 1 term limit might prevent further campaigning once in office, though.
> 
> *I dislike the tying of a presidential election to senate seats and governors.  I think that is a terrible idea*.  It is giving the voters even fewer choices.  If you think you have a great president but a terrible senator or governor, you cannot vote that way.  You have to keep one official in office in order to keep the other.  It also too closely ties state elections to federal elections.
> 
> On the judicial section, I also tend to disagree.
> 
> I find the logic of keeping the final arbiters of our laws outside the direct influence of public opinion strong.  That layer of insulation against a tyranny of the majority, while it is far from perfect, I think is important.  The SCOTUS should be as objective as possible.  I realize that there is already strong feeling that our justices are very partisan, but I don't think having them elected will improve that situation.
> 
> Perhaps, if a change must be made, a better plan would be to have the president select a certain number of candidates and then the Senate decides which they prefer (assuming they are willing to allow any to serve).  I'm not certain if that could work, I'm simply leery of elected Supreme Court justices.




I think it is a terrific idea, for it allows a president the chance, in the case of a wave election, to bring in a Senate that is likely majority for his party and therefore the chances increase that he can push through the platform upon which he campaigned.  Also, the extension of three years, when also applied to the Senate, means that that same senate stays with him. The statistical probability of many presidents applying for an receiving an extension with a 62% hurdle to overcome is already slim at best.

The voters DO have a choice: every six years for President and for Senators.

I am not sure we need more choice. We need more stability.

Surely everyone can agree that a President serving for 6 instead of four years automaticall means 2 more years in-between without any campaigning except for the HOR.


As far as the judicial, Japan and Switzerland elect their judges. Oh, and the USA, outside of the Supreme Court. In fact, most all of our judges are already elected.


----------



## Statistikhengst

BlackSand said:


> We can tackle it in as organized fashion as you approached the topic  Little pieces at a time.
> At no time should it be misconstrued that I believe your ideas are not thoughtful and well intended.
> I will start where you started  Legislative.
> 
> *House of Representatives*
> 
> As far as increasing the number of Representatives in attempts to more closely represent the current population level  I don't see an immediate problem with that.
> There may be concerns more on the logistic rather than governing level as arrangements would need to be made for obviously more representatives and staff than what currently exists.
> 
> *Term limits* could be handled in a much more traditional and balanced manner.
> Keep the terms the traditional two years and limit them to 4 terms.
> Where some people would prefer shorter term limits  That would open the door to additional corruption.
> If the maximum terms were too short   Then the representatives would soon become puppets of the handlers who walk them through the process of orientation and governmental procedures.
> 
> If you still want to include the alternate option anyway  Whoever came in second in the primary could hold that position.
> If there was no one running against the elected representative from their party in the primary  Then the elected representative should be allowed to choose their alternate at large prior to the general election.
> 
> Comments about redistricting and the absence of gerrymandering are worthy and understandable.
> Any number of arrangements could be made to ensure the redistricting was done with some fairness  But with the intent to keep individual district concerns both local and accurately representative.
> No attempts should be made to segment any particular area in regards to establishing any kind of desired equality.
> If a district is 95% white upper middle class  Then it is representative of its own interests.
> If attempts are made to dilute that percentage in favor of balance  Then you are jeopardizing an actual representation of the district.
> 
> *Senate*
> 
> Ditch the idea of a messing with the number of Senators for each State  That is not the purpose of the Senate.
> The Senate is what ensures the interests of one state do not outweigh the interests of another state.
> Accurate representation can be handled in the House of Representatives where legislation should start in the first place  And the Senate should be kept equal to ensure the legislation does not unfairly benefit one state or region over another.
> 
> *Extreme example just to show what I mean *
> 
> If the states on the West and East Coast decided to pass legislation that taxed corn crops produced in the Midwest and Plains Regions without substantial representation in the Senate to combat the move  Abuse could occur.
> 
> I wouldn't rule out the addition of two more Senators per state for better representation per each district.
> I would suggest that the number be able to support an equal split at all times  Although I understand your concerns about gridlock.
> 
> *Gridlock* is not a bad thing (I am a Conservative)  Because it indicates the desire to do something correctly more than the desire just to do something.
> If any measure cannot draw the appropriate amount of support to receive bi-partisan cooperation  Then it deserves a quick and thorough death.
> I don't live in a dream world where I think the perfect idea would be to require a two thirds vote for every measure.
> I do think that such a requirement would eliminate the ability of Congress members blaming others in their party (or their opposing party/parties) for actions or the lack thereof  And help hold each member more accountable for their actions.
> 
> *Qualifications*  You left out the fact that they need to actively reside in the district they are representing when elected.
> *National Senators * Forget it as part of the actual Senate  Perhaps they could serve as an advisory committee in a certain capacity  But not as voting members of the Senate.
> 
> .


#


You made some brilliant and thoughtful responses!!

Legislative: yes, we would need more office space, no doubt.

The entire idea of moving the term for a Rep from 2 to 3 years (which was the original proposal at the Constitutional Convention and 2 years became the compromise) is to increase the amount of time governing before having to campaign again. It is also 1/2 of 6 years and fits well into a presidential term of 6 years.

In other words, we would be going from a 2 and 4 year cycle to a 3 and 6 year cycle.

I don't see how term limits leads to corruption, but we have more than ample evidence that staying decades long in the HOR and the Senate has often led to massive corruption.

I like your idea about the alternate, but then again, it is not necessarily conclusive that the two people would agree with each other or get along. Plus, in a jungle primary situation, this could mean that the alternate to a GOP candidate could be  Democrat, or visa versa.

Redistrticting: exactly for the reasons you listed, a Supercomputer with only the three parameters I listed would do the job. In this way, human bias would be out of the equation.

The Problem with the Senate is that the the idea of eliminating the "Tryanny of the Majority" has actually become a tool for tryanny of the minority.

At the time of the founding of the Republic, the largest state, Virginia, was only 10 times larger than Delaware. Now, California is 61 times larger than Wyoming. It is absolutely ridiculous that 2 Senators from Wyoming should in essence carry 61 times more electoral firepower than the 2 Senators from California.

Even with a changed Senate, the smallest states would still have disproportionately more firepower in the Senate, but less than at current time.


I like your comments about gridlock.

Gridlock can SOMETIMES be effective, but it should not be the A and O of governance, and at the moment, it is.

You are right: I forgot to mention that a person must be a resident of the district from which he is to be elected. That should of course be so and it should be enshrined in law.

I really like the idea of the National Senators for a number of reasons:

We pay Presidents a lot of money for the 4-8 years in which they currently serve. Ditto Vice-Presidents. The Presidents' / Vice-Presidents' club is one of the most exclusive in the world. Whether or not you like them or are/we in agreement with their policies, Presidents have a lot to offer once they have left office, and G-d knows we paid them a major fee while they were in office.

Take George H. W. Bush, for example, the president with arguably the longest and most impressive resume of any president in our history:

-Rep
-Ambassador
-Senator
-Head of the CIA
-Vice-President
-President

In that man is knowledge and experience that would be good for every member of the Senate.

Most presidents have gone on to utter quietness and almost obscurity after leaving office. I am sure that part of their reason for this is to allow the next President to govern without having any shadow of the former President over his shoulder. 

But imagine how helpful it would have been in a divisive Senate of 1962 had Eisenhower also been there to give input.....

I really, really like the idea of National Senators. I think it would be good for our Union as a whole.


----------



## Statistikhengst

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Judicial*
> 
> Term: 18 years (24 years for the Chief Justice)
> Requirements: 40 years old, US citizen
> Term limit: 1 term
> 
> The Supreme Court should be* expanded to 15 justices* + 2 alternates. Majority vote: 8, abstentions not allowed under any circumstance. For this reason, a 16th and 17th alternate judge would also be elected to decide on a case where a judge would decide to abstain, and they would rule in his stead. This would mean that ALL SC cases would have a vote of 15 voices, without exception. No 15 voices, no ruling, that simple.
> 
> Supreme Court Justices, other than the Chief justice, would be allowed to serve a maximum of 18 years, or possibly, 3 presidential terms. The Chief justice would be allowed to serve  a maximum of 24 years, or possibly four presidential terms.
> 
> Supreme Court judges would be elected, but through a system of lists and then an election. Supreme Court judges would no longer be appointed by the President, nor would they be confirmed by the US Senate.
> 
> Someone wanting to be a judge would need to apply. His credentials would then go through a House committee, a Senate committee and then a Presidential committee.
> 
> A final list of 60 names would be provided for election day, the voters would select 15 of the 60 names (maximum) and the top 15 vote getters would be elected. Numbers 16 and 17 would be alternate judges. However, the sitting president would get to decide which justice would be the Chief Justice out of those elected to the Supreme Court, and that appointment would be approved by the US Senate. Should a justice leave before the end of his term for any reason, then the next highest vote-getter on the list (that would be nr. 16, for starters) would assume the position.
> 
> Judges would be elected in the MIDDLE of a presidential term, in other words, in the election for the House of Representatives. This means that elected Supreme Court justices would likely straddle the terms of two or three presidents.
> 
> I would like to note that many nations elect their judges, rather than appointing them.
> 
> 
> 
> Youve obviously put a lot of time, effort, and consideration into this project, its both commendable and appreciated.
> 
> However
> 
> Your reforms concerning the judiciary are comprehensively unacceptable  Federal judges and justices of the Supreme Court should never be elected, and their terms should indeed be for life.
> 
> To subject Federal judges and justices to elections and term limits would undermine the rule of law and threaten the very foundation of the Republic, and our civil liberties along with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



And yet, most states elect their judges. In this world, the country that elects the most judges already is: the USA.


----------



## Barb

> Supreme Court judges would no longer be appointed by the President, nor would they be confirmed by the US Senate.



That would remove a ton of time spent on petty bickering and revenge right there, and term limits are a refreshing idea. 

While the judiciary being more responsible to a broader segment of the population they interperate and write the laws to protect or punish is a more democratic approach than what we have now, how do we educate the electorate about who they're voting for without the need for them to campaign?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Shrimpbox said:


> First of all Stat needs a round of applause for his effort and his good intentions. If everyone put half as much effort as he did on his five posts we would probably not have an election problem. Thanks stat
> 
> Having said that I pretty much disagree with most of his points.
> 
> I like the idea of  changing the primary election into regional affairs, but here is a point. Let's say the west coast gets first dibs and one democrat gets the overwhelming majority of primary votes.( or a republican for that matter) would this so cripple ones opponents that the rest of the primaries would be a forgone conclusion. Also would the way the regions are drawn up would they favor metro areas so much that candidates would only campaign in the cities. Maybe you could set primaries up by alphabetical order 12 at a time for four primaries.
> 
> I am not going to bloviate too much in one post cause their is so much to chew on. I am going to come from a different angle. *The democrats have shown us that a campaign has to resemble American Idol to be successful. Style is more important than substance.* This is not the fault of the constitution or the electoral process, but it has given us the the most mediocre political class in my lifetime as well as a president with no leadership  abilities to break political impasses. More on correcting this later.
> 
> There should be a box on every ballot that you can check if you do not want any political anything to contact you about elections until one year before an election. Give us a break please.
> 
> *Anyone who thinks having over a thousand national political office holders is going to be an improvement over the present system is fooling themselves. We have so much dead wood already in the house and senate.* Additionally most citizens cant keep up with the the candidates already presented much less thousands more.
> 
> Lastly what stat suggests is more of a parliamentary system that would encourage the creation of many more parties and a whole lot more gridlock.
> 
> Still stat I tip my hat to you, great job of trying to do something.




We have what you call "dead wood" in the HOR because those people are representing an impossible number of people.

There is also the sydrome of "the other guy is nuts, but I like my guy". Though most complain, esp. about the HOR, most people actually like the guy from THEIR district. To them, the problem is always in someone elses backyard.

As far as Primaries, I also considered that and that could be a possiblity. But the entire idea is to remove the hometeam advantage for anyone. Not knowing that one starts in Iowa and New Hampshire automatically, but rather, must wait until the lottery spits out a region, is the healthier way to go. And every one of those regions has both larger and smaller states. Well, the blue Sky Area could also have Texas, I suppose.

Also, as far as the danger of the knockout blow, exactly for this reason, a one month pause between primary 2 and primary 3.

Sticking to geographic zones means far less criss-crossing of the Union to campaign, which means saved time, money and energy.

And it also discourages candidates from embracing policies that favor only one region. What plays well in Mississippi should also play well in Washington state.

But the other idea would be a lottery with 51 balls, and the first 12 or 13 balls would be region 1, and so forth. That would then bring jetsetting across the nation back into play, but I think the idea could be workable.

But now matter what, the primary season needs to start later and it needs to be more compact.


The bolded: your opinion, which I respect, but do not share. The problem, imo, is not with American Idol, it is with a structural flaw within the system.

I am not sure that my suggestions lead to a more parliamentary system, if you are thinking of such systems in Europe, but I will point out that those systems are NOT gridlocked at all.


----------



## Barb

> The month of July and the first three weeks of August would be open for General Election fundraising. Official begin of the general election season: Labor Day.



coupled with



> -All pacs, polling and advertising for candidates would be illegal until New Years Day of election year.



gives big money a 7 month lead on the short pocketed crowd. 

Voter ID is a ridiculous giveaway to a manufactured (out of whole cloth!) "problem."


----------



## Statistikhengst

Spoonman said:


> *we need term limits.*  right now we have a stable of old guard in there. half these guys are well past retirement age. no new fresh ideas are getting through.  even if you are a bright young star with good ideas and willing to be non partisan, you are shut down b the old school.  its poison and congress is locked up as a result.  even the supreme court has become partisan. there is no way the court should be allowed to become either too liberal or too conservative.  it ceases to become and impartial body. the supreme court is just as partisan as congress.   we need to do away with the electoral.  90% of the states are usually decided before the election even starts. it stifles people from getting out to vote. Conservatives in NY or CA say why bother, the state is going blue, and I'm sure liberals in TX say why bother, it's going red.  we need to get the vote back in the hands of the people. all the people.  *Right now the vote comes down to a handful of states and that is where the campaigning is focused.* the goal is to win those states to win the election.  the dynamic has to be changed so the goal is to win based on what the majority of americans want.



Both boldeds: I concur with you, and strongly.

The only reason I did not put you on the mention list is I believe you told me once that you did not want mentions. But I may have mixed you up with someone else...


----------



## Statistikhengst

TemplarKormac said:


> For Senators and Representatives, I would make a tweak to the numbers. Instead of the 1,000 representatives, I would standardize the amount to 500 (just 65 more than the 435 we have currently). *Or 10 representatives covering 10 distinct districts in their states, regardless of population, meaning equal representation regardless of population*. Furthermore, of those 10 representatives, each party would get to vote for 5 of them. Meaning that at no point in time in any state would one party have an advantage over the other. The districts would be drawn to encompass equal portions of the respective state's population, and would remain permanent.
> 
> I would keep the 2 year cycle, for 8 years could a senator or representative remain at his position, or four two-year terms. I would outlaw gerrymandering altogether. These districts would not change for any reason whatsoever. Instead of having so many moving parts for the electorate to discern, make the electoral process more static. Many people decide not to vote because of issues like this.
> 
> I would actually keep the 100 senators. You would have 2 senators from each state regardless of population size. One Republican, one Democrat; as with representatives, both parties would have a representative they would vote into the Senate. At no point in time would a party hold the advantage in one state or another, or in either house.
> 
> All votes would require a 60-40 margin in the Senate, and a minimum of a 275-225 vote in the House to pass any legislation. In my opinion, having 1,000 representatives complicates the electoral process. Having 160 Senators is I feel in excess, and also complicates the electoral process. Personally, I feel all of this number crunching to be unnecessary.
> 
> By not allowing one party to have an advantage, it forces them to act for the good of their constituents. *I would make it illegal to lie under oath, meaning that a Senator or Representative should set attainable goals for his term in office. Bribery and gift giving for votes will be outlawed. *Breaching an oath of office would immediately warrant a 20 year prison term, and a revocation of elected status. I would eliminate arm twisting. I would make a law requiring each member of congress to vote of his own accord, and that accepting bribes, gifts or sweetheart deals would be illegal.
> 
> Each Senator and representative would conduct a referendum vote for their respective state, so as to assess the pertinent issue at hand at that current time, and bring this issue to the attention to the governor, and eventually to the President himself.
> 
> 
> As for elections, I feel the electoral college should be eliminated. The presidency should determined by a straight up and down popular vote. A term should constitute 8 years instead of two four year terms. A runoff would constitute a result of 50.5% to 49.5% result (including Vice President). If either candidate fails to attain 51% of the vote, a minimum of 1 runoff would occur. Should the margin fail to exceed 51% for either candidate once again , the house should elect elect the president, confirmation would require a supermajority vote of 301-199. Given that, you would force everyone to think hard about the person(s) they put in the White House.




The bolded: that would turn the HOR into another Senate with the same imbalance!

Why in the world should Wyoming and California have the same number of representatives?

Were that so, then the ratio in Wyoming would be 1: 49,000, while the ratio in California would be 1: 3,800,000!!!

No way.

Your idea vis-a-vis  the Senate is a _fascinating_ idea, however. But that is based on totally excluding the chance of a third party winning a Senate seat. Remember, when the Constitution was written, people were not even thinking of political parties. George Washington ran without party.

The second bolded: already law, but I like the penalty.


I am still for the electoral college, for it indeed discourages 100s of splinter parties from forming.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Barb said:


> Liberals complain that voter suppression is happening. Conservatives complain that there is voter fraud. Both sides have some very valid complaints.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with this. It is all well and fine (as well as academically sound) to _acknowledge_ and answer every argument, but it is technically incorrect to give every argument the same weight of legitimacy if they do not, in fact, equal out.
Click to expand...


I am not giving them equal legitimacy. The operative word in my statement was "some".

In fact, I have already mathematically proven that voter fraud in Ohio in 2012 was practically null. But the idea that Conservatives have that there should be voter ID is an idea I share. 

Where I disagree with most Conservatives is on the practical application of the idea.

In Gemany, people MUST have ID to vote, and their ID is exactly what I recommend in the OP.


----------



## Statistikhengst

I am just loving the responses that people are giving, pro/con and everything in between. I must say, I am thrilled that the OP is bringing people to think and consider.

As I wrote in the OP, what I propose is NOT the only way, it is one way.

And I love how people are shaking out the ideas to figure out 

a.) if it will work 

and if not:

b.) why.


Good, good, good!!!!

This is the kind of debate I love.


----------



## Barb

Statistikhengst said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals complain that voter suppression is happening. Conservatives complain that there is voter fraud. Both sides have some very valid complaints.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with this. It is all well and fine (as well as academically sound) to _acknowledge_ and answer every argument, but it is technically incorrect to give every argument the same weight of legitimacy if they do not, in fact, equal out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not giving them equal legitimacy. The operative word in my statement was "some".
> 
> In fact, I have already mathematically proven that voter fraud in Ohio in 2014 was practically null. But the idea that Conservatives have that there should be voter ID is an idea I share.
> 
> Where I disagree with most Conservatives is on the practical application of the idea.
> 
> In Gemany, people MUST have ID to vote, and their ID is exactly what I recommend in the OP.
Click to expand...


I know, and I disagree with you there, as well. But I would like some input from you about a pet project I have in my head, a problem that the voter id would potentially solve, and one that you would probably have very good ideas about. I'll in box it a little later.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coconuts and pineapples for refreshments, folks!


----------



## Statistikhengst

TemplarKormac said:


> Coconuts and pineapples for refreshments, folks!




Electoral Kiwis, just $0.50 per bag!!!  Grab em while they're hot!!!


----------



## Statistikhengst

I am just gonna throw this out there and let people chew on it:

If we all agree that the House of Representatives is supposed to be there to actually represent smaller consituencies, which, when put together, make the whole of the nation, then should the Representative actually be able to have a good contact with the governed?

I am now going to let the cat out of the bag and uncover that the idea of EXPANDING the HOR is actually an idea that has been forth by a lot of Conservatives over the last 20 years.

In Sabato's book, the he also credits lots of Conservatives with the idea and notes that the HOR should be expanded, but at current budget, an idea I find unfeasable. That would be punishing people who are already working a stressful job. An expanded HOR would indeed cost more money, but it would not need to cost double as much.


*Another thing to throw out:*

Why do we even have a Senate?  Who here knows (or can summize) why the founding fathers decided to have two legislative bodies, one seen as somewhat higher than the other in some eyes, and what was the Senate supposed to do?

Most Democracies on Earth are indeed bi-cameral, but not all.

Even in the USA, we have a state with a unicameral legislature: Nebraska. And as far as I can telll, Nebraska is still standing.

I am in no way advocating eliminating the Senate, because I personally think it is good to have a bi-cameral legislative system.

But I am curious to know what fellow members in USMB think about the "why" of it all. For only by knowing the "why" can we agree (or disagree) as to whether the Senate is doing what our Founder's intended for it to do, or not.

I do believe very strongly that an expanded Senate of 160 + National Senators is a good idea. In this way, the small states are STILL overrepresented, but not in as extreme a fashion as before.


Again, it is thriling to me that both Libs and Cons are contributing ideas. That is absolutely cool and the way it should be in civilized debate and exchange of ideas.

Kudos and RESPECT to everyone who has contributed so far!


----------



## BlackSand

Statistikhengst said:


> You made some brilliant and thoughtful responses!!
> 
> Legislative: yes, we would need more office space, no doubt.
> 
> The entire idea of moving the term for a Rep from 2 to 3 years (which was the original proposal at the Constitutional Convention and 2 years became the compromise) is to increase the amount of time governing before having to campaign again. It is also 1/2 of 6 years and fits well into a presidential term of 6 years.
> 
> In other words, we would be going from a 2 and 4 year cycle to a 3 and 6 year cycle.
> 
> I don't see how term limits leads to corruption, but we have more than ample evidence that staying decades long in the HOR and the Senate has often led to massive corruption.
> 
> I like your idea about the alternate, but then again, it is not necessarily conclusive that the two people would agree with each other or get along. Plus, in a jungle primary situation, this could mean that the alternate to a GOP candidate could be  Democrat, or visa versa.
> 
> Redistrticting: exactly for the reasons you listed, a Supercomputer with only the three parameters I listed would do the job. In this way, human bias would be out of the equation.
> 
> The Problem with the Senate is that the the idea of eliminating the "Tryanny of the Majority" has actually become a tool for tryanny of the minority.
> 
> At the time of the founding of the Republic, the largest state, Virginia, was only 10 times larger than Delaware. Now, California is 61 times larger than Wyoming. It is absolutely ridiculous that 2 Senators from Wyoming should in essence carry 61 times more electoral firepower than the 2 Senators from California.
> 
> Even with a changed Senate, the smallest states would still have disproportionately more firepower in the Senate, but less than at current time.
> 
> 
> I like your comments about gridlock.
> 
> Gridlock can SOMETIMES be effective, but it should not be the A and O of governance, and at the moment, it is.
> 
> You are right: I forgot to mention that a person must be a resident of the district from which he is to be elected. That should of course be so and it should be enshrined in law.
> 
> I really like the idea of the National Senators for a number of reasons:
> 
> We pay Presidents a lot of money for the 4-8 years in which they currently serve. Ditto Vice-Presidents. The Presidents' / Vice-Presidents' club is one of the most exclusive in the world. Whether or not you like them or are/we in agreement with their policies, Presidents have a lot to offer once they have left office, and G-d knows we paid them a major fee while they were in office.
> 
> Take George H. W. Bush, for example, the president with arguably the longest and most impressive resume of any president in our history:
> 
> -Rep
> -Ambassador
> -Senator
> -Head of the CIA
> -Vice-President
> -President
> 
> In that man is knowledge and experience that would be good for every member of the Senate.
> 
> Most presidents have gone on to utter quietness and almost obscurity after leaving office. I am sure that part of their reason for this is to allow the next President to govern without having any shadow of the former President over his shoulder.
> 
> But imagine how helpful it would have been in a divisive Senate of 1962 had Eisenhower also been there to give input.....
> 
> I really, really like the idea of National Senators. I think it would be good for our Union as a whole.




The difference you have with my opinions are based on the differences you see in being governed versus being represented in most cases.

*Terms and Term Limits ...*

A shorter individual term puts the Representative back in front of their constituency in a measure of accountability more often.
It gets them out of the &#8220;beltway&#8221; and on the ground in their districts &#8230; Face to face with the people they represent.
Increasing the number of representatives would decrease the size of the district and allow for more exposure to the constituency per campaign cycle. 

I think it is a better idea if Representatives spend more time understanding and answering question from the people they represent &#8230; And are held under more scrutiny for their decisions than just riding out their term passing more legislation.
Their job is to represent the people in their district &#8230; Not to dictate what the people in their district need to do.

Shorter term limits as to the number of terms interferes with the ability of the Representative to establish a reputation that allows them to escape the &#8220;handlers&#8221; due to familiarity with the process and other members.
The Representatives often change &#8230; But a lot of the &#8220;handlers&#8221; remain the same &#8230; They are also the people that set priority and manage availability of the Representative.
They give advice and consent to the Representative who may not be a professional in every field necessary to properly examine certain legislation.
They summarize legislative matters &#8230; They influence contacts &#8230; They tailor the encounters the Representatives engage in.

If you would rather the handlers have more influence on how legislation is handled and what comes up from time to time &#8230; Then limit the amount of time the Representative can use to become more familiar.  
If you want your Representative to spend more time building relationships and cooperation with other members &#8230; Whether they be in the same party or across the aisle &#8230; Then the time is required.
Placing a decent limit of a decade helps guard against the idea of establishing a Reign over Representation.

*Representatives associated with Presidential Terms ...*

In whatever ways they do not coincide now &#8230; Then that is the measure in place to keep the governance at the mercy of representation and not popular swing.
Popular swing is important to the election process &#8230; But not as important to the governance process &#8230; In as a Representative is someone we can get rid of and legislation isn't something we can get rid of.
*Again &#8230; The difference is settled in the idea that legislation and governance needs to be tied to longevity and serving the better purpose of the masses for centuries to come &#8230; Not what is popular today.*

*Alternates from Opposing Parties &#8230;*

No way &#8211; No How &#8230; Not the purpose of electing a Representative.
In the specific case of opposing parties &#8230; The alternate and the people who support them would be intently determined to do everything possible to remove the sitting Representative from office prior to the end of their term.
In no way should the people who vote for a member of the Green Party be forced to put a Republican in the position because their term was unfulfilled due to whatever reason.
Saying that the people will be equally represented by a Democrat if their Republican Representative is seriously injured and incapacitated in a car accident is foolish and does not support valid representation.
This is primary reason the selection of Vice President was altered from the original process that  named the second runner up to President as Vice President.
They often have starkly opposing views and the second runner up nor their views (platform) was not elected to the position.

*Redistricting and Human Bias &#8230;*

As long as the bias is not incorporated into the redistricting process through the programming of the computer (there is always bias when humans are involved and computers only do what they are told to do) &#8230; Then that is acceptable.
What I mentioned is in respects of allowing district to maintain some autonomy as far as constituency pool.
Some regions do favor certain ethnic or socio-economic influences that tailor their particular stance on legislation.
Some divisions must be maintained to ensure the idea that each vote counts equally &#8230; And if measures are made to balance the votes &#8230; Than that goes further towards &#8220;canceling&#8221; votes.

*The Difference in the Senate and What it Protects ...*

I think you have the idea of the Senate a little too far towards Federal powers versus States Rights.
The people of California and New York don't get to decide how the rest of the country is governed.
Each region of the country has its own interests that should never be subjugated to the desires of another region.
If people are disgusted with the way Nebraska is run and favor the way California is run &#8230; Then they can move to California.

What the process of separation and equality in the Senate provides &#8230; Is the individuality of each State and in some cases Regions.
It does require that Senators from larger States acknowledge and respect the desires of people they have not been elected to represent.
It requires that legislation is not used as a tool to exploit and abuse States and Regions in regards to to popular consent from immediate representation of others who are not truly concerned with how it affects places where they don't live.

The idea of basing the legislative power of the Senate on population is directly contradictory to its purpose of protecting the States themselves.
You might as well just rename the country America instead of the United States of America &#8230; And get rid of the States altogether &#8230; Which was certainly not the intention of our Founders.


*This is not New York ... Lolz!*







*Gridlock and Governance &#8230;*

As a Conservative &#8230; I can say we may just have to disagree.
I would rather have better legislation &#8230; Constructed to better serve everyone &#8230; Than simply whatever a simple majority can get passed.
The desire to require more agreement to pass legislation is based in a desire to establish and implement legislation that better serves the good and will of all &#8230; And can more effectively stand the test of time.

*My ideas on legislation are nowhere near &#8230; &#8220;More is Better&#8221;.*

*National Senators &#8230;*

When the Mayor leaves office at the end of their term &#8230; You don't then assign them as &#8220;Dog Catcher for Life&#8221;.
I can honestly say that there are very few Presidents I know of that I wasn't ready to get rid of when they left office.
The idea of keeping them around longer in a capacity  to influence legislation is not what the term limits try to do in regards to disallowing a &#8220;nobility class&#8221;.
Also &#8230; They in no way should cloud the issue of Individual State Representation in the Senate &#8230; Texas, Arkansas, Georgia and Hawaii/Illinois don't get extra Senate seats because they have provided us with a President.

*We can use their influence and experience in effective and beneficial ways &#8230; But not as active participants in Governance past the limits of their term.*


.


The difference in the stances the both of us take is centered the desire to protect the States and limit legislation to more responsible measures that draw better support across the board.
I want us as a nation to start doing more to respect the opinions of each other as a nation ... Than running around chasing party politics.

*If we cannot establish and implement legislation that better serves more than 51% of the public ... Then the Representatives we have chosen suck and need to quit ... Nothing they can produce is worth implementing in the first place.*

.


----------



## Barb

> Why do we even have a Senate? Who here knows (or can summize) why the founding fathers decided to have two legislative bodies, one seen as somewhat higher than the other in some eyes, and what was the Senate supposed to do?



It was an equalizing effect - congressional representation was decided on population, and senatorial representation an equal 2 Senators per state. It satisfied the balance between those who saw a centralized government as oppressive to individual liberty with those who considered more populous states as being able to bully less populous ones.


----------



## AyeCantSeeYou

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

Excellent post! 

Yes, things need to change, and it has been needed for quite some time now.

Gerrymandering should have never been allowed to happen in the first place. To me, it's nothing more than a bookie paying an athlete to throw a game in his favor. If a politician can't win an election based on his actions in office, then he/she does not deserve to be handed the office by some idiot that redraws the district lines. They either earn their keep in office or get thrown out on their ass.

Term limits are needed. I believe the general public is starting to notice what politicians actually achieve and when. (For example: If it's something that is in the interest of the people, most believe it's ignored, but if it's in the interest of the politicians on a personal level, they act on it.) Lobbyists and the corporations/interests they serve should be banned/illegal. 

The number of people in Congress, Senate, and House of Representatives needs updating. Times have changed since the original was set, population has changed, etc.


----------



## Statistikhengst

BlackSand said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made some brilliant and thoughtful responses!!
> 
> Legislative: yes, we would need more office space, no doubt.
> 
> The entire idea of moving the term for a Rep from 2 to 3 years (which was the original proposal at the Constitutional Convention and 2 years became the compromise) is to increase the amount of time governing before having to campaign again. It is also 1/2 of 6 years and fits well into a presidential term of 6 years.
> 
> In other words, we would be going from a 2 and 4 year cycle to a 3 and 6 year cycle.
> 
> I don't see how term limits leads to corruption, but we have more than ample evidence that staying decades long in the HOR and the Senate has often led to massive corruption.
> 
> I like your idea about the alternate, but then again, it is not necessarily conclusive that the two people would agree with each other or get along. Plus, in a jungle primary situation, this could mean that the alternate to a GOP candidate could be  Democrat, or visa versa.
> 
> Redistrticting: exactly for the reasons you listed, a Supercomputer with only the three parameters I listed would do the job. In this way, human bias would be out of the equation.
> 
> The Problem with the Senate is that the the idea of eliminating the "Tryanny of the Majority" has actually become a tool for tryanny of the minority.
> 
> At the time of the founding of the Republic, the largest state, Virginia, was only 10 times larger than Delaware. Now, California is 61 times larger than Wyoming. It is absolutely ridiculous that 2 Senators from Wyoming should in essence carry 61 times more electoral firepower than the 2 Senators from California.
> 
> Even with a changed Senate, the smallest states would still have disproportionately more firepower in the Senate, but less than at current time.
> 
> 
> I like your comments about gridlock.
> 
> Gridlock can SOMETIMES be effective, but it should not be the A and O of governance, and at the moment, it is.
> 
> You are right: I forgot to mention that a person must be a resident of the district from which he is to be elected. That should of course be so and it should be enshrined in law.
> 
> I really like the idea of the National Senators for a number of reasons:
> 
> We pay Presidents a lot of money for the 4-8 years in which they currently serve. Ditto Vice-Presidents. The Presidents' / Vice-Presidents' club is one of the most exclusive in the world. Whether or not you like them or are/we in agreement with their policies, Presidents have a lot to offer once they have left office, and G-d knows we paid them a major fee while they were in office.
> 
> Take George H. W. Bush, for example, the president with arguably the longest and most impressive resume of any president in our history:
> 
> -Rep
> -Ambassador
> -Senator
> -Head of the CIA
> -Vice-President
> -President
> 
> In that man is knowledge and experience that would be good for every member of the Senate.
> 
> Most presidents have gone on to utter quietness and almost obscurity after leaving office. I am sure that part of their reason for this is to allow the next President to govern without having any shadow of the former President over his shoulder.
> 
> But imagine how helpful it would have been in a divisive Senate of 1962 had Eisenhower also been there to give input.....
> 
> I really, really like the idea of National Senators. I think it would be good for our Union as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference you have with my opinions are based on the differences you see in being governed versus being represented in most cases.
> 
> *Terms and Term Limits ...*
> 
> A shorter individual term puts the Representative back in front of their constituency in a measure of accountability more often.
> It gets them out of the &#8220;beltway&#8221; and on the ground in their districts &#8230; Face to face with the people they represent.
> *Increasing the number of representatives would decrease the size of the district and allow for more exposure to the constituency per campaign cycle. *
> 
> *I think it is a better idea if Representatives spend more time understanding and answering question from the people they represent &#8230; And are held under more scrutiny for their decisions than just riding out their term passing more legislation.*
> 
> Their job is to represent the people in their district &#8230; Not to dictate what the people in their district need to do.
> 
> Shorter term limits as to the number of terms interferes with the ability of the Representative to establish a reputation that allows them to escape the &#8220;handlers&#8221; due to familiarity with the process and other members.
> The Representatives often change &#8230; But a lot of the &#8220;handlers&#8221; remain the same &#8230; They are also the people that set priority and manage availability of the Representative.
> They give advice and consent to the Representative who may not be a professional in every field necessary to properly examine certain legislation.
> They summarize legislative matters &#8230; They influence contacts &#8230; They tailor the encounters the Representatives engage in.
> 
> If you would rather the handlers have more influence on how legislation is handled and what comes up from time to time &#8230; Then limit the amount of time the Representative can use to become more familiar.
> 
> If you want your Representative to spend more time building relationships and cooperation with other members &#8230; Whether they be in the same party or across the aisle &#8230; Then the time is required.
> Placing a decent limit of a decade helps guard against the idea of establishing a Reign over Representation.
> 
> *Representatives associated with Presidential Terms ...*
> 
> In whatever ways they do not coincide now &#8230; Then that is the measure in place to keep the governance at the mercy of representation and not popular swing.
> Popular swing is important to the election process &#8230; But not as important to the governance process &#8230; In as a Representative is someone we can get rid of and legislation isn't something we can get rid of.
> *Again &#8230; The difference is settled in the idea that legislation and governance needs to be tied to longevity and serving the better purpose of the masses for centuries to come &#8230; Not what is popular today.*
> 
> *Alternates from Opposing Parties &#8230;*
> 
> No way &#8211; No How &#8230; Not the purpose of electing a Representative.
> In the specific case of opposing parties &#8230; The alternate and the people who support them would be intently determined to do everything possible to remove the sitting Representative from office prior to the end of their term.
> In no way should the people who vote for a member of the Green Party be forced to put a Republican in the position because their term was unfulfilled due to whatever reason.
> Saying that the people will be equally represented by a Democrat if their Republican Representative is seriously injured and incapacitated in a car accident is foolish and does not support valid representation.
> This is primary reason the selection of Vice President was altered from the original process that  named the second runner up to President as Vice President.
> They often have starkly opposing views and the second runner up nor their views (platform) was not elected to the position.
> 
> *Redistricting and Human Bias &#8230;*
> 
> *As long as the bias is not incorporated into the redistricting process through the programming of the computer* (there is always bias when humans are involved and computers only do what they are told to do) &#8230; Then that is acceptable.
> What I mentioned is in respects of allowing district to maintain some autonomy as far as constituency pool.
> Some regions do favor certain ethnic or socio-economic influences that tailor their particular stance on legislation.
> Some divisions must be maintained to ensure the idea that each vote counts equally &#8230; And if measures are made to balance the votes &#8230; Than that goes further towards &#8220;canceling&#8221; votes.
> 
> *The Difference in the Senate and What it Protects ...*
> 
> I think you have the idea of the Senate a little too far towards Federal powers versus States Rights.
> *The people of California and New York don't get to decide how the rest of the country is governed.*
> Each region of the country has its own interests that should never be subjugated to the desires of another region.
> If people are disgusted with the way Nebraska is run and favor the way California is run &#8230; Then they can move to California.
> 
> What the process of separation and equality in the Senate provides &#8230; Is the individuality of each State and in some cases Regions.
> It does require that Senators from larger States acknowledge and respect the desires of people they have not been elected to represent.
> It requires that legislation is not used as a tool to exploit and abuse States and Regions in regards to to popular consent from immediate representation of others who are not truly concerned with how it affects places where they don't live.
> 
> The idea of basing the legislative power of the Senate on population is directly contradictory to its purpose of protecting the States themselves.
> You might as well just rename the country America instead of the United States of America &#8230; And get rid of the States altogether &#8230; Which was certainly not the intention of our Founders.
> 
> 
> *This is not New York ... Lolz!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Gridlock and Governance &#8230;*
> 
> As a Conservative &#8230; I can say we may just have to disagree.
> I would rather have better legislation &#8230; Constructed to better serve everyone &#8230; Than simply whatever a simple majority can get passed.
> The desire to require more agreement to pass legislation is based in a desire to establish and implement legislation that better serves the good and will of all &#8230; And can more effectively stand the test of time.
> 
> *My ideas on legislation are nowhere near &#8230; &#8220;More is Better&#8221;.*
> 
> *National Senators &#8230;*
> 
> When the Mayor leaves office at the end of their term &#8230; You don't then assign them as &#8220;Dog Catcher for Life&#8221;.
> I can honestly say that there are very few Presidents I know of that I wasn't ready to get rid of when they left office.
> The idea of keeping them around longer in a capacity  to influence legislation is not what the term limits try to do in regards to disallowing a &#8220;nobility class&#8221;.
> Also &#8230; They in no way should cloud the issue of Individual State Representation in the Senate &#8230; Texas, Arkansas, Georgia and Hawaii/Illinois don't get extra Senate seats because they have provided us with a President.
> 
> *We can use their influence and experience in effective and beneficial ways &#8230; But not as active participants in Governance past the limits of their term.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> The difference in the stances the both of us take is centered the desire to protect the States and limit legislation to more responsible measures that draw better support across the board.
> I want us as a nation to start doing more to respect the opinions of each other as a nation ... Than running around chasing party politics.
> 
> *If we cannot establish and implement legislation that better serves more than 51% of the public ... Then the Representatives we have chosen suck and need to quit ... Nothing they can produce is worth implementing in the first place.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Red bolded 1: spot-on

Red bolded 2: I never said they should not listen to their consituency. Indeed, they should. But with the two-year cycle, they are spending an inordinate amount of time already gearing up for the next election, which undercuts your argument for a 2 year term. A 3 year term is better, and they still have to be accountable, imo.

I respectfully reject your argument about handlers. If that is truly the case, then we can just as well give up. But if it is just half the case, then it again supports my argument for a longer term, so that a new Rep can learn to resist such handlers. Plus, term limits lets the handlers, as you call them, know that they will only have limited sucess swaying a rep, who is supposed to be listening to his constituents, anyway. Here, we can agree to disagree with each other. 

It looks like we agree on the 10 year limit.  Plus, there are a lot of reps who like to move up after 10 years, anyway.



Bolded no. 3: I never said that. CA and NY are just two of the nine largest states in the Union. In fact, in terms of those nine, the four quadrants of the nation are pretty evenly split:

West Coast: CA
South: TX, FL, GA
East: NY, PA
Midwest: OH, IL, MI

I just want to make that point very clear.  My reasoning for an enlarged Senate has no partisan hidden agenda. In fact, at least in the short term, an enlarged Senate could end up being a real boondoggle for the GOP, but with time, things would achieve balance.

Even with an enhanced Senate, the small states are STILL protected, they STILL have an inordinately large percentage of the Senate, FAR larger than their actual populations. Surely, the founding fathers never imagined that the largest state of the Union would be 61 times the size of the smallest state.

Are you aware that the amount of votes cast in the city of LA alone is more than the combined populations of the nine smallest RED states? That is just a massive disparity.

Even with a new Senate, the smaller states have a massive say in things.

And once again, not only that, but the chances for the opposing party to pick up seats in states with more than just 2 Senators is enormous.


Bolded no. 4: hard to insert bias into a computer algorythm when the only three parameters are:

-population, based directly on the last census and calculated percentually, of course.
-state boundary, meaning, the CD cannot be drawn over state boundaries
-Geography - so that no CD would ever again look like a Gerrymandered snake. Logically, most CDs, when possible, should include entire counties and not split counties up, where possible. In LA county, this is obviously not possible.


I never said I recommended an alternate from the opposing party. That would destroy the entire objective.  I did point out to another member who wanted to simply have the number 2 guy from a primary be the alternate, that that would not work in a jungle primary situation for exactly the reasons you listed. Here, we are on the same page, always were. But I like the idea of an alternate very much.


We will have to disgree on the idea of National Senators, because there has never been a President where I said, "good riddance" when he was gone, except for Nixon, who was the crook of the 20th century. And it is certainly not a fair comparison to compare Potus to National Senator vs. Mayor to Dog Catcher.  Senators are not dog catchers in relation to the President. They never have been.



It was great to hear from you. Keep it coming!


----------



## Statistikhengst

AyeCantSeeYou said:


> [MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]
> 
> Excellent post!
> 
> Yes, things need to change, and it has been needed for quite some time now.
> 
> Gerrymandering should have never been allowed to happen in the first place. To me, it's nothing more than a bookie paying an athlete to throw a game in his favor. If a politician can't win an election based on his actions in office, then he/she does not deserve to be handed the office by some idiot that redraws the district lines. They either earn their keep in office or get thrown out on their ass.
> 
> Term limits are needed. I believe the general public is starting to notice what politicians actually achieve and when. (For example: If it's something that is in the interest of the people, most believe it's ignored, but if it's in the interest of the politicians on a personal level, they act on it.) Lobbyists and the corporations/interests they serve should be banned/illegal.
> 
> The number of people in Congress, Senate, and House of Representatives needs updating. Times have changed since the original was set, population has changed, etc.



Thanks for the input!!!


----------



## BlackSand

Statistikhengst said:


> Red bolded 1: spot-on
> 
> Red bolded 2: I never said they should not listen to their consituency. Indeed, they should. But with the two-year cycle, they are spending an inordinate amount of time already gearing up for the next election, which undercuts your argument for a 2 year term. A 3 year term is better, and they still have to be accountable, imo.
> 
> I respectfully reject your argument about handlers. If that is truly the case, then we can just as well give up. But if it is just half the case, then it again supports my argument for a longer term, so that a new Rep can learn to resist such handlers. Plus, term limits lets the handlers, as you call them, know that they will only have limited sucess swaying a rep, who is supposed to be listening to his constituents, anyway. Here, we can agree to disagree with each other.
> 
> It looks like we agree on the 10 year limit.  Plus, there are a lot of reps who like to move up after 10 years, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Bolded no. 3: I never said that. CA and NY are just two of the nine largest states in the Union. In fact, in terms of those nine, the four quadrants of the nation are pretty evenly split:
> 
> West Coast: CA
> South: TX, FL, GA
> East: NY, PA
> Midwest: OH, IL, MI
> 
> I just want to make that point very clear.  My reasoning for an enlarged Senate has no partisan hidden agenda. In fact, at least in the short term, an enlarged Senate could end up being a real boondoggle for the GOP, but with time, things would achieve balance.
> 
> Even with an enhanced Senate, the small states are STILL protected, they STILL have an inordinately large percentage of the Senate, FAR larger than their actual populations. Surely, the founding fathers never imagined that the largest state of the Union would be 61 times the size of the smallest state.
> 
> Are you aware that the amount of votes cast in the city of LA alone is more than the combined populations of the nine smallest RED states? That is just a massive disparity.
> 
> Even with a new Senate, the smaller states have a massive say in things.
> 
> And once again, not only that, but the chances for the opposing party to pick up seats in states with more than just 2 Senators is enormous.
> 
> 
> Bolded no. 4: hard to insert bias into a computer algorythm when the only three parameters are:
> 
> -population, based directly on the last census and calculated percentually, of course.
> -state boundary, meaning, the CD cannot be drawn over state boundaries
> -Geography - so that no CD would ever again look like a Gerrymandered snake. Logically, most CDs, when possible, should include entire counties and not split counties up, where possible. In LA county, this is obviously not possible.
> 
> 
> I never said I recommended an alternate from the opposing party. That would destroy the entire objective.  I did point out to another member who wanted to simply have the number 2 guy from a primary be the alternate, that that would not work in a jungle primary situation for exactly the reasons you listed. Here, we are on the same page, always were. But I like the idea of an alternate very much.
> 
> 
> We will have to disgree on the idea of National Senators, because there has never been a President where I said, "good riddance" when he was gone, except for Nixon, who was the crook of the 20th century. And it is certainly not a fair comparison to compare Potus to National Senator vs. Mayor to Dog Catcher.  Senators are not dog catchers in relation to the President. They never have been.
> 
> 
> 
> It was great to hear from you. Keep it coming!



I often use simple analogies to help explain more complicated matters  Such as the Mayor and Dog Catcher  Not in attempts to equate the Mayor to the President or a Senator to a  Dog Catcher.
Meh  They seem to be wasted efforts at times.

The other discussions are neither too far here or there to discuss further on an individual basis  With the exception of the Senate.
In all honestly  I haven't even started on the other three aspects you have mentioned  To which I can see we are definitely going to have difficulties and less agreement when it comes to the Judiciary at first glance. 
Before I leave you the other respondents as far as Legislative is concerned  I still think you are way off the mark regarding the purpose of the Senate.

*The Senate is not the House of Representatives*

The Senate is not the same as the House of Representatives  In that it is not established with the desire to represent the people as in number according to the State's population.
It is specifically designed to help protect the sovereignty of each State  And there is no other way to treat each State as an entity any more equal than giving them an equal vote.
The House of Representatives was designed to give power to the people through representation according to population   And empower the people to suggest and guide legislation through Congress.
The Senate was designed as a means by which to keep the Federal Government from trampling on State's Rights  And to provide a stop-gap against Federal Powers ignoring the sovereignty of the State.

The Senate represent a limit to Federal Powers  And is an obstacle that helps address what are and should be Federal matters versus State matters.
If legislation that comes from the House  As it is supposed to  Cannot pass muster in the Senate with enough support from the States as individual sovereign entities  Then it is not a Federal matter.
It is in place for the express purpose of protecting the States and what is rightly within their power to govern  Without the notion of establishing an overpowered Central Government.

The problem you may have with this is the way it impedes legislation from being subjugated to popular vote  And the lack of an understanding that is the express intent behind its design.
The Founding Fathers had no intention of setting up the Federal Government as the Do All  Say All authority over matters that could be and should be handled better at the State level. 
It is an obstacle that was put there for a specific reason  And that reason is to protect the sovereignty of the States.

*Hence what I meant by renaming the country America versus calling us the United States of America.*

.


----------



## MarcATL

AVG-JOE said:


> Interesting ideas.  (Insert your preferred Deity here) knows SOMEthing needs to change.
> 
> I firmly believe, however, that any changes like those above are going to become just another game of corruption for the well-to-do to play unless we first start with a fair and simple tax code, and public budgets that are balanced by law.
> 
> As long as politicians have the power to customize the tax code for friends, supporters and those who're willing to pay for special treatment, it matters little _how_ we choose them, big money will purchase corrupting influence because of the potential for avoiding the paying of a fair tax for years.
> 
> Same thing with balancing public budgets.  As long as politicians have the power to spend money that they are unwilling or unable to collect from their _current_ constituencies in the form of deficit spending, it matters little _how_ those politicians are chosen.
> 
> *There are symptoms and there are diseases.  Right now, the disease is corruption and everyone seems to want to treat the symptoms.  *Our politicians obviously can't handle the power to customize taxes and to deficit spend without giving in to the corrupting influence of the well-heeled, so those powers need to be removed first, then we can discuss the modernization of our election processes.
> 
> Just my 2 cents...


I couldn't determine whether you're suggesting it's the POLITICIANS that are corrupted or that the SYSTEM ITSELF is corrupted.

The implications and solutions would vastly depending on which of them would be the case.

And I agree, just want to pinpoint which is the corrupted.


----------



## MarcATL

Statistikhengst said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just want to throw a couple of quick thoughts out.  Having read the legislative section, I don't believe in term limits : I think they are a way of telling voters they cannot vote for the person they want.  I can understand the desire for them, as we have too many entrenched politicians, but I would like to see a different solution to that problem if possible.
> 
> The other thing is that I don't understand how the 'ticket' option would be viable. * What does the alternate person do while the elected official is in office?  What if the alternate is unable to take over when the situation arises?  It seems too difficult to me.*
> 
> I have more to read, but I'm watching the little one now and can't go too deeply into anything.
> 
> I thought about just responding with tl;dr, for the humor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ding, ding!!! * Happy bells for the first person to actually pose a question based on the material.
> 
> I didn't broach that, hoping a smart soul would bring it up. Which you just did!
> 
> 2 things:
> 
> -the alternate would need to keep his day job!!
> -and should the alternate no longer be available for any reasons, then a special election would indeed have to be called. But at least we could lower the number of special elections this way. Which saves time and $$$ and stress.
> 
> -this could also have postive implications for a political party in a highly competitive district.
> 
> Lets say that two Republicans duke it out in the primaries for a congressonal seat in Wisconsin, in a district that is R+1 maybe, very swingy. Now, after a long fought primary battle, one of the two dudes wins, but the party is split. Meanwhile, the Democrat flew through his primary unopposed. One way to unify the GOP in this case COULD be for the winner of the GOP primary to select the loser of the primary to be his alternate, which could bring out some unity votes for his party in the Fall.
> 
> 
> Food for thought.
Click to expand...

If the possibility of special elections are still present, then I believe that nothing much would change.

Things could be arranged so that the alternatives are somehow always busy or not able to attend.

If we're going to get rid of them, then get rid of them completely, otherwise things would remain largely the same.


----------



## Spoonman

Statistikhengst said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *we need term limits.*  right now we have a stable of old guard in there. half these guys are well past retirement age. no new fresh ideas are getting through.  even if you are a bright young star with good ideas and willing to be non partisan, you are shut down b the old school.  its poison and congress is locked up as a result.  even the supreme court has become partisan. there is no way the court should be allowed to become either too liberal or too conservative.  it ceases to become and impartial body. the supreme court is just as partisan as congress.   we need to do away with the electoral.  90% of the states are usually decided before the election even starts. it stifles people from getting out to vote. Conservatives in NY or CA say why bother, the state is going blue, and I'm sure liberals in TX say why bother, it's going red.  we need to get the vote back in the hands of the people. all the people.  *Right now the vote comes down to a handful of states and that is where the campaigning is focused.* the goal is to win those states to win the election.  the dynamic has to be changed so the goal is to win based on what the majority of americans want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both boldeds: I concur with you, and strongly.
> 
> The only reason I did not put you on the mention list is I believe you told me once that you did not want mentions. But I may have mixed you up with someone else...
Click to expand...


if i did i don't remember that.   but any way.   we need a better turnover, we need fresher ideas and we need to break a good old boys strangle hold.  the problem is legislators legislate for them selves.  there is no control.  and we need to take steps to make every voters vote count.  today, it definitely doesn't


----------



## AyeCantSeeYou

Spoonman said:


> if i did i don't remember that.   but any way.   we need a better turnover, we need fresher ideas and we need to break a good old boys strangle hold.  the problem is legislators legislate for them selves.  there is no control.  and we need to take steps to make every voters vote count.  today, it definitely doesn't



Very true - the good ol' boys' club isn't working today, not like it did yesterday either. Politicians will continue to get things done that benefit them personally, and will continue to stonewall the things that they have no personal use for. I say vote every damn one of them out of office - not one needs to stay in as it is right now. A group of toddlers can get more done than the ones we have now. If you were to ask them to build a tower out of blocks, the politicians would bitch, argue, and throw hissy fits over how to do it and who goes first; the toddlers would build it and get it done while having fun.


----------



## Spoonman

AyeCantSeeYou said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> if i did i don't remember that.   but any way.   we need a better turnover, we need fresher ideas and we need to break a good old boys strangle hold.  the problem is legislators legislate for them selves.  there is no control.  and we need to take steps to make every voters vote count.  today, it definitely doesn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very true - the good ol' boys' club isn't working today, not like it did yesterday either. Politicians will continue to get things done that benefit them personally, and will continue to stonewall the things that they have no personal use for. I say vote every damn one of them out of office - not one needs to stay in as it is right now. A group of toddlers can get more done than the ones we have now. If you were to ask them to build a tower out of blocks, the politicians would bitch, argue, and throw hissy fits over how to do it and who goes first; the toddlers would build it and get it done while having fun.
Click to expand...


you or i could not be elected and be able to make an impact in congress no matter how hard we tried.  we could go in ther with 100% good intent and we would be shut down cold.  I mean look at some of the politicians who have tried to take an independent stance.  Lieberman, kicked out of the party by the democrats. Ron paul, labeled a fanatic by the republicans.  and that comes from powerbases built up over time. you go into a situation where there is a protocol. and you do not deviate from that.  that dynamic has to be destroyed. and a way to break it is to keep people rotating out.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Spoonman said:


> AyeCantSeeYou said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> if i did i don't remember that.   but any way.   we need a better turnover, we need fresher ideas and we need to break a good old boys strangle hold.  the problem is legislators legislate for them selves.  there is no control.  and we need to take steps to make every voters vote count.  today, it definitely doesn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very true - the good ol' boys' club isn't working today, not like it did yesterday either. Politicians will continue to get things done that benefit them personally, and will continue to stonewall the things that they have no personal use for. I say vote every damn one of them out of office - not one needs to stay in as it is right now. A group of toddlers can get more done than the ones we have now. If you were to ask them to build a tower out of blocks, the politicians would bitch, argue, and throw hissy fits over how to do it and who goes first; the toddlers would build it and get it done while having fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you or i could not be elected and be able to make an impact in congress no matter how hard we tried.  we could go in ther with 100% good intent and we would be shut down cold.  I mean look at some of the politicians who have tried to take an independent stance.  Lieberman, kicked out of the party by the democrats. Ron paul, labeled a fanatic by the republicans.  and that comes from powerbases built up over time. you go into a situation where there is a protocol. and you do not deviate from that.  that dynamic has to be destroyed. and a way to break it is to keep people rotating out.
Click to expand...


This is all part of the money chase that needs to be interrupted.


----------



## AyeCantSeeYou

Spoonman said:


> AyeCantSeeYou said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> if i did i don't remember that.   but any way.   we need a better turnover, we need fresher ideas and we need to break a good old boys strangle hold.  the problem is legislators legislate for them selves.  there is no control.  and we need to take steps to make every voters vote count.  today, it definitely doesn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very true - the good ol' boys' club isn't working today, not like it did yesterday either. Politicians will continue to get things done that benefit them personally, and will continue to stonewall the things that they have no personal use for. I say vote every damn one of them out of office - not one needs to stay in as it is right now. A group of toddlers can get more done than the ones we have now. If you were to ask them to build a tower out of blocks, the politicians would bitch, argue, and throw hissy fits over how to do it and who goes first; the toddlers would build it and get it done while having fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you or i could not be elected and be able to make an impact in congress no matter how hard we tried.  we could go in ther with 100% good intent and we would be shut down cold.  I mean look at some of the politicians who have tried to take an independent stance.  Lieberman, kicked out of the party by the democrats. Ron paul, labeled a fanatic by the republicans.  and that comes from powerbases built up over time. you go into a situation where there is a protocol. and you do not deviate from that.  that dynamic has to be destroyed. and a way to break it is to keep people rotating out.
Click to expand...


And it needs to start by throwing out every politician in office today and starting new with people that have never held office before. No lobbyists, corporate spokesmen, etc. It used to be that being a public servant wouldn't make anyone wealthy; nowadays, money is the reason most go into politics. Those that were elected or volunteered in days past actually wanted to do good for others and not just for themselves; money wasn't the reason they took an oath - their heart was. I really don't believe anyone in office today can say the same. The general public is nothing but a number to them. None of the reps from FL know a thing about me or my kids, and I can guarantee you none of them would give a flying flip to find out who I am or who any of you are unless it meant their wallet was being hit. Even then, they'd forget we exist the second everything in their 'world' is back the way they like.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Time to move the democratic process into the 21st Century. There is no reason why We the People cannot represent ourselves on the issues that most affect us all, namely spending and taxes.

Right now it is technically feasible for all elections to happen via the Internet. There are no security issues that have not already been resolved. Each state can issue approved unique Internet Voter Ids using similar ways that they are using for photo Drivers licenses. They can also set up web pages where a voter can sign in and using their unique id cast their votes. 

With a system like that in place it would be easy enough for Congress to create a web site where We the People can cast our votes for the Budget Bills directly. Better yet, there is nothing to stop us from Budget Line Item voting either.

In other words Congress will know directly from We the People what spending we approve of and what we oppose. Then if they decide to go directly against the will of We the People we will know who to vote out of office in the next election. 

The benefits of this mean that We the People will have a Voice that is just as loud as the Special Interest Lobbyists who are bribing our elected representatives. We can expand this beyond just budget bills to any bill that requires funding. Just log onto the web page for that bill and cast your vote before the deadline. Congress critters will then have an immediate read on what the people they represent want them to do.

This can happen here and now. All it takes is for We the People to start demanding that it happen now. Too many of the other ideas in this thread require Constitutional amendments. We the People voting via the Internet can happen as soon as we make it happen. The only thing stopping it is ourselves. 

Once We the People start using the power of our votes directly to tell Congress what to do We the People will take back the power that the Founding Fathers bequeathed to us. This is our birthright and it is way overdue for us to take it back.

 [MENTION=9429]AVG-JOE[/MENTION] [MENTION=24208]Spoonman[/MENTION] [MENTION=43888]AyeCantSeeYou[/MENTION]


----------



## Spoonman

Derideo_Te said:


> Time to move the democratic process into the 21st Century. There is no reason why We the People cannot represent ourselves on the issues that most affect us all, namely spending and taxes.
> 
> Right now it is technically feasible for all elections to happen via the Internet. There are no security issues that have not already been resolved. Each state can issue approved unique Internet Voter Ids using similar ways that they are using for photo Drivers licenses. They can also set up web pages where a voter can sign in and using their unique id cast their votes.
> 
> With a system like that in place it would be easy enough for Congress to create a web site where We the People can cast our votes for the Budget Bills directly. Better yet, there is nothing to stop us from Budget Line Item voting either.
> 
> In other words Congress will know directly from We the People what spending we approve of and what we oppose. Then if they decide to go directly against the will of We the People we will know who to vote out of office in the next election.
> 
> The benefits of this mean that We the People will have a Voice that is just as loud as the Special Interest Lobbyists who are bribing our elected representatives. We can expand this beyond just budget bills to any bill that requires funding. Just log onto the web page for that bill and cast your vote before the deadline. Congress critters will then have an immediate read on what the people they represent want them to do.
> 
> This can happen here and now. All it takes is for We the People to start demanding that it happen now. Too many of the other ideas in this thread require Constitutional amendments. We the People voting via the Internet can happen as soon as we make it happen. The only thing stopping it is ourselves.
> 
> Once We the People start using the power of our votes directly to tell Congress what to do We the People will take back the power that the Founding Fathers bequeathed to us. This is our birthright and it is way overdue for us to take it back.
> 
> [MENTION=9429]AVG-JOE[/MENTION] [MENTION=24208]Spoonman[/MENTION] [MENTION=43888]AyeCantSeeYou[/MENTION]



more decisions should be put up for a public vote.  let the people decide.  and any issue that is being put up should also contain a detailed execution plan including how it will be funded.  people are capable of making informed decisions.  another thing that needs to happen is issues that should not be in the governments hands or should not be put to a public vote should be taken off the table.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Spoonman said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to move the democratic process into the 21st Century. There is no reason why We the People cannot represent ourselves on the issues that most affect us all, namely spending and taxes.
> 
> Right now it is technically feasible for all elections to happen via the Internet. There are no security issues that have not already been resolved. Each state can issue approved unique Internet Voter Ids using similar ways that they are using for photo Drivers licenses. They can also set up web pages where a voter can sign in and using their unique id cast their votes.
> 
> With a system like that in place it would be easy enough for Congress to create a web site where We the People can cast our votes for the Budget Bills directly. Better yet, there is nothing to stop us from Budget Line Item voting either.
> 
> In other words Congress will know directly from We the People what spending we approve of and what we oppose. Then if they decide to go directly against the will of We the People we will know who to vote out of office in the next election.
> 
> The benefits of this mean that We the People will have a Voice that is just as loud as the Special Interest Lobbyists who are bribing our elected representatives. We can expand this beyond just budget bills to any bill that requires funding. Just log onto the web page for that bill and cast your vote before the deadline. Congress critters will then have an immediate read on what the people they represent want them to do.
> 
> This can happen here and now. All it takes is for We the People to start demanding that it happen now. Too many of the other ideas in this thread require Constitutional amendments. We the People voting via the Internet can happen as soon as we make it happen. The only thing stopping it is ourselves.
> 
> Once We the People start using the power of our votes directly to tell Congress what to do We the People will take back the power that the Founding Fathers bequeathed to us. This is our birthright and it is way overdue for us to take it back.
> 
> [MENTION=9429]AVG-JOE[/MENTION] [MENTION=24208]Spoonman[/MENTION] [MENTION=43888]AyeCantSeeYou[/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more decisions should be put up for a public vote.  let the people decide.  and any issue that is being put up should also contain a detailed execution plan including how it will be funded.  people are capable of making informed decisions.  another thing that needs to happen is issues that should not be in the governments hands or should not be put to a public vote should be taken off the table.
Click to expand...



That is, however, a move away from Representative Democracy to pure Democracy.  The Greeks tried it, with mixed results.

I like the idea, generally speaking, but the practical application is probably more problematic than most people think.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Statistikhengst said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to move the democratic process into the 21st Century. There is no reason why We the People cannot represent ourselves on the issues that most affect us all, namely spending and taxes.
> 
> Right now it is technically feasible for all elections to happen via the Internet. There are no security issues that have not already been resolved. Each state can issue approved unique Internet Voter Ids using similar ways that they are using for photo Drivers licenses. They can also set up web pages where a voter can sign in and using their unique id cast their votes.
> 
> With a system like that in place it would be easy enough for Congress to create a web site where We the People can cast our votes for the Budget Bills directly. Better yet, there is nothing to stop us from Budget Line Item voting either.
> 
> In other words Congress will know directly from We the People what spending we approve of and what we oppose. Then if they decide to go directly against the will of We the People we will know who to vote out of office in the next election.
> 
> The benefits of this mean that We the People will have a Voice that is just as loud as the Special Interest Lobbyists who are bribing our elected representatives. We can expand this beyond just budget bills to any bill that requires funding. Just log onto the web page for that bill and cast your vote before the deadline. Congress critters will then have an immediate read on what the people they represent want them to do.
> 
> This can happen here and now. All it takes is for We the People to start demanding that it happen now. Too many of the other ideas in this thread require Constitutional amendments. We the People voting via the Internet can happen as soon as we make it happen. The only thing stopping it is ourselves.
> 
> Once We the People start using the power of our votes directly to tell Congress what to do We the People will take back the power that the Founding Fathers bequeathed to us. This is our birthright and it is way overdue for us to take it back.
> 
> [MENTION=9429]AVG-JOE[/MENTION] [MENTION=24208]Spoonman[/MENTION] [MENTION=43888]AyeCantSeeYou[/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more decisions should be put up for a public vote.  let the people decide.  and any issue that is being put up should also contain a detailed execution plan including how it will be funded.  people are capable of making informed decisions.  another thing that needs to happen is issues that should not be in the governments hands or should not be put to a public vote should be taken off the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is, however, a move away from Representative Democracy to pure Democracy.  The Greeks tried it, with mixed results.
> 
> I like the idea, generally speaking, but the practical application is probably more problematic than most people think.
Click to expand...


We can retain a Representative Democracy but make it one that is more inline with how the world works today. 

Casting ballots once every couple of years was a matter of what was feasible in those times. Elections were infrequent because travel was arduous and communications were limited. 

Today we no longer have those limitations so we need a Representative Democracy that reflects our modern ability to communicate. The Special Interests have already taken advantage of easier travel and faster communication and there is no reason why voters have to be stuck with a horse drawn voting model.

Let's demand that the the Voices of We the People be heard as frequently as the need arises. It is perfectly feasible to cast a ballot with a couple of mouse clicks. Why should our representatives not be able to find out for themselves which way the people of their districts/states want them to vote on a bill on the floor? 

Greater involvement by the electorate has got to be a better way than the current system where the Big Money always dictates which way "our" representatives end up voting. Given those alternatives this should be a no-brainer!


----------



## AVG-JOE

MarcATL said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting ideas.  (Insert your preferred Deity here) knows SOMEthing needs to change.
> 
> I firmly believe, however, that any changes like those above are going to become just another game of corruption for the well-to-do to play unless we first start with a fair and simple tax code, and public budgets that are balanced by law.
> 
> As long as politicians have the power to customize the tax code for friends, supporters and those who're willing to pay for special treatment, it matters little _how_ we choose them, big money will purchase corrupting influence because of the potential for avoiding the paying of a fair tax for years.
> 
> Same thing with balancing public budgets.  As long as politicians have the power to spend money that they are unwilling or unable to collect from their _current_ constituencies in the form of deficit spending, it matters little _how_ those politicians are chosen.
> 
> *There are symptoms and there are diseases.  Right now, the disease is corruption and everyone seems to want to treat the symptoms.  *Our politicians obviously can't handle the power to customize taxes and to deficit spend without giving in to the corrupting influence of the well-heeled, so those powers need to be removed first, then we can discuss the modernization of our election processes.
> 
> Just my 2 cents...
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't determine whether you're suggesting it's the POLITICIANS that are corrupted or that the SYSTEM ITSELF is corrupted.
> 
> The implications and solutions would vastly depending on which of them would be the case.
> 
> And I agree, just want to pinpoint which is the corrupted.
Click to expand...


I don't know that any system can be said to be inherently corrupt.  I also believe that corruption can raise its ugly head in just about any system.  It's the people involved.

The truly unfortunate thing in our current system is that the corruption is so soft that it's become 'business as usual', requiring the spending of millions of dollars to get and keep a job that pays a couple hundred grand.  As pointed out, campaigning and fund raising for the next election needs to begin during the victory speech for the current one.  Money has become the driving force, but free speech is so precious that trying to limit how much can be given is just plain wrong.  The secret is to limit the influence that can be bought, and that will require a fair and simple tax code and public budgets that are balanced by law.

As of January 1, thousands of tax breaks and tax credits for various industries expired and the lobbyists are working overtime trying to get theirs reinstated.  Industries from big oil to 'Green' energy to Puerto Rican Rum and banking are lobbying your representatives in congress hard to get their tax breaks back, most of them will and it's just not fair to the rest of the businesses who have to pay some of the highest rates in the world to compensate.

On the personal side, tax breaks for housing, parking, having kids, spending, saving, etc, etc, etc are also skewing the economy, and I don't believe that there has ever been a politician smart enough to micro-manage the economy from the top down like that.  Certainly not at the federal level.  That is the direct opposite of "free enterprise".

Even the poor get to play with much of our "welfare" being doled out in the form of complicated earned income tax credits that invite abuse and fraud.



Look at the money made by the Tax Preparation Industry... Billions spent every year just to do the fucking paperwork to work in this country... We are looking so stupid from space.



`​


----------



## AVG-JOE

Derideo_Te said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> more decisions should be put up for a public vote.  let the people decide.  and any issue that is being put up should also contain a detailed execution plan including how it will be funded.  people are capable of making informed decisions.  another thing that needs to happen is issues that should not be in the governments hands or should not be put to a public vote should be taken off the table.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is, however, a move away from Representative Democracy to pure Democracy.  The Greeks tried it, with mixed results.
> 
> I like the idea, generally speaking, but the practical application is probably more problematic than most people think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can retain a Representative Democracy but make it one that is more inline with how the world works today.
> 
> Casting ballots once every couple of years was a matter of what was feasible in those times. Elections were infrequent because travel was arduous and communications were limited.
> 
> Today we no longer have those limitations so we need a Representative Democracy that reflects our modern ability to communicate. The Special Interests have already taken advantage of easier travel and faster communication and there is no reason why voters have to be stuck with a horse drawn voting model.
> 
> Let's demand that the the Voices of We the People be heard as frequently as the need arises. It is perfectly feasible to cast a ballot with a couple of mouse clicks. Why should our representatives not be able to find out for themselves which way the people of their districts/states want them to vote on a bill on the floor?
> 
> Greater involvement by the electorate has got to be a better way than the current system where the Big Money always dictates which way "our" representatives end up voting. Given those alternatives this should be a no-brainer!
Click to expand...


Even if there was just a web site where we could go to voice our opinion on which programs deserve funding...

How many of us would vote to continue millions in military aid to Russia and Egypt?

How many of us would vote to continue most favored nation trading status for China?

How many of us would vote for a little more money devoted to roads and bridges here in the USA?


----------



## Derideo_Te

AVG-JOE said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is, however, a move away from Representative Democracy to pure Democracy.  The Greeks tried it, with mixed results.
> 
> I like the idea, generally speaking, but the practical application is probably more problematic than most people think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can retain a Representative Democracy but make it one that is more inline with how the world works today.
> 
> Casting ballots once every couple of years was a matter of what was feasible in those times. Elections were infrequent because travel was arduous and communications were limited.
> 
> Today we no longer have those limitations so we need a Representative Democracy that reflects our modern ability to communicate. The Special Interests have already taken advantage of easier travel and faster communication and there is no reason why voters have to be stuck with a horse drawn voting model.
> 
> Let's demand that the the Voices of We the People be heard as frequently as the need arises. It is perfectly feasible to cast a ballot with a couple of mouse clicks. Why should our representatives not be able to find out for themselves which way the people of their districts/states want them to vote on a bill on the floor?
> 
> Greater involvement by the electorate has got to be a better way than the current system where the Big Money always dictates which way "our" representatives end up voting. Given those alternatives this should be a no-brainer!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if there was just a web site where we could go to voice our opinion on which programs deserve funding...
> 
> How many of us would vote to continue millions in military aid to Russia and Egypt?
> 
> How many of us would vote to continue most favored nation trading status for China?
> 
> How many of us would vote for a little more money devoted to roads and bridges here in the USA?
Click to expand...


Plenty of griping websites out there. (Just like this one )

But a place where registered voters essentially vote for or against a bill that their representative is about to vote on and that result is now on the record of that congress person for when the next election comes around?

 Let's take your examples and assume that the MFN bill for China in on the floor. The representative's smart phones would reflect the results of the voters in their districts before they cast their vote on the floor. How many of them do you believe would vote against the majority of their own district? Ditto for a Transportation bill to fix roads and bridges. 

The Voice of We the People would be a constant reminder to our representatives that we are watching every vote they make. Or as Reagan put it, "trust but verify". How many passes would you be willing to give your own congress critter if he constantly voted against your best interests? Right now the majority of incumbents are re-elected. There would be no need for term limits if the registered voters already knew how many times they were being screwed over in favor of the Special Interests.


----------



## BlackSand

AVG-JOE said:


> Even if there was just a web site where we could go to voice our opinion on which programs deserve funding...
> 
> How many of us would vote to continue millions in military aid to Russia and Egypt?
> 
> How many of us would vote to continue most favored nation trading status for China?
> 
> How many of us would vote for a little more money devoted to roads and bridges here in the USA?



If we have the ability to be that precise ... How about we add a link for filing income taxes electronically?
Make it a link where Americans that pay income taxes can divide the amount they owe among programs they wish to support  ... Like Roads and Bridges, Military, Federal Government, Social Security, Welfare or Pork Projects.

That way we can make sure taxpayers are sufficiently represented in the capacity they contribute.
I mean if we are going to change the system to be fair by population ... Then fair by contribution would be equally justified.

.


----------



## Statistikhengst

AVG-JOE said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is, however, a move away from Representative Democracy to pure Democracy.  The Greeks tried it, with mixed results.
> 
> I like the idea, generally speaking, but the practical application is probably more problematic than most people think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can retain a Representative Democracy but make it one that is more inline with how the world works today.
> 
> Casting ballots once every couple of years was a matter of what was feasible in those times. Elections were infrequent because travel was arduous and communications were limited.
> 
> Today we no longer have those limitations so we need a Representative Democracy that reflects our modern ability to communicate. The Special Interests have already taken advantage of easier travel and faster communication and there is no reason why voters have to be stuck with a horse drawn voting model.
> 
> Let's demand that the the Voices of We the People be heard as frequently as the need arises. It is perfectly feasible to cast a ballot with a couple of mouse clicks. Why should our representatives not be able to find out for themselves which way the people of their districts/states want them to vote on a bill on the floor?
> 
> Greater involvement by the electorate has got to be a better way than the current system where the Big Money always dictates which way "our" representatives end up voting. Given those alternatives this should be a no-brainer!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if there was just a web site where we could go to voice our opinion on which programs deserve funding...
> 
> How many of us would vote to continue millions in military aid to Russia and Egypt?
> 
> How many of us would vote to continue most favored nation trading status for China?
> 
> How many of us would vote for a little more money devoted to roads and bridges here in the USA?
Click to expand...



*That's exactly the point. *Many things that our Government does, it does with advance knowledge that the general public does not necessarily have.  They don't realize that there is a game going on behind the scenes, a sort of give and take, over all sorts of things.

Foreign aid is a drop in the bucket compared to our GDP, but we get a helluva lot more out of it than we put into it. We get: overfly rights, base rights in many countries outside of NATO, for example.  That foreign aid may be unpopular, but it is necessary. But the public doesn't see the payback, it takes it for granted that we get these things.

And what if an extremist wave hits the public and it decides to cut funding for all public schools, and wins that ballot initiative? What do we do then? Kill off our public teaching workforce?

There is a reason for why we have a representative Democracy and not a pure Democracy. Pure Democracy in Greece brought that small nation to a complete stillstand.

For extremely major issue, I could consider it, but for everything? No way.


----------



## Derideo_Te

BlackSand said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if there was just a web site where we could go to voice our opinion on which programs deserve funding...
> 
> How many of us would vote to continue millions in military aid to Russia and Egypt?
> 
> How many of us would vote to continue most favored nation trading status for China?
> 
> How many of us would vote for a little more money devoted to roads and bridges here in the USA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we have the ability to be that precise ... How about we add a link for filing income taxes electronically?
> Make it a link where Americans that pay income taxes can divide the amount they owe among programs they wish to support  ... Like Roads and Bridges, Military, Federal Government, Social Security, Welfare or Pork Projects.
> 
> That way we can make sure taxpayers are sufficiently represented in the capacity they contribute.
> I mean if we are going to change the system to be fair by population ... Then fair by contribution would be equally justified.
> 
> .
Click to expand...




Works for me! Similar to giving voters a line item vote on Budget Bills. That way the popularity of each item will be readily apparent to our representatives.


----------



## Statistikhengst

BlackSand said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if there was just a web site where we could go to voice our opinion on which programs deserve funding...
> 
> How many of us would vote to continue millions in military aid to Russia and Egypt?
> 
> How many of us would vote to continue most favored nation trading status for China?
> 
> How many of us would vote for a little more money devoted to roads and bridges here in the USA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we have the ability to be that precise ... How about we add a link for filing income taxes electronically?
> Make it a link where Americans that pay income taxes can divide the amount they owe among programs they wish to support  ... Like Roads and Bridges, Military, Federal Government, Social Security, Welfare or Pork Projects.
> 
> That way we can make sure taxpayers are sufficiently represented in the capacity they contribute.
> I mean if we are going to change the system to be fair by population ... Then fair by contribution would be equally justified.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



That would also be an idea, but my gut tells me that areas with a lower tax base would end up on the losing side of this equation.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Derideo_Te said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if there was just a web site where we could go to voice our opinion on which programs deserve funding...
> 
> How many of us would vote to continue millions in military aid to Russia and Egypt?
> 
> How many of us would vote to continue most favored nation trading status for China?
> 
> How many of us would vote for a little more money devoted to roads and bridges here in the USA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we have the ability to be that precise ... How about we add a link for filing income taxes electronically?
> Make it a link where Americans that pay income taxes can divide the amount they owe among programs they wish to support  ... Like Roads and Bridges, Military, Federal Government, Social Security, Welfare or Pork Projects.
> 
> That way we can make sure taxpayers are sufficiently represented in the capacity they contribute.
> I mean if we are going to change the system to be fair by population ... Then fair by contribution would be equally justified.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Works for me! Similar to giving voters a line item vote on Budget Bills. That way the popularity of each item will be readily apparent to our representatives.
Click to expand...



Perhaps readily apparent, but not necessarily based on an informed decision of the public.

How many people here actually read the voter's guide before the elections and actually study all of the platform points of a candidate?

Now, imagine how uninformed the public could be about spending for highway renovations in Wyoming, for instance. Wyoming is only 0.18% of the US population. Does the other 99+% of the population care? Would it be motivated for funds for highway renovation in WY? That is just one possible way where the shot could come out of the back side of the gun, instead of the front*

(*I just took a german idiomatic phrase and anglicized it for fun)


----------



## BlackSand

Statistikhengst said:


> That would also be an idea, but my gut tells me that areas with a lower tax base would end up on the losing side of this equation.



Well that very well could be the result ... But is only a concern if you are the loser.
If we are going to seriously suggest that the people know what is best in governance ... Well why stop where it suits those who just want to gain more advantage?

One self indulgent cause is no more noble than the next.

.


----------



## Statistikhengst

BlackSand said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would also be an idea, but my gut tells me that areas with a lower tax base would end up on the losing side of this equation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that very well could be the result ... *But is only a concern if you are the loser.*
> If we are going to seriously suggest that the people know what is best in governance ... Well why stop where it suits those who just want to gain more advantage?
> 
> One self indulgent cause is no more noble than the next.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Sounds ok, until you are once on the losing side of an important issue.

My point is, we need a governance in moderation, not kneejerk reactions from the public.

Most members of USMB would be good pure Democracy voters, because we pay attention to a lot of stuff, because we like to debate and these details interest us. But I would venture to say that the vast majority of the public is not so. The public is more concerned with personal pocketbook issues most of the time.

Of course, a smart application of pure democracy could be issues that are broad and affect the entire nation, for instance, instead of a highway renovation for just Wyoming, a highway renovation for all 50 states.


----------



## BlackSand

Statistikhengst said:


> Sounds ok, until you are once on the losing side of an important issue.
> 
> My point is, we need a governance in moderation, not kneejerk reactions from the public.
> 
> Most members of USMB would be good pure Democracy voters, because we pay attention to a lot of stuff, because we like to debate and these details interest us. But I would venture to say that the vast majority of the public is not so. The public is more concerned with personal pocketbook issues most of the time.
> 
> Of course, a smart application of pure democracy could be issues that are broad and affect the entire nation, for instance, instead of a highway renovation for just Wyoming, a highway renovation for all 50 states.



Pfft ... I am a true Conservative and always on the losing side of governance nowadays.
I am not upset like most people though ... In as I have a firm understanding that we should adapt to what happens and figure out better ways to provide for ourselves and those in need.
I will survive no matter what the people or the government decide to do outside of open warfare.

An easy example would be people who complain about the price of gasoline.
When the price goes up ... Look at all the people who fuss and carry on ... They blame the oil companies and people who make a profit in the industry.
I am simply thankful that every mutual fund available in the market today is vested in big oil ... All the people with a 401k are putting more money towards their retirement ... Then figure out how I am going to earn more money to pay for my gas.

I don't need more Social Security ... I need more Get the Hell Out of My Business.
And if you are worried about appropriations for roads in Wyoming ... You should have left that up to the State of Wyoming ... And not turned it into a Federal matter in the first place.

*Edit:*
I should acknowledge the US Highways and Interstates are not the property of Wyoming  ... Nor are they restricted to or solely beneficial to the residents of Wyoming.

.


----------



## Statistikhengst

BlackSand said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds ok, until you are once on the losing side of an important issue.
> 
> My point is, we need a governance in moderation, not kneejerk reactions from the public.
> 
> Most members of USMB would be good pure Democracy voters, because we pay attention to a lot of stuff, because we like to debate and these details interest us. But I would venture to say that the vast majority of the public is not so. The public is more concerned with personal pocketbook issues most of the time.
> 
> Of course, a smart application of pure democracy could be issues that are broad and affect the entire nation, for instance, instead of a highway renovation for just Wyoming, a highway renovation for all 50 states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pfft ... I am a true Conservative and always on the losing side of governance nowadays.
> I am not upset like most people though ... In as I have a firm understanding that we should adapt to what happens and figure out better ways to provide for ourselves and those in need.
> I will survive no matter what the people or the government decide to do outside of open warfare.
> 
> An easy example would be people who complain about the price of gasoline.
> When the price goes up ... Look at all the people who fuss and carry on ... They blame the oil companies and people who make a profit in the industry.
> I am simply thankful that every mutual fund available in the market today is vested in big oil ... All the people with a 401k are putting more money towards their retirement ... Then figure out how I am going to earn more money to pay for my gas.
> 
> I don't need more Social Security ... I need more Get the Hell Out of My Business.
> And if you are worried about appropriations for roads in Wyoming ... You should have left that up to the State of Wyoming ... And not turned it into a Federal matter in the first place.
> 
> *Edit:*
> I should acknowledge the US Highways and Interstates are not the property of Wyoming  ... Nor are they restricted to or solely beneficial to the residents of Wyoming.
> 
> .
Click to expand...





I love it when you write tongue-in-cheek.

You did, right?

I just used Highways in WY as a possible example..... since earmarks are loved by both parties, not just the democratic party.

But the point you made about gas prices was a good point, indeed.


----------



## Amelia

Statistikhengst said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You put a lot of thought into those posts, Stat. Brava for your patience and common sense.
> 
> With that said...will anything ever come of your ideas and suggestions? Probably not in my lifetime.
> I am not "as in" to politics as most here...all I know is, the electoral vote thing SUCKS. We in california are still at the polls and the president is already known before we can even place our vote. That stinks. So it doesn't really matter WHO I want to vote for. It wouldn't count.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, actually, in 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012 the call for the President was either when the polls closed or somewhat after:
> 
> 2000, December 13
> 2004, the day after the election at around 3 pm EDT
> 2008, 11:00 pm EDT
> 2012 11:18 pm EDT
> 
> Also, in 1992, Clinton went over the top at 10:58 pm EDT.
> 
> True, in 1996, he was called at 9:25 pm as the polls on the West Coast and beyond were still open.
> 
> Thanks for the kind words
Click to expand...



In 2000, the call was made for Gore before the polls in the Florida panhandle had closed.  The people in the Republican-heavy panhandle were told their votes didn't matter.   How much did that affect the votes when people who worked at military bases heard on the radio as they got off work that the election was decided so they didn't need to go to the polls?

Then the call was reversed and the recount nightmare began.  But if Florida had gone to Gore after the panhandle vote was screwed with like that  .... grrrrr.


----------



## Spoonman

Statistikhengst said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to move the democratic process into the 21st Century. There is no reason why We the People cannot represent ourselves on the issues that most affect us all, namely spending and taxes.
> 
> Right now it is technically feasible for all elections to happen via the Internet. There are no security issues that have not already been resolved. Each state can issue approved unique Internet Voter Ids using similar ways that they are using for photo Drivers licenses. They can also set up web pages where a voter can sign in and using their unique id cast their votes.
> 
> With a system like that in place it would be easy enough for Congress to create a web site where We the People can cast our votes for the Budget Bills directly. Better yet, there is nothing to stop us from Budget Line Item voting either.
> 
> In other words Congress will know directly from We the People what spending we approve of and what we oppose. Then if they decide to go directly against the will of We the People we will know who to vote out of office in the next election.
> 
> The benefits of this mean that We the People will have a Voice that is just as loud as the Special Interest Lobbyists who are bribing our elected representatives. We can expand this beyond just budget bills to any bill that requires funding. Just log onto the web page for that bill and cast your vote before the deadline. Congress critters will then have an immediate read on what the people they represent want them to do.
> 
> This can happen here and now. All it takes is for We the People to start demanding that it happen now. Too many of the other ideas in this thread require Constitutional amendments. We the People voting via the Internet can happen as soon as we make it happen. The only thing stopping it is ourselves.
> 
> Once We the People start using the power of our votes directly to tell Congress what to do We the People will take back the power that the Founding Fathers bequeathed to us. This is our birthright and it is way overdue for us to take it back.
> 
> [MENTION=9429]AVG-JOE[/MENTION] [MENTION=24208]Spoonman[/MENTION] [MENTION=43888]AyeCantSeeYou[/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more decisions should be put up for a public vote.  let the people decide.  and any issue that is being put up should also contain a detailed execution plan including how it will be funded.  people are capable of making informed decisions.  another thing that needs to happen is issues that should not be in the governments hands or should not be put to a public vote should be taken off the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is, however, a move away from Representative Democracy to pure Democracy.  The Greeks tried it, with mixed results.
> 
> I like the idea, generally speaking, but the practical application is probably more problematic than most people think.
Click to expand...


I'm not advocating taking all decisions out of the politicians hands.  but certainly decisions that need an element of control.  like legislation they try to pass pertaining to themselves.


----------



## racewright

more decisions should be put up for a public vote. let the people decide. and any issue that is being put up should also contain a detailed execution plan including how it will be funded. people are capable of making informed decisions. another thing that needs to happen is issues that should not be in the governments hands or should not be put to a public vote should be taken off the table.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________nope


The public will only make decisions based on their brainwashed ideals forced on them by progressive educations.
And who decides what should be in the government's hands you .

Just follow the constitution 
,,most politicians have turned it into some kind of late term abortion.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Statistikhengst said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "fix" is so simple, it's painful.  Given our technology, one-person, one-vote should be the way to go.  Each registered voter is issued a one-time only access password.  After they have presented appropriate identification proving their bona fides, they may then use that password to cast their vote.  This prevents others from "buying" passwords to tip the vote.  Once a password has been used, it is no longer valid.  *The reason for an electoral college is long gone.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a thought I had for a number of years, but I am not so sure anymore. I think the best thing to do is not to end the EC, but rather, to mend it.
> 
> The "Electoral College", a term we like to use, but which does not exist in the Constitution as a term at all, is a good way to keep 100s of splinter parties from forming. And I think that is a good thing.
Click to expand...


The problem I see with the electoral college right now is how most states cast all electoral votes as a majority.  I would find it much more...honest, to allow the electoral vote for each district to be cast as the majority in that district votes.  As it stands now, all a candidate has to do is win a few states with a lot of votes and the rest of the country is screwed.  If the electoral votes were cast by district, instead of by state, I think we would also see that the electoral and popular votes would sync more closely.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Derideo_Te said:


> on some great ideas and responses from GW and GT too.
> 
> I tagged some additional members whom I believe could make some excellent contributions. (Used the [Tag Users] function at the top since that is what it is for.)
> 
> Some of what you suggest is going to require Constitutional Amendments and that means that this is going to be difficult to implement. Not impossible, but harder than necessary. Overall I agree that we are way overdue for a complete overhaul.
> 
> My suggestions actually piggyback on the concept of voter involvement in elections via the internet and using unique ids similar to SSNs.
> 
> 1. Compulsory voting for all citizens. Doesn't matter if you vote for Mickey Mouse but you must cast a ballot. This eliminates parties having to focus on "turnout". If everyone must vote then turnout becomes a non-issue.
> 
> 2. Voting via the Internet is something that needs to done sooner rather than later. Yes, it is feasible and it eliminates the BS about long waiting lines and voting hours and all the rest of the ways that politicians are using to mess with voting rights. If we trust the internet to make credit card purchases (sometimes for thousands of dollars) then why can't we have a similar secure system for voting? Eliminates weather concerns too. Best of all counting electronic votes can be tallied in seconds and there are no "hanging chads" and other nonsense. Polls close and vote counts are known nationwide.
> 
> 3. Allow permanent residents to vote in non Federal and non State wide elections. These are taxpayers too and since their taxes pay local municipal taxes and for schools it only makes sense that they should be allowed to enter the electoral process in this manner. (BTW this is already allowed in some states.) This is all part and parcel of greater involvement in the process rather than less.
> 
> Right now part of what is messing up the system is the deliberate and malicious process of driving voters away. A vote lost for your opponent is a vote gained for yourself. If voting becomes compulsory the incentive to drive away voters falls away (and so does the money to make that happen.)
> 
> The use of the Internet for voting eliminates the excuse for not voting. Every place that offers WiFi now becomes a potential polling station. College dorms, coffee shops, libraries, shopping malls and yes, in the comfort of your own home. Once again greater involvement across all registered voters means that trying to appeal on single issues to drive "turnout" becomes a non issue and again, it undercuts the benefit of outside funding.
> 
> Internet voting doesn't require a constitutional amendment. It can be implemented sooner rather than later and it makes the most sense to begin here because it will increase voter turnout simply because it makes it easier. It also increases voting in primary elections which are notorious for low turnout. This can eliminate a subset of the voters being able to restrict the choices of the greater electorate.
> 
> Anything that increases involvement in the election process means a democracy where votes count more than dollars. That is where we must begin in my opinion.



Australia has compulsory voting.  I wonder whether some of our "resident" Aussies could weigh in on how well this works?


----------



## gallantwarrior

Nosmo King said:


> I don't agree that making wholesale changes to the constitution is the right way to go.  Neither do I think that this is the fault of the voter.  Restricting access to the polls by elaborate ID measures answer a problem we do not have, namely voter fraud.
> 
> The problem as I see it is the money.  Money spent on ads and campaigns.  If contributions from individuals AND corporations was restricted to a three digit number, we could eliminate checkbook politics.
> 
> Perhaps it's the length of the campaign that makes the money so needed.  If we had one national day for primaries, in May perhaps, and a national moratorium on campaigning until early August, long drawn out budgets for media buys would dry up and take the cash with them.



I have to agree about the money spent on ads, sometimes a year or more in advance of an election.  I would suggest some election financing reforms.
Only an individual may make a contribution.  Individual = a single identifiable person, no other "entities" may make contributions.  A contribution can only be made to the candidate running for office in the individual's geographic location.  I.e.: If someone is running for mayor of Anchorage, AK, only residents of Anchorage, AK may make contributions.  If someone is running for state senator, only verified residents of that state may make contributions, and so forth...
Advertising would be limited to a certain period prior to an election.  30 days, 60 days, something reasonable.  (Personally, I'm already sick of the 2014 elections.)
Any candidate who starts ragging on what another candidate has done, rather than what they will do if elected, is penalized.  Maybe pull all their advertising and "sanction" them for a period of time.   (Again, I really don't care about some trumped up charge of animal abuse, or some similar bs.  I want to know what the candidate's ideas are, what their plans include, what they will do for us.)

Just a few thoughts to toss out there...


----------



## Statistikhengst

gallantwarrior said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "fix" is so simple, it's painful.  Given our technology, one-person, one-vote should be the way to go.  Each registered voter is issued a one-time only access password.  After they have presented appropriate identification proving their bona fides, they may then use that password to cast their vote.  This prevents others from "buying" passwords to tip the vote.  Once a password has been used, it is no longer valid.  *The reason for an electoral college is long gone.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a thought I had for a number of years, but I am not so sure anymore. I think the best thing to do is not to end the EC, but rather, to mend it.
> 
> The "Electoral College", a term we like to use, but which does not exist in the Constitution as a term at all, is a good way to keep 100s of splinter parties from forming. And I think that is a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem I see with the electoral college right now is how most states cast all electoral votes as a majority.  *I would find it much more...honest, to allow the electoral vote for each district to be cast as the majority in that district votes*.  As it stands now, all a candidate has to do is win a few states with a lot of votes and the rest of the country is screwed.  If the electoral votes were cast by district, instead of by state, I think we would also see that the electoral and popular votes would sync more closely.
Click to expand...


Yes, but congressional districts are not state administrations. The idea of the EC is that the states, as a body, would speak.

There are, however, strong arguments for and against this.

And there have been calculations of what-if-when,and it ends up that, except for 1960, 1976 and 2012, the guy who won the election would still have won the election.







Source:

http://partisanid.blogspot.de/2012/12/presidential-election-results-by.html

So, in 2012, in spite of having won by +3.86% of the NPV,according to what you propose, Obama would have lost. 

In 2012, this is because there are considerably more CDs with decidedly less people in them that lean strong R than there are CDs with considerably more people, which tend to lean D. Not all CDs have the same size, although they are supposed to.

In 1976, we would have had an electoral tie, 269-269.

So, instead of having one electoral backfire in 52 years, we would have had three. No thank you. 

Interestingly enough, the states where Republicans are trying to push through elector-splitting are all states that tend to go blue in presidential elections, but deep red states show no interest at this time.

There is also an invisible connection between Nebraska and Texas concerning this, and if you are really nice to me   I will share it on this board. There is a reason why Nebraska, which has put forth a law to eliminate elector spliltting 3 times since 2009, has not gone through with it.

If given the choice between mending the EC as I would like, taking your option, or just elminating the EC, I would still take my choice.


----------



## Statistikhengst

gallantwarrior said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> on some great ideas and responses from GW and GT too.
> 
> I tagged some additional members whom I believe could make some excellent contributions. (Used the [Tag Users] function at the top since that is what it is for.)
> 
> Some of what you suggest is going to require Constitutional Amendments and that means that this is going to be difficult to implement. Not impossible, but harder than necessary. Overall I agree that we are way overdue for a complete overhaul.
> 
> My suggestions actually piggyback on the concept of voter involvement in elections via the internet and using unique ids similar to SSNs.
> 
> 1. Compulsory voting for all citizens. Doesn't matter if you vote for Mickey Mouse but you must cast a ballot. This eliminates parties having to focus on "turnout". If everyone must vote then turnout becomes a non-issue.
> 
> 2. Voting via the Internet is something that needs to done sooner rather than later. Yes, it is feasible and it eliminates the BS about long waiting lines and voting hours and all the rest of the ways that politicians are using to mess with voting rights. If we trust the internet to make credit card purchases (sometimes for thousands of dollars) then why can't we have a similar secure system for voting? Eliminates weather concerns too. Best of all counting electronic votes can be tallied in seconds and there are no "hanging chads" and other nonsense. Polls close and vote counts are known nationwide.
> 
> 3. Allow permanent residents to vote in non Federal and non State wide elections. These are taxpayers too and since their taxes pay local municipal taxes and for schools it only makes sense that they should be allowed to enter the electoral process in this manner. (BTW this is already allowed in some states.) This is all part and parcel of greater involvement in the process rather than less.
> 
> Right now part of what is messing up the system is the deliberate and malicious process of driving voters away. A vote lost for your opponent is a vote gained for yourself. If voting becomes compulsory the incentive to drive away voters falls away (and so does the money to make that happen.)
> 
> The use of the Internet for voting eliminates the excuse for not voting. Every place that offers WiFi now becomes a potential polling station. College dorms, coffee shops, libraries, shopping malls and yes, in the comfort of your own home. Once again greater involvement across all registered voters means that trying to appeal on single issues to drive "turnout" becomes a non issue and again, it undercuts the benefit of outside funding.
> 
> Internet voting doesn't require a constitutional amendment. It can be implemented sooner rather than later and it makes the most sense to begin here because it will increase voter turnout simply because it makes it easier. It also increases voting in primary elections which are notorious for low turnout. This can eliminate a subset of the voters being able to restrict the choices of the greater electorate.
> 
> Anything that increases involvement in the election process means a democracy where votes count more than dollars. That is where we must begin in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Australia has compulsory voting.  I wonder whether some of our "resident" Aussies could weigh in on how well this works?*
Click to expand...


I listed the twenty countries or so with mandatory voting earlier in this thread.

There is a debate going on in Australia as to whether to keep it, but from what I have read, most are cool with it.

I do agree, it would be nice to hear from some Aussies here about what they think on this issue.


----------



## Statistikhengst

gallantwarrior said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that making wholesale changes to the constitution is the right way to go.  Neither do I think that this is the fault of the voter.  Restricting access to the polls by elaborate ID measures answer a problem we do not have, namely voter fraud.
> 
> The problem as I see it is the money.  Money spent on ads and campaigns.  If contributions from individuals AND corporations was restricted to a three digit number, we could eliminate checkbook politics.
> 
> *Perhaps it's the length of the campaign that makes the money so needed.*  If we had one national day for primaries, in May perhaps, and a national moratorium on campaigning until early August, long drawn out budgets for media buys would dry up and take the cash with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I have to agree about the money spent on ads, sometimes a year or more in advance of an election.*  I would suggest some election financing reforms.
> Only an individual may make a contribution.  Individual = a single identifiable person, no other "entities" may make contributions.  A contribution can only be made to the candidate running for office in the individual's geographic location.  I.e.: If someone is running for mayor of Anchorage, AK, only residents of Anchorage, AK may make contributions.  If someone is running for state senator, only verified residents of that state may make contributions, and so forth...
> Advertising would be limited to a certain period prior to an election.  30 days, 60 days, something reasonable.  (Personally, I'm already sick of the 2014 elections.)
> Any candidate who starts ragging on what another candidate has done, rather than what they will do if elected, is penalized.  Maybe pull all their advertising and "sanction" them for a period of time.   (Again, I really don't care about some trumped up charge of animal abuse, or some similar bs.  I want to know what the candidate's ideas are, what their plans include, what they will do for us.)
> 
> Just a few thoughts to toss out there...
Click to expand...



Both of those bolded points are in the op.


----------



## AVG-JOE

BlackSand said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if there was just a web site where we could go to voice our opinion on which programs deserve funding...
> 
> How many of us would vote to continue millions in military aid to Russia and Egypt?
> 
> How many of us would vote to continue most favored nation trading status for China?
> 
> How many of us would vote for a little more money devoted to roads and bridges here in the USA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we have the ability to be that precise ... How about we add a link for filing income taxes electronically?
> Make it a link where Americans that pay income taxes can divide the amount they owe among programs they wish to support  ... Like Roads and Bridges, Military, Federal Government, Social Security, Welfare or Pork Projects.
> 
> That way we can make sure taxpayers are sufficiently represented in the capacity they contribute.
> I mean if we are going to change the system to be fair by population ... Then fair by contribution would be equally justified.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


That's the ticket!!!

Make our representatives justify their pet projects to the voters.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Statistikhengst said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a thought I had for a number of years, but I am not so sure anymore. I think the best thing to do is not to end the EC, but rather, to mend it.
> 
> The "Electoral College", a term we like to use, but which does not exist in the Constitution as a term at all, is a good way to keep 100s of splinter parties from forming. And I think that is a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem I see with the electoral college right now is how most states cast all electoral votes as a majority.  *I would find it much more...honest, to allow the electoral vote for each district to be cast as the majority in that district votes*.  As it stands now, all a candidate has to do is win a few states with a lot of votes and the rest of the country is screwed.  If the electoral votes were cast by district, instead of by state, I think we would also see that the electoral and popular votes would sync more closely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but congressional districts are not state administrations. The idea of the EC is that the states, as a body, would speak.
> 
> There are, however, strong arguments for and against this.
> 
> And there have been calculations of what-if-when,and it ends up that, except for 1960, 1976 and 2012, the guy who won the election would still have won the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> 
> Fun With Party I.D. : Presidential election results by congressional district.
> 
> So, in 2012, in spite of having won by +3.86% of the NPV,according to what you propose, Obama would have lost.
> 
> In 2012, this is because there are considerably more CDs with decidedly less people in them that lean strong R than there are CDs with considerably more people, which tend to lean D. Not all CDs have the same size, although they are supposed to.
> 
> In 1976, we would have had an electoral tie, 269-269.
> 
> So, instead of having one electoral backfire in 52 years, we would have had three. No thank you.
> 
> Interestingly enough, the states where Republicans are trying to push through elector-splitting are all states that tend to go blue in presidential elections, but deep red states show no interest at this time.
> 
> There is also an invisible connection between Nebraska and Texas concerning this, and if you are really nice to me   I will share it on this board. There is a reason why Nebraska, which has put forth a law to eliminate elector spliltting 3 times since 2009, has not gone through with it.
> 
> If given the choice between mending the EC as I would like, taking your option, or just elminating the EC, I would still take my choice.
Click to expand...


I recognize your point about splitting the Electoral votes according to district instead of states.  But the votes are set up to correspond with both Senate seats (2 per state, regardless of population) and House seats (allocated by population density).  While you seem concerned about rural or suburban regions having more voice than urban areas, I see the opposite as a major problem.  If you look at the district breakdowns by state, rather than only the state designation, you can quite clearly see where urban centers, as depicted by their blue color, are vs. rural districts.  In many "blue" states, by far, greater geographic areas are "red".  This would indicate that less populated areas tend to be more conservative than urban districts.  The fact that smaller geographic areas can push an entire state into one party camp, or the other, is distasteful to me.  In other words, you seem to prefer allowing a bunch of city-dwellers with little understanding of rural issues to run things.
I would much prefer to see the electoral votes allocated in such a manner so that all constituencies have a more equitable say in government.


----------



## Statistikhengst

gallantwarrior said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem I see with the electoral college right now is how most states cast all electoral votes as a majority.  *I would find it much more...honest, to allow the electoral vote for each district to be cast as the majority in that district votes*.  As it stands now, all a candidate has to do is win a few states with a lot of votes and the rest of the country is screwed.  If the electoral votes were cast by district, instead of by state, I think we would also see that the electoral and popular votes would sync more closely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but congressional districts are not state administrations. The idea of the EC is that the states, as a body, would speak.
> 
> There are, however, strong arguments for and against this.
> 
> And there have been calculations of what-if-when,and it ends up that, except for 1960, 1976 and 2012, the guy who won the election would still have won the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> 
> Fun With Party I.D. : Presidential election results by congressional district.
> 
> So, in 2012, in spite of having won by +3.86% of the NPV,according to what you propose, Obama would have lost.
> 
> In 2012, this is because there are considerably more CDs with decidedly less people in them that lean strong R than there are CDs with considerably more people, which tend to lean D. Not all CDs have the same size, although they are supposed to.
> 
> In 1976, we would have had an electoral tie, 269-269.
> 
> So, instead of having one electoral backfire in 52 years, we would have had three. No thank you.
> 
> Interestingly enough, the states where Republicans are trying to push through elector-splitting are all states that tend to go blue in presidential elections, but deep red states show no interest at this time.
> 
> There is also an invisible connection between Nebraska and Texas concerning this, and if you are really nice to me   I will share it on this board. There is a reason why Nebraska, which has put forth a law to eliminate elector spliltting 3 times since 2009, has not gone through with it.
> 
> If given the choice between mending the EC as I would like, taking your option, or just elminating the EC, I would still take my choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recognize your point about splitting the Electoral votes according to district instead of states.  But the votes are set up to correspond with both Senate seats (2 per state, regardless of population) and House seats (allocated by population density).  While you seem concerned about rural or suburban regions having more voice than urban areas, I see the opposite as a major problem.  If you look at the district breakdowns by state, rather than only the state designation, you can quite clearly see where urban centers, as depicted by their blue color, are vs. rural districts.  In many "blue" states, by far, greater geographic areas are "red".  This would indicate that less populated areas tend to be more conservative than urban districts.  The fact that smaller geographic areas can push an entire state into one party camp, or the other, is distasteful to me.  In other words, you seem to prefer allowing a bunch of city-dwellers with little understanding of rural issues to run things.
> *I would much prefer to see the electoral votes allocated in such a manner so that all constituencies have a more equitable say in government*.
Click to expand...



Probably no perfect formula for that. In that case, ditching the EC and going with NPV would be the next best alternative. Of course, if the interstate compact picks up enough steam in enough states, then all of this would be moot, anyway.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Statistikhengst said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can retain a Representative Democracy but make it one that is more inline with how the world works today.
> 
> Casting ballots once every couple of years was a matter of what was feasible in those times. Elections were infrequent because travel was arduous and communications were limited.
> 
> Today we no longer have those limitations so we need a Representative Democracy that reflects our modern ability to communicate. The Special Interests have already taken advantage of easier travel and faster communication and there is no reason why voters have to be stuck with a horse drawn voting model.
> 
> Let's demand that the the Voices of We the People be heard as frequently as the need arises. It is perfectly feasible to cast a ballot with a couple of mouse clicks. Why should our representatives not be able to find out for themselves which way the people of their districts/states want them to vote on a bill on the floor?
> 
> Greater involvement by the electorate has got to be a better way than the current system where the Big Money always dictates which way "our" representatives end up voting. Given those alternatives this should be a no-brainer!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if there was just a web site where we could go to voice our opinion on which programs deserve funding...
> 
> How many of us would vote to continue millions in military aid to Russia and Egypt?
> 
> How many of us would vote to continue most favored nation trading status for China?
> 
> How many of us would vote for a little more money devoted to roads and bridges here in the USA?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *That's exactly the point. *Many things that our Government does, it does with advance knowledge that the general public does not necessarily have.  They don't realize that there is a game going on behind the scenes, a sort of give and take, over all sorts of things.
> 
> Foreign aid is a drop in the bucket compared to our GDP, but we get a helluva lot more out of it than we put into it. We get: overfly rights, base rights in many countries outside of NATO, for example.  That foreign aid may be unpopular, but it is necessary. But the public doesn't see the payback, it takes it for granted that we get these things.
> 
> And what if an extremist wave hits the public and it decides to cut funding for all public schools, and wins that ballot initiative? What do we do then? Kill off our public teaching workforce?
> 
> There is a reason for why we have a representative Democracy and not a pure Democracy. Pure Democracy in Greece brought that small nation to a complete stillstand.
> 
> For extremely major issue, I could consider it, but for everything? No way.
Click to expand...


I have enough faith in the American people to believe that, if given the opportunity to voice their opinion on what percentage of the budget to devote to education, they'd choose wisely.

I also believe that if the American people had more of a voice in what government programs and policies were presented on the world stage, we wouldn't need to borrow so much money to pay off other countries with weapons and money.

With such a diverse population, I would imagine that 'voting' on budget priorities would allocate just the right mix between guns, butter and infrastructure.


----------



## Montrovant

AVG-JOE said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if there was just a web site where we could go to voice our opinion on which programs deserve funding...
> 
> How many of us would vote to continue millions in military aid to Russia and Egypt?
> 
> How many of us would vote to continue most favored nation trading status for China?
> 
> How many of us would vote for a little more money devoted to roads and bridges here in the USA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That's exactly the point. *Many things that our Government does, it does with advance knowledge that the general public does not necessarily have.  They don't realize that there is a game going on behind the scenes, a sort of give and take, over all sorts of things.
> 
> Foreign aid is a drop in the bucket compared to our GDP, but we get a helluva lot more out of it than we put into it. We get: overfly rights, base rights in many countries outside of NATO, for example.  That foreign aid may be unpopular, but it is necessary. But the public doesn't see the payback, it takes it for granted that we get these things.
> 
> And what if an extremist wave hits the public and it decides to cut funding for all public schools, and wins that ballot initiative? What do we do then? Kill off our public teaching workforce?
> 
> There is a reason for why we have a representative Democracy and not a pure Democracy. Pure Democracy in Greece brought that small nation to a complete stillstand.
> 
> For extremely major issue, I could consider it, but for everything? No way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have enough faith in the American people to believe that, if given the opportunity to voice their opinion on what percentage of the budget to devote to education, they'd choose wisely.
> 
> I also believe that if the American people had more of a voice in what government programs and policies were presented on the world stage, we wouldn't need to borrow so much money to pay off other countries with weapons and money.
> 
> With such a diverse population, I would imagine that 'voting' on budget priorities would allocate just the right mix between guns, butter and infrastructure.
Click to expand...


I think the average American can barely deal with their own finances, and does a fairly poor job at that.


----------



## BlackSand

Montrovant said:


> I think the average American can barely deal with their own finances, and does a fairly poor job at that.



We could always just vote ourselves a tax break and pay raise ... That is pretty popular and a serious political concern with a lot of people nowadays.

.


----------



## oldfart

You and the posters who have replied obviously have given this considerable thought and for that I commend you!  I have a couple of comments about the mechanics of implementing proposals such as this.  



Statistikhengst said:


> A computer, rather than the statehouses, would set the congressional district boundaries. Race, gender, age, social status and partisan breakdown would play no role in the drawing of congressional boundaries, but geographical obstacles would. For instance, if at all possible, a district would not be drawn with a mountain chain splitting it into two halves. Additionally, Gerrymandering would never ever happen again. And for this reason, the Census should be changed from a once in a decade occurence to always be set to be one year before a Presidential election year.



What you are talking about is a linear programming problem on the computational level.  I have had some experience in this area and suggest that the algorithms require certain input which can alter the eventual results, sometimes dramatically (Markov processes).  So you can randomize and minimize manipulation of the results, but I don't think you can completely eliminate them.  There remains an irreducible human element.  



Statistikhengst said:


> The reason why there are currently two Senators for all states is based on a compromise reached while writing the constitution so that the smaller states could feel that their interests were not being steamrolled by the larger states.



I agree that it would be desirable to introduce some scaling in the Senate, but that would require a convention to draft a replacement constitution, as the Amendment Clause in the original forbids any amendment that would deprive any state of its "equal representation in the Senate".  

This would not necessarily be a bad thing, as your bundle of reforms could be presented as a package for an up or down vote, rather than letting the states cherry pick among the proposed amendments.  

Finally, on other threads I have mentioned an additional problem with a new constitution; that we would have to decide if we were starting constitutional law from scratch or whether we were taking the body of Court opinions that define meanings and interpret nuances as applying to the new language.  Does "cruel and unusual punishment" have the same meaning, not to mention "interstate commerce"?  

Happy  hunting on the project; America desperately needs fresh thinking about what this document means and should mean as we go forward!


----------



## Statistikhengst

AVG-JOE said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if there was just a web site where we could go to voice our opinion on which programs deserve funding...
> 
> How many of us would vote to continue millions in military aid to Russia and Egypt?
> 
> How many of us would vote to continue most favored nation trading status for China?
> 
> How many of us would vote for a little more money devoted to roads and bridges here in the USA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That's exactly the point. *Many things that our Government does, it does with advance knowledge that the general public does not necessarily have.  They don't realize that there is a game going on behind the scenes, a sort of give and take, over all sorts of things.
> 
> Foreign aid is a drop in the bucket compared to our GDP, but we get a helluva lot more out of it than we put into it. We get: overfly rights, base rights in many countries outside of NATO, for example.  That foreign aid may be unpopular, but it is necessary. But the public doesn't see the payback, it takes it for granted that we get these things.
> 
> And what if an extremist wave hits the public and it decides to cut funding for all public schools, and wins that ballot initiative? What do we do then? Kill off our public teaching workforce?
> 
> There is a reason for why we have a representative Democracy and not a pure Democracy. Pure Democracy in Greece brought that small nation to a complete stillstand.
> 
> For extremely major issue, I could consider it, but for everything? No way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have enough faith in the American people to believe that, if given the opportunity to voice their opinion on what percentage of the budget to devote to education, they'd choose wisely.
> 
> I also believe that if the American people had more of a voice in what government programs and policies were presented on the world stage, we wouldn't need to borrow so much money to pay off other countries with weapons and money.
> 
> With such a diverse population, I would imagine that 'voting' on budget priorities would allocate just the right mix between guns, butter and infrastructure.
Click to expand...



Possibly, but not guaranteed.


----------



## Statistikhengst

oldfart said:


> You and the posters who have replied obviously have given this considerable thought and for that I commend you!  I have a couple of comments about the mechanics of implementing proposals such as this.
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> A computer, rather than the statehouses, would set the congressional district boundaries. Race, gender, age, social status and partisan breakdown would play no role in the drawing of congressional boundaries, but geographical obstacles would. For instance, if at all possible, a district would not be drawn with a mountain chain splitting it into two halves. Additionally, Gerrymandering would never ever happen again. And for this reason, the Census should be changed from a once in a decade occurence to always be set to be one year before a Presidential election year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are talking about is a linear programming problem on the computational level.  I have had some experience in this area and suggest that the algorithms require certain input which can alter the eventual results, sometimes dramatically (Markov processes).  So you can randomize and minimize manipulation of the results, but I don't think you can completely eliminate them.  *There remains an irreducible human element.*
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why there are currently two Senators for all states is based on a compromise reached while writing the constitution so that the smaller states could feel that their interests were not being steamrolled by the larger states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that it would be desirable to introduce some scaling in the Senate, but that would require a convention to draft a replacement constitution, as the Amendment Clause in the original forbids any amendment that would deprive any state of its "equal representation in the Senate".
> 
> This would not necessarily be a bad thing, *as your bundle of reforms could be presented as a package for an up or down vote*, rather than letting the states cherry pick among the proposed amendments.
> 
> Finally, on other threads I have mentioned an additional problem with a new constitution; that we would have to decide if we were starting constitutional law from scratch or whether we were taking the body of Court opinions that define meanings and interpret nuances as applying to the new language.  Does "cruel and unusual punishment" have the same meaning, not to mention "interstate commerce"?
> 
> Happy  hunting on the project; America desperately needs fresh thinking about what this document means and should mean as we go forward!
Click to expand...



first bolded: yes, but minimal.

second bolded: doesn't necessarily need to be my package, but it is like a jigsaw puzzle. You really cannot change one piece without changing the rest.

I am, in reality, a strong proponent of equality for small states, but the current imbalance is simply not acceptable. That is a key part of the pro/contra argumentation about all of this.

Or to put it a different way:

The state of California, if it could legally divide itself into six equally states in terms of population, then each one of those states would still be 10 times the size of Wyoming. That would be the ratio between Virginia and Delaware of 1800. And then the six "Californias-Lites"  if you will, would have 12 Senators instead of 2 for the present dreadnaught-class state.

Under my suggestion, California would just have 2.5 times more Senators than Wyoming.

The point being, even with an enhanced Senate of 160 + National Senators, the smallest states are STILL overrepresented, in the spirit of what the founding fathers wanted.

I would point out that Texas could also do this. In fact, technically, according to the terms of Annexation Treaty of 1844, Texas is the ONLY state in the Union with a firmly-anchored right to split itself into a total of five states, one of which would still have to be called Texas.  This is the part of the treaty that Rick Perry either deliberately misunderstood or simply did not want to understand when he made the false claim that Texas had a right to secede from the Union (he made those statements at the end of 2011).


-------------------------------------------------------------

And yes, I have put a lot of thought into all of this. And I am convinced more than ever that the root of our electoral problems lies with a structural deficit in the entire process of electioneering from the get-go, a deficit that needs to be mended.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Statistikhengst said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> *That's exactly the point. *Many things that our Government does, it does with advance knowledge that the general public does not necessarily have.  They don't realize that there is a game going on behind the scenes, a sort of give and take, over all sorts of things.
> 
> Foreign aid is a drop in the bucket compared to our GDP, but we get a helluva lot more out of it than we put into it. We get: overfly rights, base rights in many countries outside of NATO, for example.  That foreign aid may be unpopular, but it is necessary. But the public doesn't see the payback, it takes it for granted that we get these things.
> 
> And what if an extremist wave hits the public and it decides to cut funding for all public schools, and wins that ballot initiative? What do we do then? Kill off our public teaching workforce?
> 
> There is a reason for why we have a representative Democracy and not a pure Democracy. Pure Democracy in Greece brought that small nation to a complete stillstand.
> 
> For extremely major issue, I could consider it, but for everything? No way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have enough faith in the American people to believe that, if given the opportunity to voice their opinion on what percentage of the budget to devote to education, they'd choose wisely.
> 
> I also believe that if the American people had more of a voice in what government programs and policies were presented on the world stage, we wouldn't need to borrow so much money to pay off other countries with weapons and money.
> 
> With such a diverse population, I would imagine that 'voting' on budget priorities would allocate just the right mix between guns, butter and infrastructure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly, but not guaranteed.
Click to expand...



But statistically...  




`​


----------



## Statistikhengst

AVG-JOE said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have enough faith in the American people to believe that, if given the opportunity to voice their opinion on what percentage of the budget to devote to education, they'd choose wisely.
> 
> I also believe that if the American people had more of a voice in what government programs and policies were presented on the world stage, we wouldn't need to borrow so much money to pay off other countries with weapons and money.
> 
> With such a diverse population, I would imagine that 'voting' on budget priorities would allocate just the right mix between guns, butter and infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly, but not guaranteed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But statistically...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> `​
Click to expand...



haaaa!!!


Please be sitting down when I tell you this:


*42!!*


Ok, back to our regularly scheduled program:


Actually, I have no idea (statistically), no one has tried to measure it.  Gotta have some inches to make a yard, you know....

But just to assuage your synapses, I will bullshittify for the fun of it:

52.97% not guaranteed.

Now, you make the check out to...


----------



## Knightfall

Statistikhengst said:


> This thread is a project I have been working on for months, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Putting it out on USMB is a promise I made to    [MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION].
> 
> From the moment a US-Representative is sworn in, he or she is _already_ planning and fundraising for the NEXT election.  Huge PACS and Super-PACS are scrounging for money all year long. The media machine for all political parties is set to full-blast 24/7. Polling for the next presidential election started quite literally on the day after the last presidential election! *We are now living in a permanent election cycle that literally never ends. This is not healthy for us.*
> 
> Liberals complain that voter suppression is happening. Conservatives complain that there is voter fraud. Both sides have some very valid complaints. The last three presidential election have seen long-lines of people waiting to vote at polling places not equipped to handle that many people. Gerrymandering has literally made about 80% of the House of Representatives safe. And the list goes on and on.
> 
> In fact, it is just crazy.
> 
> In many ways, we have an electoral system that is designed for failure. That was surely not the intent of the founding fathers, but this is how it is working out and I think the time for some real common sense changes has come.
> 
> In this report, Conservatives, Moderates and Liberals are all going to find some things that they like and things that they don't like, but I ask of you to read all of it and digest it before commenting.
> 
> *My main contention is that there is a severe structural flaw in our system of electioneering*, namely, that very little of it is set in stone in the US Constitution. What was considered checks-and-balances has now become gridlock. And the rest, because of Federalism, is left up to the individual states to decide. And out of this, a hodge-podge patchwork of electioneering has evolved into a money making-monster.
> 
> So, I am a proposing a complete overhaul of our electoral system, but not an elimination of the Electoral College, as we like to call it. I am going to do this in four parts. Because of the length of this all, and to make it easier for you all to quote only one section, these four parts will be spread over postings 2-5 of this thread:
> 
> *I.   The Legislative* (posting no. 2)
> *II.  The Executive* (posting no. 3)
> *III. The Judicial *(posting no. 4)
> *IV.  Election rules and timelines* (posting no. 5)
> 
> Many of these things are things that Larry Sabato has also suggested in his book Toward a more Perfect Union, but many of them are also orginal ideas of mine.
> 
> The goal of all of this is to
> 
> a.) increase the amount of undisrupted time for governing between elections.
> b.) streamline the actual time frame of electioneering.
> c.) unify the rules for electioneering.
> d.) reduce the money chase.
> 
> I am not saying that this is the only way to do this, but I do think that much of what I suggest is worthy of real adult debate. As I already wrote, each person will probably find some things he likes and some things he doesn't like, and that is good, for such sparks intelligent debate. *Furthermore, I deliberately left out a lot of the reason for WHY I feel this way about many things. I did this to spur people to question or to come up with reasons themselves*.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> A friendly shout-out to *all* of these good people, from the Right, the Left and the Middle. I hope very much that you read all 5 opening postings and then comment. This could become one of the best discussions of the year.
> 
> [MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION]   [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]   [MENTION=40495]AngelsNDemons[/MENTION]   [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]   [MENTION=26011]Ernie S.[/MENTION]   [MENTION=9429]AVG-JOE[/MENTION] @Mad Cabbie   [MENTION=42649]Gracie[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]   [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION]   [MENTION=38281]Wolfsister77[/MENTION]   [MENTION=21679]william the wie[/MENTION]   [MENTION=23424]syrenn[/MENTION]   [MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION]   [MENTION=37250]aaronleland[/MENTION]  [MENTION=36767]Bloodrock44[/MENTION]   [MENTION=36528]cereal_killer[/MENTION]   [MENTION=40540]Connery[/MENTION]   [MENTION=30999]daws101[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION]   [MENTION=33449]BreezeWood[/MENTION]   [MENTION=31362]gallantwarrior[/MENTION]   [MENTION=24610]iamwhatiseem[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46750]Knightfall[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46690]Libertarianman[/MENTION]   [MENTION=1322]007[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20594]Mr Clean[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20704]Nosmo King[/MENTION]   [MENTION=43268]TemplarKormac[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION]   [MENTION=41494]RandallFlagg[/MENTION]   [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION] Samson   [MENTION=21357]SFC Ollie[/MENTION] @Sherri   [MENTION=43491]TooTall[/MENTION]   [MENTION=25451]tinydancer[/MENTION]   [MENTION=31918]Unkotare[/MENTION]   [MENTION=45104]WelfareQueen[/MENTION]   [MENTION=21524]oldfart[/MENTION]   [MENTION=42498]Esmeralda[/MENTION]   [MENTION=43888]AyeCantSeeYou[/MENTION]   [MENTION=19302]Montrovant[/MENTION]   [MENTION=11703]strollingbones[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18988]PixieStix[/MENTION]   [MENTION=23262]peach174[/MENTION]   [MENTION=13805]Againsheila[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20342]Ringel05[/MENTION]   [MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18905]Sherry[/MENTION]   [MENTION=29697]freedombecki[/MENTION]   [MENTION=22590]AquaAthena[/MENTION]   [MENTION=38146]Dajjal[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18645]Sarah G[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46193]Thx[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]   [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]   [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18990]Barb[/MENTION]   [MENTION=19867]G.T.[/MENTION]   [MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION]   [MENTION=11278]editec[/MENTION]   [MENTION=22983]Flopper[/MENTION]   [MENTION=22889]Matthew[/MENTION] [MENTION=46136]dreolin[/MENTION]



Bypassing your points and just living in fantasy land for a moment, I would love to see a politician stop campaigning. Seriously, what's the function in the modern world of doing all the typical stump speeches, visiting of the countrysides, town forums and even debates? All I want to know is, What do you believe, what's your voting record and are you honest? 

In theory, a candidate could let his views be known by writing up a detailed list of his views and posting them on a campaign website. When subsequent challenges to his position are made, he can address them in the same way. Voting records are free to find for anybody interested in looking, and watchdog groups could easily compile vital information. As far as the moral background, that's the medias job. 

Instead of this, we have politicians spending more time trying to keep their job than they do actually working their job. They go around the country to make speeches as if this is the only way we can find out who they are. It's just not necessary in the modern age. Many people seem to think we learn a lot from the debate cycles and constant scrutiny on the campaign trail, but it seems to me that we rarely get more than a series of gaffs the importance of which are usually negligible and will be embraced or ignored depending on whether you have previously decided that you like the given candidate. The whole electoral process does nothing but give the advantage to the guy who presents himself best, and unfortunately due to the severe amount of ignorant people in our society who spend no time paying attention to politics, the candidate with the better ability to spin usually comes out the victor. 

All that to say that in my perfect world, candidates give me a resume and then go back to doing their jobs. I'll let them know if they are hired on November 15th and until then they can go away. 

All right, now I'm going to read the posts. I'll be back.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Well I wasn't invited. But I will respond anyway.

All your points in all your areas require Constitutional amendments. What that means is unless you convince enough Representatives and Senators to recommend each of the specific Amendments and then get 37 States to agree to them you would end up with a mish mash, assuming any were ever even created at all, of your ideas.

And they all drastically change the procedures, term periods, election system and numerous other functions.

Reality is that you will never get the Congress to agree to any of these proposals and if somehow they were created as amendments then it is unlikely you would get 37 States to agree to all of them.

Sounds good, might even make sense, though I disagree with most of it. Reality is you will never see this even brought up in Congress.

Edit.... increasing the number of representatives does not require an amendment, Taking the control of their districts away from the States does.


----------



## BobPlumb

RetiredGySgt said:


> Well I wasn't invited. But I will respond anyway.
> 
> All your points in all your areas require Constitutional amendments. What that means is unless you convince enough Representatives and Senators to recommend each of the specific Amendments and then get 37 States to agree to them you would end up with a mish mash, assuming any were ever even created at all, of your ideas.
> 
> And they all drastically change the procedures, term periods, election system and numerous other functions.
> 
> Reality is that you will never get the Congress to agree to any of these proposals and if somehow they were created as amendments then it is unlikely you would get 37 States to agree to all of them.
> 
> Sounds good, might even make sense, though I disagree with most of it. Reality is you will never see this even brought up in Congress.
> 
> Edit.... increasing the number of representatives does not require an amendment, Taking the control of their districts away from the States does.



I've been thinking the same sort of thing about this thread.  However, I didn't want to be a party pooper for those that want to live in fantasy land.  This is too big of a hunk of meat to chew on.  It might be more realistic to consider small but doable reforms.


----------



## Shrimpbox

While there are many astute posts here some of this becomes theoretical navel gazing. There are too many assumptions that will never be true.

That the people voting in the democracy will be well educated and conscientious about making decisions. Our educational system will see that that will not happen. There are either no civic and history classes or ones so slanted that the impressionable don't stand a chance. Just one look at Jay Lenos man on the street interviews is enough to make one feel you should have to pass a test to be able to vote.

That elections will be fair and not fraudulent. Let's just take the last one although by no means are repubs not capable of corruption too. Obama lied repeatedly to the American people, used the power of his office to suppress opposition illegally, overstepped his constitutional bounds, and failed to have his administration and his appointees adhere to the laws of this country. So if someone, anyone, gets into office under false pretenses you want us to give him six years instead of four to wreak havoc on our country. Or let's say an unscrupulous candidate uses the NSA to find out and leak damaging private info about a opponent  and this info does not come out til after,the election? You are actually allowing for a more imperial presidency experience than we have now with six year terms, no thank you.

Put more of the election process in the hands of computers. That's rich. So some hackers call nullify the will of the people. And what if that isn't discovered til after the election? And of course we can trust the govt to create foolproof web sites. Anyone ever heard of Target?

Finally, when this country was founded the press was given the freedom to speak truth to power, any power. Today's press has abdicated their responsibility to be fair and objective and to keep the electorate informed and has instead become a propaganda organ of the state. If the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, citizens are now going to have to do more homework on their own to ferret out the truth ( here's to ya message boards) and quite frankly citizens today while they might have the tools to do this with are not taught how to think their way through problems, but are rather told what to think. This does not bode well for democracy and efforts to transfer more responsibility to democratic processes.

To improve the system we need mandatory history and civic education. No American should graduate from high school without a thorough understanding and present knowledge of our system. Secondly we need election laws that are as severe as those that protect life. Lastly we need a cultural seismic shift toward making our civic consciousness as important as our electronic consciousness.


----------



## Statistikhengst

RetiredGySgt said:


> Well I wasn't invited. But I will respond anyway.
> 
> All your points in all your areas require Constitutional amendments. What that means is unless you convince enough Representatives and Senators to recommend each of the specific Amendments and then get 37 States to agree to them you would end up with a mish mash, assuming any were ever even created at all, of your ideas.
> 
> And they all drastically change the procedures, term periods, election system and numerous other functions.
> 
> Reality is that you will never get the Congress to agree to any of these proposals and if somehow they were created as amendments then it is unlikely you would get 37 States to agree to all of them.
> 
> Sounds good, might even make sense, though I disagree with most of it. Reality is you will never see this even brought up in Congress.
> 
> Edit.... increasing the number of representatives does not require an amendment, Taking the control of their districts away from the States does.




 [MENTION=5176]RetiredGySgt[/MENTION]  -

You were only not invited because I do not know you yet. I also said in the OP that that mention list was just a partial list.

Yes, I am acutely aware that these sweeping changes would require at the least a constitutional amendment, and more likely than not, a constitutional convention.


BTW, your edit is correct. As a matter of fact, in 2008, House Republicans were pushing very hard to add an new representative for the state of Utah, were it to not get over the population marker in 2010 in order to jump to four CDS.

The OP is more than just going-dreaming. These are a lot of ideas I threw out and I also said many times over that this is not the only way, but rather, A way.

Thanks for stopping by. Hope to hear from you again.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Shrimpbox said:


> While there are many astute posts here some of this becomes theoretical navel gazing. There are too many assumptions that will never be true.
> 
> That the people voting in the democracy will be well educated and conscientious about making decisions. Our educational system will see that that will not happen. There are either no civic and history classes or ones so slanted that the impressionable don't stand a chance. Just one look at Jay Lenos man on the street interviews is enough to make one feel you should have to pass a test to be able to vote.
> 
> That elections will be fair and not fraudulent. Let's just take the last one although by no means are repubs not capable of corruption too. *Obama lied repeatedly to the American people, used the power of his office to suppress opposition illegally, overstepped his constitutional bounds, and failed to have his administration and his appointees adhere to the laws of this country. *So if someone, anyone, gets into office under false pretenses you want us to give him six years instead of four to wreak havoc on our country. Or let's say an unscrupulous candidate uses the NSA to find out and leak damaging private info about a opponent  and this info does not come out til after,the election? You are actually allowing for a more imperial presidency experience than we have now with six year terms, no thank you.
> 
> Put more of the election process in the hands of computers. That's rich. So some hackers call nullify the will of the people. And what if that isn't discovered til after the election? And of course we can trust the govt to create foolproof web sites. Anyone ever heard of Target?
> 
> Finally, when this country was founded the press was given the freedom to speak truth to power, any power. *Today's press has abdicated their responsibility to be fair and objective and to keep the electorate informed and has instead become a propaganda organ of the state.* If the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, citizens are now going to have to do more homework on their own to ferret out the truth ( here's to ya message boards) and quite frankly citizens today while they might have the tools to do this with are not taught how to think their way through problems, but are rather told what to think. This does not bode well for democracy and efforts to transfer more responsibility to democratic processes.
> 
> To improve the system we need mandatory history and civic education. No American should graduate from high school without a thorough understanding and present knowledge of our system. *Secondly we need election laws that are as severe as those that protect life*. Lastly we need a cultural seismic shift toward making our civic consciousness as important as our electronic consciousness.




The bolded: your opinion, which you are more than welcome to, but there is no evidence from you that even 1/10 of it is so. But that's ok, that is not what this thread is about. However, I will submit to you that it is not in our power to divine the reasons for why the voters voted. That is their choice and their right.

Obama won in 2012 with 51.01% of the NPV to Governor Romney's 47.15%, a +3.86% margin, larger than Bush's re-election margin in 2004, larger than Carter's 1976 win, larger than Nixon's 1968 win, larger than Kennedy's 1960. In fact, 2012, in not even in the list of the 10 closest races in our history.

In the electoral college, Obama won fair and square, 332-206. Even if you were to give every state that Obama won with less than a +5 margin (FL, VA, OH), Obama still would have won, 272-265.

A win is a win is a win is a win.

The second bolded: and yet, President Obama received far more negative press in 2012 than all of the GOP candidates, and every single on of them received more postive press.  Looks like that state-run organ didn't run as well as you thought.

I never said that computers should run elections. I said that a super computer should do the redistricting, based on three and only three very specific parameters. It's all in the OP.


The third bolded: what exactly do you mean?


Finally, you missed the entire point of the OP. It was about identifying an obvious structural flaw in our nation's method of electioneering (for the reasons clearly give in the OP) and suggestions as to how to fix them.


----------



## BlackSand

MarcATL said:


> I couldn't determine whether you're suggesting it's the POLITICIANS that are corrupted or that the SYSTEM ITSELF is corrupted.
> 
> The implications and solutions would vastly depending on which of them would be the case.
> 
> And I agree, just want to pinpoint which is the corrupted.



@MarcALT ... I have waited to see if anyone would address your question and concerns.
Personally ... I think the system is not near as corrupt as the people who abuse it ... And as you mentioned, the necessary adjustments would vary if we moved from treating symptoms to eliminating the root cause of the problems.

I haven't tackled it further because I didn't want to distract from the progress Stat was making at discussing the ideas he worked hard on and posted up.
I think that as long as we are stuck on trying to build a better mousetrap ... We don't get any further towards re-establishing the idea of personal responsibility and a reason to actually trust the electorate.

Again ... Not to take too much away from what Stat has provided ... I don't think we are in a better position now to select a path to take as a nation with the same respect towards enduring freedom and unlimited opportunity.
The Founders were not in total agreement ... And there were obvious issues they chose not to address in a forward manner ... But with the understanding that those issues were not paramount in establishing the Federal Government.
They put together what they thought would work and still protect their rights ... The fact it has carried us this far without more abuse is really amazing to me.

.


----------



## Statistikhengst

BlackSand said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't determine whether you're suggesting it's the POLITICIANS that are corrupted or that the SYSTEM ITSELF is corrupted.
> 
> The implications and solutions would vastly depending on which of them would be the case.
> 
> And I agree, just want to pinpoint which is the corrupted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @MarcALT ... I have waited to see if anyone would address your question and concerns.
> Personally ... I think the system is not near as corrupt as the people who abuse it ... And as you mentioned, the necessary adjustments would vary if we moved from treating symptoms to eliminating the root cause of the problems.
> 
> I haven't tackled it further because I didn't want to distract from the progress Stat was making at discussing the ideas he worked hard on and posted up.
> *I think that as long as we are stuck on trying to build a better mousetrap ... We don't get any further towards re-establishing the idea of personal responsibility and a reason to actually trust the electorate.*
> 
> Again ... Not to take too much away from what Stat has provided ... I don't think we are in a better position now to select a path to take as a nation with the same respect towards enduring freedom and unlimited opportunity.
> The Founders were not in total agreement ... And there were obvious issues they chose not to address in a forward manner ... But with the understanding that those issues were not paramount in establishing the Federal Government.
> They put together what they thought would work and still protect their rights ... *The fact it has carried us this far without more abuse is really amazing to me.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I concur with your, very strongly. More strongly than you can imagine.  A part of this equation is voter apathy that goes beyond simply not voting. It also means voters who have no earthly reason for whom or why they are voting.

Now, Jim Crow sucked. That is my very mild-mannered way of saying that Jim Crow was as racist and bigoted as they come, and a cursory look at some of the horsediddle put out there by a state like Louisiana proves the point very quickly.

However, just as getting a driver's license requires passing a driver's test, having to pass a simple civics-proficiency test in order to get a voter ID is an idea I would be willing to look at.

I know that that seems to go against was most think the Left is thinking, but I think that neither side wants a dumb electorate. Right now, as it stands, voting is an inalienable right. Well, you have to be 18 and a non-felon and such.  But making that statement, I am already pointing out that the right to vote already has some restrictions on it, either at the national or at the state level.

I do think that an average voter _should_ be able to name:

-the current president and the two before him (or her)
-correctly state the number of Senators, number of Representatives and number of Supreme Court justices.
-should actually know what the word "levy" means in terms of taxes.

---for staters-----


I am not saying that they need to be Einsteins. But at least the most basic of knowledge from Civics 101 should be in the system....

What say you?



second bolded: yes

but even the moment the ink was drying on the Constitution, 10 amendments were being printed...


----------



## BlackSand

Statistikhengst said:


> I concur with your, very strongly. More strongly than you can imagine.  A part of this equation is voter apathy that goes beyond simply not voting. It also means voters who have no earthly reason for whom or why they are voting.
> 
> Now, Jim Crow sucked. That is my very mild-mannered way of saying that Jim Crow was as racist and bigoted as they come, and a cursory look at some of the horsediddle put out there by a state like Louisiana proves the point very quickly.
> 
> However, just as getting a driver's license requires passing a driver's test, having to pass a simple civics-proficiency test in order to get a voter ID is an idea I would be willing to look at.
> 
> I know that that seems to go against was most think the Left is thinking, but I think that neither side wants a dumb electorate. Right now, as it stands, voting is an inalienable right. Well, you have to be 18 and a non-felon and such.  But making that statement, I am already pointing out that the right to vote already has some restrictions on it, either at the national or at the state level.
> 
> I do think that an average voter _should_ be able to name:
> 
> -the current president and the two before him (or her)
> -correctly state the number of Senators, number of Representatives and number of Supreme Court justices.
> -should actually know what the word "levy" means in terms of taxes.
> 
> ---for staters-----
> 
> 
> I am not saying that they need to be Einsteins. But at least the most basic of knowledge from Civics 101 should be in the system....
> 
> What say you?
> 
> 
> 
> second bolded: yes
> 
> but even the moment the ink was drying on the Constitution, 10 amendments were being printed...



The ability to test voters has been struck down by the Supreme Court and abolished in the Voter Rights Act.
It was the actions of some states across the South that required the voter to pass a test ... That then required the test to be abolished.
Again ... Treating the symptoms and not eliminating the problem made the overall problem worse ... And established precedence and legislation that forbids what you suggest.

That is exactly what I mean about attempting to fix problems by treating symptoms ... And the more power we give to the government in attempts to fix what is not their problem ... The greater you risk opening up the door to more abuse and compounding the problem.
That is specifically why they added the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution ... They all limit the powers of the Federal Government and what we allow it to do.

You are still stuck on debating Left or Right ... Which is a prime example of why things are screwed up so bad.
There is a difference in what one side wants or the other ... And telling people they should be better stewards of our country and become more responsible for their decisions and actions.

There were a lot of things that the Founders agreed were a problem ... But none of the Federal Government's business to start with.

.


----------



## Shrimpbox

Stat I am somewhat disappointed in your response to my post

First, when I spoke about fraudulent elections, I was not talking about vote counting I was speaking to the fact that Obama lied repeatedly to the American people and therefore the basis of many of the votes he received was fraudulent. Therefore if we adopted your suggestion of 6 year terms for a president who was elected on false pretenses( whether dem or repub) we would have to suffer an extra two years of the snake. 6 year terms was part of your op.

While you may not have spoken of increased involvement of computers in your op many of the posters did.

Saying that Obama got more negative press than the Romney is the most dishonest and disappointing part of your post
Winning the Media Campaign 2012 | Pew Research Center's Journalism Project

Your last question is easily answered. As with too much white collar crime, punishment is not strong enough to be a deterrent. Same with violations of election laws. Make the punishment so severe people will think twice before engaging in fraud or vote fixing.

I am not into the ubiquitous and unproductive pissing contests on so many of these threads. I still commend you on the mammoth effort you have put into this thread and we will just agree to disagree. I think our present system while imperfect is still the best and that the problem is not with the constitution but the culture. We have gotten the government we deserved.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Shrimpbox said:


> Stat I am somewhat disappointed in your response to my post
> 
> First, when I spoke about fraudulent elections, I was not talking about vote counting I was speaking to the fact that Obama lied repeatedly to the American people and therefore the basis of many of the votes he received was fraudulent. Therefore if we adopted your suggestion of 6 year terms for a president who was elected on false pretenses( whether dem or repub) we would have to suffer an extra two years of the snake. 6 year terms was part of your op.
> 
> While you may not have spoken of increased involvement of computers in your op many of the posters did.
> 
> Saying that Obama got more negative press than the Romney is the most dishonest and disappointing part of your post
> Winning the Media Campaign 2012 | Pew Research Center's Journalism Project
> 
> Your last question is easily answered. As with too much white collar crime, punishment is not strong enough to be a deterrent. Same with violations of election laws. Make the punishment so severe people will think twice before engaging in fraud or vote fixing.
> 
> I am not into the ubiquitous and unproductive pissing contests on so many of these threads. I still commend you on the mammoth effort you have put into this thread and we will just agree to disagree. I think our present system while imperfect is still the best and that the problem is not with the constitution but the culture. We have gotten the government we deserved.



Sorry I disappointed. A lot of points you make are based on emotion. I generally do not go there. You claim that Obama stole the election by lying (or making false promises) to people, but there is no way for you get get into all 129 million + heads of those who voted in 2012 to see what the mitigating factor was in their decision and so, for me, the point is moot.  I understand the point you are trying to make and I respect it, but I don't find it germaine to the ideas of the OP itself.

When you talk about punishment, are you hinting at the death penalty for voter fraud, what very little of it there is?

I am, however, thrilled that you stopped by more than once to give input.  That is always a welcome thing.


----------



## AVG-JOE

BobPlumb said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I wasn't invited. But I will respond anyway.
> 
> All your points in all your areas require Constitutional amendments. What that means is unless you convince enough Representatives and Senators to recommend each of the specific Amendments and then get 37 States to agree to them you would end up with a mish mash, assuming any were ever even created at all, of your ideas.
> 
> And they all drastically change the procedures, term periods, election system and numerous other functions.
> 
> Reality is that you will never get the Congress to agree to any of these proposals and if somehow they were created as amendments then it is unlikely you would get 37 States to agree to all of them.
> 
> Sounds good, might even make sense, though I disagree with most of it. Reality is you will never see this even brought up in Congress.
> 
> Edit.... increasing the number of representatives does not require an amendment, Taking the control of their districts away from the States does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been thinking the same sort of thing about this thread.  However, I didn't want to be a party pooper for those that want to live in fantasy land.  This is too big of a hunk of meat to chew on.  It might be more realistic to consider small but doable reforms.
Click to expand...


Fret not, boys... Every party at USMB has an open door and there's never a cover charge, no matter what list your on (or not).
​


----------



## Statistikhengst

AVG-JOE said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I wasn't invited. But I will respond anyway.
> 
> All your points in all your areas require Constitutional amendments. What that means is unless you convince enough Representatives and Senators to recommend each of the specific Amendments and then get 37 States to agree to them you would end up with a mish mash, assuming any were ever even created at all, of your ideas.
> 
> And they all drastically change the procedures, term periods, election system and numerous other functions.
> 
> Reality is that you will never get the Congress to agree to any of these proposals and if somehow they were created as amendments then it is unlikely you would get 37 States to agree to all of them.
> 
> Sounds good, might even make sense, though I disagree with most of it. Reality is you will never see this even brought up in Congress.
> 
> Edit.... increasing the number of representatives does not require an amendment, Taking the control of their districts away from the States does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been thinking the same sort of thing about this thread.  However, I didn't want to be a party pooper for those that want to live in fantasy land.  This is too big of a hunk of meat to chew on.  It might be more realistic to consider small but doable reforms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fret not, boys... Every party at USMB has an open door and there's never a cover charge, no matter what list your on (or not).
> ​
Click to expand...


----------



## MarcATL

gallantwarrior said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that making wholesale changes to the constitution is the right way to go.  Neither do I think that this is the fault of the voter.  Restricting access to the polls by elaborate ID measures answer a problem we do not have, namely voter fraud.
> 
> The problem as I see it is the money.  Money spent on ads and campaigns.  If contributions from individuals AND corporations was restricted to a three digit number, we could eliminate checkbook politics.
> 
> Perhaps it's the length of the campaign that makes the money so needed.  If we had one national day for primaries, in May perhaps, and a national moratorium on campaigning until early August, long drawn out budgets for media buys would dry up and take the cash with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I have to agree about the money spent on ads, sometimes a year or more in advance of an election.  I would suggest some election financing reforms.
> Only an individual may make a contribution.  Individual = a single identifiable person, no other "entities" may make contributions.  A contribution can only be made to the candidate running for office in the individual's geographic location.*  I.e.: If someone is running for mayor of Anchorage, AK, only residents of Anchorage, AK may make contributions.  If someone is running for state senator, only verified residents of that state may make contributions, and so forth...
> Advertising would be limited to a certain period prior to an election.  30 days, 60 days, something reasonable.  (Personally, I'm already sick of the 2014 elections.)
> Any candidate who starts ragging on what another candidate has done, rather than what they will do if elected, is penalized.  Maybe pull all their advertising and "sanction" them for a period of time.   (Again, I really don't care about some trumped up charge of animal abuse, or some similar bs.  I want to know what the candidate's ideas are, what their plans include, what they will do for us.)
> 
> Just a few thoughts to toss out there...
Click to expand...

This is why Citizen's United is absolutely THEE worse ruling in modern history.

Far RW judges run amok.

Have have paid, are paying, and will continue to pay for that dearly, until we're able to repeal that rancid ruling.


----------



## Statistikhengst

MarcATL said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that making wholesale changes to the constitution is the right way to go.  Neither do I think that this is the fault of the voter.  Restricting access to the polls by elaborate ID measures answer a problem we do not have, namely voter fraud.
> 
> The problem as I see it is the money.  Money spent on ads and campaigns.  If contributions from individuals AND corporations was restricted to a three digit number, we could eliminate checkbook politics.
> 
> Perhaps it's the length of the campaign that makes the money so needed.  If we had one national day for primaries, in May perhaps, and a national moratorium on campaigning until early August, long drawn out budgets for media buys would dry up and take the cash with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I have to agree about the money spent on ads, sometimes a year or more in advance of an election.  I would suggest some election financing reforms.
> Only an individual may make a contribution.  Individual = a single identifiable person, no other "entities" may make contributions.  A contribution can only be made to the candidate running for office in the individual's geographic location.*  I.e.: If someone is running for mayor of Anchorage, AK, only residents of Anchorage, AK may make contributions.  If someone is running for state senator, only verified residents of that state may make contributions, and so forth...
> Advertising would be limited to a certain period prior to an election.  30 days, 60 days, something reasonable.  (Personally, I'm already sick of the 2014 elections.)
> Any candidate who starts ragging on what another candidate has done, rather than what they will do if elected, is penalized.  Maybe pull all their advertising and "sanction" them for a period of time.   (Again, I really don't care about some trumped up charge of animal abuse, or some similar bs.  I want to know what the candidate's ideas are, what their plans include, what they will do for us.)
> 
> Just a few thoughts to toss out there...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why Citizen's United is absolutely THEE worse ruling in modern history.
> 
> Far RW judges run amok.
> 
> Have have paid, are paying, and will continue to pay for that dearly, until we're able to repeal that rancid ruling.
Click to expand...


Yes. I concur.


----------



## Knightfall

As others have said, it's clear that you spent some serious time into putting this together, and I respect your work. It just so happens that I've been reading The Federalist Papers recently, so your post served as a wonderful opportunity to mentally contrast the reasoning of the Founders for their structure of the government with your proposals for altering the structure of the government and then taking the time to write my opinions on the matter. As a mental exercise, it worked out rather perfectly.

I wrote thoughts out as I went, and the process took many different sessions and on multiple devices. I tried to combine all my notes in a sensible way, but if I say something redundant or otherwise off, it's probably because of that.

*Increasing the House Representatives*

The Founders spoke about the issue of representation in depth, and if you haven't read the Federalist Papers recently, it might be worth rereading in regards to this and many other aspects of your proposal. Most of their comments on House Representations was covered in 55 and 56. To sum up their view, representation needs to strike a balance; on one hand, it needs to be populous enough to represent the diverse kinds of people in the United States, but it does not need to be so massive as to become a mob. In the Foundners view, the larger the body, the more prone it is to be illogical and rely on mere passion rather than reason, a quality that is easily observable even in small groups of people. Furthermore, they cautioned that large groups could often be steered with just a few impassioned speakers. That being said, they admitted that there is no real formula for dictating the perfect number. They used the states as the basis for their starting points, (the largest of which I believe had a few hundred delegates for the state legislature, but I could be wrong on that point) and from the federal representatives low starting point, they expected over the next fifty years or so that their numbers could reach a level of three or four hundred. We cannot know whether they envisioned the United States ever becoming as large as it currently is, but it's clear they left the structure open to be adjusted as needed.

To me, it does seem ridiculous to have such a disproportionate ratio between the representatives and the represented. I'd be willing to consider increasing the number, but I'm a bit cautious on the point.

*Computer Readjusts Districts*

On redrawing the borders for districts, I'm all for this in theory. Politicians have clearly gerrymandered the crap out of many districts. Some of the district outlines look like snakes drawn just right to incorporate all the desired political affiliates. The question is how to do we reset the districts. The idea of a computer sorting out the problem sounds good because the cold, hard calculations of a machine should not be swayed by any political considerations, but this advantage is called into question as soon as you recall that a computer is only as good as its programmer, and you've got to know that the political parties would be desperate to get an operative in on the project. I'm not sure how difficult such a project would be or what parameters would be needed to establish a system. It seems it should be doable by the processes you mentioned, and hopefully any abuses put into the programming by one side would be noticed and called out by the other, but I would not be surprised if, like one of the other posters in this thread mentioned, a little variation in the computing formula could make a world of difference in the final outcome. I'm down for being cautiously interested in this proposal as well.

*Territories Have the Right to Vote.*

Regarding giving territories a vote, I'm not very informed on the nature of territories.. It seems to me that our possession of them is a problem in and of itself since we, if I understand things correctly, have a people under our nation's control which have no voting representation in the government. I'm inclined to say they should become their own independent nation, but perhaps there are some major considerations which make that impossible. If anybody wants to fill me in on relevant facts regarding territories, I'm all ears. Regardless, this point comes down to the classic pairing of rights and responsibilities as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe a territory should have a right to vote unless it has all the qualifications and responsibilities of being a state.

*Extension of Representative Terms and Term Limits*

I'm curious why you felt the need to increase the Representative terms to three years. My best guess is this is to get them to spend less time campaigning and more time working, and in that, it might be successful, but Senators, even with six year terms, still campaign (and by campaigning, I mean fundraising since the two are so intertwined to be more or less the same thing) almost constantly, so I suspect the longer term will not effect the Representatives campaigning either.

On the other hand, extending the Representatives terms will keep them in their positions of power for longer without a reckoning with the voters or opportunity to change the guards. I would like to see things go the opposite way with the political establishment being broken up and having less time to be entrapped by the political elites and indebted to lobbies. The House was designed to be the more populist and mutable branch of the legislature. I say we keep them on their toes and be ready to replace them as soon as the political winds shift.

You support a term limit of ten years which I think is a step in the right direction, but I would prefer a limit set at three terms of two years. In theory, I'd really like to see them exchanged every term. The typical argument against this is that politicians needs some time in Washington to become accustomed to the climate and to learn the political games. To that I would respond that if someone trained and prepared for his career in office who has numerous aides to assist cannot decipher a particular piece of legislation in order to decide to either support or oppose it, then that particular piece of legislation is obviously too convoluted to deserve any consideration in the first place, and on the flip side, to continue to send people to Washington who are experts in playing elitist games with the law of the land and which propose legislation which is so complex as to constantly hide its actual meaning is not doing the country any favors. Still, I admit that some kind of consistency is needed from year to year, and to have the entire House start from scratch every two years would be a problem, so I'd settle for a term limit of three two-year terms. This would force the voters to keep fresh blood in office who would hopefully have less time to become accustomed to power and therefore corrupted. It would also have the benefit of forcing politicians to work in the real world (or something closer to it) rather than dwelling indefinitely in the gilded halls of Congress.

*Tickets*

I don't mind voting for candidates on a ticket with a vice-candidate on board.

*Senate Adjustment*

You're idea to make the Senate representation reflect the population of the States does not track with me at all. The Senate was always intended to be an equal representation of the states, and the fact that the ratio of large state to small state population has increased over time does nothing to change the fundamental foundation of the Senate nor the intent of its construction. If the Founding Fathers had been looking for proportionate representation in the upper house on Congress, the ten to one ratio would have certainly been enough incentive, and contrary to what you have said, the Founding Fathers very much foresaw the growth of the population. We would have to believe they were guilty of a very large oversight if they were somehow able to craft such a world altering document which took into account hundreds of precautions against tyranny and yet somehow failed to consider that states might grow at different rates.

I've always found the equality between the states in the Senate and the equality of the people in the House to be one of the most impressive of the Founder's accomplishments. Finding a way to ensure that the States still had significant power while allowing the people to directly shape the federal makeup was an inspired choice. I've become even more fascinated and impressed by the Founders construction of the Constitution as I've been reading through The Federalist Papers. People always talk about the division of powers between the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches and how ingenious that was, but I've grown to see that the Constitution was actually balancing six different groups, the Executive, Judicial, House, Senate, States and People. All six of these groups have their own interest, power and prerogative, and each is therefore inclined to keep others from rocking the boat too dramatically. The Senate was meant to be just one more check in this system.

Furthermore, the high standard which the Senate needs to pass legislation is no accident. The Founding Fathers did not want laws to be changed easily. If a law was to be passed, then it needed to have a high degree of support, and if it did not, then the two houses and the executive would have to try and compromise. This is how it was intended. The Founding Fathers realized that there could be some harm done by setting a high standard for laws to be passed, but there was a much greater risk to be seen in laws being passed to freely. I think our current situation shows this to be true. Out of the problems our nations face today, I'd say nine out of ten stem from bad laws rather than a lack of laws. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers also spoke specifically that the Senate was suppose to be safeguard against flip flopping laws in order to add stability to the government. If congress frequently reversed it's decisions, this would lead to discontent and instability domestically and abroad.

As previously mentioned, the original disparity between the states would have been sufficient motivation for the Founding Fathers to have based Senate representation on a scale if that was their wish, but since the Founding Fathers were clearly against the idea, you would have to either establish that the situation in the nation has changed over time as to necessitate that the states should become less powerful or you would have to establish that the Founding Fathers were originally wrong in their idea of equality between the States in the Senate for your idea of changing the Senate structure is to be considered. No one could argue with a straight face that State power has increased since the days of the Founding Fathers; by all accounts, it has diminished, so the only way that you could reasonably make the case against the ending of State equality in the Senate is to show that the Founding Fathers were wrong in their original construction of the Constitution.

The Federalist Papers 62 and 63 make these points in what is no doubt a much more eloquent manner than what I am doing.

On a tangent, the recently employed nuclear option does away with much of the difficulty of getting things passed in the Senate, correct? I realize this does not negate your concerns since there still is an imbalance if you want representation based on population, but I'd like to take this moment to ask for clarification on this issue from anybody knowledgeable. I've heard partisans from both side say the nuclear option is legal, and I've looked into it briefly, and I can't see how it makes any sense. Can someone shed some light on it for me?

*Term Extensions and Term Limits on the Senate*

As much as I feel the suggestion to make the Senate more proportionate to population is a bad one, I can at least understand the motives, but I'm rather in the dark as to why you want to change the Senate elections from their current two-year rotation cycle. With term limits, it seems you are trying to remove all established bulwarks of power to keep the legislative dinosaurs who have been in the Senate forever, Reid and McCain for instance, from having control of the Senate, and I can see how the term limits would help with this, but I don't see any benefit of having officers elected at once. It would seem only to create a slightly more difficult adjustment period every six years as half the Senators would be new, and quite frankly, I don't that dramatic of a change in the Senate. I would be willing to see House Representatives dropped from office more quickly since they are supposed to be the more mutable and populous branch, but the Senators were designed to be the more stable of representatives in the two houses of Congress. The reason they were given longer terms was so that they could add consistency to the government and curb the House's more changeable nature. The Founding Fathers made it pretty clear, again in the Federalist Papers, that a longer term vision was needed to carry out long term legislative goals, and that guidance would come from the Senate. This is especially necessary in regards to foreign relations where the Senate has a specific role to advise and consent on treaties. The Senators were supposed to be the secondary face, after the President, of the Union which presented a specific policy towards other nations. In the scheme of international relations, six years is a very short time for a massive change of demeanor of a foreign nation. Can you imagine the shock to say, the Middle East if we went from a Senate full of doves to a Senate full of hawks overnight as half the Senate changed. A two-year change could also alter in the same amount of time, but it's more incremental nature would offer the much needed stability to all interested parties. No, I'm definitely not for getting rid of the staggered election of Senators, but I would be for term limits you mentioned. Two terms of six-years would seem to strike the right balance between making the Senate stable yet curbing entrenched power.

*Senate Ticket*

Again, I'm fine with making Senate races a ticket instead of individual matter.

*National Senators*

The idea of National Senators also befuddled me since I can't possibly see the interest in it. The legacy of the Bush and Clinton families are already smacking too much of an oligarchy for my tastes. Why would we want to expand this trend? It's not as if former Presidents would be less likely to engage in partisanship. On the contrary, the effects of saying, "What do you think about President Obama's stance on the withdraw from Iraq, President Bush?" would be likely to enflame partisanship to an incalculable amount. We already have had trouble with Americans saying, "That's not my President," with the last two Presidents. How much worse would it be when you see the last President you liked still holding major sway over the affairs of the nation and opposing the current administration? I have no doubt this would lead to a severe lack of national unity. Furthermore, most Americans have little respect for former Presidents' abilities by the time they leave office. I think Clinton and Reagan are the only Presidents in the last thirty years who stepped down to the mass public regret. In the case of Reagan, he has become nearly a God-like figure to the right who never falter to make supplications in his name every election year, and this is an unhelpful precedent in my view which is not worth encouraging. I guess you could make the case for Clinton being one of the two experienced President whose insight the American people would enjoy, but he can give advice from the sidelines. I don't see any reason to alter the Constitution in order to create a system that will add even more prestige and long lasting power to the Presidential elite who already hold a huge amount of power both during their term and after it nor can I see how this policy change would accomplish any of your goals.

The Vice-Presidents would appear to bring nothing to the table since their offices are nearly meaningless in practical terms. They are "useful" for playing politics occasionally, but Senators, in general, do not lack skill in the art of political shenanigans.

All of this overlooks one of the most basic objection that can be made on this point. These would be lifetime appointments to the legislature which would be subject to no revision by the citizens. All other legislators are subject to reelection. Why should the people be deprived of the right to vote here since the legislators are supposed to be the reflect the will of the people and the states? The only position anywhere in the Federal government which has lifetime appointments is the Supreme Court, and judges get that honor, in part, because they have the least amount of power and can, if doing their job properly, cannot harm the rights of citizens in any way.

Finally to this point, National Senators could already easily exist. If the former Presidents and Vice-Presidents wanted to continue serving as Senators and the citizens wanted to see them serve in this capacity, then the Presidents and Vice-Presidents could run and the people could elect them. To my knowledge, there is nothing stopping them.

*Extending Presidential Term to Six Years*

Though extending the Presidential term to six years would obviously decrease campaigning time, it would have an even greater negative effect of decreasing the ability of the people to replace an errant President. Less campaigning in exchange for less chance to control the Executive is a bad trade in my book. I'm not sure the basic fundamentals assumptions that underlie the attempt to get the President to stay off the trail are even true. It assumes that a lack of official campaigning will keep a President more engaged in the affairs in the Executive, but President Obama has been operating in a constant state of quasi-campaigning by spending a large amount of his time making speeches and touring the country. This is his right, and it is somewhat in keeping with his Constitutional right to propose legislation and the associated privilege of pushing for his agenda with his bully pulpit, but in actually looking at the responsibilities of President, this is only a very small part of his designated role. To be fair to President Obama, he can do a good job of fulfilling his role while in this mode because of the interconnected nature of the world these days and the fact that executive officers of the various executive departments pretty much do the day to day work without him, and the President's only real role is in making sure they do theirs. All this to say that it would be ideal if the Chief Executive of the United States would spend more time in the Oval Office to give his job his full attention, but it's not a huge deal if he runs the nation while on the road. There is time for both. Furthermore, the lack of open campaigning does not match the loss of an opportunity to remove from office a poorly performing President.

*Repealing the Natural Born Citizen Provision of the Constitution*

 In a nation as vast as the United States, there is no reason we cannot find a qualified natural born citizen to hold the nation's highest office, so I don't see any reason to appeal this aspect of the Constitution. On the other hand, there are reasons to oppose a foreign born American citizen from holding the highest office in the land. Even the best intentioned naturalized citizen would be bound to have divided loyalties when looking at world affairs, and though it may be less likely now than it was in the 1780's, it is still not out of the question that a foreign born citizen with evil intent might take office. It's certainly plausible that such a person with a suave persona could get elected considering the American Idol aspect of today's political scene.

*Presidential Flip-Ticket*

You mention the Presidential flip-ticket idea as if it is new, but is there anything preventing that from happening now? I don't know that I have a problem with it necessarily, but it does remind me of Putin's stepping down from the Presidency to run things through a surrogate between 08 and 12.

*Regulating State Elections*

There is absolutely no reason for the federal to mandate the state election processes for governors. It's does not concern the federal government at all.

*National Senator Votes and Electronic Votes for President*

With the ex-president and ex-vice president votes, the right of the citizens to vote is subverted. The extra electronic votes does the same thing. going to the popular vote is about the third time you've made provisions for the system to be based more on the popular vote. If it is still possible for the popular vote to lose under this system, then I am certain the extra electoral college votes on the side of the popular election would not stop people from complaining and would in fact likely throw fuel on the fire by allowing people to say that the new system still doesn't go far enough. Once you took one step towards making it closer to a purely popularity based vote, it would be hard to objectively argue a stopping point since the scale is arbitrarily designed. I understand it is still based on population, but why not give ten votes to the largest states instead of six? Once the equality of the states in the Senate is abolished, it's all arbitrary.

*Confidence Vote*

The idea of doing a confidence vote in he fifth year only makes things worse.

For starters, you suggest that a failing confidence vote would encourage unpopular Presidents to drop out, but I suggest that it would never dissuade anybody from running for reelection. Administrations already know if they have a good chance of winning a year out because of polling. Making it a nationally mandated poll will not change the President's hopes that he will be able to turn around a negative spread. In addition, this would just move the campaign season in advance of the confidence vote. Sure, campaigning at this point would be illegal, but it would not stop the quasi campaigning of talking heads, the technically non-endorsing political ads, backroom deals for those in the media or able to influence the media, the President and his party's constant aggrandizement of his accomplishment and the corresponding push back from the opposing party and the constant attention of the administration to the deadline. You might not have official campaigning groups, (though to ban them would be another abridgement of freedom of speech) but in essence you would have just moved the election cycle up a year, and if the Confidence vote failed, you would have basically doubled the time spent in active campaigning.

*Confidence Vote Keeps All Senators and Governors in Office*

Making senators and governors contingent on the Presidential election is a completely confounding proposal. Sure, it would cut down on campaigning, but it would do so at the expense of the fundamental right of citizens to vote on their representatives, and that's hardly a worthy trade. It's also ridiculous to act as if support for one aspect of government should serve as an indication of happiness with the entirety of government. This is such a self-evident principle that it should need no further remark, but I'll entertain one just for fun. You might love President Obama but hate your abortion blocking governor, and support for the former should never be taken as approval for the latter. Also, it would seem to me that this would likely cause an alliance among the President, Senate and governorships. Whereas we now have at least some confidence that one group will object when another group starts to exceed its rightful authority, the possibility of a senator, President or governor solidifying his or her position by keeping quiet would be a strong incentive to let abuses slide for the purpose of self-aggrandizement.

*Longer Terms and Flip-Ticket Potential Will Increase Attention to Presidential Elections*

You suggest that the longer terms and flip-ticket potential will encourage people to pay better attention to the people on the ticket, but people who fail to take seriously the election of the most powerful person in the country for a four-year term have already shown themselves to be woefully irresponsible voters and will be no more moved to grow a sense of civic responsibility by a six-year term. The possibility of a Vice President flip flop is even more irrelevant. As things are now, a Vice President could become the President at any moment. Under your proposal, the Vice President would still have to run for office to get the seat in the Oval Office. If the politically uniformed don't pay attention now, thy won't pay attention under the proposed system.

*Judicial Appointments by Popular Vote*

The judicial appointments are supposed to be apolitical appointments and are not be voted on.

The idea behind the judiciary is simple. The court is supposed to rule whether something is legal or not. Politics in the legislature and executive play major roles because it determines what laws are made and how laws are implemented. The judiciary should not be concerned in what should be but simply what is. It has nothing to do with the popular opinion or what the people want. If the people want to change the law or its execution, they can vote to fill up the other two branches with people who will affect those changes, but the judiciary is above that.

It should also be noted that this just creates another election through which votes can be bought and corruption can be seeded. Making judges elected position will just set up the typical Republican/Democrat rivalries that we always see with every other election. This creates another circus, and ensures, at best, that judges will be elected into office because of their loyalty to the public whims and not their loyalist to the law. At worst, someone with agenda could easily win hearts by tickling peoples ears.

*The Supreme Court Judges Should Be Expanded to Fifteen*

The judiciary's job is very simple in purpose if not implementation. As it is only needed to say what is, there should be a simple black and white in each case, but since laws will inevitably clash and the intent is sometimes obscured, there is room for interpretation. For this reason, the Founders established five different judges to fill the seat to give a chance for the majority of understanding of the law to prevail and to make corruption of the vote a bit more difficult. Since an objective interpretation of the law is not dependent on your location in the country or your specific interests as an individual or state, there need be no mass representation from across the nation as there is with the House and Senate. I saw we go back to the original five Supreme Court judges as there would still be had FDR and his Congress not subverted the original intent of the system.

*Alternate Supreme Court Justices*

I do like the idea of alternates. I'd be willing to consider this further.

*Lifetime Appointment of Judges*

I see no reason that the lifetime appointment of judges should be ended.

Judges were meant to be long term offices to add stability to the government. By keeping the Supreme Court stable, you decreased the possibility of frequent law reinterpreting which would disrupt the firmness of the government. Long term appointment also decreases loyalty to a certain group or individual If they were elected by a specific group, then they were likely to continue being loyal to that group for long periods. Under the life-time appointments, the person most directly involved with your appointment, the President, would be gone within, at the very most, eight years. If the Supreme Court became an elective issue, the political parties would be the strongest agent in getting a judge appointed, and that ever-present obligation would never diminish. The duration of the judiciary appointments was also a psychological rebuff against the advances of the executive and legislative on the jurisdiction of the judiciary. Since the judiciary is the weakest of the branches, the Founding Fathers felt it would be advantageous to increase their stature by giving them a limitless duration in office...presuming good behavior.

*The Process of Popularly Electing Judges*

The process for voting for judges also makes no sense to me. At first glance, it would appear to be a nerfing of the powers of the political elites to appoint judges, but in reality, it is just the opposite. Currently, the power to appoint and confirm judges is rightfully in the hands of the executive and legislature respectively. As things are, the President and the Senate vet one candidate at a time in a public manner that gives citizens plenty of time to get aquainted with the appointees. By speaking out in general and calling their senators specifically, citizens can currently have a significant effect on the approval of judicial nominees.

In your scenario, no greater power is truly going to the citizens. Though they are able to vote, the list of possible candidates has already been selected for them, so in reality, the political elites are still calling the shots. In essence, the vetting process is done by the same people. The critical difference is that rather than being able to look at one candidate at a time, the citizen would have to choose between sixty. What a laughably oppressive and daunting task. We can't get most Americans to pay attention to the President's statements and history which are much more easily understood and infinitely more promulgated than the cases and lives of any judge. How can you possibly expect the citizens to vote intelligently between sixty people at once? To learn the details of the history of each of these people would require each citizen to drop their day to day lives and spend countless hours researching judges. Even as someone more familiar with politics that a significant portion of American citizens, I cannot imagine how I could accomplish the task without ending my day to day concerns.Of course, it's a trivial exploration of the proposal anyway because a thorough investigation of the candidates would never actually happen by citizens in this scenario. In reality, people, daunted at the prospect of such a vote, would be moved by talking heads, campaign ads, and political affiliations because it would be impossible to actually get to know that many candidates, and of course, the confusion and inability of the voter to understand the issues gives the special interest, political parties and various other political elites the exact opportunity they need to shape the nation.

And again it must be asked, for what purpose are all these changes made? It is not as if the current system of choosing Supreme Court Judges has led to any scandals. I would argue that the alteration of understanding of how the Constitution functions has led to Supreme Court Justices making poor decisions, but nobody can say that the citizens never had a chance to know and, through their Senators, affect the appointment of Supreme Court Justices.

*Primaries Should Be Held at Times Appointed by the Federal Government*

Primaries are held by non-governmental organizations, and the United States government has no purview over how political parties conduct their affairs nor should the federal government ever have control over the internal operation of political parties for this would be a precedent which could easily lead to an end game power play for whatever political party currently in power if they could manage the operations of the opposing parties.

Dividing primaries up by region does sound nice just for the fact that the current arrangement seems so random, but they are private operations free to operate as their organizers prefer, and more importantly to the discussion, the reforms you suggest on this point make no difference. What does it matter if a party does not know which areas to target until closer to Election Day? This just means that a greater amount of money will be spent in a shorter amount of time. What does it matter if money is spent on a few states instead of one state at a time? This might make things more hectic, but it does not diminish the role of he parties and special interest groups.

*Fundraising Times Should be Carefully Controlled*

As a principle, I believe people should be free to give to whatever party they choose at whatever time they choose, and I don't see any justification for limiting someone's freedom in this way, but assuming candidates are only allowed to raise money in August, what difference would it make? Currently, politicians schmooze with the elite in exchange for cash. Presumably, there are implied or implicit promises to serve the donators cause at these moments. If fund raising were delayed until the last minute, then all the deals and schmoozing would be done up front and the money would be given later. If this would make any difference at all, I can only imagine it would be negligible.

Furthermore, it wouldn't stop the donors from going to the Pacs which would already be collecting money year round. Nor would it stop people from giving money to parties which frequently give massive amounts of cash to their politicians. If anything, the inability to raise money as an individual would just empower these groups be making the individual candidates more dependent on these systems, and without the advantages of a big party, third party candidates would be pushed even more to the side. 

There's also the tiny issue that any attempt to regulate what people can say to promote themselves or their candidates is a violation of freedom of speech and I would hope that it would be dismissed for that reason.

*Voter ID*

Unless there is some big problem that I've missed, voter ID is a great proposal. I personally find it embarrassing that we don't already have it. It doesn't need to be a brand new system; use of driver's licenses or any other state or federally provided picture ID would work just as well.

*Automatic Voter Registration*

I don't see the advantage of automatic voter registration. That seems to be based on the presumption that the country would be better off if everybody voted which is a presumption I hardily reject. If someone is too stupid or too lazy to register to vote, then we gain nothing by adding them to the political masses which are already uninformed as a whole. Those who are already so disinterested in politics that they would not take the initiative to register are likely to be swayed by the first argument they hear which makes them exactly the kind of pawns which the special interests groups and parties can easily manipulate through campaign ads. The only counter I can imagine for these points is the hope that people will become more engaged citizens simply by being given easier access to their voting rights. Though I'll admit this might encourage a few to become more honorable citizens, I liken it to giving somebody who had no interest or training with firearms a shotgun in the hopes that they will become an avid and responsible defender of gun rights. It could help in some situations, but it's more likely to cause trouble with someone who has no idea how to use it and has shown no previous interest in learning more. Some might find that too extreme a comparison, but I'd argue that the only difference between the two scenarios is in the amount of time that the likely devastating effect would take place.

*Voting Stations*

It does seem like voting stations should be easy to figure out. I'm not sure what the difficulty is in that situation. It seems so simple a problem, if it truly is a problem, that the only explanation for it is voter suppression or massive government incompetence. I'd need more info before taking an informed stance.

*Electors Must Vote As Citizens Choose*

I have to say that I never understood the Founding Fathers reasoning for selecting separate electors for the presidential election. It seems to me that either a direct election or an election by the legislature would be a better route. Once we went to, more or less, a direct vote system, the use of electors has become completely superfluous with the added disadvantage that electors could theoretically go their own way and disrupt the generally accepted process. As long as citizens vote for president, I say we just cut out the middle man. If anybody can explain to me either the advantages of electors in the original system, current system or the new proposal in this regard, I'd like to hear them.

*Various Other Election Rules*

I don't understand why exiting polls needs to be mandated or regulated, and the same goes with the announcement of winners. Also, restricting what the media can say on these manners is a clear violation of freedom of the press.

The automatic recount for federal elections seems reasonable. The federal government has no business regulating stage elections though.

I have no problem with the rules on final canvasses of political elections.

Conclusions:

*1. Most of your suggestions complicate the government rather than simplify the current system.* Making Senators based on population but not completely? More complicated. Making citizens have to vote for Supreme Court Justices? More complicated. Adding permanent National Senators? More complicated. Passing at least a half dozen rules on what private organizations can say and when? More complicated. Ideally, the government operations and compliance to the law should be easier to understand rather than more complicated.

*2. Elections are one of the few things that get the Average Joe to pay attention to politics.* For this reason, among the many others I mentioned, longer terms should generally be avoided.

*3. Cramming campaigns into a shorter amount of time does not necessarily decrease the amount of money given nor does it decrease the effects of PAC's and parties. *If people can only give in a small window of time, that does not necessitate that the giving will be less, and since private givers are banned from giving until August yet PACs and parties are free to give since January, that will increase their power. Also, fundraising through these organizations can go on constantly for the general PACs and Party funds, and those funds will just be transferred as needed to the politician as soon as it is allowed, so again, this empowers the Pacs and Parties.

*4. If you want a more populace control of government, go for it.* A few of your points seemed interested in making things more directly tied to the votes of the people, yet for some reason, you do not just say that you want the Senate and the Presidency decided by a popular vote. In the case of both issues, you either believe the states should have an equal representation in the Senate, or you don't. If you believe the legislative branch should be a compromise between the popular vote and the equality of states, then that is what you already have in the houses of the Legislature. If you are doing anything other than equality or based on population for those Senate seats/votes, then you are making an arbitrary rule which is hard to justify as either inferior or superior to any other non-even and non-population based measure of the Senate seats/votes, and with the addition of National and Electronic Senator votes, the difference between the popular vote and the electoral vote which was already small in most cases must be miniscule at this point, so why not just commit?

Not that I'm with you on it. I think the equality of the states is an excellent and integral part of the Constitution, and I think the higher bar set in the Senate is an excellent precaution against making the government too mutable for its own good.

*5. Many laws do not equate to good laws.* A lot of your work seems focused on unclogging the legislature, but the multiplication of laws equals the division of liberties. There should be laws passed, of course, but laws, especially on the federal level, should be an establishment or perfection of tried and true principles rather than a constant experiment to see if every problem can be solved by government intervention, and for all the complaints of a immovable legislature, I experienced not one inconvenience due to a lack of legislation this year and experience quite a few significant problems due to the law.

To expand on the topic more eloquently, I'll turn to the Federalist Papers #73 with regard to the higher standard of approval needed for the Senate.  

"It may perhaps be said that the power of preventing bad laws includes that of preventing good ones; and may be used to the one purpose as well as to the other. But this objection will have little weight with those who can properly estimate the mischiefs of that inconstancy and mutability in the laws, which form the greatest blemish in the character and genius of our governments. They will consider every institution calculated to restrain the excess of law-making, and to keep things in the same state in which they happen to be at any given period, as much more likely to do good than harm; because it is favorable to greater stability in the system of legislation. The injury which may possibly be done by defeating a few good laws, will be amply compensated by the advantage of preventing a number of bad ones."


*6. Politicians can be corrupted while in office not just when running for office.* Out of all the strange assumptions you seem to make in the plan, this seems to be the biggest. Many of your suggestions attempt to fix the problem of PAC and political corruption by making elections less frequent, but corruption can come at any time. As mentioned a couple of times already, promises can be made while in a position that will not see financial compensation until the next election cycle. More than this, promises can be made during the tenure of office that might be rewarded when outside of office in a completely untraceable way. Dirt on politicians can also be used to blackmail someone to do something you wish by Parties or PACs or private individuals. Even this does not go far enough because politicians frequently act in corrupt ways without any external influence. Countless politicians have been shown to approve policies or spending for projects which give them a direct or indirect benefit without the need of any external force bribing them. Politicians have slanted policy in the favor of friends with no discernible motivation except favoritism. Sometimes spite is the source of the corruption as can be seen in Christie who had infinitely more to lose than to gain by punishing someone who he wished had endorsed him.

The point is this, power corrupts. Can donation money be used to corrupt? Sure, but it is but one route to corruption, and regulating political donations just throws up a wall of red tape that only the political elites have the skill to navigate. Joe Blow who truly believes in John McCain's primary campaign might not be able to figure out how to get all his intended donations to the candidate, but the People for the Buying of Politicians Society will certainly find a way to route the funds.

*7. In many cases, it seems like you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.* There is no doubt that the system has problems, but rather than try to restore it to it's former state, you seem inclined to chop down and begin fresh. I have little respect in tradition for the sake of tradition, but in the Constitution, we have a document that revolutionized the way the world worked and (hopefully) rewrote the rules for how man would evermore interact with government. Under the Constitution, Americans have experienced more freedom than they have every previously experienced in the history of mankind. With that in mind, let's give it some props and try not to throw out every article just because we have an idea we think might work better. That's not to say that it shouldn't be changed. It has already been changed...sometimes for the better. When we change it, we should be extremely mindful of why it was constructed the way it was, and we should make sure to prune away no part of it unless it is proven fundamentally corrupt, broken on a conceptual level.

An example where I feel you did some baby chucking is with the judiciary. The judiciary is supposed to be impartial in it's interpretation of the law. Clearly, that is no longer how the court or at least most of the officers of the court operate, yet rather than urge a pursuance of a more apolitical court, you seek to make the court an elected office which would only ensure that it becomes more political. That seems to me a fine example of sending the child flying through the air admidst great amounts of moisture.

*8. The need to campaign for election is practically non-existent.* I mentioned this in a separate post, but it's worth reconsidering. In the modern age, we can find all the information we need to elect a politician without ever leaving our computers. 95% of the nonsense leading up to election is completely frivolous and capable of swaying only the very stupid who have either no political knowledge or no political values. Everybody who is a thinking person and takes the time to do their civic duty could easily choose a representative without the need for a single film to be filmed, a single pin to be pinned or a single poster to be posted. All the hoopla is done for the dumb vote.

*9. It's the overreach of the federal government that entices the corrupting influences. *The entire attempt to control campaigning, which in one way or another will almost always result in an attempt to control free speech, is a classic example of trying to solve the wrong problem. The vast majority of lobbies and political interests involve the passing or opposing of laws that were never put under the purview of the federal government in the first place, but since the federal government is constantly making laws about what sort of products you can and can't buy, who gets this tax break and who gets that tax break, who gets this exemption and who gets that exemption, private interests can profit greatly by getting involved. If the federal legislature and executive were to focus exclusively on passing laws they are actually legally allowed to pass, the lobbies and political parties would have significantly less to gain or lose from the process. What would be left for their interests? An occasional interstate trade dispute might draw some interest. Foreign treaties would frequently affect some groups though infinitely less than our own internal laws do already. Taxes might be an issue, but if the only federal programs active were the ones that were constitutionall allowed, taxes would be a much smaller concern.

To put it metaphorically, you have a lot of bears trying to get the food left outside the dumpster. Instead of trying to deter the bears, put the food in the dumpster and the allure to the bears will significantly decrease.

*10. The solution to these problems is the attention and knowledge of the voter.*

Freedom of speech is not bad. Lobbies that try to promote a certain cause to politicians are not necessarily bad. Political parties that band together along common values and for a common goal are not even bad. However, politicians that will rely on lying free speech are bad, lobbies that try to manipulate rather than present information are bad, and political parties that put their own power over the good of the nation are bad, yet all of these can be kept in check by a voter who actually has a brain.

If you know what you believe, you know what the laws are and you know what specific politicians do, then there is no need to try to disassemble freedom of speech to fix the problem. The voter will fix the problem. That's not to say that we will always agree or come to the same conclusions, but at least we'll be on the same page, and we wont be easily fooled by politicians who promise one thing and deliver another.

I do not think you can wave a wand or pass a law to make people more informed; it's something you have to inspire in them on a one to one basis, but it seems to me that finding ways, as private individuals working alone or separately, to encourage citizens to stay informed is an infinitely better discussion than how we can shield citizens from hearing certain kinds of freedom of speech we may find unhelpful.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Knightfall said:


> As others have said, it's clear that you spent some serious time into putting this together, and I respect your work. It just so happens that I've been reading The Federalist Papers recently, so your post served as a wonderful opportunity to mentally contrast the reasoning of the Founders for their structure of the government with your proposals for altering the structure of the government and then taking the time to write my opinions on the matter. As a mental exercise, it worked out rather perfectly.
> 
> I wrote thoughts out as I went, and the process took many different sessions and on multiple devices. I tried to combine all my notes in a sensible way, but if I say something redundant or otherwise off, it's probably because of that.
> 
> *Increasing the House Representatives*
> 
> The Founders spoke about the issue of representation in depth, and if you haven't read the Federalist Papers recently, it might be worth rereading in regards to this and many other aspects of your proposal. Most of their comments on House Representations was covered in 55 and 56. To sum up their view, representation needs to strike a balance; on one hand, it needs to be populous enough to represent the diverse kinds of people in the United States, but it does not need to be so massive as to become a mob. In the Foundners view, the larger the body, the more prone it is to be illogical and rely on mere passion rather than reason, a quality that is easily observable even in small groups of people. Furthermore, they cautioned that large groups could often be steered with just a few impassioned speakers. That being said, they admitted that there is no real formula for dictating the perfect number. They used the states as the basis for their starting points, (the largest of which I believe had a few hundred delegates for the state legislature, but I could be wrong on that point) and from the federal representatives low starting point, they expected over the next fifty years or so that their numbers could reach a level of three or four hundred. We cannot know whether they envisioned the United States ever becoming as large as it currently is, but it's clear they left the structure open to be adjusted as needed.
> 
> To me, it does seem ridiculous to have such a disproportionate ratio between the representatives and the represented. I'd be willing to consider increasing the number, but I'm a bit cautious on the point.
> 
> *Computer Readjusts Districts*
> 
> On redrawing the borders for districts, I'm all for this in theory. Politicians have clearly gerrymandered the crap out of many districts. Some of the district outlines look like snakes drawn just right to incorporate all the desired political affiliates. The question is how to do we reset the districts. The idea of a computer sorting out the problem sounds good because the cold, hard calculations of a machine should not be swayed by any political considerations, but this advantage is called into question as soon as you recall that a computer is only as good as its programmer, and you've got to know that the political parties would be desperate to get an operative in on the project. I'm not sure how difficult such a project would be or what parameters would be needed to establish a system. It seems it should be doable by the processes you mentioned, and hopefully any abuses put into the programming by one side would be noticed and called out by the other, but I would not be surprised if, like one of the other posters in this thread mentioned, a little variation in the computing formula could make a world of difference in the final outcome. I'm down for being cautiously interested in this proposal as well.
> 
> *Territories Have the Right to Vote.*
> 
> Regarding giving territories a vote, I'm not very informed on the nature of territories.. It seems to me that our possession of them is a problem in and of itself since we, if I understand things correctly, have a people under our nation's control which have no voting representation in the government. I'm inclined to say they should become their own independent nation, but perhaps there are some major considerations which make that impossible. If anybody wants to fill me in on relevant facts regarding territories, I'm all ears. Regardless, this point comes down to the classic pairing of rights and responsibilities as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe a territory should have a right to vote unless it has all the qualifications and responsibilities of being a state.
> 
> *Extension of Representative Terms and Term Limits*
> 
> I'm curious why you felt the need to increase the Representative terms to three years. My best guess is this is to get them to spend less time campaigning and more time working, and in that, it might be successful, but Senators, even with six year terms, still campaign (and by campaigning, I mean fundraising since the two are so intertwined to be more or less the same thing) almost constantly, so I suspect the longer term will not effect the Representatives campaigning either.
> 
> On the other hand, extending the Representatives terms will keep them in their positions of power for longer without a reckoning with the voters or opportunity to change the guards. I would like to see things go the opposite way with the political establishment being broken up and having less time to be entrapped by the political elites and indebted to lobbies. The House was designed to be the more populist and mutable branch of the legislature. I say we keep them on their toes and be ready to replace them as soon as the political winds shift.
> 
> You support a term limit of ten years which I think is a step in the right direction, but I would prefer a limit set at three terms of two years. In theory, I'd really like to see them exchanged every term. The typical argument against this is that politicians needs some time in Washington to become accustomed to the climate and to learn the political games. To that I would respond that if someone trained and prepared for his career in office who has numerous aides to assist cannot decipher a particular piece of legislation in order to decide to either support or oppose it, then that particular piece of legislation is obviously too convoluted to deserve any consideration in the first place, and on the flip side, to continue to send people to Washington who are experts in playing elitist games with the law of the land and which propose legislation which is so complex as to constantly hide its actual meaning is not doing the country any favors. Still, I admit that some kind of consistency is needed from year to year, and to have the entire House start from scratch every two years would be a problem, so I'd settle for a term limit of three two-year terms. This would force the voters to keep fresh blood in office who would hopefully have less time to become accustomed to power and therefore corrupted. It would also have the benefit of forcing politicians to work in the real world (or something closer to it) rather than dwelling indefinitely in the gilded halls of Congress.
> 
> *Tickets*
> 
> I don't mind voting for candidates on a ticket with a vice-candidate on board.
> 
> *Senate Adjustment*
> 
> You're idea to make the Senate representation reflect the population of the States does not track with me at all. The Senate was always intended to be an equal representation of the states, and the fact that the ratio of large state to small state population has increased over time does nothing to change the fundamental foundation of the Senate nor the intent of its construction. If the Founding Fathers had been looking for proportionate representation in the upper house on Congress, the ten to one ratio would have certainly been enough incentive, and contrary to what you have said, the Founding Fathers very much foresaw the growth of the population. We would have to believe they were guilty of a very large oversight if they were somehow able to craft such a world altering document which took into account hundreds of precautions against tyranny and yet somehow failed to consider that states might grow at different rates.
> 
> I've always found the equality between the states in the Senate and the equality of the people in the House to be one of the most impressive of the Founder's accomplishments. Finding a way to ensure that the States still had significant power while allowing the people to directly shape the federal makeup was an inspired choice. I've become even more fascinated and impressed by the Founders construction of the Constitution as I've been reading through The Federalist Papers. People always talk about the division of powers between the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches and how ingenious that was, but I've grown to see that the Constitution was actually balancing six different groups, the Executive, Judicial, House, Senate, States and People. All six of these groups have their own interest, power and prerogative, and each is therefore inclined to keep others from rocking the boat too dramatically. The Senate was meant to be just one more check in this system.
> 
> Furthermore, the high standard which the Senate needs to pass legislation is no accident. The Founding Fathers did not want laws to be changed easily. If a law was to be passed, then it needed to have a high degree of support, and if it did not, then the two houses and the executive would have to try and compromise. This is how it was intended. The Founding Fathers realized that there could be some harm done by setting a high standard for laws to be passed, but there was a much greater risk to be seen in laws being passed to freely. I think our current situation shows this to be true. Out of the problems our nations face today, I'd say nine out of ten stem from bad laws rather than a lack of laws. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers also spoke specifically that the Senate was suppose to be safeguard against flip flopping laws in order to add stability to the government. If congress frequently reversed it's decisions, this would lead to discontent and instability domestically and abroad.
> 
> As previously mentioned, the original disparity between the states would have been sufficient motivation for the Founding Fathers to have based Senate representation on a scale if that was their wish, but since the Founding Fathers were clearly against the idea, you would have to either establish that the situation in the nation has changed over time as to necessitate that the states should become less powerful or you would have to establish that the Founding Fathers were originally wrong in their idea of equality between the States in the Senate for your idea of changing the Senate structure is to be considered. No one could argue with a straight face that State power has increased since the days of the Founding Fathers; by all accounts, it has diminished, so the only way that you could reasonably make the case against the ending of State equality in the Senate is to show that the Founding Fathers were wrong in their original construction of the Constitution.
> 
> The Federalist Papers 62 and 63 make these points in what is no doubt a much more eloquent manner than what I am doing.
> 
> On a tangent, the recently employed nuclear option does away with much of the difficulty of getting things passed in the Senate, correct? I realize this does not negate your concerns since there still is an imbalance if you want representation based on population, but I'd like to take this moment to ask for clarification on this issue from anybody knowledgeable. I've heard partisans from both side say the nuclear option is legal, and I've looked into it briefly, and I can't see how it makes any sense. Can someone shed some light on it for me?
> 
> *Term Extensions and Term Limits on the Senate*
> 
> As much as I feel the suggestion to make the Senate more proportionate to population is a bad one, I can at least understand the motives, but I'm rather in the dark as to why you want to change the Senate elections from their current two-year rotation cycle. With term limits, it seems you are trying to remove all established bulwarks of power to keep the legislative dinosaurs who have been in the Senate forever, Reid and McCain for instance, from having control of the Senate, and I can see how the term limits would help with this, but I don't see any benefit of having officers elected at once. It would seem only to create a slightly more difficult adjustment period every six years as half the Senators would be new, and quite frankly, I don't that dramatic of a change in the Senate. I would be willing to see House Representatives dropped from office more quickly since they are supposed to be the more mutable and populous branch, but the Senators were designed to be the more stable of representatives in the two houses of Congress. The reason they were given longer terms was so that they could add consistency to the government and curb the House's more changeable nature. The Founding Fathers made it pretty clear, again in the Federalist Papers, that a longer term vision was needed to carry out long term legislative goals, and that guidance would come from the Senate. This is especially necessary in regards to foreign relations where the Senate has a specific role to advise and consent on treaties. The Senators were supposed to be the secondary face, after the President, of the Union which presented a specific policy towards other nations. In the scheme of international relations, six years is a very short time for a massive change of demeanor of a foreign nation. Can you imagine the shock to say, the Middle East if we went from a Senate full of doves to a Senate full of hawks overnight as half the Senate changed. A two-year change could also alter in the same amount of time, but it's more incremental nature would offer the much needed stability to all interested parties. No, I'm definitely not for getting rid of the staggered election of Senators, but I would be for term limits you mentioned. Two terms of six-years would seem to strike the right balance between making the Senate stable yet curbing entrenched power.
> 
> *Senate Ticket*
> 
> Again, I'm fine with making Senate races a ticket instead of individual matter.
> 
> *National Senators*
> 
> The idea of National Senators also befuddled me since I can't possibly see the interest in it. The legacy of the Bush and Clinton families are already smacking too much of an oligarchy for my tastes. Why would we want to expand this trend? It's not as if former Presidents would be less likely to engage in partisanship. On the contrary, the effects of saying, "What do you think about President Obama's stance on the withdraw from Iraq, President Bush?" would be likely to enflame partisanship to an incalculable amount. We already have had trouble with Americans saying, "That's not my President," with the last two Presidents. How much worse would it be when you see the last President you liked still holding major sway over the affairs of the nation and opposing the current administration? I have no doubt this would lead to a severe lack of national unity. Furthermore, most Americans have little respect for former Presidents' abilities by the time they leave office. I think Clinton and Reagan are the only Presidents in the last thirty years who stepped down to the mass public regret. In the case of Reagan, he has become nearly a God-like figure to the right who never falter to make supplications in his name every election year, and this is an unhelpful precedent in my view which is not worth encouraging. I guess you could make the case for Clinton being one of the two experienced President whose insight the American people would enjoy, but he can give advice from the sidelines. I don't see any reason to alter the Constitution in order to create a system that will add even more prestige and long lasting power to the Presidential elite who already hold a huge amount of power both during their term and after it nor can I see how this policy change would accomplish any of your goals.
> 
> The Vice-Presidents would appear to bring nothing to the table since their offices are nearly meaningless in practical terms. They are "useful" for playing politics occasionally, but Senators, in general, do not lack skill in the art of political shenanigans.
> 
> All of this overlooks one of the most basic objection that can be made on this point. These would be lifetime appointments to the legislature which would be subject to no revision by the citizens. All other legislators are subject to reelection. Why should the people be deprived of the right to vote here since the legislators are supposed to be the reflect the will of the people and the states? The only position anywhere in the Federal government which has lifetime appointments is the Supreme Court, and judges get that honor, in part, because they have the least amount of power and can, if doing their job properly, cannot harm the rights of citizens in any way.
> 
> Finally to this point, National Senators could already easily exist. If the former Presidents and Vice-Presidents wanted to continue serving as Senators and the citizens wanted to see them serve in this capacity, then the Presidents and Vice-Presidents could run and the people could elect them. To my knowledge, there is nothing stopping them.
> 
> *Extending Presidential Term to Six Years*
> 
> Though extending the Presidential term to six years would obviously decrease campaigning time, it would have an even greater negative effect of decreasing the ability of the people to replace an errant President. Less campaigning in exchange for less chance to control the Executive is a bad trade in my book. I'm not sure the basic fundamentals assumptions that underlie the attempt to get the President to stay off the trail are even true. It assumes that a lack of official campaigning will keep a President more engaged in the affairs in the Executive, but President Obama has been operating in a constant state of quasi-campaigning by spending a large amount of his time making speeches and touring the country. This is his right, and it is somewhat in keeping with his Constitutional right to propose legislation and the associated privilege of pushing for his agenda with his bully pulpit, but in actually looking at the responsibilities of President, this is only a very small part of his designated role. To be fair to President Obama, he can do a good job of fulfilling his role while in this mode because of the interconnected nature of the world these days and the fact that executive officers of the various executive departments pretty much do the day to day work without him, and the President's only real role is in making sure they do theirs. All this to say that it would be ideal if the Chief Executive of the United States would spend more time in the Oval Office to give his job his full attention, but it's not a huge deal if he runs the nation while on the road. There is time for both. Furthermore, the lack of open campaigning does not match the loss of an opportunity to remove from office a poorly performing President.
> 
> *Repealing the Natural Born Citizen Provision of the Constitution*
> 
> In a nation as vast as the United States, there is no reason we cannot find a qualified natural born citizen to hold the nation's highest office, so I don't see any reason to appeal this aspect of the Constitution. On the other hand, there are reasons to oppose a foreign born American citizen from holding the highest office in the land. Even the best intentioned naturalized citizen would be bound to have divided loyalties when looking at world affairs, and though it may be less likely now than it was in the 1780's, it is still not out of the question that a foreign born citizen with evil intent might take office. It's certainly plausible that such a person with a suave persona could get elected considering the American Idol aspect of today's political scene.
> 
> *Presidential Flip-Ticket*
> 
> You mention the Presidential flip-ticket idea as if it is new, but is there anything preventing that from happening now? I don't know that I have a problem with it necessarily, but it does remind me of Putin's stepping down from the Presidency to run things through a surrogate between 08 and 12.
> 
> *Regulating State Elections*
> 
> There is absolutely no reason for the federal to mandate the state election processes for governors. It's does not concern the federal government at all.
> 
> *National Senator Votes and Electronic Votes for President*
> 
> With the ex-president and ex-vice president votes, the right of the citizens to vote is subverted. The extra electronic votes does the same thing. going to the popular vote is about the third time you've made provisions for the system to be based more on the popular vote. If it is still possible for the popular vote to lose under this system, then I am certain the extra electoral college votes on the side of the popular election would not stop people from complaining and would in fact likely throw fuel on the fire by allowing people to say that the new system still doesn't go far enough. Once you took one step towards making it closer to a purely popularity based vote, it would be hard to objectively argue a stopping point since the scale is arbitrarily designed. I understand it is still based on population, but why not give ten votes to the largest states instead of six? Once the equality of the states in the Senate is abolished, it's all arbitrary.
> 
> *Confidence Vote*
> 
> The idea of doing a confidence vote in he fifth year only makes things worse.
> 
> For starters, you suggest that a failing confidence vote would encourage unpopular Presidents to drop out, but I suggest that it would never dissuade anybody from running for reelection. Administrations already know if they have a good chance of winning a year out because of polling. Making it a nationally mandated poll will not change the President's hopes that he will be able to turn around a negative spread. In addition, this would just move the campaign season in advance of the confidence vote. Sure, campaigning at this point would be illegal, but it would not stop the quasi campaigning of talking heads, the technically non-endorsing political ads, backroom deals for those in the media or able to influence the media, the President and his party's constant aggrandizement of his accomplishment and the corresponding push back from the opposing party and the constant attention of the administration to the deadline. You might not have official campaigning groups, (though to ban them would be another abridgement of freedom of speech) but in essence you would have just moved the election cycle up a year, and if the Confidence vote failed, you would have basically doubled the time spent in active campaigning.
> 
> *Confidence Vote Keeps All Senators and Governors in Office*
> 
> Making senators and governors contingent on the Presidential election is a completely confounding proposal. Sure, it would cut down on campaigning, but it would do so at the expense of the fundamental right of citizens to vote on their representatives, and that's hardly a worthy trade. It's also ridiculous to act as if support for one aspect of government should serve as an indication of happiness with the entirety of government. This is such a self-evident principle that it should need no further remark, but I'll entertain one just for fun. You might love President Obama but hate your abortion blocking governor, and support for the former should never be taken as approval for the latter. Also, it would seem to me that this would likely cause an alliance among the President, Senate and governorships. Whereas we now have at least some confidence that one group will object when another group starts to exceed its rightful authority, the possibility of a senator, President or governor solidifying his or her position by keeping quiet would be a strong incentive to let abuses slide for the purpose of self-aggrandizement.
> 
> *Longer Terms and Flip-Ticket Potential Will Increase Attention to Presidential Elections*
> 
> You suggest that the longer terms and flip-ticket potential will encourage people to pay better attention to the people on the ticket, but people who fail to take seriously the election of the most powerful person in the country for a four-year term have already shown themselves to be woefully irresponsible voters and will be no more moved to grow a sense of civic responsibility by a six-year term. The possibility of a Vice President flip flop is even more irrelevant. As things are now, a Vice President could become the President at any moment. Under your proposal, the Vice President would still have to run for office to get the seat in the Oval Office. If the politically uniformed don't pay attention now, thy won't pay attention under the proposed system.
> 
> *Judicial Appointments by Popular Vote*
> 
> The judicial appointments are supposed to be apolitical appointments and are not be voted on.
> 
> The idea behind the judiciary is simple. The court is supposed to rule whether something is legal or not. Politics in the legislature and executive play major roles because it determines what laws are made and how laws are implemented. The judiciary should not be concerned in what should be but simply what is. It has nothing to do with the popular opinion or what the people want. If the people want to change the law or its execution, they can vote to fill up the other two branches with people who will affect those changes, but the judiciary is above that.
> 
> It should also be noted that this just creates another election through which votes can be bought and corruption can be seeded. Making judges elected position will just set up the typical Republican/Democrat rivalries that we always see with every other election. This creates another circus, and ensures, at best, that judges will be elected into office because of their loyalty to the public whims and not their loyalist to the law. At worst, someone with agenda could easily win hearts by tickling peoples ears.
> 
> *The Supreme Court Judges Should Be Expanded to Fifteen*
> 
> The judiciary's job is very simple in purpose if not implementation. As it is only needed to say what is, there should be a simple black and white in each case, but since laws will inevitably clash and the intent is sometimes obscured, there is room for interpretation. For this reason, the Founders established five different judges to fill the seat to give a chance for the majority of understanding of the law to prevail and to make corruption of the vote a bit more difficult. Since an objective interpretation of the law is not dependent on your location in the country or your specific interests as an individual or state, there need be no mass representation from across the nation as there is with the House and Senate. I saw we go back to the original five Supreme Court judges as there would still be had FDR and his Congress not subverted the original intent of the system.
> 
> *Alternate Supreme Court Justices*
> 
> I do like the idea of alternates. I'd be willing to consider this further.
> 
> *Lifetime Appointment of Judges*
> 
> I see no reason that the lifetime appointment of judges should be ended.
> 
> Judges were meant to be long term offices to add stability to the government. By keeping the Supreme Court stable, you decreased the possibility of frequent law reinterpreting which would disrupt the firmness of the government. Long term appointment also decreases loyalty to a certain group or individual If they were elected by a specific group, then they were likely to continue being loyal to that group for long periods. Under the life-time appointments, the person most directly involved with your appointment, the President, would be gone within, at the very most, eight years. If the Supreme Court became an elective issue, the political parties would be the strongest agent in getting a judge appointed, and that ever-present obligation would never diminish. The duration of the judiciary appointments was also a psychological rebuff against the advances of the executive and legislative on the jurisdiction of the judiciary. Since the judiciary is the weakest of the branches, the Founding Fathers felt it would be advantageous to increase their stature by giving them a limitless duration in office...presuming good behavior.
> 
> *The Process of Popularly Electing Judges*
> 
> The process for voting for judges also makes no sense to me. At first glance, it would appear to be a nerfing of the powers of the political elites to appoint judges, but in reality, it is just the opposite. Currently, the power to appoint and confirm judges is rightfully in the hands of the executive and legislature respectively. As things are, the President and the Senate vet one candidate at a time in a public manner that gives citizens plenty of time to get aquainted with the appointees. By speaking out in general and calling their senators specifically, citizens can currently have a significant effect on the approval of judicial nominees.
> 
> In your scenario, no greater power is truly going to the citizens. Though they are able to vote, the list of possible candidates has already been selected for them, so in reality, the political elites are still calling the shots. In essence, the vetting process is done by the same people. The critical difference is that rather than being able to look at one candidate at a time, the citizen would have to choose between sixty. What a laughably oppressive and daunting task. We can't get most Americans to pay attention to the President's statements and history which are much more easily understood and infinitely more promulgated than the cases and lives of any judge. How can you possibly expect the citizens to vote intelligently between sixty people at once? To learn the details of the history of each of these people would require each citizen to drop their day to day lives and spend countless hours researching judges. Even as someone more familiar with politics that a significant portion of American citizens, I cannot imagine how I could accomplish the task without ending my day to day concerns.Of course, it's a trivial exploration of the proposal anyway because a thorough investigation of the candidates would never actually happen by citizens in this scenario. In reality, people, daunted at the prospect of such a vote, would be moved by talking heads, campaign ads, and political affiliations because it would be impossible to actually get to know that many candidates, and of course, the confusion and inability of the voter to understand the issues gives the special interest, political parties and various other political elites the exact opportunity they need to shape the nation.
> 
> And again it must be asked, for what purpose are all these changes made? It is not as if the current system of choosing Supreme Court Judges has led to any scandals. I would argue that the alteration of understanding of how the Constitution functions has led to Supreme Court Justices making poor decisions, but nobody can say that the citizens never had a chance to know and, through their Senators, affect the appointment of Supreme Court Justices.
> 
> *Primaries Should Be Held at Times Appointed by the Federal Government*
> 
> Primaries are held by non-governmental organizations, and the United States government has no purview over how political parties conduct their affairs nor should the federal government ever have control over the internal operation of political parties for this would be a precedent which could easily lead to an end game power play for whatever political party currently in power if they could manage the operations of the opposing parties.
> 
> Dividing primaries up by region does sound nice just for the fact that the current arrangement seems so random, but they are private operations free to operate as their organizers prefer, and more importantly to the discussion, the reforms you suggest on this point make no difference. What does it matter if a party does not know which areas to target until closer to Election Day? This just means that a greater amount of money will be spent in a shorter amount of time. What does it matter if money is spent on a few states instead of one state at a time? This might make things more hectic, but it does not diminish the role of he parties and special interest groups.
> 
> *Fundraising Times Should be Carefully Controlled*
> 
> As a principle, I believe people should be free to give to whatever party they choose at whatever time they choose, and I don't see any justification for limiting someone's freedom in this way, but assuming candidates are only allowed to raise money in August, what difference would it make? Currently, politicians schmooze with the elite in exchange for cash. Presumably, there are implied or implicit promises to serve the donators cause at these moments. If fund raising were delayed until the last minute, then all the deals and schmoozing would be done up front and the money would be given later. If this would make any difference at all, I can only imagine it would be negligible.
> 
> Furthermore, it wouldn't stop the donors from going to the Pacs which would already be collecting money year round. Nor would it stop people from giving money to parties which frequently give massive amounts of cash to their politicians. If anything, the inability to raise money as an individual would just empower these groups be making the individual candidates more dependent on these systems, and without the advantages of a big party, third party candidates would be pushed even more to the side.
> 
> There's also the tiny issue that any attempt to regulate what people can say to promote themselves or their candidates is a violation of freedom of speech and I would hope that it would be dismissed for that reason.
> 
> *Voter ID*
> 
> Unless there is some big problem that I've missed, voter ID is a great proposal. I personally find it embarrassing that we don't already have it. It doesn't need to be a brand new system; use of driver's licenses or any other state or federally provided picture ID would work just as well.
> 
> *Automatic Voter Registration*
> 
> I don't see the advantage of automatic voter registration. That seems to be based on the presumption that the country would be better off if everybody voted which is a presumption I hardily reject. If someone is too stupid or too lazy to register to vote, then we gain nothing by adding them to the political masses which are already uninformed as a whole. Those who are already so disinterested in politics that they would not take the initiative to register are likely to be swayed by the first argument they hear which makes them exactly the kind of pawns which the special interests groups and parties can easily manipulate through campaign ads. The only counter I can imagine for these points is the hope that people will become more engaged citizens simply by being given easier access to their voting rights. Though I'll admit this might encourage a few to become more honorable citizens, I liken it to giving somebody who had no interest or training with firearms a shotgun in the hopes that they will become an avid and responsible defender of gun rights. It could help in some situations, but it's more likely to cause trouble with someone who has no idea how to use it and has shown no previous interest in learning more. Some might find that too extreme a comparison, but I'd argue that the only difference between the two scenarios is in the amount of time that the likely devastating effect would take place.
> 
> *Voting Stations*
> 
> It does seem like voting stations should be easy to figure out. I'm not sure what the difficulty is in that situation. It seems so simple a problem, if it truly is a problem, that the only explanation for it is voter suppression or massive government incompetence. I'd need more info before taking an informed stance.
> 
> *Electors Must Vote As Citizens Choose*
> 
> I have to say that I never understood the Founding Fathers reasoning for selecting separate electors for the presidential election. It seems to me that either a direct election or an election by the legislature would be a better route. Once we went to, more or less, a direct vote system, the use of electors has become completely superfluous with the added disadvantage that electors could theoretically go their own way and disrupt the generally accepted process. As long as citizens vote for president, I say we just cut out the middle man. If anybody can explain to me either the advantages of electors in the original system, current system or the new proposal in this regard, I'd like to hear them.
> 
> *Various Other Election Rules*
> 
> I don't understand why exiting polls needs to be mandated or regulated, and the same goes with the announcement of winners. Also, restricting what the media can say on these manners is a clear violation of freedom of the press.
> 
> The automatic recount for federal elections seems reasonable. The federal government has no business regulating stage elections though.
> 
> I have no problem with the rules on final canvasses of political elections.
> 
> Conclusions:
> 
> *1. Most of your suggestions complicate the government rather than simplify the current system.* Making Senators based on population but not completely? More complicated. Making citizens have to vote for Supreme Court Justices? More complicated. Adding permanent National Senators? More complicated. Passing at least a half dozen rules on what private organizations can say and when? More complicated. Ideally, the government operations and compliance to the law should be easier to understand rather than more complicated.
> 
> *2. Elections are one of the few things that get the Average Joe to pay attention to politics.* For this reason, among the many others I mentioned, longer terms should generally be avoided.
> 
> *3. Cramming campaigns into a shorter amount of time does not necessarily decrease the amount of money given nor does it decrease the effects of PAC's and parties. *If people can only give in a small window of time, that does not necessitate that the giving will be less, and since private givers are banned from giving until August yet PACs and parties are free to give since January, that will increase their power. Also, fundraising through these organizations can go on constantly for the general PACs and Party funds, and those funds will just be transferred as needed to the politician as soon as it is allowed, so again, this empowers the Pacs and Parties.
> 
> *4. If you want a more populace control of government, go for it.* A few of your points seemed interested in making things more directly tied to the votes of the people, yet for some reason, you do not just say that you want the Senate and the Presidency decided by a popular vote. In the case of both issues, you either believe the states should have an equal representation in the Senate, or you don't. If you believe the legislative branch should be a compromise between the popular vote and the equality of states, then that is what you already have in the houses of the Legislature. If you are doing anything other than equality or based on population for those Senate seats/votes, then you are making an arbitrary rule which is hard to justify as either inferior or superior to any other non-even and non-population based measure of the Senate seats/votes, and with the addition of National and Electronic Senator votes, the difference between the popular vote and the electoral vote which was already small in most cases must be miniscule at this point, so why not just commit?
> 
> Not that I'm with you on it. I think the equality of the states is an excellent and integral part of the Constitution, and I think the higher bar set in the Senate is an excellent precaution against making the government too mutable for its own good.
> 
> *5. Many laws do not equate to good laws.* A lot of your work seems focused on unclogging the legislature, but the multiplication of laws equals the division of liberties. There should be laws passed, of course, but laws, especially on the federal level, should be an establishment or perfection of tried and true principles rather than a constant experiment to see if every problem can be solved by government intervention, and for all the complaints of a immovable legislature, I experienced not one inconvenience due to a lack of legislation this year and experience quite a few significant problems due to the law.
> 
> To expand on the topic more eloquently, I'll turn to the Federalist Papers #73 with regard to the higher standard of approval needed for the Senate.
> 
> "It may perhaps be said that the power of preventing bad laws includes that of preventing good ones; and may be used to the one purpose as well as to the other. But this objection will have little weight with those who can properly estimate the mischiefs of that inconstancy and mutability in the laws, which form the greatest blemish in the character and genius of our governments. They will consider every institution calculated to restrain the excess of law-making, and to keep things in the same state in which they happen to be at any given period, as much more likely to do good than harm; because it is favorable to greater stability in the system of legislation. The injury which may possibly be done by defeating a few good laws, will be amply compensated by the advantage of preventing a number of bad ones."
> 
> 
> *6. Politicians can be corrupted while in office not just when running for office.* Out of all the strange assumptions you seem to make in the plan, this seems to be the biggest. Many of your suggestions attempt to fix the problem of PAC and political corruption by making elections less frequent, but corruption can come at any time. As mentioned a couple of times already, promises can be made while in a position that will not see financial compensation until the next election cycle. More than this, promises can be made during the tenure of office that might be rewarded when outside of office in a completely untraceable way. Dirt on politicians can also be used to blackmail someone to do something you wish by Parties or PACs or private individuals. Even this does not go far enough because politicians frequently act in corrupt ways without any external influence. Countless politicians have been shown to approve policies or spending for projects which give them a direct or indirect benefit without the need of any external force bribing them. Politicians have slanted policy in the favor of friends with no discernible motivation except favoritism. Sometimes spite is the source of the corruption as can be seen in Christie who had infinitely more to lose than to gain by punishing someone who he wished had endorsed him.
> 
> The point is this, power corrupts. Can donation money be used to corrupt? Sure, but it is but one route to corruption, and regulating political donations just throws up a wall of red tape that only the political elites have the skill to navigate. Joe Blow who truly believes in John McCain's primary campaign might not be able to figure out how to get all his intended donations to the candidate, but the People for the Buying of Politicians Society will certainly find a way to route the funds.
> 
> *7. In many cases, it seems like you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.* There is no doubt that the system has problems, but rather than try to restore it to it's former state, you seem inclined to chop down and begin fresh. I have little respect in tradition for the sake of tradition, but in the Constitution, we have a document that revolutionized the way the world worked and (hopefully) rewrote the rules for how man would evermore interact with government. Under the Constitution, Americans have experienced more freedom than they have every previously experienced in the history of mankind. With that in mind, let's give it some props and try not to throw out every article just because we have an idea we think might work better. That's not to say that it shouldn't be changed. It has already been changed...sometimes for the better. When we change it, we should be extremely mindful of why it was constructed the way it was, and we should make sure to prune away no part of it unless it is proven fundamentally corrupt, broken on a conceptual level.
> 
> An example where I feel you did some baby chucking is with the judiciary. The judiciary is supposed to be impartial in it's interpretation of the law. Clearly, that is no longer how the court or at least most of the officers of the court operate, yet rather than urge a pursuance of a more apolitical court, you seek to make the court an elected office which would only ensure that it becomes more political. That seems to me a fine example of sending the child flying through the air admidst great amounts of moisture.
> 
> *8. The need to campaign for election is practically non-existent.* I mentioned this in a separate post, but it's worth reconsidering. In the modern age, we can find all the information we need to elect a politician without ever leaving our computers. 95% of the nonsense leading up to election is completely frivolous and capable of swaying only the very stupid who have either no political knowledge or no political values. Everybody who is a thinking person and takes the time to do their civic duty could easily choose a representative without the need for a single film to be filmed, a single pin to be pinned or a single poster to be posted. All the hoopla is done for the dumb vote.
> 
> *9. It's the overreach of the federal government that entices the corrupting influences. *The entire attempt to control campaigning, which in one way or another will almost always result in an attempt to control free speech, is a classic example of trying to solve the wrong problem. The vast majority of lobbies and political interests involve the passing or opposing of laws that were never put under the purview of the federal government in the first place, but since the federal government is constantly making laws about what sort of products you can and can't buy, who gets this tax break and who gets that tax break, who gets this exemption and who gets that exemption, private interests can profit greatly by getting involved. If the federal legislature and executive were to focus exclusively on passing laws they are actually legally allowed to pass, the lobbies and political parties would have significantly less to gain or lose from the process. What would be left for their interests? An occasional interstate trade dispute might draw some interest. Foreign treaties would frequently affect some groups though infinitely less than our own internal laws do already. Taxes might be an issue, but if the only federal programs active were the ones that were constitutionall allowed, taxes would be a much smaller concern.
> 
> To put it metaphorically, you have a lot of bears trying to get the food left outside the dumpster. Instead of trying to deter the bears, put the food in the dumpster and the allure to the bears will significantly decrease.
> 
> *10. The solution to these problems is the attention and knowledge of the voter.*
> 
> Freedom of speech is not bad. Lobbies that try to promote a certain cause to politicians are not necessarily bad. Political parties that band together along common values and for a common goal are not even bad. However, politicians that will rely on lying free speech are bad, lobbies that try to manipulate rather than present information are bad, and political parties that put their own power over the good of the nation are bad, yet all of these can be kept in check by a voter who actually has a brain.
> 
> If you know what you believe, you know what the laws are and you know what specific politicians do, then there is no need to try to disassemble freedom of speech to fix the problem. The voter will fix the problem. That's not to say that we will always agree or come to the same conclusions, but at least we'll be on the same page, and we wont be easily fooled by politicians who promise one thing and deliver another.
> 
> I do not think you can wave a wand or pass a law to make people more informed; it's something you have to inspire in them on a one to one basis, but it seems to me that finding ways, as private individuals working alone or separately, to encourage citizens to stay informed is an infinitely better discussion than how we can shield citizens from hearing certain kinds of freedom of speech we may find unhelpful.




Wow. Some truly incredible work on your part. Too tired now to speak to each and tomorrow I have a very heavy work day, but at the weekend I will go over all of this in great detail. Thanks for your input!!!!


----------



## FA_Q2

I read your thread at work and had not had the chance to respond until now.  Though Knight stated most of the same things that I wanted to say, I will expound where I differ from either of you using a similar format.  Unfortunately, I disagree with the lions share of your points but then again, a debate where we all agree is quite boring 

Legislative
*Increasing the House Representatives*
Knight brings in a good point in that increasing the number of representatives is going to lead to a more mob type rule in the House.  This might be more of a problem than the fact that the representatives are a bit out of touch with the individual voter.  Leaving the number where it is or only slightly increasing it seems more prudent IMHO in light of that point.  I think that it must also be said that increasing the number really solves nothing over the long term.  This is because you are only brining the numbers in line temporarily.  In reality, population will grow and then, even at a 1000 representatives, the current ratio will be a reality once more.  If your end goal is decreasing that ratio then you must be comfortable with an ever increasing pool of representatives.  If you think that the number of representatives is more important then you must accept that the ratio is going to get worse.

Personally, I feel that LOCAL representatives are where the ratios are important where national offices need a real cap on the total number of people that are trying to accomplish legislation.  You still have representatives at ratios that existed within the founders time  they are just local ones now.  


*Term Limits*
I disagree completely.  To date, not one single person has been able to articulate a coherent reason that anyone should be limited in terms other than they dont want that guy around too long.  The fact is, in my opinion, term limits are an artificial way for voters to avoid the stunning reality that they are the ones voting these idiots in office in the first place.  If the people want that person back in office, then he/she SHOULD be back in office.  Term limits literally solves NOTHING.  You need to attack the source of the problem, voter apathy, and term limits will no longer be necessary.  Instituting them simply ensures that the politician in question can ignore the voters entirely (his job is no longer on the line) and that another person will simply take the same mantle over.  New blood is NOT needed because the old blood has changed or will not allow new ideas into the legislator.  We need new blood because the voters KEEP VOTING FOR THE SAME FAILED IDEAS.  Forcing the replacement of representatives without changing the core issues simply ensures that different faces are elected making the exact same failures.  THAT is not going to help one iota.


*Computer Readjusts Districts*
I would just point out to all those mentioning that the program itself is somewhat dubious because it can be fed errant parameters has been ignoring the OPs original supposition: the program taking only three variables into account (and a few hard rules like not districting over state boundaries).  I think this is a fantastic idea to remove gerrymandering and would essentially eliminate the problems that it has brought.  The source code can be made public as well considering that the program, its results and the process used to get there will have nothing that can be considered secrete like voting electronically requires.


*Tickets*
I dont see the value added here.  You are railing against special elections.  Why?  I fail to see how this particular event matters at all when you are dealing with something that is very rare.  I have NEVER been in a district that required one (though I moved out just before Gray Davis in CA was removed) because you are dealing with REGIONAL issues.  Your solution is dealing with something that is very rare, does not cause too much of an issue anyway and ultimately costs a TON requiring a complex solution.  Furthermore, such elections are still quite possible even with the system you are advocating.  It all seems like a solution in search of a problem.


*Senate*
This is the ones big areas where I think you have gone completely off the rails.  You are changing the senate to something that it is simply NOT supposed to be by connecting it to population.  You espouse support for a bi-caramel system but then remove the KEY difference in the two houses.  If you are going to change the balance to reflect population then dont tinker with the senate under a false premise  simply abolish it.  

The senate itself is an expression of a federalist system where states are sovereign entities.  They have equal say and equal representation because they are all ONE state.  Rhode Island gets 2 senators like California precisely because they are both a single state.  IF you have a real problem with the divide because the population differences then the real solution is splitting those larger states up.  Otherwise you are completely obliterating the senate to make it more like the house.  I would VEHEMENTLY oppose such a concept as I see it as one of the CORE pillars that has fallen and caused much of the current problems we face.  Had senators actually upheld the purpose of the senate and protected states rights we would not be in the current mess we are with a massive and overbearing federal bureaucracy dictating to states issues that they should be taking care of locally.  You are making that problem WORSE.  As Knight pointed out, this is a matter of separation of powers and weakening that separation only allows more power to pool in a single place  the anti-thesis of what our system of governance is supposed to be.

You dont like the disparity of representation in the senate  just do away with the states entirely.  After all, the distinction is rather meaningless if we are going to reduce everything into a case of populations and direct control.

I want to ask why you want them to be elected all at once as well.  Changing a local election to all at once does NOT reduce political campaigning  it is still one election every six years  but rather adds MASSIVE volatility to the system in general.  I think that is a bad thing.


*Presidential Senate Seats: *
No, no and no.  For all the reasons that Knight said and one key more: the legislative branch is NOT the executive branch.  We should not be crossing the two with lifetime seats given to members of one from the other.  Further, no political seat anywhere should ever be a lifetime appointment.  I am very curious to hear what you think to gain with this idea as I dont see a real reference to your thought process in your OP.

As for something Knight said:


> On a tangent, the recently employed nuclear option does away with much of the difficulty of getting things passed in the Senate, correct? I realize this does not negate your concerns since there still is an imbalance if you want representation based on population, but I'd like to take this moment to ask for clarification on this issue from anybody knowledgeable. I've heard partisans from both side say the nuclear option is legal, and I've looked into it briefly, and I can't see how it makes any sense. Can someone shed some light on it for me?


It is legal for 2 reasons.  First, the constitution is utterly silent on the actual rules of the senate itself.  There are a few things set is stone so to say in the constitution but the vast majority of the senate is controlled by none other than the senate itself.  This includes such things like procedures (which is what a cloture vote is), the house majority leader being able to set the agenda, committees and a host of other things.  Essentially, the senate sets its own rules to fulfill the duties and requirements outlined within the constitution.  Second, as a direct result of the first and the constitutions silence on actual procedure within the legislative bodies, the courts DO NOT have purview over senate rules.  IOW, the courts cannot say anything about what the senate decides to do that is not specifically mentioned within the constitution.  Should the senate decide that you must perform a rain dance on the senate floor nude with a monkey on your head before introducing new bills then that is what you have to do.  I dont have the specific case off hand but the SCOTUS has already refused to hear a case challenging senate rules because of that very reason  that is not the purpose of the judicial branch.

Executive
*Extending Presidential Term to Six Years*
I agree with Knight in this statement: Less campaigning in exchange for less chance to control the Executive is a bad trade in my book. 

I dont see the realized advantages of extending the POTUS term.

I would add that doing so will do NOTHING to address campaigning.  The POTUS would still begin immediately after swearing in (likely even before) because the core issue is not resolved.  As another poster said, the ability for the government to dole out tax favors and cash giveaways WILL continue the habit of purchasing politicians.  That is simple reality.  Until we face that fact no amount of changing the system will amount to squat.

I have to add here that the fingers being pointed at Citizens United are glaringly misplaced.  It seems that you are all ignoring the fact that there has been no real change in the corporate sponsoring of politicians, just the figures involved (not to mention that the ruling itself is completely misunderstood).  As long as there are BILLIONS to be made out of rigging the system, it WILL be rigged.  Stop trying to pass pointless finance laws that have NEVER worked and focus on actually changing the ROOT of the problem: political favors.  Until that changes, you could make ALL campaign finance illegal and it would amount to pissing in the wind.  The companies are going to find a way to get to their billions in favors, legalities be dammed.


*3 year extension*
I inherently disagree with tying the elections of localities to that of federal elections.  To think that a majority of states liking the federal government and voting for it will lock the worst governor in Wyoming history in place because because 

Yes, for no reason whatsoever.  As for the rest, my opposition to term limits says it all as covered earlier.  Given that, these rule changes dont really do anything.  Also, I dont see how the ticket flipping idea will make anyone care about the VP.  TBH, people are going to ignore the VP under that concept as they do currently.  People just dont care.  As Knight pointed out, such is already a possibility.


Judicial
You OP was in opposition to electioneering and here you are advocating with spreading that to the judicial system.  I dont think SCOTUS should be touched at all.  What are you solving by making the supposed changes?  What problem do you think is rectified by making judges MORE political?  You point out a problem in the OP and then infect the one branch that does have the issue with the problem.  

You point out that judges are elected throughout the country but that is utterly irrelevant as the SCOTUS is a unique animal.  It is the FINAL arbiter.  The deciders of what the constitution is going to mean in its application.  As much as people demand that the court is completely partisan I think that opinion only comes from a basic misunderstanding of the court itself.  They do have different outlooks on what the constitution means (we all do and you cant avoid that as long as you use humans to decide law) BUT they are sufficiently removed as to avoid much of the partisan blather.  They are completely immune to being bought through elections because they dont have any (not to say they cannot be bribed but one avenue is closed to that).  Changing that would fundamentally change the court in terrible ways.  

*Increasing the Judge Count *
Why?  I think this is another idea that solves nothing.  What are 15 judges going to do that 9 cannot other than water down the decision.  Such decisions have MASSIVE reverberations and need to be clear and concise.  9 is too many TBH but really is the minimum as I dont want fewer than that to have that much power.  In many ways, SCOTUS judges are more powerful than the president himself.

*Judge term limits*
This is something that kI actually want to see but for different reasons than you might have.  I am interested in Clays opinion on this as well considering that he advocates for the current life terms.  I thing that shines some political bias at the court and tends to keep seats liberal or conservative. 

I think that there should be very long term limits but that they should exist so as to stagger the court appointments.  I dont think a single president should get to appoint more than a single judge over his term.  It has caused judges to retire or wait based on the political position of power at the time as well as opens the door for a particularly partisan president to appoint multiple judges that may move the court to far in one political direction or the other.  I would like to see a 32 year appointment time minimum meaning that a new judge would be selected every 4 years.  Perhaps even a longer time like 40 years.  This makes it essentially a lifetime appointment BUT also means that judges should be retiring in different terms and on a somewhat steady cycle.  You could no longer hold out that extra 4 years in hopes that a conservative or liberal would be replacing you as that should NEVER be a factor in the first place.
 [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION]

*Stand in Judges *
This I dont really have an issue with.  It would not be a bad idea to have 1 or 2 SCOTUS seats that were ancillary so that split decisions were not a possibility and there were always the full number of opinions on each case.  How to integrate this is another issue altogether.   

Elections
*Primary Lotto/Fundraising*
I dont see the value in such a concept.  Why do this by lotto?  Each locality can decide how its local elections are held.  Not only is this not a federal issue but the order of primaries are completely irrelevant.  Politicians dont sink cash into one place or another because of the order of the primary, they do so because it might get them more votes.  CA is devoid of election funds because the vote there is decided.  FL is contested so there is far more spent there.

The ONLY thing that staggered elections does is allow the actual politician to visit the states in question in person.  This is a good thing though as that has little to do with fundraising (that is always done earlier).  Affecting primaries themselves is dubious anyway as those are NOT government institutions.  

Knight covered the problems with your funding changes pretty well.  You are, again, attacking the symptoms and ignoring the actual problem.  That will never solve anything.


*Voter ID/Registration*
I can get behind this.  I think that not having a basic voter ID is rather asinine tbh.  I also dont really see why you need to have a separate system to register to vote.  Exercising your right to vote should be as simple as voting without any added requirements.  All the checking for eligibility/district can be done when obtaining your ID.  

I can also get behind the other changes that stop media feeding frenzies and early calls.  That should not be accepted by any stretch of the imagination.  I dont understand your call for mandatory exit polling though?  What are you hoping to attain through that metric.  It is NOT as accurate as actual vote tallies and should not be used as a measure to gauge the voting results.  Actual ballots are the only way to do this.

We dont need exit results, we need more secure voting machines/ballots.  Such should be easy to do.  

Lastly, I want to cover something that was discussed in the middle of the thread:


Derideo_Te said:


> on some great ideas and responses from GW and GT too.
> 
> I tagged some additional members whom I believe could make some excellent contributions. (Used the [Tag Users] function at the top since that is what it is for.)
> 
> Some of what you suggest is going to require Constitutional Amendments and that means that this is going to be difficult to implement. Not impossible, but harder than necessary. Overall I agree that we are way overdue for a complete overhaul.
> 
> My suggestions actually piggyback on the concept of voter involvement in elections via the internet and using unique ids similar to SSNs.
> 
> 1. Compulsory voting for all citizens. Doesn't matter if you vote for Mickey Mouse but you must cast a ballot. This eliminates parties having to focus on "turnout". If everyone must vote then turnout becomes a non-issue.
> 
> 2. Voting via the Internet is something that needs to done sooner rather than later. Yes, it is feasible and it eliminates the BS about long waiting lines and voting hours and all the rest of the ways that politicians are using to mess with voting rights. If we trust the internet to make credit card purchases (sometimes for thousands of dollars) then why can't we have a similar secure system for voting? Eliminates weather concerns too. Best of all counting electronic votes can be tallied in seconds and there are no "hanging chads" and other nonsense. Polls close and vote counts are known nationwide.
> 
> 3. Allow permanent residents to vote in non Federal and non State wide elections. These are taxpayers too and since their taxes pay local municipal taxes and for schools it only makes sense that they should be allowed to enter the electoral process in this manner. (BTW this is already allowed in some states.) This is all part and parcel of greater involvement in the process rather than less.
> 
> Right now part of what is messing up the system is the deliberate and malicious process of driving voters away. A vote lost for your opponent is a vote gained for yourself. If voting becomes compulsory the incentive to drive away voters falls away (and so does the money to make that happen.)
> 
> The use of the Internet for voting eliminates the excuse for not voting. Every place that offers WiFi now becomes a potential polling station. College dorms, coffee shops, libraries, shopping malls and yes, in the comfort of your own home. Once again greater involvement across all registered voters means that trying to appeal on single issues to drive "turnout" becomes a non issue and again, it undercuts the benefit of outside funding.
> 
> Internet voting doesn't require a constitutional amendment. It can be implemented sooner rather than later and it makes the most sense to begin here because it will increase voter turnout simply because it makes it easier. It also increases voting in primary elections which are notorious for low turnout. This can eliminate a subset of the voters being able to restrict the choices of the greater electorate.
> 
> Anything that increases involvement in the election process means a democracy where votes count more than dollars. That is where we must begin in my opinion.


Mandated voting is a TERRIBLE idea.  You do have a _right_ to vote but that right comes with a MASSIVE _responsibility_.  Americans, for the most part, have utterly failed in this responsibility.  I see it all over the news.  You hear it whenever one of those shows does a man on the street moment.  I experience it every day at my place of work.  If you ask the average American basic civics questions they do abysmally.  Even more important, ask them basic questions about the current platforms of the various politicians that are running.  Most of the time they cant tell you squat.  You really want THOSE people being mandated to vote?  People that have utterly shirked their responsibility?

Nay I say, I have the exact opposite view here.  I think that ANYONE not living up to their responsibility of their vote has the same responsibility to NOT VOTE.  We cant make that happen (it is their right) and any government movement to get a lower turnout is wrong but so is encouraging people that are willfully ignorant to vote.  Each one of us has the responsibility to take our vote seriously, utilize it in the best way that we can and ultimately abstain if we are going to ignore facts and refuse to research the candidates in question.  More people voting is NOT better.  A greater percentage of *informed* voters to ignorant ones is.  If you dont currently have the wherewithal to go out and vote then you certainly dont have the motivation to understand what you are voting on and that is actually a good thing.


----------



## AVG-JOE

MarcATL said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that making wholesale changes to the constitution is the right way to go.  Neither do I think that this is the fault of the voter.  Restricting access to the polls by elaborate ID measures answer a problem we do not have, namely voter fraud.
> 
> The problem as I see it is the money.  Money spent on ads and campaigns.  If contributions from individuals AND corporations was restricted to a three digit number, we could eliminate checkbook politics.
> 
> Perhaps it's the length of the campaign that makes the money so needed.  If we had one national day for primaries, in May perhaps, and a national moratorium on campaigning until early August, long drawn out budgets for media buys would dry up and take the cash with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I have to agree about the money spent on ads, sometimes a year or more in advance of an election.  I would suggest some election financing reforms.
> Only an individual may make a contribution.  Individual = a single identifiable person, no other "entities" may make contributions.  A contribution can only be made to the candidate running for office in the individual's geographic location.*  I.e.: If someone is running for mayor of Anchorage, AK, only residents of Anchorage, AK may make contributions.  If someone is running for state senator, only verified residents of that state may make contributions, and so forth...
> Advertising would be limited to a certain period prior to an election.  30 days, 60 days, something reasonable.  (Personally, I'm already sick of the 2014 elections.)
> Any candidate who starts ragging on what another candidate has done, rather than what they will do if elected, is penalized.  Maybe pull all their advertising and "sanction" them for a period of time.   (Again, I really don't care about some trumped up charge of animal abuse, or some similar bs.  I want to know what the candidate's ideas are, what their plans include, what they will do for us.)
> 
> Just a few thoughts to toss out there...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why Citizen's United is absolutely THEE worse ruling in modern history.
> 
> Far RW judges run amok.
> 
> Have have paid, are paying, and will continue to pay for that dearly, until we're able to repeal that rancid ruling.
Click to expand...


Citizens United would be meaningless if politicians didn't have the power to customize anyone's taxes or deficit spend.

Don't limit freedom of expression, limit what influence can be purchased with a million dollar campaign contribution.  Make giving such sums to a politician a waste of money, not a crime.



It's easy... strip just those two powers from your politicians and Citizens United becomes moot.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Fair and simple, baby!


----------



## Knightfall

Statistikhengst said:


> Wow. Some truly incredible work on your part. Too tired now to speak to each and tomorrow I have a very heavy work day, but at the weekend I will go over all of this in great detail. Thanks for your input!!!!



 What! You mean you didn't immediately drop today's work and take the time to address this point by point? Outrageous! 

Kidding obviously. Like I said, I wanted to use your post as a mental exercise, and it's been a month or two since I've written something substantive, so I figured I needed the practice. Conversations with me often tend to crash under their own weight since I tend to be exhaustive in responding to comments that posts become massively large and take up ridiculous amounts of time. I need to work on being more concise, but in this particular post, I was more focused on making sure I covered all the bases. 

Anyway, I'm just kind of babbling, but what I mean to get at is that I don't expect you to respond quickly nor do I really expect you to address everything I mentioned because that would take forever. Feel free to respond to as little or as much as you feel inclined. 

@FA_Q

I'll admit I'm a bit torn on term limits myself. On one hand, I like the idea of limiting federal power and it seems to me that breaking up the strongholds of the established politicians can only help with that goal. On the other, I don't like the idea of limiting people's freedoms unless absolutely necessary, and by that logic, people should be able to vote for whomever they choose. I can pretty much point/counterpoint myself back and forth ad infinitum on the issue, but since I've come down on the pro-term limit side in this discussion, let me continue to counter you. 

Though it is true that a more politically responsible culture would negate the need for term limits, term limits solves the problem of recurring corrupt politicians regardless of whether the public is paying attention and safeguards possible inattentiveness in the electorate. Even among those who do pay attention, there is a tendency for people to take the devil they know over the devil who has not yet proven himself. Limitless are the examples of those who have said, "I don't like this guy, but we know he can win over the other team." I think coming off the heels of widely acknowledged tyranny, the Founding Fathers were overly optimistic about the people's willingness to stand up against every corrupt politician. Though it's true that term limits do remove the reckoning with the voters inherent in reelection, it also keeps people away from Washington where it seems our Reps are frequently seduced by power, it removes those key figures in Washington which due to their vaunted and long lasting history are viewed as the leaders and moral arbiters of their party and have an obvious effect in keeping the newer members in line, it keeps politicians at home after certain short time spans where they will have the opportunity to reintegrate with their state citizens and hopefully gain a more grounded perspective, and it keeps bad politicians from being reelected by name recognition alone. 

Regarding the nuclear option, I think I got confused in regard to the nature of the rule that a bill must have 60% to pass the Senate. I thought that was specified in the Constitution, but glancing through the Constitution quickly just now, I didn't notice that, so am I correct in now understanding that the 60% was just the Senate's own rules about how bills should be passed and not in fact a Constitutional mandate? If it is just a Senate rule, then why doesn't the Senate do away with the rule altogether instead of going through all the "Constitutional Question" rigamarole? 

I see two problems with your idea of the exchange of Supreme Court Justices every four years. First up, it would, as you suggested, decrease the loyalty to the party that put you into office. Second, it fails to take into account the need for Supreme Court Justices to retire early. According to Some Random Site I Just Googled, the average tenure for Supreme Court Justice is just sixteen years, and considering the consistent reliability of Some Random Site I Just Googled, I think we should realize that plan will not work. 

Finally, I'm surprised considering your other positions that you would want the media to be prohibited from making early election calls. Any citizen who decides to forgo his civic duty, especially after Florida, has only themselves to blame, and any network that does this in a way that hurts the election process should be hurt by people leaving it and going to a more reliable network thereby punishing the guilty in that scenario. If a harmful effect is had on the election and intent to deceive can be proven, you would also have a hefty civil suit on your hands. It seems to me that there are plenty enough factors in place already to encourage ethical networks in the area of predictions especially when the alternative is an infringement on the freedom of the press.


----------



## whitehall

The term "electioneering" is yet to be defined. Democrats seem to be acknowledging another defeat in the next mid term and are acting as though the senate majority and the democrat president is a freaking hindrance to the political process. Thanks to the Founding Fathers, the United States has the power to hire and fire representatives and any citizen is welcome to vote. What do we see from (left wing?) alarmists? The assumption that Americans are too dumb to vote for a candidate and/or an agenda they support. Maybe so.


----------



## FA_Q2

Knightfall said:


> @FA_Q
> 
> I'll admit I'm a bit torn on term limits myself. On one hand, I like the idea of limiting federal power and it seems to me that breaking up the strongholds of the established politicians can only help with that goal. On the other, I don't like the idea of limiting people's freedoms unless absolutely necessary, and by that logic, people should be able to vote for whomever they choose. I can pretty much point/counterpoint myself back and forth ad infinitum on the issue, but since I've come down on the pro-term limit side in this discussion, let me continue to counter you.
> 
> Though it is true that a more politically responsible culture would negate the need for term limits, term limits solves the problem of recurring corrupt politicians regardless of whether the public is paying attention and safeguards possible inattentiveness in the electorate.


Part of my point was that is not actually true.  You ASSUME that it counters corrupt politicians.  That assumption though is based on a false premise (at least IMHO) that it is the politician that is the source of that corruption and replacing him/her can counter that corruption.  I would point out that is inherently false.  For one, you are just as likely to replace a good politician with a bad one as you are replacing a bad one with a good one.  IOW, it is not the fact that the politician has stuck around for a while that creates or causes the corruption.  

For another, as long as we have this current party system, mandatory rotating of politicians just moves that power base more from the politician to the party itself.  Sure, you replaced the politician BUT you only replaced the single cog in the machine.  The entirety of that machine is still there and without an entrenched position, as a long time politician might have, none of them will have any real power to shape the party itself.  At least currently, one of those long time politicians can buck the party in favor of his electorates opinion and the party must at least pay attention  he will be running again.  

Lastly, I dont really care what you do with the system itself, there simply is nothing that is capable of overcoming an apathetic electorate.  Term limits, IMHO, only serve to make us THINK that we are addressing the problem without effecting any real positive changes and possibly introduce negative ones in transferring power to the party and not having politicians accountable during their term.  As long as the voters themselves do not do their due diligence and exercise voting rights with the proper obligations then systemic changes are simply cosmetic.

I am a firm advocate of NOT making changes that attempt to cure symptoms but not the core issues themselves.  I believe that addressing just the symptoms leads to a deeper, more entrenched problem that becomes that much harder to root out.



Knightfall said:


> Even among those who do pay attention, there is a tendency for people to take the devil they know over the devil who has not yet proven himself. Limitless are the examples of those who have said, "I don't like this guy, but we know he can win over the other team."


That might very well be true.  That does not really mean anything though.  I dont really care if the tendency is going to go to the current office holder.  That does not inherently cause corruption.  As I said earlier, an apathetic electorate is what causes this.


Knightfall said:


> I think coming off the heels of widely acknowledged tyranny, the Founding Fathers were overly optimistic about the people's willingness to stand up against every corrupt politician. Though it's true that term limits do remove the reckoning with the voters inherent in reelection, it also keeps people away from Washington where it seems our Reps are frequently seduced by power, it removes those key figures in Washington which due to their vaunted and long lasting history are viewed as the leaders and moral arbiters of their party and have an obvious effect in keeping the newer members in line, it keeps politicians at home after certain short time spans where they will have the opportunity to reintegrate with their state citizens and hopefully gain a more grounded perspective, and it keeps bad politicians from being reelected by name recognition alone.


I think I addressed most of this in my first reply in this post.  I would reiterate that I dont think that you are going to remove that tendency to keep newer guys in line by removing the long standing politicians.  When you take away the chance for re-election, the party can simply disregard those newer politicians entirely.  They have no power because they are simply going to be replaced in a few years, this time with someone that the party vets better.  OTOH, if that member might be sticking around because his bucking the party jives with the electorates wishes, the party itself MUST deal with it.  


Knightfall said:


> Regarding the nuclear option, I think I got confused in regard to the nature of the rule that a bill must have 60% to pass the Senate. I thought that was specified in the Constitution, but glancing through the Constitution quickly just now, I didn't notice that, so am I correct in now understanding that the 60% was just the Senate's own rules about how bills should be passed and not in fact a Constitutional mandate? If it is just a Senate rule, then why doesn't the Senate do away with the rule altogether instead of going through all the "Constitutional Question" rigamarole?


Yes, it is correct that the 60% cloture vote was entirely fabricated within the senate and has nothing to do with legislation or constitutional requirements.  I am confused about your statement:

If it is just a Senate rule, then why doesn't the Senate do away with the rule altogether instead of going through all the "Constitutional Question" rigamarole?

They have not gone through any constitutional rigmarole AFAIK.  There has been no legitimate discussion about the rule itself and the constitution in general.  The rule has been a point of big contention over the last decade though because it serves a KEY role  keeping the minority party relevant.  So far, cloture actually has not gone away.  The only change that was made eliminated cloture requirements for presidential appointments other than the SCOTUS.  I seriously doubt that the remainder of the rule is far behind that change though but I think that it will be the republicans that do away with it in essentially a one up against the dems when they get back in power.    I am getting off track with that though so

The real contention here is that a single party managing to garner 51% or both houses and the presidency could essentially just send the other party home and disregard the entirety of their positions and/or agenda.  That is, almost universally, considered a BAD thing for the nation as a whole.  I think such has been proven to be a REALLY shitty concept in both Bush and Obamas terms in office.  Given cloture requirements, it is a MUCH higher hurdle to gain such a large portion of the senate in order to disregard the other party.  This essentially allows divided government on the more important issues even while a single party controls the government.

I despise 2 party rule but not near as much as I despise even the concept of single party rule.  Not much would be worse for our nation IMHO and I think that this move has brought us much close to that being a real possibility over the coming years.  I will not forgive the dems for allowing this to occur out of continence over their agenda.


Knightfall said:


> I see two problems with your idea of the exchange of Supreme Court Justices every four years. First up, it would, as you suggested, decrease the loyalty to the party that put you into office.


Really?  You see that as a negative!  For me that is a MASSIVE positive.  As a matter of fact, it is one of the main reasons why I suggested it.  The judicial branch is not supposed to have a party much less be loyal to it.  That is the ENTIRE point of being a lifetime appointment and not an elected position.

Lets face it, people run around all the time complaining about how liberal the 9th is and how conservative the SCOTUS is.  That should not even be a question.  The court is the court and if there is true bias in it than those judges need to be removed.  We should not have a conservative or a liberal SCOTUS and I dont really like the fact that such judges can and will hang on just to ensure that another president shared the same letter next to their name that the one appointing them did.  Nor does it sit well with me that a presedent might swap 3 or 4 seats in a single term by virtue of being elected at the right time.  Essentially, a shitty POTUS can destroy the nations principals for an entire generation.  I would prefer that they have the smallest effect on the makeup of the court possible.

How can you be against judicial elections of the SCOTUS but use the opposite reasoning of party loyalty in justices?


Knightfall said:


> Second, it fails to take into account the need for Supreme Court Justices to retire early. According to Some Random Site I Just Googled, the average tenure for Supreme Court Justice is just sixteen years, and considering the consistent reliability of Some Random Site I Just Googled, I think we should realize that plan will not work.


It does not need to take into account a justice retireing early.  Just because it will not work out perfectly each and every time does not mean you cant do it at all.  If a justice retires early you just select a new one.. You could possibly add the time that judge had left with the tenure that the new one would serve.  I dont really know as I would have to dwell on it more.
Obviously I would have to come up with better terms than I threw out though as you point out the average term is considerably lower than 30 years.  Perhaps stick with the average or slightly more  say 20 year terms.  If they retire early then so be it.


Knightfall said:


> Finally, I'm surprised considering your other positions that you would want the media to be prohibited from making early election calls. Any citizen who decides to forgo his civic duty, especially after Florida, has only themselves to blame, and any network that does this in a way that hurts the election process should be hurt by people leaving it and going to a more reliable network thereby punishing the guilty in that scenario. If a harmful effect is had on the election and intent to deceive can be proven, you would also have a hefty civil suit on your hands. It seems to me that there are plenty enough factors in place already to encourage ethical networks in the area of predictions especially when the alternative is an infringement on the freedom of the press.


I think you have my position a little confused.  The government has no right to tell a news organization what it can and cannot report as long as they are falling within a reasonable line of truth.  I belive utterly in a free press.  What the government does not have to do though is provide preliminary election results before the votes are tallies.  Essentially, I dont want free press infringed but rather want the government to stop giving out incomplete information on current election results.  There is noting that requires uncle same to report election results before the election has even remotely come to an end.  It is irresponsible and does lead to snafus like FL.  

Further, I think you are completely incorrect on that last point.  There are NOT factors in place encouraging etical news networks.  The exact opposite is actually true.  Networks continuasly report incorrect information because the actual barriers in place ENCOURAGE outright lies over not being one of the first to report.  Sandyhook illustrated that very clearly when the story and the weapons used changed a dozen times.  Many people still have incorrect facts because of that idiocy.

Now, just like the first point I made, there is noting that the government can (or should for that matter) do about that because the real problem comes from the fact that the viewers not only allow this but DEMAND it.  They patronize the news company that reports first rather than the one that reports accurately.  That, however, does NOT mean that the government must release data before it is complete.  Just like the police withhold information on a crime or an event until they have the whole picture (or at least what they do when they are doing it correctly) the government should not be releasing election data until the picture is firm and mostly complete.


----------



## Statistikhengst

AVG-JOE said:


> Fair and simple, baby!



That's what she always said to me. I never believe it.

Oh, sorry. You are talking about elections. I was thinking of my girlfriends and their shopping jaunts.


----------



## Tresha91203

I had the same thought about the Senators. I am still chewing on this and afraid it may be over my head but did not feel the Senators were really addressed. The idea is each state get an equal number despite their population. The Founders viewed the States themselves as important. They wanted Louisiana equal to California in the Senate despite population, despite the size of the state, precisely to protect Louisiana from California. Your solution (if i understood correctly) gives California more power over Louisiana, which I think is opposite of their intent.

[/B]





Statistikhengst said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots more politicians just what we need... it'd be better to divide by district the electoral college and award the them by district instead of winner take all. That would give everyone a voice instead of states like California where conservatives are overrun by liberals or visa versa in TX. Also there are 2 senators per state for a reason. That's the way the founders wanted it, and the way it should be. It gives the smaller states more of a voice. If you came up with this all yourself ? *Impressive*.. I haft to give you credit for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of these ideas, as I wrote in the OP, are from Larry Sabato and his excellent book. Thanks for the kind words.
> 
> I did indeed address the issue of 2 Senators per state. Did you read it?
> 
> Yes, Electoral College, but by congressional district, would also be a possibility.
> 
> It would have only changed the results in 2000: Gore would have won, if I recall correctly.
> 
> I dunno, maybe they would be less "politicians" and more "public servants" if the system of electioneering were more sane to begin with. Furthermore, being one of 1,000 reps carries less clout than being 1 of 435 - you have to work harder to actually make a record for yourself, maybe actually read legislation and such.  So, instead of getting more politicians, maybe we would have more public servants.
> 
> But that cuts both ways: our elected officials also deserve an informed electorate worth serving, and not an apathetic, uninformed electorate that is highly reactionary.
Click to expand...


----------



## Tresha91203

TemplarKormac said:


> And Stat, this is one hell of a post you made here. I commend you for putting your back into it.



Sorry, but I am on a tablet so can't quote your last post to respond to without quoting way too much. Regarding one R and one D Senator in each state: I am uncomfortable with forever locking the US into this 2 party system. I feel it is part of the problem.


----------



## Tresha91203

[/B]QUOTE=Derideo_Te;8430419]





BlackSand said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if there was just a web site where we could go to voice our opinion on which programs deserve funding...
> 
> How many of us would vote to continue millions in military aid to Russia and Egypt?
> 
> How many of us would vote to continue most favored nation trading status for China?
> 
> How many of us would vote for a little more money devoted to roads and bridges here in the USA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we have the ability to be that precise ... How about we add a link for filing income taxes electronically?
> Make it a link where Americans that pay income taxes can divide the amount they owe among programs they wish to support  ... Like Roads and Bridges, Military, Federal Government, Social Security, Welfare or Pork Projects.
> 
> That way we can make sure taxpayers are sufficiently represented in the capacity they contribute.
> I mean if we are going to change the system to be fair by population ... Then fair by contribution would be equally justified.
> 
> .
Click to expand...




Works for me! Similar to giving voters a line item vote on Budget Bills. That way the popularity of each item will be readily apparent to our representatives.[/QUOTE]

There are some things we don't know and can't know. No move is made in isolation. I suspect there are reasons BSO continued some of GWB's policies he disagrees with, and not all of them are nefarious. When I am presented with a more complete picture of something, my opinion is changed or refined. I trust that our Presidents are similar. The idea is to elect someone who would do it like you would if you had all the facts, and then trust (but verify when able) him to do it. 

Also, this castrates him in global politics.


----------



## Tresha91203

I've loved this thread. Just a couple more thoughts:

No to messing with the supreme court except possibly that idea that no President can appoint more than 1. I think I like that idea but haven't mulled it over long enough. the SC is our last line of defense against the politician. He is appointed by our highest elected official and will never have to defend his position (unless abused). The 3 powers are seperate. It seems you are wanting to meld a lot together that was specifically designed to be separate, and with very good reason.

Also, there seems to be an assumed move towards Federal microrule. Not everyone wants to be a Californian. There is no need for New York to have undue influnce on Cleetus in Back Vacherie. We are far too big of a Country for the kind of homogeneity you are seeking. It is not necessary and not everyone wants it. What is wrong with allowing Utah to be Utah? We are all free to leave Utah for California to find our bliss if we choose. Cleetus is NOT going to be happy in San Francisco. He's not hurting anyone and he's perfectly happy where he is. Why the compulsion to mess with him? 

The people speak through the House. The majority decides what needs to get done and starts it rolling. Then, you move to the Senate where the States get to look at it and decide whether then agree or if there is some hidden/unintended consequence that needs to be resolved or scrapped totally. Your proposal eliminates this safeguard completely. There is a reason the people don't get to rule without checks. Mob rule is pure emotion.  The SC is the final protection. If we get screwed by the politicians, they are outside that influence. They are not defending their seat and they wont get fired. Their job is to stand up to both the politicians AND THE MOB without fear of reprecussion. I get the vibe you want the mob to be able to punish (therefor influence) the court. I feel this is bad.

Change is supposed to be slow. We were designed that way on purpose for a reason and it has worked well. This speeds up everything and may be reckless.


----------



## Statistikhengst

*bumped*  for a number of members who are debating what just happened in the Mississippi runoff election on June 24th, 2014, between GOP incumbent Cochran and Tea-Party challenger McDaniel.

Now could be a good time to re-read the OP to this thread, which is spread over a number of postings at the beginning.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Statistikhengst said:


> *The Judicial*
> 
> Term: 18 years (24 years for the Chief Justice)
> Requirements: 40 years old, US citizen
> Term limit: 1 term
> 
> The Supreme Court should be* expanded to 15 justices* + 2 alternates. Majority vote: 8, abstentions not allowed under any circumstance. For this reason, a 16th and 17th alternate judge would also be elected to decide on a case where a judge would decide to abstain, and they would rule in his stead. This would mean that ALL SC cases would have a vote of 15 voices, without exception. No 15 voices, no ruling, that simple.
> 
> Supreme Court Justices, other than the Chief justice, would be allowed to serve a maximum of 18 years, or possibly, 3 presidential terms. The Chief justice would be allowed to serve  a maximum of 24 years, or possibly four presidential terms.
> 
> Supreme Court judges would be elected, but through a system of lists and then an election. Supreme Court judges would no longer be appointed by the President, nor would they be confirmed by the US Senate.
> 
> Someone wanting to be a judge would need to apply. His credentials would then go through a House committee, a Senate committee and then a Presidential committee.
> 
> A final list of 60 names would be provided for election day, the voters would select 15 of the 60 names (maximum) and the top 15 vote getters would be elected. Numbers 16 and 17 would be alternate judges. However, the sitting president would get to decide which justice would be the Chief Justice out of those elected to the Supreme Court, and that appointment would be approved by the US Senate. Should a justice leave before the end of his term for any reason, then the next highest vote-getter on the list (that would be nr. 16, for starters) would assume the position.
> 
> Judges would be elected in the MIDDLE of a presidential term, in other words, in the election for the House of Representatives. This means that elected Supreme Court justices would likely straddle the terms of two or three presidents.
> 
> I would like to note that many nations elect their judges, rather than appointing them.



Electing SC justices introduces politics in the same manner that appointing/approving them does. Prospective justices would make rulings that would favor whichever political segment they believed would get them the most votes. Worst of all would be the corporations funding the campaigns of prospective justices so that makes direct elections a disaster in my opinion.

That said there must be a better way to ensure that SCOTUS justices are nonpartisan. Sounds impossible because they are human but there actually are some out there who can put their partisanship aside and decide purely on the merits. 

In my opinion the "litmus test" for any SC appointee is their track record on decisions that favor We the People over and above all other competing interests. Any prospective appointee with a track record of deciding in favor of corporations over We the People should be automatically disqualified. 

When it comes to disputes between factions amongst We the People there will be divide between conservative and liberal viewpoints. That is where I propose a quota of 3 conservative, 3 liberal and 3 independent based upon voting records of all prior decisions relating to involving We the People. If a justice retires from that segment then the next one in line for that segment becomes the appointee.

So that leads into how I see the system working. No elections but instead an independent ranking organization comprised primarily of Law School Deans with the same 3 way quota. They would rank the best suited judges to become the next SC justice within their segment and when a position opened up whomever was at the top of that list would become the next appointee in order to maintain balance within the SC. The Senate would still vote to confirm the appointment.

There would be another little wrinkle here. If the Law School Deans believed that an appointed SC justice was no longer voting consistently in accordance within the principles of the segment to which they were appointed and/or voting against the interests of We the People the Law School Deans could nominate a replacement judge for the SC justice. If the Senate confirmed the replacement then that SC justice would be ousted by their replacement.

Yes, there is still room for corruption and collusion but the political element is far less pervasive and there is now a defined segment in the middle that must be swayed by the merits of the case to one side or the other and that makes it more likely that bad law like Citizens United will never make it through and good laws that uphold the rights of We the People will not be overturned in favor of special corporate interests in my opinion.


----------



## Statistikhengst

*bump* for the sake of discussion, especially considering the McDaniel lawsuit in Mississippi.


----------



## Jroc

Palin backs Tea Party favorite Joe Miller for Alaska GOP Senate nod | Fox News


----------



## Statistikhengst

Jroc said:


> Palin backs Tea Party favorite Joe Miller for Alaska GOP Senate nod | Fox News



That is interesting, has however nothing to do with the topic of electioneering, meaning, the nuts and bolts of electioneering - itself.

Would you perhaps like to make your own thread about this?


----------



## Jroc

Statistikhengst said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palin backs Tea Party favorite Joe Miller for Alaska GOP Senate nod | Fox News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is interesting, has however nothing to do with the topic of electioneering, meaning, the nuts and bolts of electioneering - itself.
> 
> Would you perhaps like to make your own thread about this?
Click to expand...


Endorsements are part of "Electioneering"...The primary battles between establishment and tea party candidates is also electioneering


----------



## Statistikhengst

*friendly bump after the software change*


----------



## Statistikhengst

Jroc said:


> Endorsements are part of "Electioneering"...The primary battles between establishment and tea party candidates is also electioneering




No. Endorsements are part of campaigning, not electioneering.


----------



## Mathbud1

Derideo_Te said:


> on some great ideas and responses from GW and GT too.
> 
> I tagged some additional members whom I believe could make some excellent contributions. (Used the [Tag Users] function at the top since that is what it is for.)
> 
> Some of what you suggest is going to require Constitutional Amendments and that means that this is going to be difficult to implement. Not impossible, but harder than necessary. Overall I agree that we are way overdue for a complete overhaul.
> 
> My suggestions actually piggyback on the concept of voter involvement in elections via the internet and using unique ids similar to SSNs.
> 
> 1. Compulsory voting for all citizens. Doesn't matter if you vote for Mickey Mouse but you must cast a ballot. This eliminates parties having to focus on "turnout". If everyone must vote then turnout becomes a non-issue.
> 
> 2. Voting via the Internet is something that needs to done sooner rather than later. Yes, it is feasible and it eliminates the BS about long waiting lines and voting hours and all the rest of the ways that politicians are using to mess with voting rights. If we trust the internet to make credit card purchases (sometimes for thousands of dollars) then why can't we have a similar secure system for voting? Eliminates weather concerns too. Best of all counting electronic votes can be tallied in seconds and there are no "hanging chads" and other nonsense. Polls close and vote counts are known nationwide.
> 
> 3. Allow permanent residents to vote in non Federal and non State wide elections. These are taxpayers too and since their taxes pay local municipal taxes and for schools it only makes sense that they should be allowed to enter the electoral process in this manner. (BTW this is already allowed in some states.) This is all part and parcel of greater involvement in the process rather than less.
> 
> Right now part of what is messing up the system is the deliberate and malicious process of driving voters away. A vote lost for your opponent is a vote gained for yourself. If voting becomes compulsory the incentive to drive away voters falls away (and so does the money to make that happen.)
> 
> The use of the Internet for voting eliminates the excuse for not voting. Every place that offers WiFi now becomes a potential polling station. College dorms, coffee shops, libraries, shopping malls and yes, in the comfort of your own home. Once again greater involvement across all registered voters means that trying to appeal on single issues to drive "turnout" becomes a non issue and again, it undercuts the benefit of outside funding.
> 
> Internet voting doesn't require a constitutional amendment. It can be implemented sooner rather than later and it makes the most sense to begin here because it will increase voter turnout simply because it makes it easier. It also increases voting in primary elections which are notorious for low turnout. This can eliminate a subset of the voters being able to restrict the choices of the greater electorate.
> 
> Anything that increases involvement in the election process means a democracy where votes count more than dollars. That is where we must begin in my opinion.



I'm not sure I like the idea of compulsory voting. It seems likely to only increase the number of completely uninformed votes. If you are voluntarily voting, it is because you have at least some semblance of a reason for voting for the candidate. If you are only voting because you have to, I think you will get a lot of people voting with no reasoning at all. Maybe it wouldn't be that bad. I'm not really sure.

As for internet voting: part of me loves the idea for the speed and simplicity in counting the vote, but another part of me is screaming that it is a very bad idea. There is no internet-connected system that cannot be hacked, and when the leadership of one of the world's most powerful nations is being decided by that system the motivation to hack it is extreme. Do you really want China to think, "If we just get past this firewall, we can decide who runs the U.S. government." That's more than a little scary.


----------



## Jackson

Statistikhengst said:


> *Election Rules and timelines.*
> 
> 
> *Primary elections:*
> 
> -The nation is divided into 5 geographic zones. Each zone has it's primary all on the same day. Zones such as:
> 
> -The Northeast /Acela States
> -The South
> -The Midwest
> -The Breadbasket and Big Sky States
> -The West Coast and beyond.
> 
> Here would be one possible, and very logical map:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -The order of the zones is determined by a lottery ball machine, just like the one used for the lotto. 5 balls go into the machine, the first one that comes out with the zone name on it is the zone that holds the first of* 5 -and only 5- primary Tuesdays*, and so forth. The lottery will be drawn on New Years's day of election year. Each state gets to decide whether primary or caucus, but they will be held for that zone on that day. No &#8222;first in the nation&#8220; states any more. In this way, the candidates themselves do not know until New Years Day where to sink in their money, anyway, so instead of patronizing one region in order to get the upper hand, they stick to their general message and apply it to the ENTIRE nation.
> 
> -All pacs, polling and advertising for candidates would be illegal until New Years Day of election year.
> 
> -Primary 1: the third tuesday of February
> -Primary 2: the first Tuesday of March
> -Primary 3: the third Tuesday of March.
> 
> -Then, there is a one month break between the 3rd and fourth primary.
> 
> -Primary 4: the third Tuesday in April.
> -Primary 5: the first Tuesday in May.
> 
> And a make-up date for any primaries cancelled due to inclement weather anywhere in the USA, and also for any run-offs, would be on the third Tuesday of May. Polling times and such: see: General Election
> 
> The National Conventions for all Parties would be held in June and must be completed by July 1st.
> 
> *General Election:*
> 
> The month of July and the first three weeks of August would be open for General Election fundraising. Official begin of the general election season: Labor Day.
> 
> Election Day: First Sunday in November, from 06:00 am till 9:30 pm for all time-zones, without exception. Early voting for all 50 states plus DC allowed for 21 days until election day. For states that do mail-in voting, 9:30 pm would be the cutoff for mail delivery. Provisional ballots allowed for all 50 states plus DC. Overseas and military ballots must be time-stamped by 9:30 PM EDT and must be turned in within 5 days of the election.
> 
> -*Voter ID*, a uniform form of ID used throughout the USA, also required to vote in all 50 states plus DC would be required.
> 
> -*Automatic voter registration* for all citizens when they reach the age of 18, with notification of such and information about polling place per postcard. The ID card for voting would be an exact duplicate of the first page of an American Passport, which means when you get a voter ID, it is easy to also apply for your passport at the same time and all of these things can be processed at BMV or SOS offices throughout the land. _Oregon is currently the first state in the Union to seriously consider automatic voter registration, starting next year._
> 
> -The same Super-computer that did the redistricting also does a computation as to how many voting machines and precincts are necessary in order to get voting done by 9:30 pm and basta, done!
> 
> -Exit polling for all 50 states plus DC becomes mandatory for all national elections. Exit polling results are first allowed to be broadcast after the polls close in Alaska.
> 
> -The Networks would be forbidden to make any state calls until at least 45 minutes after poll closings and at least 25% of ballots from that state have been counted - and  - the exit polling shows at least a +7 margin for the same candidate who is winning in the actual ballot count. This means that the first calls of the night, starting for all states in the Eastern Time zone, would be at 10:15 PM, and not one minute earlier. States that straddle two time zones would close in the time zone that is the most westerly of the two.
> 
> -National Popular vote running tallies would also not be published until at least 25% of the nation has reported in.
> 
> This methodology, though it may seem boring and lets us have less suspense, allows for the process to be  done more quietly. In the event of a big win for someone, where the call for President usually happens around 11 pm, it would only be delayed until 1 or 2 am EDT.
> 
> For every single race in the nation, any margin under +0.5% would mean an automatic recount, without exception, but only once all provisional and absentee and overseas ballots are accounted for. Any candidate can also request a recount from between +0.5% and +1.0%, but then he must pay for it.
> 
> Due date for every state to submit final canvasses from the General election: Second Sunday in December, exactly 5 weeks after the election.
> 
> The electors would still meet in their respective states, but law would dictate that they must vote for the winner of the vote in their state, and in order to ensure that there are no &#8222;faithless electors&#8220;, the final slate of electors will be electronic across the board. So, the elector signing ceremonies would be mere formalities.
> 
> *All of these suggestions of mine would make elections cleaner, fairer and more sane. It would eliminate a huge part of the money chase for election and would destroy the permanent election cycles that we are now suffering.
> 
> If you are going to elect someone to do a job as a public servant, then you also have to give him time to actually do the job without having to be torn to pieces by a crazy, hodge-podge election process that has grown into a veritable monster.*


Wow!  You have really thought this out.  All of the points you made are good.  One thing I have a problem with is mail in voting.  It's too easy to be involved with fraud.  Service men and women and the physically impaired should be the only ones getting mail in ballots.  Perhaps those who need mail in ballots could get cards from your doctor the way handicapped license are handled.


----------



## PhilosphyBeforeParty

Statistikhengst said:


> This thread is a project I have been working on for months, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Putting it out on USMB is a promise I made to    [MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION].
> 
> From the moment a US-Representative is sworn in, he or she is _already_ planning and fundraising for the NEXT election.  Huge PACS and Super-PACS are scrounging for money all year long. The media machine for all political parties is set to full-blast 24/7. Polling for the next presidential election started quite literally on the day after the last presidential election! *We are now living in a permanent election cycle that literally never ends. This is not healthy for us.*
> 
> Liberals complain that voter suppression is happening. Conservatives complain that there is voter fraud. Both sides have some very valid complaints. The last three presidential election have seen long-lines of people waiting to vote at polling places not equipped to handle that many people. Gerrymandering has literally made about 80% of the House of Representatives &#8222;safe&#8220;. And the list goes on and on.
> 
> In fact, it is just crazy.
> 
> In many ways, we have an electoral system that is designed for failure. That was surely not the intent of the founding fathers, but this is how it is working out and I think the time for some real common sense changes has come.
> 
> In this report, Conservatives, Moderates and Liberals are all going to find some things that they like and things that they don't like, but I ask of you to read all of it and digest it before commenting.
> 
> *My main contention is that there is a severe structural flaw in our system of electioneering*, namely, that very little of it is set in stone in the US Constitution. What was considered checks-and-balances has now become gridlock. And the rest, because of Federalism, is left up to the individual states to decide. And out of this, a hodge-podge patchwork of electioneering has evolved into a money making-monster.
> 
> So, I am a proposing a complete overhaul of our electoral system, but not an elimination of the &#8222;Electoral College&#8220;, as we like to call it. I am going to do this in four parts. Because of the length of this all, and to make it easier for you all to quote only one section, these four parts will be spread over postings 2-5 of this thread:
> 
> *I.   The Legislative* (posting no. 2)
> *II.  The Executive* (posting no. 3)
> *III. The Judicial *(posting no. 4)
> *IV.  Election rules and timelines* (posting no. 5)
> 
> Many of these things are things that Larry Sabato has also suggested in his book &#8222;Toward a more Perfect Union&#8220;, but many of them are also orginal ideas of mine.
> 
> The goal of all of this is to
> 
> a.) increase the amount of undisrupted time for governing between elections.
> b.) streamline the actual time frame of electioneering.
> c.) unify the rules for electioneering.
> d.) reduce the money chase.
> 
> I am not saying that this is the only way to do this, but I do think that much of what I suggest is worthy of real adult debate. As I already wrote, each person will probably find some things he likes and some things he doesn't like, and that is good, for such sparks intelligent debate. *Furthermore, I deliberately left out a lot of the reason for WHY I feel this way about many things. I did this to spur people to question or to come up with reasons themselves*.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> A friendly shout-out to *all* of these good people, from the Right, the Left and the Middle. I hope very much that you read all 5 opening postings and then comment. This could become one of the best discussions of the year.
> 
> [MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION]   [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]   [MENTION=40495]AngelsNDemons[/MENTION]   [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]   [MENTION=26011]Ernie S.[/MENTION]   [MENTION=9429]AVG-JOE[/MENTION] @Mad Cabbie   [MENTION=42649]Gracie[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]   [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION]   [MENTION=38281]Wolfsister77[/MENTION]   [MENTION=21679]william the wie[/MENTION]   [MENTION=23424]syrenn[/MENTION]   [MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION]   [MENTION=37250]aaronleland[/MENTION]  [MENTION=36767]Bloodrock44[/MENTION]   [MENTION=36528]cereal_killer[/MENTION]   [MENTION=40540]Connery[/MENTION]   [MENTION=30999]daws101[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION]   [MENTION=33449]BreezeWood[/MENTION]   [MENTION=31362]gallantwarrior[/MENTION]   [MENTION=24610]iamwhatiseem[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46750]Knightfall[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46690]Libertarianman[/MENTION]   [MENTION=1322]007[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20594]Mr Clean[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20704]Nosmo King[/MENTION]   [MENTION=43268]TemplarKormac[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION]   [MENTION=41494]RandallFlagg[/MENTION]   [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION] Samson   [MENTION=21357]SFC Ollie[/MENTION] @Sherri   [MENTION=43491]TooTall[/MENTION]   [MENTION=25451]tinydancer[/MENTION]   [MENTION=31918]Unkotare[/MENTION]   [MENTION=45104]WelfareQueen[/MENTION]   [MENTION=21524]oldfart[/MENTION]   [MENTION=42498]Esmeralda[/MENTION]   [MENTION=43888]AyeCantSeeYou[/MENTION]   [MENTION=19302]Montrovant[/MENTION]   [MENTION=11703]strollingbones[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18988]PixieStix[/MENTION]   [MENTION=23262]peach174[/MENTION]   [MENTION=13805]Againsheila[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20342]Ringel05[/MENTION]   [MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18905]Sherry[/MENTION]   [MENTION=29697]freedombecki[/MENTION]   [MENTION=22590]AquaAthena[/MENTION]   [MENTION=38146]Dajjal[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18645]Sarah G[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46193]Thx[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]   [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]   [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18990]Barb[/MENTION]   [MENTION=19867]G.T.[/MENTION]   [MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION]   [MENTION=11278]editec[/MENTION]   [MENTION=22983]Flopper[/MENTION]   [MENTION=22889]Matthew[/MENTION] [MENTION=46136]dreolin[/MENTION]


I wanted to have an intelligent debate with you about this, but quite frankly I don't find much fault in your reasoning. not many people hear that from me.


----------



## PhilosphyBeforeParty

gallantwarrior said:


> The "fix" is so simple, it's painful.  Given our technology, one-person, one-vote should be the way to go.  Each registered voter is issued a one-time only access password.  After they have presented appropriate identification proving their bona fides, they may then use that password to cast their vote.  This prevents others from "buying" passwords to tip the vote.  Once a password has been used, it is no longer valid.  The reason for an electoral college is long gone.


what about the people who don't have internet access?


----------



## Statistikhengst

PhilosphyBeforeParty said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is a project I have been working on for months, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Putting it out on USMB is a promise I made to    [MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION].
> 
> From the moment a US-Representative is sworn in, he or she is _already_ planning and fundraising for the NEXT election.  Huge PACS and Super-PACS are scrounging for money all year long. The media machine for all political parties is set to full-blast 24/7. Polling for the next presidential election started quite literally on the day after the last presidential election! *We are now living in a permanent election cycle that literally never ends. This is not healthy for us.*
> 
> Liberals complain that voter suppression is happening. Conservatives complain that there is voter fraud. Both sides have some very valid complaints. The last three presidential election have seen long-lines of people waiting to vote at polling places not equipped to handle that many people. Gerrymandering has literally made about 80% of the House of Representatives &#8222;safe&#8220;. And the list goes on and on.
> 
> In fact, it is just crazy.
> 
> In many ways, we have an electoral system that is designed for failure. That was surely not the intent of the founding fathers, but this is how it is working out and I think the time for some real common sense changes has come.
> 
> In this report, Conservatives, Moderates and Liberals are all going to find some things that they like and things that they don't like, but I ask of you to read all of it and digest it before commenting.
> 
> *My main contention is that there is a severe structural flaw in our system of electioneering*, namely, that very little of it is set in stone in the US Constitution. What was considered checks-and-balances has now become gridlock. And the rest, because of Federalism, is left up to the individual states to decide. And out of this, a hodge-podge patchwork of electioneering has evolved into a money making-monster.
> 
> So, I am a proposing a complete overhaul of our electoral system, but not an elimination of the &#8222;Electoral College&#8220;, as we like to call it. I am going to do this in four parts. Because of the length of this all, and to make it easier for you all to quote only one section, these four parts will be spread over postings 2-5 of this thread:
> 
> *I.   The Legislative* (posting no. 2)
> *II.  The Executive* (posting no. 3)
> *III. The Judicial *(posting no. 4)
> *IV.  Election rules and timelines* (posting no. 5)
> 
> Many of these things are things that Larry Sabato has also suggested in his book &#8222;Toward a more Perfect Union&#8220;, but many of them are also orginal ideas of mine.
> 
> The goal of all of this is to
> 
> a.) increase the amount of undisrupted time for governing between elections.
> b.) streamline the actual time frame of electioneering.
> c.) unify the rules for electioneering.
> d.) reduce the money chase.
> 
> I am not saying that this is the only way to do this, but I do think that much of what I suggest is worthy of real adult debate. As I already wrote, each person will probably find some things he likes and some things he doesn't like, and that is good, for such sparks intelligent debate. *Furthermore, I deliberately left out a lot of the reason for WHY I feel this way about many things. I did this to spur people to question or to come up with reasons themselves*.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> A friendly shout-out to *all* of these good people, from the Right, the Left and the Middle. I hope very much that you read all 5 opening postings and then comment. This could become one of the best discussions of the year.
> 
> [MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION]   [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]   [MENTION=40495]AngelsNDemons[/MENTION]   [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]   [MENTION=26011]Ernie S.[/MENTION]   [MENTION=9429]AVG-JOE[/MENTION] @Mad Cabbie   [MENTION=42649]Gracie[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]   [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION]   [MENTION=38281]Wolfsister77[/MENTION]   [MENTION=21679]william the wie[/MENTION]   [MENTION=23424]syrenn[/MENTION]   [MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION]   [MENTION=37250]aaronleland[/MENTION]  [MENTION=36767]Bloodrock44[/MENTION]   [MENTION=36528]cereal_killer[/MENTION]   [MENTION=40540]Connery[/MENTION]   [MENTION=30999]daws101[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION]   [MENTION=33449]BreezeWood[/MENTION]   [MENTION=31362]gallantwarrior[/MENTION]   [MENTION=24610]iamwhatiseem[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46750]Knightfall[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46690]Libertarianman[/MENTION]   [MENTION=1322]007[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20594]Mr Clean[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20704]Nosmo King[/MENTION]   [MENTION=43268]TemplarKormac[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION]   [MENTION=41494]RandallFlagg[/MENTION]   [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION] Samson   [MENTION=21357]SFC Ollie[/MENTION] @Sherri   [MENTION=43491]TooTall[/MENTION]   [MENTION=25451]tinydancer[/MENTION]   [MENTION=31918]Unkotare[/MENTION]   [MENTION=45104]WelfareQueen[/MENTION]   [MENTION=21524]oldfart[/MENTION]   [MENTION=42498]Esmeralda[/MENTION]   [MENTION=43888]AyeCantSeeYou[/MENTION]   [MENTION=19302]Montrovant[/MENTION]   [MENTION=11703]strollingbones[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18988]PixieStix[/MENTION]   [MENTION=23262]peach174[/MENTION]   [MENTION=13805]Againsheila[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20342]Ringel05[/MENTION]   [MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18905]Sherry[/MENTION]   [MENTION=29697]freedombecki[/MENTION]   [MENTION=22590]AquaAthena[/MENTION]   [MENTION=38146]Dajjal[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18645]Sarah G[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46193]Thx[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]   [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]   [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18990]Barb[/MENTION]   [MENTION=19867]G.T.[/MENTION]   [MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION]   [MENTION=11278]editec[/MENTION]   [MENTION=22983]Flopper[/MENTION]   [MENTION=22889]Matthew[/MENTION] [MENTION=46136]dreolin[/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to have an intelligent debate with you about this, but quite frankly I don't find much fault in your reasoning. not many people hear that from me.
Click to expand...



That is really kind of you!!

It's just a set of suggestions based on common sense and a desire to make electioneering fairer, more streamlined and less of a game.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Jackson said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Election Rules and timelines.*
> 
> 
> *Primary elections:*
> 
> -The nation is divided into 5 geographic zones. Each zone has it's primary all on the same day. Zones such as:
> 
> -The Northeast /Acela States
> -The South
> -The Midwest
> -The Breadbasket and Big Sky States
> -The West Coast and beyond.
> 
> Here would be one possible, and very logical map:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -The order of the zones is determined by a lottery ball machine, just like the one used for the lotto. 5 balls go into the machine, the first one that comes out with the zone name on it is the zone that holds the first of* 5 -and only 5- primary Tuesdays*, and so forth. The lottery will be drawn on New Years's day of election year. Each state gets to decide whether primary or caucus, but they will be held for that zone on that day. No &#8222;first in the nation&#8220; states any more. In this way, the candidates themselves do not know until New Years Day where to sink in their money, anyway, so instead of patronizing one region in order to get the upper hand, they stick to their general message and apply it to the ENTIRE nation.
> 
> -All pacs, polling and advertising for candidates would be illegal until New Years Day of election year.
> 
> -Primary 1: the third tuesday of February
> -Primary 2: the first Tuesday of March
> -Primary 3: the third Tuesday of March.
> 
> -Then, there is a one month break between the 3rd and fourth primary.
> 
> -Primary 4: the third Tuesday in April.
> -Primary 5: the first Tuesday in May.
> 
> And a make-up date for any primaries cancelled due to inclement weather anywhere in the USA, and also for any run-offs, would be on the third Tuesday of May. Polling times and such: see: General Election
> 
> The National Conventions for all Parties would be held in June and must be completed by July 1st.
> 
> *General Election:*
> 
> The month of July and the first three weeks of August would be open for General Election fundraising. Official begin of the general election season: Labor Day.
> 
> Election Day: First Sunday in November, from 06:00 am till 9:30 pm for all time-zones, without exception. Early voting for all 50 states plus DC allowed for 21 days until election day. For states that do mail-in voting, 9:30 pm would be the cutoff for mail delivery. Provisional ballots allowed for all 50 states plus DC. Overseas and military ballots must be time-stamped by 9:30 PM EDT and must be turned in within 5 days of the election.
> 
> -*Voter ID*, a uniform form of ID used throughout the USA, also required to vote in all 50 states plus DC would be required.
> 
> -*Automatic voter registration* for all citizens when they reach the age of 18, with notification of such and information about polling place per postcard. The ID card for voting would be an exact duplicate of the first page of an American Passport, which means when you get a voter ID, it is easy to also apply for your passport at the same time and all of these things can be processed at BMV or SOS offices throughout the land. _Oregon is currently the first state in the Union to seriously consider automatic voter registration, starting next year._
> 
> -The same Super-computer that did the redistricting also does a computation as to how many voting machines and precincts are necessary in order to get voting done by 9:30 pm and basta, done!
> 
> -Exit polling for all 50 states plus DC becomes mandatory for all national elections. Exit polling results are first allowed to be broadcast after the polls close in Alaska.
> 
> -The Networks would be forbidden to make any state calls until at least 45 minutes after poll closings and at least 25% of ballots from that state have been counted - and  - the exit polling shows at least a +7 margin for the same candidate who is winning in the actual ballot count. This means that the first calls of the night, starting for all states in the Eastern Time zone, would be at 10:15 PM, and not one minute earlier. States that straddle two time zones would close in the time zone that is the most westerly of the two.
> 
> -National Popular vote running tallies would also not be published until at least 25% of the nation has reported in.
> 
> This methodology, though it may seem boring and lets us have less suspense, allows for the process to be  done more quietly. In the event of a big win for someone, where the call for President usually happens around 11 pm, it would only be delayed until 1 or 2 am EDT.
> 
> For every single race in the nation, any margin under +0.5% would mean an automatic recount, without exception, but only once all provisional and absentee and overseas ballots are accounted for. Any candidate can also request a recount from between +0.5% and +1.0%, but then he must pay for it.
> 
> Due date for every state to submit final canvasses from the General election: Second Sunday in December, exactly 5 weeks after the election.
> 
> The electors would still meet in their respective states, but law would dictate that they must vote for the winner of the vote in their state, and in order to ensure that there are no &#8222;faithless electors&#8220;, the final slate of electors will be electronic across the board. So, the elector signing ceremonies would be mere formalities.
> 
> *All of these suggestions of mine would make elections cleaner, fairer and more sane. It would eliminate a huge part of the money chase for election and would destroy the permanent election cycles that we are now suffering.
> 
> If you are going to elect someone to do a job as a public servant, then you also have to give him time to actually do the job without having to be torn to pieces by a crazy, hodge-podge election process that has grown into a veritable monster.*
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!  You have really thought this out.  All of the points you made are good.  One thing I have a problem with is mail in voting.  It's too easy to be involved with fraud.  Service men and women and the physically impaired should be the only ones getting mail in ballots.  Perhaps those who need mail in ballots could get cards from your doctor the way handicapped license are handled.
Click to expand...



You know, I used to have that thought, too. But Oregon has been doing mail-in voting for almost 20 years now and without a hitch. So, apparently, it really can work.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Glad to see this thread getting some revived traffic.


----------



## Jackson

Statistikhengst said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Election Rules and timelines.*
> 
> 
> *Primary elections:*
> 
> -The nation is divided into 5 geographic zones. Each zone has it's primary all on the same day. Zones such as:
> 
> -The Northeast /Acela States
> -The South
> -The Midwest
> -The Breadbasket and Big Sky States
> -The West Coast and beyond.
> 
> Here would be one possible, and very logical map:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -The order of the zones is determined by a lottery ball machine, just like the one used for the lotto. 5 balls go into the machine, the first one that comes out with the zone name on it is the zone that holds the first of* 5 -and only 5- primary Tuesdays*, and so forth. The lottery will be drawn on New Years's day of election year. Each state gets to decide whether primary or caucus, but they will be held for that zone on that day. No &#8222;first in the nation&#8220; states any more. In this way, the candidates themselves do not know until New Years Day where to sink in their money, anyway, so instead of patronizing one region in order to get the upper hand, they stick to their general message and apply it to the ENTIRE nation.
> 
> -All pacs, polling and advertising for candidates would be illegal until New Years Day of election year.
> 
> -Primary 1: the third tuesday of February
> -Primary 2: the first Tuesday of March
> -Primary 3: the third Tuesday of March.
> 
> -Then, there is a one month break between the 3rd and fourth primary.
> 
> -Primary 4: the third Tuesday in April.
> -Primary 5: the first Tuesday in May.
> 
> And a make-up date for any primaries cancelled due to inclement weather anywhere in the USA, and also for any run-offs, would be on the third Tuesday of May. Polling times and such: see: General Election
> 
> The National Conventions for all Parties would be held in June and must be completed by July 1st.
> 
> *General Election:*
> 
> The month of July and the first three weeks of August would be open for General Election fundraising. Official begin of the general election season: Labor Day.
> 
> Election Day: First Sunday in November, from 06:00 am till 9:30 pm for all time-zones, without exception. Early voting for all 50 states plus DC allowed for 21 days until election day. For states that do mail-in voting, 9:30 pm would be the cutoff for mail delivery. Provisional ballots allowed for all 50 states plus DC. Overseas and military ballots must be time-stamped by 9:30 PM EDT and must be turned in within 5 days of the election.
> 
> -*Voter ID*, a uniform form of ID used throughout the USA, also required to vote in all 50 states plus DC would be required.
> 
> -*Automatic voter registration* for all citizens when they reach the age of 18, with notification of such and information about polling place per postcard. The ID card for voting would be an exact duplicate of the first page of an American Passport, which means when you get a voter ID, it is easy to also apply for your passport at the same time and all of these things can be processed at BMV or SOS offices throughout the land. _Oregon is currently the first state in the Union to seriously consider automatic voter registration, starting next year._
> 
> -The same Super-computer that did the redistricting also does a computation as to how many voting machines and precincts are necessary in order to get voting done by 9:30 pm and basta, done!
> 
> -Exit polling for all 50 states plus DC becomes mandatory for all national elections. Exit polling results are first allowed to be broadcast after the polls close in Alaska.
> 
> -The Networks would be forbidden to make any state calls until at least 45 minutes after poll closings and at least 25% of ballots from that state have been counted - and  - the exit polling shows at least a +7 margin for the same candidate who is winning in the actual ballot count. This means that the first calls of the night, starting for all states in the Eastern Time zone, would be at 10:15 PM, and not one minute earlier. States that straddle two time zones would close in the time zone that is the most westerly of the two.
> 
> -National Popular vote running tallies would also not be published until at least 25% of the nation has reported in.
> 
> This methodology, though it may seem boring and lets us have less suspense, allows for the process to be  done more quietly. In the event of a big win for someone, where the call for President usually happens around 11 pm, it would only be delayed until 1 or 2 am EDT.
> 
> For every single race in the nation, any margin under +0.5% would mean an automatic recount, without exception, but only once all provisional and absentee and overseas ballots are accounted for. Any candidate can also request a recount from between +0.5% and +1.0%, but then he must pay for it.
> 
> Due date for every state to submit final canvasses from the General election: Second Sunday in December, exactly 5 weeks after the election.
> 
> The electors would still meet in their respective states, but law would dictate that they must vote for the winner of the vote in their state, and in order to ensure that there are no &#8222;faithless electors&#8220;, the final slate of electors will be electronic across the board. So, the elector signing ceremonies would be mere formalities.
> 
> *All of these suggestions of mine would make elections cleaner, fairer and more sane. It would eliminate a huge part of the money chase for election and would destroy the permanent election cycles that we are now suffering.
> 
> If you are going to elect someone to do a job as a public servant, then you also have to give him time to actually do the job without having to be torn to pieces by a crazy, hodge-podge election process that has grown into a veritable monster.*
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!  You have really thought this out.  All of the points you made are good.  One thing I have a problem with is mail in voting.  It's too easy to be involved with fraud.  Service men and women and the physically impaired should be the only ones getting mail in ballots.  Perhaps those who need mail in ballots could get cards from your doctor the way handicapped license are handled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I used to have that thought, too. But Oregon has been doing mail-in voting for almost 20 years now and without a hitch. So, apparently, it really can work.
Click to expand...

Isn't Mail In balloting the easiest to fraud?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Jackson said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Election Rules and timelines.*
> 
> 
> *Primary elections:*
> 
> -The nation is divided into 5 geographic zones. Each zone has it's primary all on the same day. Zones such as:
> 
> -The Northeast /Acela States
> -The South
> -The Midwest
> -The Breadbasket and Big Sky States
> -The West Coast and beyond.
> 
> Here would be one possible, and very logical map:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -The order of the zones is determined by a lottery ball machine, just like the one used for the lotto. 5 balls go into the machine, the first one that comes out with the zone name on it is the zone that holds the first of* 5 -and only 5- primary Tuesdays*, and so forth. The lottery will be drawn on New Years's day of election year. Each state gets to decide whether primary or caucus, but they will be held for that zone on that day. No &#8222;first in the nation&#8220; states any more. In this way, the candidates themselves do not know until New Years Day where to sink in their money, anyway, so instead of patronizing one region in order to get the upper hand, they stick to their general message and apply it to the ENTIRE nation.
> 
> -All pacs, polling and advertising for candidates would be illegal until New Years Day of election year.
> 
> -Primary 1: the third tuesday of February
> -Primary 2: the first Tuesday of March
> -Primary 3: the third Tuesday of March.
> 
> -Then, there is a one month break between the 3rd and fourth primary.
> 
> -Primary 4: the third Tuesday in April.
> -Primary 5: the first Tuesday in May.
> 
> And a make-up date for any primaries cancelled due to inclement weather anywhere in the USA, and also for any run-offs, would be on the third Tuesday of May. Polling times and such: see: General Election
> 
> The National Conventions for all Parties would be held in June and must be completed by July 1st.
> 
> *General Election:*
> 
> The month of July and the first three weeks of August would be open for General Election fundraising. Official begin of the general election season: Labor Day.
> 
> Election Day: First Sunday in November, from 06:00 am till 9:30 pm for all time-zones, without exception. Early voting for all 50 states plus DC allowed for 21 days until election day. For states that do mail-in voting, 9:30 pm would be the cutoff for mail delivery. Provisional ballots allowed for all 50 states plus DC. Overseas and military ballots must be time-stamped by 9:30 PM EDT and must be turned in within 5 days of the election.
> 
> -*Voter ID*, a uniform form of ID used throughout the USA, also required to vote in all 50 states plus DC would be required.
> 
> -*Automatic voter registration* for all citizens when they reach the age of 18, with notification of such and information about polling place per postcard. The ID card for voting would be an exact duplicate of the first page of an American Passport, which means when you get a voter ID, it is easy to also apply for your passport at the same time and all of these things can be processed at BMV or SOS offices throughout the land. _Oregon is currently the first state in the Union to seriously consider automatic voter registration, starting next year._
> 
> -The same Super-computer that did the redistricting also does a computation as to how many voting machines and precincts are necessary in order to get voting done by 9:30 pm and basta, done!
> 
> -Exit polling for all 50 states plus DC becomes mandatory for all national elections. Exit polling results are first allowed to be broadcast after the polls close in Alaska.
> 
> -The Networks would be forbidden to make any state calls until at least 45 minutes after poll closings and at least 25% of ballots from that state have been counted - and  - the exit polling shows at least a +7 margin for the same candidate who is winning in the actual ballot count. This means that the first calls of the night, starting for all states in the Eastern Time zone, would be at 10:15 PM, and not one minute earlier. States that straddle two time zones would close in the time zone that is the most westerly of the two.
> 
> -National Popular vote running tallies would also not be published until at least 25% of the nation has reported in.
> 
> This methodology, though it may seem boring and lets us have less suspense, allows for the process to be  done more quietly. In the event of a big win for someone, where the call for President usually happens around 11 pm, it would only be delayed until 1 or 2 am EDT.
> 
> For every single race in the nation, any margin under +0.5% would mean an automatic recount, without exception, but only once all provisional and absentee and overseas ballots are accounted for. Any candidate can also request a recount from between +0.5% and +1.0%, but then he must pay for it.
> 
> Due date for every state to submit final canvasses from the General election: Second Sunday in December, exactly 5 weeks after the election.
> 
> The electors would still meet in their respective states, but law would dictate that they must vote for the winner of the vote in their state, and in order to ensure that there are no &#8222;faithless electors&#8220;, the final slate of electors will be electronic across the board. So, the elector signing ceremonies would be mere formalities.
> 
> *All of these suggestions of mine would make elections cleaner, fairer and more sane. It would eliminate a huge part of the money chase for election and would destroy the permanent election cycles that we are now suffering.
> 
> If you are going to elect someone to do a job as a public servant, then you also have to give him time to actually do the job without having to be torn to pieces by a crazy, hodge-podge election process that has grown into a veritable monster.*
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!  You have really thought this out.  All of the points you made are good.  One thing I have a problem with is mail in voting.  It's too easy to be involved with fraud.  Service men and women and the physically impaired should be the only ones getting mail in ballots.  Perhaps those who need mail in ballots could get cards from your doctor the way handicapped license are handled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I used to have that thought, too. But Oregon has been doing mail-in voting for almost 20 years now and without a hitch. So, apparently, it really can work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't Mail In balloting the easiest to fraud?
Click to expand...



I don't think so.

Oregon Secretary of State Voting in Oregon


----------



## M14 Shooter

I reject the premise that something "must" be done to "fix" the "problem" with elections in the US.
None of anything proposed here is necessary.


----------



## Statistikhengst

I disagree with you.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Statistikhengst said:


> I disagree with you.


So...?


----------



## Statistikhengst

LOL!


----------



## PhilosphyBeforeParty

Statistikhengst said:


> PhilosphyBeforeParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is a project I have been working on for months, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Putting it out on USMB is a promise I made to    [MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION].
> 
> From the moment a US-Representative is sworn in, he or she is _already_ planning and fundraising for the NEXT election.  Huge PACS and Super-PACS are scrounging for money all year long. The media machine for all political parties is set to full-blast 24/7. Polling for the next presidential election started quite literally on the day after the last presidential election! *We are now living in a permanent election cycle that literally never ends. This is not healthy for us.*
> 
> Liberals complain that voter suppression is happening. Conservatives complain that there is voter fraud. Both sides have some very valid complaints. The last three presidential election have seen long-lines of people waiting to vote at polling places not equipped to handle that many people. Gerrymandering has literally made about 80% of the House of Representatives &#8222;safe&#8220;. And the list goes on and on.
> 
> In fact, it is just crazy.
> 
> In many ways, we have an electoral system that is designed for failure. That was surely not the intent of the founding fathers, but this is how it is working out and I think the time for some real common sense changes has come.
> 
> In this report, Conservatives, Moderates and Liberals are all going to find some things that they like and things that they don't like, but I ask of you to read all of it and digest it before commenting.
> 
> *My main contention is that there is a severe structural flaw in our system of electioneering*, namely, that very little of it is set in stone in the US Constitution. What was considered checks-and-balances has now become gridlock. And the rest, because of Federalism, is left up to the individual states to decide. And out of this, a hodge-podge patchwork of electioneering has evolved into a money making-monster.
> 
> So, I am a proposing a complete overhaul of our electoral system, but not an elimination of the &#8222;Electoral College&#8220;, as we like to call it. I am going to do this in four parts. Because of the length of this all, and to make it easier for you all to quote only one section, these four parts will be spread over postings 2-5 of this thread:
> 
> *I.   The Legislative* (posting no. 2)
> *II.  The Executive* (posting no. 3)
> *III. The Judicial *(posting no. 4)
> *IV.  Election rules and timelines* (posting no. 5)
> 
> Many of these things are things that Larry Sabato has also suggested in his book &#8222;Toward a more Perfect Union&#8220;, but many of them are also orginal ideas of mine.
> 
> The goal of all of this is to
> 
> a.) increase the amount of undisrupted time for governing between elections.
> b.) streamline the actual time frame of electioneering.
> c.) unify the rules for electioneering.
> d.) reduce the money chase.
> 
> I am not saying that this is the only way to do this, but I do think that much of what I suggest is worthy of real adult debate. As I already wrote, each person will probably find some things he likes and some things he doesn't like, and that is good, for such sparks intelligent debate. *Furthermore, I deliberately left out a lot of the reason for WHY I feel this way about many things. I did this to spur people to question or to come up with reasons themselves*.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> A friendly shout-out to *all* of these good people, from the Right, the Left and the Middle. I hope very much that you read all 5 opening postings and then comment. This could become one of the best discussions of the year.
> 
> [MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION]   [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]   [MENTION=40495]AngelsNDemons[/MENTION]   [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]   [MENTION=26011]Ernie S.[/MENTION]   [MENTION=9429]AVG-JOE[/MENTION] @Mad Cabbie   [MENTION=42649]Gracie[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]   [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION]   [MENTION=38281]Wolfsister77[/MENTION]   [MENTION=21679]william the wie[/MENTION]   [MENTION=23424]syrenn[/MENTION]   [MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION]   [MENTION=37250]aaronleland[/MENTION]  [MENTION=36767]Bloodrock44[/MENTION]   [MENTION=36528]cereal_killer[/MENTION]   [MENTION=40540]Connery[/MENTION]   [MENTION=30999]daws101[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION]   [MENTION=33449]BreezeWood[/MENTION]   [MENTION=31362]gallantwarrior[/MENTION]   [MENTION=24610]iamwhatiseem[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46750]Knightfall[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46690]Libertarianman[/MENTION]   [MENTION=1322]007[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20594]Mr Clean[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20704]Nosmo King[/MENTION]   [MENTION=43268]TemplarKormac[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION]   [MENTION=41494]RandallFlagg[/MENTION]   [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION] Samson   [MENTION=21357]SFC Ollie[/MENTION] @Sherri   [MENTION=43491]TooTall[/MENTION]   [MENTION=25451]tinydancer[/MENTION]   [MENTION=31918]Unkotare[/MENTION]   [MENTION=45104]WelfareQueen[/MENTION]   [MENTION=21524]oldfart[/MENTION]   [MENTION=42498]Esmeralda[/MENTION]   [MENTION=43888]AyeCantSeeYou[/MENTION]   [MENTION=19302]Montrovant[/MENTION]   [MENTION=11703]strollingbones[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18988]PixieStix[/MENTION]   [MENTION=23262]peach174[/MENTION]   [MENTION=13805]Againsheila[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20342]Ringel05[/MENTION]   [MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18905]Sherry[/MENTION]   [MENTION=29697]freedombecki[/MENTION]   [MENTION=22590]AquaAthena[/MENTION]   [MENTION=38146]Dajjal[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18645]Sarah G[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46193]Thx[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]   [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]   [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18990]Barb[/MENTION]   [MENTION=19867]G.T.[/MENTION]   [MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION]   [MENTION=11278]editec[/MENTION]   [MENTION=22983]Flopper[/MENTION]   [MENTION=22889]Matthew[/MENTION] [MENTION=46136]dreolin[/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to have an intelligent debate with you about this, but quite frankly I don't find much fault in your reasoning. not many people hear that from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is really kind of you!!
> 
> It's just a set of suggestions based on common sense and a desire to make electioneering fairer, more streamlined and less of a game.
Click to expand...


----------



## PhilosphyBeforeParty

Statistikhengst said:


> PhilosphyBeforeParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is a project I have been working on for months, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Putting it out on USMB is a promise I made to    [MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION].
> 
> From the moment a US-Representative is sworn in, he or she is _already_ planning and fundraising for the NEXT election.  Huge PACS and Super-PACS are scrounging for money all year long. The media machine for all political parties is set to full-blast 24/7. Polling for the next presidential election started quite literally on the day after the last presidential election! *We are now living in a permanent election cycle that literally never ends. This is not healthy for us.*
> 
> Liberals complain that voter suppression is happening. Conservatives complain that there is voter fraud. Both sides have some very valid complaints. The last three presidential election have seen long-lines of people waiting to vote at polling places not equipped to handle that many people. Gerrymandering has literally made about 80% of the House of Representatives &#8222;safe&#8220;. And the list goes on and on.
> 
> In fact, it is just crazy.
> 
> In many ways, we have an electoral system that is designed for failure. That was surely not the intent of the founding fathers, but this is how it is working out and I think the time for some real common sense changes has come.
> 
> In this report, Conservatives, Moderates and Liberals are all going to find some things that they like and things that they don't like, but I ask of you to read all of it and digest it before commenting.
> 
> *My main contention is that there is a severe structural flaw in our system of electioneering*, namely, that very little of it is set in stone in the US Constitution. What was considered checks-and-balances has now become gridlock. And the rest, because of Federalism, is left up to the individual states to decide. And out of this, a hodge-podge patchwork of electioneering has evolved into a money making-monster.
> 
> So, I am a proposing a complete overhaul of our electoral system, but not an elimination of the &#8222;Electoral College&#8220;, as we like to call it. I am going to do this in four parts. Because of the length of this all, and to make it easier for you all to quote only one section, these four parts will be spread over postings 2-5 of this thread:
> 
> *I.   The Legislative* (posting no. 2)
> *II.  The Executive* (posting no. 3)
> *III. The Judicial *(posting no. 4)
> *IV.  Election rules and timelines* (posting no. 5)
> 
> Many of these things are things that Larry Sabato has also suggested in his book &#8222;Toward a more Perfect Union&#8220;, but many of them are also orginal ideas of mine.
> 
> The goal of all of this is to
> 
> a.) increase the amount of undisrupted time for governing between elections.
> b.) streamline the actual time frame of electioneering.
> c.) unify the rules for electioneering.
> d.) reduce the money chase.
> 
> I am not saying that this is the only way to do this, but I do think that much of what I suggest is worthy of real adult debate. As I already wrote, each person will probably find some things he likes and some things he doesn't like, and that is good, for such sparks intelligent debate. *Furthermore, I deliberately left out a lot of the reason for WHY I feel this way about many things. I did this to spur people to question or to come up with reasons themselves*.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> A friendly shout-out to *all* of these good people, from the Right, the Left and the Middle. I hope very much that you read all 5 opening postings and then comment. This could become one of the best discussions of the year.
> 
> [MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION]   [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]   [MENTION=40495]AngelsNDemons[/MENTION]   [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]   [MENTION=26011]Ernie S.[/MENTION]   [MENTION=9429]AVG-JOE[/MENTION] @Mad Cabbie   [MENTION=42649]Gracie[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]   [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION]   [MENTION=38281]Wolfsister77[/MENTION]   [MENTION=21679]william the wie[/MENTION]   [MENTION=23424]syrenn[/MENTION]   [MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION]   [MENTION=37250]aaronleland[/MENTION]  [MENTION=36767]Bloodrock44[/MENTION]   [MENTION=36528]cereal_killer[/MENTION]   [MENTION=40540]Connery[/MENTION]   [MENTION=30999]daws101[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION]   [MENTION=33449]BreezeWood[/MENTION]   [MENTION=31362]gallantwarrior[/MENTION]   [MENTION=24610]iamwhatiseem[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46750]Knightfall[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46690]Libertarianman[/MENTION]   [MENTION=1322]007[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20594]Mr Clean[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20704]Nosmo King[/MENTION]   [MENTION=43268]TemplarKormac[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION]   [MENTION=41494]RandallFlagg[/MENTION]   [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION] Samson   [MENTION=21357]SFC Ollie[/MENTION] @Sherri   [MENTION=43491]TooTall[/MENTION]   [MENTION=25451]tinydancer[/MENTION]   [MENTION=31918]Unkotare[/MENTION]   [MENTION=45104]WelfareQueen[/MENTION]   [MENTION=21524]oldfart[/MENTION]   [MENTION=42498]Esmeralda[/MENTION]   [MENTION=43888]AyeCantSeeYou[/MENTION]   [MENTION=19302]Montrovant[/MENTION]   [MENTION=11703]strollingbones[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18988]PixieStix[/MENTION]   [MENTION=23262]peach174[/MENTION]   [MENTION=13805]Againsheila[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20342]Ringel05[/MENTION]   [MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18905]Sherry[/MENTION]   [MENTION=29697]freedombecki[/MENTION]   [MENTION=22590]AquaAthena[/MENTION]   [MENTION=38146]Dajjal[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18645]Sarah G[/MENTION]   [MENTION=46193]Thx[/MENTION]   [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]   [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]   [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION]   [MENTION=18990]Barb[/MENTION]   [MENTION=19867]G.T.[/MENTION]   [MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION]   [MENTION=11278]editec[/MENTION]   [MENTION=22983]Flopper[/MENTION]   [MENTION=22889]Matthew[/MENTION] [MENTION=46136]dreolin[/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to have an intelligent debate with you about this, but quite frankly I don't find much fault in your reasoning. not many people hear that from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is really kind of you!!
> 
> It's just a set of suggestions based on common sense and a desire to make electioneering fairer, more streamlined and less of a game.
Click to expand...

i'm serious. you should send this to someone. this contains arguments that I have been making for years, plus some that I hadn't even thought of. I especially liked how you suggested shorter terms for justices (one of the largest reasons why the civil rights movement took so long to gain momentum was because the supreme court couldn't be "refreshed" or "updated"), i'm just not sure if it is a good idea to have them elected by popular vote. the only thing that I actually disagree with is that the president would have to win 62% of the vote to gain an additional 3 years. that number should be higher. implementing this set of suggestions would be extremely difficult without, but impossible with our partisan system, therefore if it was implemented, political parties would not be as prominent. the main reason no president has ever won more than 62% of the popular vote is because, sadly, too many people always vote for the candidate form one party rather than the one who is a better candidate. this means that if that is not a factor, a good president could easily gain the votes necessary for a 3 term extension.

overall, this is vary good, well thought out plan to fix our severely outdated election system. the only major problem is implementation. there is no way it will be implemented all at once, as it is very hard to change anything with our current system of perpetual campaigning, but maybe, hopefully, piece by piece, it will happen.


----------

