steps to fixing American politcal problems

[kingjoshi]

The electoral college is fine. If it needs any tweaking, it should be to make all States getting only one vote each, not its abolishment. I've tried to explain this, but the people do not elect the President, they help determine how their State will vote in the EC, unified and with one voice.

"Missouri votes for <whoever>".

Why shouldn't we have the people vote for the president? With the amount of information presented to voters, the situation isn't the same as when the Founding Fathers debated on this topic. Do you really think the electoral college is that much better informed about the presidential candidates? It's not like candidates can't travel across the whole country or have televised debates. We're not living with low literacy rates where the only information is newpapers that get delayed reports. Anyway, maintaining a system for legacy sake doesn't make sense anyhow.

Or are you worried about the tyranny of the majority as though the electoral college would buck the majority?

 

[Chieftess]

How about an election fund pool for all canidates? (Curtiousy of American citizens and corporations) The pool would be split equally between all canidates seeking to run for office. That way, we don't just hear Republicans and Democrats.

 

[sysyphus]

The system is broke. Just because a hurricane hasn't come that was significant enough for you doesn't mean the levees don't need fixing. We should try to improve ourselves as well as our political system (plus a whole lot more). We can't be over-confident about success or let ourselves stagnate.

Indeed, this is true for all countries, exactly for the reasons you outlined in the post after the one I'm quoting here, that as the world changes, the methods we use to conduct it must also change.

I certainly can think of a number of ways I would like to reshape the democratic process in my country.

 

[Oerdin]

The way we create Congressional districts needs to change completely. It just doesn't make sense to let incumbants create their own districts; of course they're going to gerrymander it to make themselves safe.

 

[kingjoshi]

How about an election fund pool for all canidates? (Curtiousy of American citizens and corporations) The pool would be split equally between all canidates seeking to run for office. That way, we don't just hear Republicans and Democrats.

That could work, given that the candidate can get themselves on the ballot in a certain number of states (38?).

But people are still going to spend other funds for their candidates of choice. But at least that gives the other partys' candidates some funds.

However, I think one critical aspect is for the voting public to believe the candidate is viable.

 

[The Yankee]

The electoral college is fine. If it needs any tweaking, it should be to make all States getting only one vote each, not its abolishment. I've tried to explain this, but the people do not elect the President, they help determine how their State will vote in the EC, unified and with one voice.

"Missouri votes for <whoever>".

That would give those small states too much power. They already have equal representation in the Senate.

 

[bhsup]

Why shouldn't we have the people vote for the president?

Because I view this nation as it is supposed to be viewed, a willful joining of 50 sovereign States into a Federal Republic. The States, not the individuals, determine who will lead this Federation, as it should be. I'd much rather see 1 State-1 vote in the EC than I would a popular vote for the Presidency. Those border lines on your Rand McNally road maps are not simply administrative divisions for convenience, they are sovereign territories who are equal partners with the Federal government in this grand experiment we call the USA. Why should one have more of a voice than another?

However, I'm content to leave things the way they are as it has worked just fine for over 200 years.

P.S. - Don't anyone get the idea that I'm pushing for this 1 State/1 vote thing to benefit Missouri. As far as population goes, it's actually pretty much right in the middle average and wouldn't really benefit or be hurt at all by switching to the system I propose vs the current one.

 

[The Yankee]

Yes, but it would give Wyoming too much power in both the executive and the legislature for its size. And yes, personal interests in it, New York would get pounded even further than it already is.

 

[Fifty]

IMO significant campaign finance reform would do a LOT for the USA

 

[The Yankee]

Well, the House of Representatives already has the solution!

A do-not-much bill!

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/04/27/ap2704733.html
That's mostly on it's passage.

The details of the bill may be found here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-23-lobbying_x.htm

By Jim Drinkard, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON &#8212; House Republican leaders have quietly scaled back their plan to limit the political influence of lobbyists, dropping proposed requirements that lobbyists disclose which lawmakers and aides they have contacted and how they have raised money for politicians.
The changes were made public in an amended bill posted on the House Rules Committee website Friday while Congress was wrapping up a two-week recess. Even before the latest move, political ethics experts had called the House plan weaker than a lobbying bill the Senate passed last month.

The legislation is to be considered this week as Congress returns to address a political influence scandal that has gripped Washington. The House bill would leave unchanged current rules that allow members of Congress and their staffs to accept gifts from lobbyists.

In addition, the measure would:

&#8226; Freeze junkets paid for by private interests, but only until after the November elections.

&#8226; Place no new restrictions on lawmakers and aides who leave Capitol Hill to become lobbyists.

&#8226; Leave enforcement of the rules in the hands of a House ethics committee that is paralyzed by partisan tensions.

Ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff landed in legal trouble for wooing members of Congress with lavish trips, expensive meals and sports and entertainment tickets, and by luring top aides to the lobbying world to try to influence their former bosses.

The House bill, like the Senate version approved last month, relies heavily on disclosure to police ties between lobbyists and policymakers. It would require lobbyists to file reports quarterly, rather than semiannually as they do now.

Kevin Madden, spokesman for House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the bill would make the ties between lobbyists and lawmakers more transparent and "rebuild the trust between Congress and the American public."

The House bill is "sleight of hand from a Congress that is more concerned with facing the voters than with facing the problem," said Gary Kalman of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a government watchdog organization. Added Chellie Pingree, president of Common Cause: "They are maintaining the status quo and calling it reform."

Julian Zelizer, a congressional historian at Boston University, said major rule changes usually come only when a scandal hits peak intensity. Congress, he said, is "still clearly hesitating to do anything."

The revised plan finished Friday dropped requirements that lobbyists specify which lawmakers and aides they have contacted; disclose their sponsorship of lavish parties for lawmakers at political conventions; and report their fundraising for candidates for federal office.

When looking at the USA Today page itself, you can see a little chart of the differences between the Senate bill and the House bill.

 

[Comraddict]

Why would two dominant parties let anybody other party to have any significant influence?

This system provides stability: out of two, one must have over 50%. So far they are able to polarize people to chose either one.

Anywhere else in world political system is far more complex.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

1) Changing the voting method to two rounds. The top two candidates from the first round go on to round two. And this ensures a majority vote for every winner.

2) Eliminating Electoral College and have the same voting method for PotUS.

Regarding 1) - imagine 3 of party X running and 2 of party Y running. We could have 19,19,19 for X and 21.5,21.5 for Y, where 57% really wanted an X, but still split their vote so the 43% still ensure a Y because they would be the runoff candidates. There are lots of studies on voting and it could certainly be improved to allow 3d parties a greater chance to run. An interesting read is at http://www.sci.wsu.edu/math/Lessons/Voting/Module4_1.html and there are many other good reads out there.

Regarding 2) I like a system where the small states and rural areas are disproportionately represented, so I like the current method of representation, so a modified electoral college would be my choice. I would change the method so in the end we are only talking about two candidates similar to a modified #1.

 

[MobBoss]

America doesnt have a political problem. System is working the way it is supposed to and has for the last 200+ years.

 

[kingjoshi]

Regarding 1) - imagine 3 of party X running and 2 of party Y running. We could have 19,19,19 for X and 21.5,21.5 for Y, where 57% really wanted an X, but still split their vote so the 43% still ensure a Y because they would be the runoff candidates. There are lots of studies on voting and it could certainly be improved to allow 3d parties a greater chance to run. An interesting read is at http://www.sci.wsu.edu/math/Lessons/Voting/Module4_1.html and there are many other good reads out there.

Every system has its flaws. My preferred method is a check system. For each candidate you support, you check them off. The candidate who is most favored wins. If there is a tie, you can do run offs. But I don't think such a system would be accepted, though IRV is more likely to gain some support. But any change is extremely difficult in the US. Why improve anything?

 

[The Yankee]

Every system has its flaws. My preferred method is a check system. For each candidate you support, you check them off. The candidate who is most favored wins. If there is a tie, you can do run offs. But I don't think such a system would be accepted, though IRV is more likely to gain some support. But any change is extremely difficult in the US. Why improve anything?

How is that any different from voting?

 

[kingjoshi]

How is that any different from voting?

A good example was shown by John Allen Paulos in his book A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper*. Someone on Slashdot typed it out, so I'm copying and pasting from them.

55 voters are voting in a primary between 5 candidates.

18 of them prefer Tsongas to Kerrey to Clinton to Harkin to Brown
12 of them prefer Clinton to Harkin to Kerrey to Brown to Tsongas
10 of them prefer Brown to Clinton to Harkin to Kerrey to Tsongas
9 of them prefer Kerrey to Brown to Harkin to Clinton to Tsongas
4 of them prefer Harkin to Clinton to Kerrey to Brown to Tsongas
2 of them prefer Harkin to Brown to Kerrey to Clinton to Tsongas

Who should win?

Under our current plurality, "winner-take-all" system, Tsongas would win because he had the most first place votes.

If a single runoff election was held between the top two candidates, Clinton would win the runoff by a landslide.

If instant runoff was used, dropping the candidates from the running one at a time depending on who had the fewest first place votes, then Brown would end up winning.

If a Borda count was used, giving each candidate 5 points for a 1st place vote, 4 points for 2nd place, etc., then Kerrey would win.

Finally, if Condorcet voting was used, Harkin would win, since he would win a one-on-one election against any of the other candidates.

Who do you think should win, and why?
source

The voting system I favor is used by most mathematicians. An "approval" system.

For each candidate, I can approve or disapprove. Candidate with most approvals win. In cases of a tie, you can have a plurality or some form of run off.

*Note: IIRC from the book, the numbers used and the problems shown are quite old. I think a mathematician concocted the example in the 1800s. However, Paulos created this specific example with names which were relevant at the time of writing.

 

[The Yankee]

I'm not sure voters are going to fly with this. Even in Presidential elections, you still have a bunch of other candidates there on the ballot.

1992 would never have been the same if the Democrats chose someone else!

So how would your voting system handle it? It sounds like essentially conducting a mass poll of those Approve/Disapprove question and seeing who comes out on top of Approve or maybe having the largest different of Approve versus Disapprove.

 

[The Yankee]

Actually, really curious. If I understand your system right, like I said in the last post, how would it handle something like this:

Hillary Clinton
48% Approve, 46% Disapprove, 6% Derrrr, I Dunno...

John Edwards
45% Approve, 27% Disapprove, 28% Derrr, I Dunno....

Hypothetical obviously and not based on any actual polling of the same question.

 

[kingjoshi]

Well, to be on any ballot, a person has to have so many signatures. That would still hold true.

In France, I believe they use a run-off voting. That's why Le Pen, though he got the second most votes in the first round (17%) got crushed in the run-off with Chirac (82-18). In some local elections in the US (mayoral), they also imploy this method.

The alternate, the "approval" method is very feasible, but the barrier is psychological for a group of people so resistent to change.

Basically, on the ballot you just mark off all the candidates you would approve of winning. So in 2004 for the Presidential candidate, it'd be like:
[ ] Bush
[ ] Kerry
[ ] Nader
[ ] Badnarik
[ ] ...

A Libertarian can vote for their party as well as a Republican candidate. Only in events of a tie do you need another round of voting. But with so many votes, ties would be rare. But if you do reach a tie, you already arrived at multiple people who are popular and doing plurality voting amongst them would be fine.

This system makes much more sense when choosing the Presidential candidate to represent your party. This would ensure a candidate with broad support.

 

[kingjoshi]

Actually, really curious. If I understand your system right, like I said in the last post, how would it handle something like this:

Hillary Clinton
48% Approve, 46% Disapprove, 6% Derrrr, I Dunno...

John Edwards
45% Approve, 27% Disapprove, 28% Derrr, I Dunno....

Hypothetical obviously and not based on any actual polling of the same question.

It's binary. Approve or disapprove. The candidate with most approval would win.

This example would show that most people disapprove of both candidates and that there is a portion of the people not being represented by either candidate.