How would you improve our voting system (US)

[Maggie Mae]

How would you improve our (terrible, awful, no good) electoral system that has locked us into two parties? 

Me? 

I'd start by changing to a ranking system of ballots. The "primaries" can end and end all of their made-for-tv drama. A ranking system would mean that I could vote #1 for Bernie Sanders, #2 for Gary Johnson, #3 for Roseanne Barr, #4 for Mickey Mouse, #5 for Mr McGibblets, etc. It would give us more options and I think help avoid the "choosing the lesser of two evils." 

I'd also open up online voting. I believe Estonia has online voting, no security issues. 

I'd lower the voting age to 16. 16 year olds work, the pay taxes, they should be afforded the right to vote. 

With online voting, voter ID laws become unnecessary. Someone could just put in their voter registration number and some other identifying feature (address?) and get their ballot. OR... We could go to an entire mail-in system. 

I'd like to make voting compulsory but I also don't like the implications of that. 

Electoral college is evil. My state has incredibly low turn out for two reasons: one, our 3 votes don't make a difference to anyone. two, the election is usually over before our polls close. What's the point? I'm not going to go waste time standing in line so I can cast a ballot while all the major news stations are already telling me who the winner will be. It also means that states like Michigan, New York, and other states are completely carried by their major metropolitan areas, despite having much more state, with very different economic and social issues. 

[Sundaymorning]

I'm not from the US, but what I've never understood is why they don't include other parties in the Presidential debates on tv. That is clearly undemocratic and just shows the power play of the two big parties .

Gary Johnson (whom I personally really like) has tried to get into those debates, but to no avail. http://alibertarianfuture.com/2016-election/gary-johnson-filed-his-lawsuit-against-the-cpd/

Often, when they are conducting the polls, they don't even ask people about third party candidates, and then they go and claim that those third party candidates can't be part of the debate, since they didn't reach a certain percentage in the polls

I think making other parties more present in the public discussion would already help a lot. And I'm not only talking about my favourites, the Libertarians, but also about parties like the Greens or others.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

Thanks for starting this thread. I don't live in USA and I was curious about what people think about the electoral college system. I read the it reflects the popular vote 93% of the times. It honestly seems something that was useful in the past (given the size of your country and the means of transport at the time) but that doesn't make sense anymore.  

[medimus]

I hate the winner takes all approach, just count all the votes over the whole country, rather than counting them by state.

Also, put a limit on campaign spending. The numbers are absurd. And I mean a limit that is achievable by a large proportion of the population (so not a million dollars). I live in a western european country (but am american) and the campaign limit is about 5000 dollars per party (so not per candidate) for federal elections. Understandably, there are no tv ads for this kind of money, there are tv debates attended by all the parties (about 10). I agree it is undemocratic to only televise the big parties.

[OnceUponATime]

18 hours ago, medimus said:

 I live in a western european country (but am american) and the campaign limit is about 5000 dollars per party (so not per candidate) for federal elections. Understandably, there are no tv ads for this kind of money, there are tv debates attended by all the parties (about 10). I agree it is undemocratic to only televise the big parties.

knowing a little about the politics of this country (assuming i'm correct) all I will add is that if they just invested in a massive mud/jelly wrestling pit you would have a faster winner and it would be must less painful to watch. tv debates = high school bitch fights

[Cactus]

Better access to voter ID, to a) reduce voter fraud and b) make voting more accessible to those previously denied it.

Everything else I'd like is too pie-in-the-sky to actually happen.

[religiouslyconfused]

Getting rid of voting machines and using hand counted paper ballots would be a start. 

[Criscat]

I live in a vote by mail only state...worst thing ever. Too much opportunity for fraud that way. Sounds good in theory but in practice, showing up in person should be required if you want to vote. (Aside from real absentee ballots)

[medimus]

17 hours ago, OnceUponATime said:

knowing a little about the politics of this country (assuming i'm correct) all I will add is that if they just invested in a massive mud/jelly wrestling pit you would have a faster winner and it would be must less painful to watch. tv debates = high school bitch fights

Faster maybe, I have no idea if you're thinking of the same country, we are quite slow (generally after the elections), but we never have one winner (or not in my lifetime anyway).

Anyway, turns out I was wrong about the budget being so low (I'm sure I learnt that at school), but there is a limit based on the number of people allowed to vote for that party in that election and a period of time of several weeks before the election in which the budget is severely restrained. And either the budget is still too low for tv campaigns or they just aren't allowed, because they don't do them.

Sorry about the misinformation. I still think the budget should be limited though.

[Maggie Mae]

On 2/5/2016 at 9:52 AM, Sundaymorning said:

I'm not from the US, but what I've never understood is why they don't include other parties in the Presidential debates on tv. That is clearly undemocratic and just shows the power play of the two big parties .

Gary Johnson (whom I personally really like) has tried to get into those debates, but to no avail. http://alibertarianfuture.com/2016-election/gary-johnson-filed-his-lawsuit-against-the-cpd/

Often, when they are conducting the polls, they don't even ask people about third party candidates, and then they go and claim that those third party candidates can't be part of the debate, since they didn't reach a certain percentage in the polls

I think making other parties more present in the public discussion would already help a lot. And I'm not only talking about my favourites, the Libertarians, but also about parties like the Greens or others.

The debates are not non-partisan. They used to be run by the League of Women Voters. Now they are paid for by a non-profit organization sponsored by the Republicans and the Democrats. They do not want anyone else on that stage. Add in the cable news network and it's just another way capitalism is failing everyone other than the Bloomberg's of the world. 

[Sundaymorning]

2 hours ago, Maggie Mae said:

The debates are not non-partisan. They used to be run by the League of Women Voters. Now they are paid for by a non-profit organization sponsored by the Republicans and the Democrats. They do not want anyone else on that stage. Add in the cable news network and it's just another way capitalism is failing everyone other than the Bloomberg's of the world. 

This not not capitalism, this is corporatism.

It really makes me want to bang my head against the wall that people still think this has anything to do with free market capitalism. It's like believing the Duggars when they say that their children can make their own dating rules (of course...).

If big corporations liked free market capitalism, they would give their money to the Libertarians, not the Democrats or the Republicans. But they don't, since then they couldn't lobby for government handouts and special rules (which hurt small businesses) anymore, and they wouldn't be able to eliminate the pesky, smaller competitors that easily anymore.

Corporatism (or crony capitalism if you like that expression better) is the current economical and political system that rules the US (and much of the rest of the world).

If you don't like free market capitalism, fine. But please, please stop mixing these two very different things up.

Since you probably don't like the ebil Libertarians too much, here's an interview with Ralph Nader ( former Green Party candidate) on that issue: http://reason.com/reasontv/2014/06/11/ralph-nader

[OnceUponATime]

Spoiler

I can only really follow the half that is interested in rings and shopping centers due to fluency problems but yes federally slow (i was improving my language skills during the WR attempt). Right country? I've only followed the last 2 elections closely though.

I thought one extreme-right but not the most extreme did a tv campaign? It always made me think of "stop! in the name of love". ah wait i looked up the date and it was after elections. I have a feeling the 'national senders' aren't allowed to show party ads because of possible bias. I'm not sure about private ones, might depend on subsidies (if they can get them)

Talking politics (even though i can't vote for the majority of government levels that get to disperse my tax money) it pisses me off that a PM can come from a party that not everyone is able to vote for. I also find general party financing a bit weird and not really fair. One newspaper stated 40 - 54 million euros used for election campaigning last elections. I didn't realize it was that much! I dislike that parties get proportional money based on votes. If you want to give smallest parties less ok, but I think any party receiving 10% of the vote should get the same capped amount - let them get extra money from all their supporters if they need that. That was at least smaller parties would have a better chance of growing/ would make a fairer fight between larger parties.
I'm with you on budget limits!

I don't recall any debates with all parties on TV. Usually half were missing. I do recall outrage over a live debate because certain smaller parties weren't invited. To be honest the ones I watched were generally included a lot of name-calling, talking around the bush or political lies (the last election seemed worse for that. I think a commentator said it was becoming too Americanized. ). Sometimes I wished for a 50minute head to head over one issue instead of trying to fit all the 1000s of ideas of 6+ people into two hours. Bar-talk lead me to believe that a lot of people don't understand which level of government rules what policies, which makes me sad. I heard so many really weird statements by people during the election buildup, most propaganda that wasn't accurate. Now it seems to be "it's all the socialist's fault" even if the parties saying that were co-governing at the time such decisions were made.

But politics is complicated and I'm not sure there is really a way to make it fair and give everyone an equal voice. And letting everyone vote by policy area would be complicated! I would love to see a federal voting ring here though for that level of politics.

10 hours ago, medimus said:

Faster maybe, I have no idea if you're thinking of the same country, we are quite slow (generally after the elections), but we never have one winner (or not in my lifetime anyway).

Anyway, turns out I was wrong about the budget being so low (I'm sure I learnt that at school), but there is a limit based on the number of people allowed to vote for that party in that election and a period of time of several weeks before the election in which the budget is severely restrained. And either the budget is still too low for tv campaigns or they just aren't allowed, because they don't do them.

Sorry about the misinformation. I still think the budget should be limited though.

In a spoiler because OT. continue on

[allthegoodnamesrgone]

The first thing I would do is do away with the electoral college. It is outdated and unnecessary in this age of information. I would also make election day a national holiday to make it easier for everyone to vote.  They need to have Federal rules on early voting, so every voter in every state has the same opportunity to vote, not everyone works an 8 to 5 job M -  F.  We need to make it easier for people to vote not harder.

[karen77]

On 2/7/2016 at 4:30 PM, Criscat said:

I live in a vote by mail only state...worst thing ever. Too much opportunity for fraud that way. Sounds good in theory but in practice, showing up in person should be required if you want to vote. (Aside from real absentee ballots)

I am also in a mail in state, but I love it, gives me time to look up issues as I vote and research them a bit.

[Maggie Mae]

On 2/7/2016 at 3:30 PM, Criscat said:

I live in a vote by mail only state...worst thing ever. Too much opportunity for fraud that way. Sounds good in theory but in practice, showing up in person should be required if you want to vote. (Aside from real absentee ballots)

Do you have some documentation of said fraud?

15 hours ago, allthegoodnamesrgone said:

The first thing I would do is do away with the electoral college. It is outdated and unnecessary in this age of information. I would also make election day a national holiday to make it easier for everyone to vote.  They need to have Federal rules on early voting, so every voter in every state has the same opportunity to vote, not everyone works an 8 to 5 job M -  F.  We need to make it easier for people to vote not harder.

Instead of a holiday, why not just have the polls open for a week? Or mail in/online voting? 

I really think that instead of electoral college (which I like in theory, just not practice) a ranking ballot would be best.  

[47of74]

I would make the right to vote absolute for US Citizens, with the only requirement that people be 18 or over or 17 if they graduated early and are serving in the military.  And make it so the right cannot be taken away under any circumstances - even for convicted criminals currently in prison.  Just send them absentee ballots or have them vote in prison.  Give people making under $250,000 a year a tax credit for voting in elections.  Finally make voter suppression punishable by life imprisonment.

I think it would help take away any incentive to disenfranchise groups of citizens and perhaps make officials feel a greater sense of accountability for their acts.  And having tax benefits might encourage people to go out and vote.

[Boogalou]

Prisoners can't vote in the States?  That's bizarre.  You made me wonder if they can in Canada and they can.  What is the reasoning for taking away someone's right to vote?

[Maggie Mae]

8 minutes ago, Boogalou said:

Prisoners can't vote in the States?  That's bizarre.  You made me wonder if they can in Canada and they can.  What is the reasoning for taking away someone's right to vote?

It depends on the state. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement#United_States

 

[Boogalou]

1 minute ago, Maggie Mae said:

It depends on the state. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement#United_States

 

Thanks for the link.  I was not googling the right words!

[louisa05]

In the interest of showing all sides, this is an interesting article about why the Electoral College is not necessarily as outdated or undemocratic as we all assume:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html

The argument that I agree with the most is that it does prevent a candidate from winning based only on regional appeal. That is not to say that there are not problems with it as well. But it is not without some merit. And it is important to remember that our founders never intended this to be a direct democracy but rather a representative one. 

[samira_catlover]

On 2/8/2016 at 10:05 PM, allthegoodnamesrgone said:

The first thing I would do is do away with the electoral college. It is outdated and unnecessary in this age of information. I would also make election day a national holiday to make it easier for everyone to vote.  They need to have Federal rules on early voting, so every voter in every state has the same opportunity to vote, not everyone works an 8 to 5 job M -  F.  We need to make it easier for people to vote not harder.

Every time there's a US federal holiday, there's a whole bunch of sales to celebrate it.

Anybody know where I can buy an honest politician (one who once bought, STAYS bought)?

But seriously, agree with scrapping the electoral college and going to direct popular vote, and a holiday might improve turnout at the polls.

[FloraKitty35]

Compulsory voting.

[PsyD2013]

Winner of the presidential election determined by the popular vote.

[notfundy]

46 minutes ago, PsyD2013 said:

Winner of the presidential election determined by the popular vote.

Absolutely.  It is long past time to dispense with the electoral college.  

The current system can be manipulated just as congressional districts have been manipulated  ("gerrymandered") to yield the Republican congressional majority we have today.  More actual votes were cast for Democratic candidates vs. Republican congressional candidates in the last couple election cyles.  

[roddma]

Hmm Im no sure about 16 yr olds voting. At 16, you tend to be influenced by parents religion, and peers. I would say raise voting age to 21 since ti takes that for the brain to mature and our ideas change but that would eliminate a whole voting pool. I don't like required voting It seems un American.