How would you improve our voting system (US)

[Maggie Mae]

I think that certain colonists rebelled against the empire because of taxation without representation. 16-year-olds have jobs and pay taxes. Even if they get all of their tax money back, they are still being used by the government for interest free loans. They should be allowed to vote. 

I think not voting is a valid choice for some. 

I'd like to see online voting. 

[cathgrl1]

Not all 16-year-olds have jobs and pay taxes. To extend that further, would you limit voting only to people who have jobs and pay taxes? You would need to bring in your pay stub to vote? Those on Social Security, disability, or unemployment are SOL? I don't see that argument working for 16-year-olds.

I'd like to see an expansion of absentee ballots.

[Maggie Mae]

No, I don't want only tax payers to vote. But 16-year-olds do work, and they should be afforded the opportunity to vote. Women who don't work have a vote, and I wouldn't ever want to take the vote from women. 

 

1 hour ago, roddma said:

At 16, you tend to be influenced by parents religion, and peers. 

 

Do you honestly think that adults aren't influenced by their peers, family, jobs, and propaganda? 

[gibbsgirls]

Electoral College needs to end. It is antiquated and for a time period of our country when traveling to a polling place was not an easy thing to do. EVERY vote should count!  Also voting should be open for a period of time. Here in MD we can vote early. It's wonderful.

PACS also need to be eliminated along with all televised advertising. Print /radio media only and then limited in size. Of course you can still put your own sign in your yard or have bumper stickers. Lol

[clueliss]

The voting age used to be 21.  It was lowered to 18 during Viet Nam (or after) the argument being that if they could be drafted they should be able to vote.  

16 is still legally a minor therefore, no, on voting.  

I'd lurve real advanced voting where I live.  We don't have it.  It is still considered an absentee ballot.  I'd only like a holiday for 1 annual election day if corporations actually gave the day off.  If it were to end up being just another postal/bank holiday it doesn't do many people any good.

[louisa05]

1 hour ago, clueliss said:

The voting age used to be 21.  It was lowered to 18 during Viet Nam (or after) the argument being that if they could be drafted they should be able to vote.  

16 is still legally a minor therefore, no, on voting.  

I'd lurve real advanced voting where I live.  We don't have it.  It is still considered an absentee ballot.  I'd only like a holiday for 1 annual election day if corporations actually gave the day off.  If it were to end up being just another postal/bank holiday it doesn't do many people any good.

I can't see that many businesses would close even if it were a holiday. The corporation that my husband previously worked for in a pet food plant certainly would not have closed for such a thing. They had "mandatory overtime" on the 4th of July two years in a row. No way they'd give time off for voting. 

Banks, post office, government offices and possibly some schools would close. That would be it. And some people who had it off as a result would then not vote because they would use the day to do other things. 

I would like each party to have one national primary day to select their nominee. None of this nonsense of two states getting to trim the field before the majority gets to vote. I'd also like to see both parties mandate closed primaries so that the nominees are truly selected by registered party members. 

[samira_catlover]

Not voting in elections is TOTALLY a valid choice for some folk---unless you want to overrule religious freedom. Heck, I'm a Born-Again Pagan, but if someone INSISTED that I must vote---hmmmm, NOOO, you DON'T rule my conscience or my civil liberties. 

Anybody else remember the iconic photo of Amish school kids running like hell for the cornfields (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/12/amish-lost-schools-iowa/27204767/), rather than be bussed to consolidated schools?

Around here, our jails would be jammed with parents who would insist that voting in public elections constituted "unequal yoking" with unbelievers, and against church discipline.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

Here (Italy) generally polls are open from 7:00 am to 11:00 pm on Saturday and in the same hours on Sunday too. This gives to most people the possibility to go to vote. That they choose to vote or not is another matter.

We also don't have electoral colleges. We vote our Members of Parliament and then, depending on who got the majority of votes, the President of the Republic asks the head of the winning coalition to name the ministers and form a government. However the system is flawed and screwed in many ways that are completely different from USA's electoral system's problems. This to say that my personal sensation is that the choice of abstaining from vote stems more from the belief that, whatever my vote is, it doesn't really matter, because things aren't going to change for the better anyway, than from practical, organisation related issues. In 1946, during the first free elections since long time (and the first time women had the right to vote), 89% of Italians cast their vote. They knew they payed with blood for that right and they strongly felt it was a duty too. All my grandparents voted for the first time that year or in 1948 and all of them never missed a votation, even when some were gravely ill, they did everything in their power to go to the polls. That generation is decimated now, people are more disillusioned every day that passes and voting rates plummeted to an all time low at the last elections. Honestly I don't think this situation will improve. Should we vote tomorrow I really wouldn't know if I'd go, the possibilities between which we can choose are all unacceptable to me and to a greater than ever number of people. Only when people will feel that their vote matters they will crowd the polls.

[sawasdee]

I'm not sure this is the right place for this post. I am intrigued by the level of gerrymandering that appears to have gone on with regard to congressional seats. I have repeatedly read that the Democrats regularly win the popular vote for the house, but are still in the minority. How often are constituency boundaries redrawn, and is there neutral oversight of such redrawing? Can either party agitate for such redrawing? Is there a place to appeal the inequity of blatant gerrymandering? I hope someone can help - I really don't know anything about this subject.

[clueliss]

Boundaries are redrawn every 10 years I think - after each US census.  For US seats.  

[feministxtian]

I'd start with making districts bound by simple geography...for example, I lived in Maricopa County, Arizona...one district would be from oh...maybe I-10 to the east, Greenfield Rd to the west, University Drive to the North and Queen Creek to the south. No more of this bullshit of crazy lines based on racial/economic makeup. I'd also get rid of the electoral college. There would be a 100% news blackout until ALL the polls were closed. Outlaw PACS and corporate donations. No negative ads...most folks don't give a shit about what you're saying about the other guy...tell us YOUR ideas. Being able to vote over the internet. Input your voter registration # and vote away. All votes would go into a central database, not state by state totals. 

ALL religious pandering in elections to be outlawed (see 1st amendment). Each candidate has a website with their positions on it. No debates. Each candidate would have to be elected on their own merits, not shit-talking the other guy. Term limits for congresscritters. Outlaw lobbyists. Any congresscritter that files a tax return that shows more income than their congressional income gets booted out of office...immediately. Anyone who pulls the shit like Tom Cotton has been pulling gets an all-expense paid, LONG vacation at Leavenworth. 

Well...you asked. And, FTR, I am a Bernie Sanders supporter and will be caucusing for him on Saturday here in Nevada. 

[Sundaymorning]

http://www.thedailyliberator.com/biggest-factor-affecting-2016-election-nobody-talking/

What do you think about this article? Even if only half of it is true, it's quite concerning.

[sawasdee]

On 2/27/2016 at 11:06 PM, Sundaymorning said:

http://www.thedailyliberator.com/biggest-factor-affecting-2016-election-nobody-talking/

What do you think about this article? Even if only half of it is true, it's quite concerning.

Terrifying.

[OkToBeTakei]

Well the last time you guys voted I was given a thorough explanation of the system by US FJ er's.

I still don't understand it

[louisa05]

Having just come from my Nebraska Democratic Caucus....my new contribution to this thread is that we ban caucuses. What a fricking nightmare. 

They had a space that would hold maybe 25 people if they crammed everyone in. 220 people showed up. The caucus was supposed to begin at 10. They had one person registering people at the door and did not even complete that process until about 11:00. They had to move the entire proceeding outside. Most of us stood on concrete for over two hours. They had as many chairs as they could find out there. Three adults had to tell a Bernie millennial that he had to give up a chair for an elderly woman. He did not want to because she had a Hillary sticker. I'm not kidding. 

The sound system initially would not work outside. They discovered the extension cord for the speaker didn't work. They had to go to someone's nearby house to acquire one that worked. 

Then there was the "two people can speak on behalf of their candidates" thing. Kill me now. I thought that before anyone opened a mouth. Worse when they did. Hillary speaker one, awkward and repeating campaign slogans. Followed by Bernie speaker one who managed to find a way to offend anyone not for Bernie or over 30 in the room. He closed with a screaming declaration that if Bernie is not nominated, he'll vote for the GOP in November. That was after calling everyone for Hillary "old", "out of touch" and "separated from reality". I have to think that moved some older undecided people away from his candidate. Hillary 2: totally forgettable and not talking into  the mic anyway. Bernie 2: bless this kid, he was trying to clean up the mess his friend made. I actually admired him for his effort. 

Got all of that done and commenced with grouping. Then they got stalled again because no one had pens for filling out the official preference cards that are the actual vote. Women, like me, were digging in purses to share extra pens. By this time, people had been there over two hours and at least four people left from the Hillary group before filling out the preference sheets. That is important because the final result was Sanders 140, Clinton 136. 

Yeah....caucuses, not the way to go. 

 

 

[clueliss]

I'm seeing articles out of Kansas City regarding the Kansas Caucus's today about long lines and lots of frustrated folks.  Of course I also know that Kansas does a caucus instead of a primary because it is cheaper.  But I do agree - caucuses are a mess.

[Julifornia]

I would keep the electoral college, but award delegates based on proportional representation (like how Maine and Nebraska? currently do it).  The electoral college is good, since we are a constitutional republic, but the current winner-take-all system funnels a ton of money into a very few states such that a tiny fraction of the country is utterly bombarded with campaigning and everyone else is taken for granted.  One winner shouldn't get 55 out of 270 votes for a slim majority in California, for example. 

It might be a good idea for a party to agree to a platform before finding a candidate; this also creates a better opportunity for viable third-parties.  National debates with the nominees of several different parties might be more interesting and informative than all these party-specific debates we've been enduring for the past six months.  The Democratic Party will push the same agenda regardless of who is in the White House; does it even matter if it's Hillary or Bernie or me?

The actual mechanisms of voting need to be improved.  I do NOT support online or mail-in voting, because both are easily corrupted.  In 2006 I worked a polling site with the Diebold touch screen machines, and they weren't well calibrated.  Specifically, the field to touch to vote did not align with the voting box.  If you only touched inside the ticky box you didn't have problems but if you touched outside of it you could inadvertently cast a vote for the wrong guy.  And there isn't a good paper trail with electronic machines, just a little thermopaper receipt printed out after the election is closed with the tally and write-ins.  Optiscan ballots are better.  I'd make for easier in-person absentee balloting and maybe have the actual election go over 2 days, but no results until the polls have closed nationwide. 

Also, after you vote, you dip your finger in purple ink like they did in Iraq.