Why our entire election process is in need of an overhaul

[PeaceBrother]

OK, I think I have it down to three major reasons
1. Outrageous campaign costs=big company loyalty

We cant be spending millions of dollars just to get elected when our nation is in debt. Even if we weren't in debt the idea that we need to buy the voters respect is ridiculous. I say let them have free campaign ads and let there be open debates so that the two main parties cant just block out the little guys by buying up more ads. Especially since they will have to do pretty big favors to repay the companys that gave them the money in the first place.

2. We need more major partys, or else we should due away with the party issue.

There are so many issues out there and there is no way you could possibly agree with everything that one party says. For example, I like many of the democrats take on what we should do in foreign policy, but I hate the fact that they are pro choice. If we didnt have partys we would start voting for people and beliefs, and not just because we hate one view of a particular party.

3. No more practiced speeches

I want a leader who can anser any question and quickly find a solution on the spot. I want there to be open debates in which there are questions (the canidates dont know what the questions will be) which are asked on the spot and they must anser all of the questions. That would give us a far better idea of who we are voting for, not just what the writers of the speech think.

If you agree with me let me know. If you disagree with me let me know. I know my solutions aren't sure fire ways to stop political corruption, but i think it would be a step in the right direction.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Prohibiting artificial persons from participating in the legislative and electoral process would go a very long way toward making our politicians more responsive and accoutnable to the electorate as a whole rather than mostly to well monied interests.

 

[PeaceBrother]

I just saw that in the iowa race for governor the leading democrat has raised 2.4 million, and the leading republican raised 3.7 million. Thats crazy. Money should never be an option when it comes to choosing a leader. This system is out of order.

 

[alphamale]

It's none of your damn business how people spend their money or what they say. Want a new major party? Found one.

 

[PeaceBrother]

If you thought as the major partys as a monopoly it would make more sense why I think they should be done away with. they are silencing the minor parties through big money.

 

[FallingPianos]

1. Outrageous campaign costs=big company loyalty

We cant be spending millions of dollars just to get elected when our nation is in debt. Even if we weren't in debt the idea that we need to buy the voters respect is ridiculous. I say let them have free campaign ads and let there be open debates so that the two main parties cant just block out the little guys by buying up more ads. Especially since they will have to do pretty big favors to repay the companys that gave them the money in the first place.

I dont trust the government to do the job right. how do they determain who deserves campaign money?

2. We need more major partys, or else we should due away with the party issue.

There are so many issues out there and there is no way you could possibly agree with everything that one party says. For example, I like many of the democrats take on what we should do in foreign policy, but I hate the fact that they are pro choice. If we didnt have partys we would start voting for people and beliefs, and not just because we hate one view of a particular party.

I think the party system should be abolished entirely. if parties want to privatly hold their own primaries thats one thing, but I dont think the government should play any part. primary elections should be non partisan.

3. No more practiced speeches

I want a leader who can anser any question and quickly find a solution on the spot. I want there to be open debates in which there are questions (the canidates dont know what the questions will be) which are asked on the spot and they must anser all of the questions. That would give us a far better idea of who we are voting for, not just what the writers of the speech think.

there's nothing wrong with practiced speeches, there is a place for both.

 

[Schweddy]

I think the *biggest* issue is lobbyists. Millions on millions go to them and the candidate or congressperson has not a clue what the true issues are. Therefore when it comes time to vote, only the issues the lobbyists are concerned with get attention for incumbency. Lobbying should be illegal - period. The newest politicians quickly learn that the heart and soul of doing the job for the American public is rare. They either play the game or they will be tossed aside.

The party system will *never* be resolved. It is the deep core of our government. It is the reason why there are so many incumbents. It is the reason why we have a "claim" to a checks and balances system - which is flawed as well. Every state has laws which determine elections based on a two party system. Only a few have an open ballot in addition.

The reason money plays a factor is that more money equals more public media. The old saying, there is no negative media, is very true when it comes to politicians. Even the vet boat issue urged many to vote Democrat. Politicians know more than anyone that name recognition is the utmost part of being elected. The next biggie is that most folks vote party ticket because they do not know the issues the candidates bring to the table or do not know the candidate at all.

I like the way they do things in England. Put Bush in front of congress and ask him the tuff questions - Johnny on the Spot.

 

[cascadian]

The party system will *never* be resolved. It is the deep core of our government. It is the reason why there are so many incumbents.

Well, it isn't going anywhere fast. I don't mind parties per se, but I think the way that our republic is set up encourages as few parties as possible.

Our system is a little old fashioned and in need of an overhaul. Instant runoff voting would be a good first step and it's already been tried in at least one city in the US. This eliminates the need for people to vote for the candidate that they think can win rather than the one they truly support. That reality alone shuts voices out of the political process. The next step would be a single transferable vote used in our representative system. My guess is that the number of true democrats and true republicans in this country is only a slight majority yet they make up the vast majority of our representatives because we have a winner take all approach.

There are other small changes that can make a big difference. Here in Oregon, we have a voter's guide, where for a minimal fee each candidate gets 500 words to reach all of the eligible voters. While it's not a lot of space, it's generally more effective than a campaign commercial in understanding the candidate's qualifications and platform.

I do think that these things can happen on a local level, and once people get used to them, they'll realize that they like them a lot better.

I like the way they do things in England. Put Bush in front of congress and ask him the tuff questions - Johnny on the Spot.

As long as it comes with all those funny noises they make.:lol:

 

[Schweddy]

So what can we do?
Well a first obvious step would be to make the state representation to the electoral college representative (i.e. if 40% of Illinois votes republican, instead of democrats getting all of Illinois's electoral votes, republicans would get 40% of them).

Is it Nebraska that does not have the "winner take all electoral votes" system? I would be interested in a Nebraskan chiming in to see if the effects of voting/voter turn out etc.. is different in that system. But, that would only effect Presidental elections.

We could have general primaries. Instead of only being able to caucus for republicans for everything, or democrat for everything, you could causus for a republican for president, a libertarian for senate, a democrat for mayor, you could still only caucus for one party per race (otherwise you'd have a bunch of democrats caucusing for the worst republican, and vice versa), but you wouldn't be bound to the parties. This would increase moderate participation, and eventually lead to more moderate candidates.

That would completely destroy the two party system... interesting.

Who would pay for the caucus - the states? Who would orchestrate them? I can see the same issue we have now re-evolving.

 

[PeteEU]

Being a non american I always had this illusion that the US political and election system was near perfect. That illusion was shattered in 2000 with the Flordia mess. Since then the partisan politics and clear conflicts of interest among election officals has beat that illusion into a million bits.

The problems as I see them are money, conflicts of interest, lack of universal election laws and finaly the electoral college.

Money is huge in US politics, and one way to cut this down is to ban all TV adds. TV adds are banned or limited in many European countries and that holds costs down in my opinion.

Conflicts of interest is a huge problem. 2 elections have been called into doubt by the "other side" because of among other things election officals having links to one of the candidates. This must stop. Either you lead an election or help a candidate.. you cant do both. This was also mentioned by the international monitors at the last election and if you look at the 2 "problem" areas of the last 2 elections, both states had very partisan head election officials and both election results were cast in doubt over, in part because of this conflict of interest.

Universal election laws are also vital. How on earth can you have a political system where each local area and up to state level have different rules and regulations on how to hold an election and who can stand? A level playing field is needed and that includes the making of districts. As it stands now the partisan making of districts have more to say on who wins an election than the vote it self!

Finally the electoral college has to show the will of the people (thats the whole point of a democracy) and hence the electoral college has to give the same final result as the popular vote. Else you have a minority dictatorship. One must also ask if the electoral college is even usefull now days.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

It's none of your damn business how people spend their money or what they say. Want a new major party? Found one.

Exactly! If they want to fund terrorists who attack the US, "none of your damn business." If they want to shout, "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, "none of your damn business."

Or perhaps, there are times and places when how other people conduct themselves are rightfully my business?

 

[Asi]

Maybe if we simply made politicians go through a annual evaluation and based next years salary off how well they represented those that elected them, there would be some improvement. Although most of 'em are filthy rich already...Maybe bad performers get a paintball barrage to the groin?:shock:

 

[LeftyHenry]

The two dreams I have to change the US political system would be

1. Abolishion of house and Senate, in exchange and ultra democratic system via internet where people would log on with there citizen names and vote on issues. It would take no more than 5-10 minutes of your day.

It's none of your damn business how people spend their money or what they say. Want a new major party? Found one.

2. This is the other thing. It's impossible to do so unless you're a trillionaire. third parties can't get their message out because most don't even know they exsist and they don't have as superficialy flashy of a campaign as the major two parties do. Public funding only.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

Che,

1. Abolishion of house and Senate, in exchange and ultra democratic system via internet where people would log on with there citizen names and vote on issues. It would take no more than 5-10 minutes of your day.

While I think it would be a good idea I disagree in some parts.

1) I would be in favor of a Senate reformation. The Senate was created to represent the states but now they are directly voted in by the people. This needs to be changed.

2) Maybe your direct e-vote can replace the house. This would get around the problem that direct democray faces. the State Senate could check the people and vice versa.

How does that sound?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

OK, I think I have it down to three major reasons
1. Outrageous campaign costs=big company loyalty

We cant be spending millions of dollars just to get elected when our nation is in debt. Even if we weren't in debt the idea that we need to buy the voters respect is ridiculous. I say let them have free campaign ads and let there be open debates so that the two main parties cant just block out the little guys by buying up more ads. Especially since they will have to do pretty big favors to repay the companys that gave them the money in the first place.

What do you mean we can't be spending millions to get elected when our nation is in debt? The clear solution to that is to eliminate all public financing of political campaigns. Works for me.

2. We need more major partys, or else we should due away with the party issue.

There are so many issues out there and there is no way you could possibly agree with everything that one party says. For example, I like many of the democrats take on what we should do in foreign policy, but I hate the fact that they are pro choice. If we didnt have partys we would start voting for people and beliefs, and not just because we hate one view of a particular party.

Even in the loser proportioned democracies of Europe there's political parties. You're not going to get away with this aspect of tribalism, it's part of human instinct.

What you seem to be seeking is rational voters. We got people on this board that don't even want a requirement that voters be able to read. Expecting them to think is out of the question.

3. No more practiced speeches

I want a leader who can anser any question and quickly find a solution on the spot. I want there to be open debates in which there are questions (the canidates dont know what the questions will be) which are asked on the spot and they must anser all of the questions. That would give us a far better idea of who we are voting for, not just what the writers of the speech think.

If you agree with me let me know. If you disagree with me let me know. I know my solutions aren't sure fire ways to stop political corruption, but i think it would be a step in the right direction.

Practiced speeches have their place. One doesn't achieve clarity in expression in a never ending series of off-the-cuff ad-lbs. But expecting them to answer unrehearsed questions is also something useful to see in a candidate.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I just saw that in the iowa race for governor the leading democrat has raised 2.4 million, and the leading republican raised 3.7 million. Thats crazy. Money should never be an option when it comes to choosing a leader. This system is out of order.

Money is a measure of how well a candidate resonates with the electorate. If a candidate can't raise beans, then he doesn't have the support needed to win.

What's necessary isn't elimination of fund raising from the campaign, but elimination of controls on fund raising, and an equal demand that fund raising be fully open to public inspection. Any candidate should be required to list, for public review, all dollars donated and from who it came. And these lists should certainly become part of the campaign debate.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Being a non american I always had this illusion that the US political and election system was near perfect. That illusion was shattered in 2000 with the Flordia mess. Since then the partisan politics and clear conflicts of interest among election officals has beat that illusion into a million bits.

Why would what happened in Floriduh alter that perception? The man with the most votes won the state. The courts didn't permit the loser to steal the state and alter the outcome. Seems things were working just fine.

The problems as I see them are money, conflicts of interest, lack of universal election laws and finaly the electoral college.

It's the federal system that makes this country great. California has some really looney election laws, but I dont' want people elected from New York telling us what to do. I mean, they were dumb enough to elect Hillary. The problems with the system exist at the federal level, where Congress and the Senate have joined forces to protect incumbency, with the worst offenders being John McCain and his recent BS Campaign Finance Reform nonsense that cuts the First Amendment to ribbons.

Money is huge in US politics, and one way to cut this down is to ban all TV adds. TV adds are banned or limited in many European countries and that holds costs down in my opinion.

Welcome to the land of the First Amendment.

Universal election laws are also vital. How on earth can you have a political system where each local area and up to state level have different rules and regulations on how to hold an election and who can stand? A level playing field is needed and that includes the making of districts. As it stands now the partisan making of districts have more to say on who wins an election than the vote it self!

It's worked for centuries.

Finally the electoral college has to show the will of the people (thats the whole point of a democracy) and hence the electoral college has to give the same final result as the popular vote. Else you have a minority dictatorship. One must also ask if the electoral college is even usefull now days.

Well, see, there's your big misconception. The United States ISN'T a "democracy", it's republic. The purpose of the Electoral College is to provide a last gap between the follies of democracy and a sane government. I mean, with any system the relied on simple majorities, we'd have had to lunatic Al Gore in office when the towelheads attacked on September 11th. What a frightening prospect that would have been. All people bitching about Bush should keep this in mind.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Che,



While I think it would be a good idea I disagree in some parts.

1) I would be in favor of a Senate reformation. The Senate was created to represent the states but now they are directly voted in by the people. This needs to be changed.

2) Maybe your direct e-vote can replace the house. This would get around the problem that direct democray faces. the State Senate could check the people and vice versa.

How does that sound?

Well I'm against the whole state system because states=electoral system, electoral system=screwed up political process. 2000 proved it when Gore got more votes but, arguably, less electoral votes.

I guess it's a good idea because the idea of no states won't happen anytime soon.

I just think that one of the reasons we're a representative republic is because it'd be a pain in the *** to go wait on a line everyday to vote. but technology has changed that. Look at American idol, despite the fact I detest it, millions vote via phone and it takes a minute.