Electoral Reform

[HammerOfThor]

Do you think that the US needs electoral reform? If so, what reforms do you think are needed?

 

[Paradoxum]

Do you have 'First Past the Post' like the UK. In my opinion the UK should move towards some sort of Proportional Representation, and perhaps the US should too.

 

[Skavau]

Yes, you, like us in the UK need proportional representation.

 

[HammerOfThor]

Do you have 'First Past the Post' like the UK. In my opinion the UK should move towards some sort of Proportional Representation, and perhaps the US should too.

Yes we do, and we only have two viable parties.

 

[HammerOfThor]

Yes, you, like us in the UK need proportional representation.

The problem is most americans don't even know what that is.

 

[Skavau]

The problem is most americans don't even know what that is.

I don't honestly think the concept is hard to grasp.

 

[jayem]

We need major election reforms at 2 levels:

1) Limits on the total amount that can be spent on elections. Congress should have the power to set a cap on Presidential campaigns, and the states will set caps for their Senate, House, Governor, and other state-wide elections. These caps are for the total that can be spent, including that by the campaigns and by parties, PACs, unions, interest groups, etc. Whatever money donated for election spending is in excess of these limits must be returned pro rata to the donors. Along with this is no more anonymity. The name of every person donating money to any candidate, party, PAC, or other group will be considered public information.

2) Minimizing the influence of political parties in choosing candidates. Example: For the Presidential election, all contenders from all parties, who meet the state requirements to be on the ballots, will run against each other in one nationwide primary election. The top 2 vote-getters will pick their VPs, and will run in the general election. Whichever ticket gets the most popular votes wins. No more Electoral College middlemen. This also allows the voting public to choose who runs for President--not party activists. I'd like the same system used in each state to choose state-wide officeholders.

 

[Paradoxum]

Yes we do, and we only have two viable parties.

That must be pretty annoying.

 

[HammerOfThor]

I don't honestly think the concept is hard to grasp.

It's not

 

[Oafman]

Fund politics through taxes, instead of through private donations. Remove the disproportionate influence which a select few have over our democracies.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

We need major election reforms at 2 levels:

1) Limits on the total amount that can be spent on elections. Congress should have the power to set a cap on Presidential campaigns, and the states will set caps for their Senate, House, Governor, and other state-wide elections. These caps are for the total that can be spent, including that by the campaigns and by parties, PACs, unions, interest groups, etc. Whatever money donated for election spending is in excess of these limits must be returned pro rata to the donors.

This is one of those things that sounds easy to implement on paper, however, in the real world, it wouldn't be so black & white.

To say that you can enforce this is to say that you can control what private individuals do with their own money (which is going to be impossible).

For example, lets say we have an election between candidates A & B.

A & B have already raised & spent this max amount on advertising and campaign materials.

Then, I, as a billionaire (pretend obviously, I wish I was ), decide I like candidate A but hate candidate B.

So, I use my own funds to buy my own airtime on a popular channel and use that to sing the praises of A, and run B's name through the mud. Even though my private ads aren't directly affiliated with candidate A's 'official' campaign, I've still accomplished essentially what you're setting out to eliminate...that being, rich people having disproportionate influence over elections.

Plain English version of how it would work in the real world: The Koch Bros. and George Soros would still be heavily influencing the elections, they'd just be taking up their own individual campaigning efforts (unaffiliated from the 'official' campaign) as opposed to what they do now which is funneling their money through PACs and campaign donations.

That's just one example, there are dozens of ways that private actors can influence elections without being directly affiliated to a candidate's official campaigning team.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Fund politics through taxes, instead of through private donations. Remove the disproportionate influence which a select few have over our democracies.

This idea's been pitched before...some huge flaws with the idea (and I'll highlight them with a line of questioning)

How do you decide who's eligible to receive the funding? Anyone? Only people from the well-established political parties? Or can I start my own party tomorrow with 5 people and get the same funding that would be given to Hillary Clinton?

How many people are allowed to receive the funding? Can 150,000 different people all toss their name in the hat and all receive the funding? If they all get it, that's only going to leave a very small (almost unusable amount) for each candidate is it not?


As we start to go down the path of answering these questions and seeing the possible outcomes, the flaws with the idea will become very apparent.

 

[Albion]

Minimizing the influence of political parties in choosing candidates. Example: For the Presidential election, all contenders from all parties, who meet the state requirements to be on the ballots, will run against each other in one nationwide primary election. The top 2 vote-getters will pick their VPs, and will run in the general election. Whichever ticket gets the most popular votes wins. No more Electoral College middlemen. This also allows the voting public to choose who runs for President--not party activists. I'd like the same system used in each state to choose state-wide officeholders.

This will insure that the top two are not the choice of most of the voters. Not such a good idea, although it looks good on paper.

 

[Oafman]

This idea's been pitched before...some huge flaws with the idea (and I'll highlight them with a line of questioning)

How do you decide who's eligible to receive the funding? Anyone? Only people from the well-established political parties? Or can I start my own party tomorrow with 5 people and get the same funding that would be given to Hillary Clinton?

How many people are allowed to receive the funding? Can 150,000 different people all toss their name in the hat and all receive the funding? If they all get it, that's only going to leave a very small (almost unusable amount) for each candidate is it not?


As we start to go down the path of answering these questions and seeing the possible outcomes, the flaws with the idea will become very apparent.

A fair formula can be drawn up, based on share of the vote in the previous election, and other factors such as party membership. So if a party had a terrible election, they could still receive a competitve amount of funding for the following election if their popularity increased. And the limit would only apply to election campaign spending, parties could still attract private donations in the interim. I do accept that this system presents challenges, in terms of finding ways to enable newly formed parties to compete, but it cannot be said that the current system does a good job of this, illustrated clearly in the US by the fact that so few votes go to anyone but the two main parties.

What this change would mean is that, during an election campaign, a single billionaire could not pay for one party to have ten times as many TV ads as the other party. That's the current system - elections can be bought - and it's obviously undemocratic.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

A fair formula can be drawn up, based on share of the vote in the previous election, and other factors such as party membership. So if a party had a terrible election, they could still receive a competitve amount of funding for the following election if their popularity increased. And the limit would only apply to election campaign spending, parties could still attract private donations in the interim. I do accept that this system presents challenges, in terms of finding ways to enable newly formed parties to compete, but it cannot be said that the current system does a good job of this, illustrated clearly in the US by the fact that so few votes go to anyone but the two main parties.

Okay, so how that ties in with my original question...

150,000 people all show up, each with only 1 or 2 supporters a piece, under your system, while they won't get paid as much as a Cruz or a Hillary, they still get a certain amount of money none the less...correct?

Essentially, if you're using public funding so that any member of the public can try to run for president, you can't exclude anyone...so is it safe to assume that people are okay with throwing away millions to allow people with no shot to have a laughable run all as an attempt to prevent the two main parties from running with too much money in their pocket?

What this change would mean is that, during an election campaign, a single billionaire could not pay for one party to have ten times as many TV ads as the other party. That's the current system - elections can be bought - and it's obviously undemocratic.

Correct, under the current system, a billionaire could give a billion dollars to the guy they like and give them an unfair advantage...but, in regards to my previous post that was a reply to another poster, what's to stop a billionaire from simply buying ad time as a private citizen, and sing the praises of the ideas they like? As noted before, all that would do is encourage uber rich to purchases their own personal ad time, unaffiliated with the 'official' campaign, and use that to get their views out, instead of what they currently do today which is funnel it through PACs, etc...

 

[Albion]

Fund politics through taxes, instead of through private donations. Remove the disproportionate influence which a select few have over our democracies.

I assume that the question doesn't require us to take account of the Constitution but that just anything, even ideas that are virtually impossible of being adopted, are fair game for this thread. Right?

 

[HammerOfThor]

so is it safe to assume that people are okay with throwing away millions to allow people with no shot to have a laughable run all as an attempt to prevent the two main parties from running with too much money in their pocket?

Plenty of countries already do this and have joke candidates. It's a small price to pay for fair elections.

 

[HammerOfThor]

I assume that the question doesn't require us to take account of the Constitution but that just anything, even ideas that are virtually impossible of being adopted, are fair game for this thread. Right?

Considering that any electoral reform is virtually impossible of being adopted at this time, yes.

Also, electoral reform would require a constitutional amendment anyways in most cases.

 

[Oafman]

Okay, so how that ties in with my original question...

150,000 people all show up, each with only 1 or 2 supporters a piece, under your system, while they won't get paid as much as a Cruz or a Hillary, they still get a certain amount of money none the less...correct?

Essentially, if you're using public funding so that any member of the public can try to run for president, you can't exclude anyone...so is it safe to assume that people are okay with throwing away millions to allow people with no shot to have a laughable run all as an attempt to prevent the two main parties from running with too much money in their pocket?

You could set a minimum bar. Party membership maybe. Like I said, this system makes it hard for the new guys. But let me ask again, how are the new guys fairing under the current system?

Correct, under the current system, a billionaire could give a billion dollars to the guy they like and give them an unfair advantage...but, in regards to my previous post that was a reply to another poster, what's to stop a billionaire from simply buying ad time as a private citizen, and sing the praises of the ideas they like? As noted before, all that would do is encourage uber rich to purchases their own personal ad time, unaffiliated with the 'official' campaign, and use that to get their views out, instead of what they currently do today which is funnel it through PACs, etc...

I would make it illegal to spend significant amounts of money campaigning on behalf of a party, during an election campaign. You could hardly place restrictions on what money parties spend and at the same time freely allow proxies to spend additional money on their behalf.

Do you have a better solution to stop people buying elections?

 

[NightHawkeye]

Term limits.