Electoral Reform

[Billnew]

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.

1.Limit amount spent on elections equals limits on free speech. In elections, money equals air time, bill board space, ie speech. I do support no anonymity. Freedom of speech does not mean you can stay out of the spotlight. Let the dogs lie with the ones that groomed them in the spotlight.

2. I would support limiting the power of the party to chose who will run. Let the people of the party decide.

Electoral college- without the electoral process, the candidates would only have to woo the largest of states. They only have to win the biggest populations so why go to Rhode Island, or even campaign in a state predominately won by the other party? Democracy means you only need the majority to win, keep the majority of your party happy and the rest are ignored.

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

Freedom of speech through political contributions. Having people run only with government money would be unconstitutional.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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?


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?

Actually, better & better (despite the fact that it's still a small percentage). If you look at a few of the 3rd parties...their popular vote count has over tripled between 2004 & now.

To your second point, how can you make it illegal for me, as a private citizen, to buy airtime, and give out whatever message I like? Would that not be suppressing my expression as an individual?

 

[Oafman]

Actually, better & better (despite the fact that it's still a small percentage). If you look at a few of the 3rd parties...their popular vote count has over tripled between 2004 & now.

But still pretty small. We've seen a more dramatic shift away from traditional parties in the UK in recent years, with the rise of UKIP and the SNP. I do admit that enabling new parties to taker part is the biggest problem with my suggestion. But I'm not convinced it's insurmountable, or that it's a bigger problem than those we currently face.

To your second point, how can you make it illegal for me, as a private citizen, to buy airtime, and give out whatever message I like? Would that not be suppressing my expression as an individual?

Yes, it would be, but nothing is absolute. Democracy is IMO a principle just as important as free expression, and right now the two are clashing; something has to give.

 

[Oafman]

Freedom of speech through political contributions. Having people run only with government money would be unconstitutional.

Someone else mentioned that. Which part of the constitution would state funding of political parties breach? My knowledge of the US constitution is not what it should be.

 

[Albion]

Someone else mentioned that. Which part of the constitution would state funding of political parties breach? My knowledge of the US constitution is not what it should be.

That's correct. The Supreme Court did rule on this, considering it to be violation of free speech to prohibit private contributions.

 

[Oafman]

That's correct. The Supreme Court did rule on this, considering it to be violation of free speech to prohibit private contributions.

That doesn't appear to rule out a spending limit during an election campaign though. That might be a workable compromise.

 

[Albion]

That doesn't appear to rule out a spending limit during an election campaign though. That might be a workable compromise.

You'd think so, but the court's decision (as I recall) struck down certain kinds of giving while upholding others, so there couldn't be a completely state-financed system and there couldn't be complete elimination of private money as it is done now through intermediaries. Of course, this is a discussion, so we could stipulate to all of what you are interested in seeing done, so long as it were by way of a Constitutional amendment.

 

[Oafman]

You'd think so, but the court's decision (as I recall) struck down certain kinds of giving while upholding others, so there couldn't be a completely state-financed system and there couldn't be complete elimination of private money as it is done now through intermediaries. Of course, this is a discussion, so we could stipulate to all of what you are interested in seeing done, so long as it were by way of a Constitutional amendment.

I imagine an amendment would be very hard to achieve. And the other problem we have with any discussion on funding or electoral reform is that the people who would need to make the change, our elected representatives, are precisely the people who have benefitted from the current system. So it's hard to get them motivated to consider whether a change might be for the better. The two dominant and well-funded parties in the US might find rare agreement when it comes to maintaining a system which keeps them dominant.

We have a similar debate in the UK right now, after an election where one party (UKIP) got 13% of the vote, but that only translated to 1 out of 650 legislators. Quite ridiculous, yet for some reason the two largest parties never seem keen to discuss it!

 

[Albion]

I imagine an amendment would be very hard to achieve.

Agreed, but it's possible, so it keeps all ideas on the table in a discussion like this.

And the other problem we have with any discussion on funding or electoral reform is that the people who would need to make the change, our elected representatives, are precisely the people who have benefitted from the current system.

You betcha. That's also why discussions about minor parties and how they might become more important are hamstrung. The two majors collaborate to keep themselves in control of the election machinery, all the way down to the precinct level.

We have a similar debate in the UK right now, after an election where one party (UKIP) got 13% of the vote, but that only translated to 1 out of 650 legislators. Quite ridiculous, yet for some reason the two largest parties never seem keen to discuss it!

I know. Oh how I know. But at least you have and have had more than two. Practically speaking we haven't seen that in the USA since the turn of the twentieth century at least. And even when such efforts as Ross Perot's Reform Party gets mentioned, the system made sure that they couldn't survive for long or participate below the Presidential level and, rarely, the Congressional level. I don't think there's been a candidate of a minor party elected to Congress in my lifetime. Could be wrong, but I can't think of any.

 

[Paulos23]

For better representation, it would be nice if we went to a Single Transferable Vote. It would be a big change for the US, but it would help with people that feel they don't have representation in a district. More in the link on how it works.

http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom-single-transferable-vote

The next big thing is limiting the amount of money spent by making a guaranteed way of getting to the voters. A video they have to watch every week, or a channel that every candidate can get an ad on. Let the voters come looking for information, not go looking for voters.

 

[Creech]

I personally agree with others in this thread when they say that First-past-the-post should be done away with.