The United States Electoral reform theory thread.

I'm under the impression that the majority of people on GFF are not concerned at all that our electoral system may be faulty. Honestly, for a board full of people who consider themselves intellectual elitist assholes (or, at least, a board full of people who act like it, myself included), I'm seriously saddened and disappointed by this. Either way, it is clear to me, at least, that our electoral process is flawed and needs to be changed. Obviously this will never happen, but what if it did? If I had my way, here's a very liberal (and not necessarily my preferred) way of how things would go as far as our elected officials in Washington go.

First of all, Presidents would now be allowed to serve up to three terms, but their terms would be shortened to three years. This runs alongside the change in terms for Congressmen, with Senators getting run down to two year terms (still unlimited) and Representatives getting run down to one year terms (also unlimited). Politics, like information, moves a lot faster in this day and age than it did in the 1800s, so we could use a faster moving government, and if Congressmen knew their time could be up in a couple months they could probably be more convinced to follow the court of public opinion in most matters. I would also move Election Day up a couple of weeks to allow for more campaigning and a shorter lame duck session.

Second, the Electoral College would be abolished in favor of the popular vote. But, instead of having a President-Vice President party lock (meaning both are Democrat or Republican or whatever), we'd go back to the practice of voting for just the President, and having the Vice President be whoever was #2 in the popular vote. This will make help make the government more populist.

Third and finally, all candidates will be strictly capped to how much money they can spend on a campaign (like $1 million, or something reasonable). I'd bring out all kinds of sports economy stuff here, but you'd get the point either way, which is to give other parties a much fairer chance at power instead of the Democrat-Republican monopolization we've had for decades.

I'd come up with more but I'm too lazy. I'll probably get flamed for trying to be too progressive or not thinking long enough about this either way.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Yeah, thinking more about things like this would help.

It would help in not just pulling random term lengths out of thin air and not bothering to explain them. Why would the President's term be shortened to three years from four, and be eligible for three terms, for nine years in office? What makes this preferable to, say, borrowing from the Confederate Constitution and giving the President a six-year term, and being ineligible for re-election?

Similarly, the terms of office chosen in the Constitution for Congress were chosen for reasons. Representatives got terms of two years to make them more conscious of popular opinion, and Senators got terms of six years (and staggered elections) to allow them to be able to coolly consider what was brought before them without being so concerned about the next election, and the passions of the people. Shorting the terms like you propose wouldn't result in more getting done; it would result in less getting done as everyone is spending more time trying to stay in office than doing anything while there.

The same would result if the current President-Vice President system were reverted to the original system, with the Vice Presidency going to the runner-up. Forcing people who are political opposities and who just spent months trying to defeat each other would have little incentive to work together.

This is what happened with John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, and along with 1800 election showdown between Jefferson and Aaron Burr why they changed the system and introduced specific electoral ballots for Vice President in the first place.

Most amazing jew boots

I'm going to disagree with, well, everything you (not Styphon) said, but I give you points for at least trying.

Your first point carries a problem that makes it completely impossible to take on: campaigning takes too long. Presidential campaigns last about 2 years (a year and a half at the minimum), so that means that a president would now be campaigning for 2/3 of his term rather than 1/2. Senators can get a lot done since they are effectively in office for 5 years and the House runs perfectly fine with 2-year terms. If you shorten the House to one-year terms, when is the off-season? When can the representative come back to the home base to learn about the constituents and go back to fight for what is needed?

Campaigning is the main reason we only have politicians anymore and very few statesmen.

You can't do much to shorten the time between the election and taking office. Maybe a couple weeks, but it is customary with anything to be able sort one's affairs before leaving the previous job. If a current mayor wins a governorship, it takes time to turn the affairs of a city over to a new person. Plus, it takes time to prepare and there is very little done in lame-duck sessions anyway.

The vice president should never, ever be the person who finishes #2. For one, while the president is the big dog, the VP does have quite a bit of influence, a seat at the table. When the president can bring along someone who might be a very good mind (who wouldn't leave the Senate just to be an adviser), why deny that opportunity? And what of a 2nd term president? Throw out the current VP because the opposition threw another person at him who got beat?

Further, the guy who loses the election by vote, popular or otherwise, shouldn't automatically get to be president if the president dies. He lost for a reason. There is no one in the line of succession who is not either 1) voted into their position by the public and then appointed to the position by fellow elected peers or 2) hired by the President and then approved by Congress. If that became the case, the #2 man for the presidency would also be the only person on the list not chosen by anyone to be in the succession.

I am for some kind of, I dunno, campaigning caps, but I don't really have any good way to design it. There is a huge discrepancy between the amount of money corporations spend on elections and the amount citizens spend, meaning that if there is influence, it doesn't necessarily go to people. I find that to be the biggest problem. But there's a free speech issue here, and we've trampled on it quite a bit already. If a candidate is given money, why shouldn't he get to spread his message? Why shouldn't someone get to spread a message for him or attack an opponent?

We are where we are because Americans just don't care. I'm sure that people who want to serve their country, state, city, whatever, would much rather have honest debates in public forums then just sling mud through TV ads. But the fact of the matter is that you can do a debate or two for the presidency, but after that you've got no audience. The gubernatorial debate here was on public access and the audio was so bad you could barely hear it. If the American public cared more, we'd get more of that and less crap.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

As of yet, you've given me no compelling reason as to why we have to change anything. The current system works flawlessly as it has been designed.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I actually think every one of Dopefish's ideas are great and they're exactly what I've come up with myself, independently (except changing term length, though that's not a bad idea either).

I've always thought that we could do without a congress these days and just go full-fledged democracy. The growing pains would be severe of course and there are downsides, but the current system isn't perfect, and it just seems right that everyone's opinion would actually count. Also, it would solve the problem of lobbying and corruption as a true democracy is pretty hard to corrupt. You would have to have a lot of money to buy a couple hundred million votes.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Campaigning shouldn't be an issue. If you do a good job, that's your campaign.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Fair enough. Why waste money on them anyway? If you don't have the charisma to gain popularity through the media, then what right do you have to lead the people?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

Campaigning shouldn't be an issue. If you do a good job, that's your campaign.

You are wholly unfamiliar with campaigning, aren't you?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Minion

I've always thought that we could do without a congress these days and just go full-fledged democracy. The growing pains would be severe of course and there are downsides, but the current system isn't perfect, and it just seems right that everyone's opinion would actually count.

Voting on bills and laws is one thing, writing them is a-whole-nother, and that's usually what Congress also does and the ones they don't write, they fix. I also do not trust for one second that the general public would pay enough attention to the bills. The people writing them would throw millions of loopholes into everything that a congressman would notice and vote against where the public would hear the one keyword of the issue and vote based on that.

I know that senators don't read everything, but they have trusted aides who do. Plus there would be no end to the deluge that we just saw at election time. Rather than having a dozen or so propositions every couple years and a few on the inbetweens, you'd have votes every single day.

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

Campaigning shouldn't be an issue. If you do a good job, that's your campaign.

The simple answer to that is: 1) the guy running against you has to campaign and you can't not answer and expect to win and 2) Americans don't pay enough attention to what is going on to know what their own senators are doing without being told.

Plus, campaigns are good because it forces candidates to go out and spread messages to the general public.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

Campaigning shouldn't be an issue. If you do a good job, that's your campaign.

You are a huge idealist. You are also blind to the ways of the world.

I like Minion's idea of a full fledged democracy, but it would never happen. Why would the people on the top (those who'd have to lead a movement towards democracy) shoot themselves on the foot like that?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

Also, it would solve the problem of lobbying and corruption as a true democracy is pretty hard to corrupt.

Bullshit.

The entire system right now is based upon "What will politicians promise me in return for my vote?"

Minorities and poor people vote Democrat because Democrats will use the power of the government to benefit them through programs like Affirmative Action and social welfare.

Likewise, richer people tend to vote Republican because Republicans tend to favor tax cuts (letting them keep more of their own money) and support corporate welfare.

Regardless, I think the OP would do well to actually point out actual flaws in the system and actually argue his case as to why we should change a system that has worked for over two centuries.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

Regardless, I think the OP would do well to actually point out actual flaws in the system and actually argue his case as to why we should change a system that has worked for over two centuries.

Nah. They should just do it and see what happens.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

Nah. They should just do it and see what happens.

I certainly hope you're not serious.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Of course he's serious, Styphon. He's also the prime example why the men who founded the United States didn't want a full-fledged Democracy, because he's a damned idiot.

How ya doing, buddy?

Since I'm obvious not the only damned idiot in this thread:

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

If I had my way, here's a very liberal (and not necessarily my preferred) way of how things would go as far as our elected officials in Washington go.

So, yeah, I was being serious. It's also just an idea. I don't see anyone else coming up with any ideas, aside from Night Phoenix, who seems very confident that the electoral process is perfect and nothing should ever be scrutinized, examined or possibly changed.

Why everyone in this subforum thinks everything should be hyperanalyzed is beyond me. I'm not going to go down through 10 layers of evidence and cross-examination for a fucking idea. It's called HAVING FUN.

Most amazing jew boots

No, it's not that I think it's perfect or that it shouldn't be scrutinized, it's just that you haven't shown me any compelling reason as to why we should change anything other than simply just changing it.

Ideas are worthless if you won't come up with some kind of valid reason behind them.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

No, it's not that I think it's perfect

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix, in the 4th post in this thread

The current system works flawlessly as it has been designed.

Flawless is a synonym for perfect.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

For someone who likes to sling quotes around, you didn't seem to actually read what you quoted.

I said that the system works flawlessly as it has been designed. The American electoral system was designed to work a certain way and within those parameters, it has worked flawlessly. That, however, does not mean that the system in and of itself is perfect.

Stop trying to catch me in some shit and actually read and comprehend what the fuck was written.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I read and comprehended just fine. Why don't you make your argument if you're so intellectual. And elitist. And an asshole.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

So, yeah, I was being serious. It's also just an idea.

I hoped you weren't being serious because it was a very stupid idea and only a stupid person would seriously suggest it.

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

I don't see anyone else coming up with any ideas, aside from Night Phoenix, who seems very confident that the electoral process is perfect and nothing should ever be scrutinized, examined or possibly changed.

I don't see any reason that particularly warrants coming up with ideas, nor have you bothered to present any. The only reason you seem to have come up with for replacing the system is to "see what happens"; change for the sake of change, in other words.

Changing something as important as a national government simply to change it is stupid. Period. Change on the scale you're proposing should only be contemplated based on actual, serious need, not just to do it. The Articles of Confederation presented an actual serious need for change in how the government was structured and operated; you've given us no similarly compelling reason to contemplate doing the same.

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

Why everyone in this subforum thinks everything should be hyperanalyzed is beyond me. I'm not going to go down through 10 layers of evidence and cross-examination for a fucking idea. It's called HAVING FUN.

Since when is Political Palace about fun.

If you're not going to put up with hyperanalyzation, presentation of evidence, cross-examination and all that, you should probably just leave Political entirely.

How ya doing, buddy?

Sorry if I don't have 30 years of politics under my belt to warrant writing and publishing my own theses on how a government should be run. I'm also sorry you're HONESTLY expecting that from ANYONE on an Internet message board.

That high horse you're on, Styphon...yeah, I don't think you should come down because you're going to hurt yourself from the fall.

I guess I'm just not as big an intellectual, or as big an elitist, or as big an asshole as some people on these boards.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I don't have 30 years of politics under my belt either.....

Just a bachelor's degree in political science and history

But even then, it doesn't require such a thing for you to simply explain WHY we should make the changes you've proposed. You're just being a lazy fuck.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

I don't have 30 years of politics under my belt either.....

Just a bachelor's degree in political science and history

And a rapper and you work for the CIA. And you have the time to argue with lazy fucking idiots like me? WOW.

FELIPE NO

What can I say? I'm multifaceted.

And I only work for the CIA as a private analyst. They ask me to write a report when they want an outside perspective. Sounds a lot cooler than it actually is.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

And a rapper and you work for the CIA. And you have the time to argue with lazy fucking idiots like me? WOW.

Yeah, I think we can say this thread's done now.

Jam it back in, in the dark.