If we were starting fresh, how would you design our election system?

[SoCalDem]

Here's how I would do it,,

Primaries would be grouped in clusters that would represent rural, urban,



They would alternate in priority, starting in January of election year..drawn by lot

All primaries would be over by June 30

Conventions in July

Debates in August

Voter registration would be opt OUT not opt IN..everyone registered as a VOTER..not as a republican or a democrat or anything else. If people wanted to be recognized as a party member that's up to them.

The STATE should not know the party affiliation

At 18 (or when naturalized), everyone gets their voter ID card...any 2nd ID verifies it.

States can run "their" elections anyway they want, BUT

elections with national consequences are standardized.. a 5 x 7 card with only THREE choices..president..senate ,,house

the only address verification double check would be for house, and a cell-phone bill should verify the house you live in and the street (for proper district)..

If states want to print 10 page ballots, let them, but for people who just want the "express vote" that does not require 10 hours in line, a card and a sharpie to mark 3 (maximum) marks, should speed things up considerably..and they are re-countable

I would also like to see donations come ONLY from the state/district of the candidates (for congress)...and for each party to have their own official channel on tv where they could voice their ideas..but NO defaming their opponents.

If their ideas are without merit, so be it.

The press (minus all that juicy ad money) might just have to get back to actually researching issues to draw viewers.

Of course it goes without saying, that I would like to see public financing, with all PAC money GONE..

[CurtEastPoint]

1. This is a good place to start. I would LOVE to participate in helping fix this shithole we have now

Thanks for your efforts!

[Spider Jerusalem]

2. If I were starting from scratch? I'd get rid of the presidential system altogether

and replace it with a parliamentary form of government with proportional representation in which any party receiving 5% or more of the vote is guaranteed an equivalent number of seats. The voting system is only part of the problem; the American form of government is deeply and inherently flawed in other ways--the president is more or less an elected monarch; the winner-take-all elections prevent the development of robust third parties and discourage the formation of coalitions across party lines to achieve common goals; the Senate is overly powerful and undemocratic. So given the ability to just start over I'd scrap the whole thing.

[DJ13]

10. +1

I like the way a Parliamentary system can have votes of no confidence that can remove rogue leaders.

Our system with impeachment is too complicated to be a fast remedy should it be needed.

W. Bush would never have had a full two terms in a Parliamentary system.

[SoCalDem]

11. Parliamentary is the best, but I don't see that here...ever

I would like a two term limit..and NO pensions without 20 yr consecutive service

I would change the house to 4 yrs ....two terms = 8

senate stays at 6...........................................two terms = 12

To get a pension, they would have to serve in BOTH houses with NO BREAK in service


and NO lobbying/think-tanking/PAC stuff for FIVE YEARS after they leave..

I want them to GO BACK HOME and "become the entrepreneurs" they think we should all become

[Art_from_Ark]

33. I don't see any particular advantage in a parliamentary system

And I have been living in one for a long time.

OK, the parliamentarian system may be a little more interesting in that the opposition party can groan out loud when someone from the other side of the aisle says something stupid, instead of sticking to the "I respect the gentleman's views" decorum.

But let's say that the US had a parliamentary system, and the Libertarians (20%) and Republicans (33%) formed a 53-47 coalition over the Democrats (35%) and Greens (12%). They could control all branches of government, and ramrod every kind of crappy legislation they wanted to through the Congress, er, Parliament, and there wouldn't be a damn thing we could do about it until they felt like calling a new election, which would usually be when they're high in the opinion polls.

[DavidDvorkin]

12. Yes! Exactly!

[Ztolkins]

23. Yea, parliamentary is great...

Until you get stuck with a minority government and votes of non-confidence are happening over the dumbest of things. Then you're going to the polls every 6 months for 3 years (or whatever) and turnout is at a grim 27%. Fun, fun.

[Spider Jerusalem]

27. Which is worse than deadlock and filibusters and stalling tactics...

how, exactly?

[Ztolkins]

28. Hm, I'm not sayin it is

Both ways have their issues, is all.

[mzmolly]

3. Standardized voting for all Presidential/Congressional/Senate elections

involving the same paper ballots, machines, early voting laws etc. Machines would be owned by government but overseen by a non-partisan auditing body. All elections (especially in swing states) would be subject to testing prior to elections and audits between election day and December ??.

I don't think states should have the power to run their own elections, unless they are local elections.

[nichomachus]

4. One problem I see

I would also like to see donations come ONLY from the state/district of the candidates (for congress)

All the big money people have to do is set up shell operations in the states and they could funnel as much money as they wanted.

Do it like they do in other countries. Set the election date. No overt campaigning until three weeks before. All campaigns receive public funding. No outside money.

[libtodeath]

5. Abolish the electoral college to start

then one person one vote would have meaning.
All election boards would have to prove someone doesn`t have the right to vote rather then a citizen having to prove they do.
That is the way our legal system works so should our election system.

Have a national primary day in late August and make it a paid holiday same as Labor Day.
Same with election day.
Any business that remains open faces a tax to go towards financing elections.

Public transportation to the polls or automatic absentee ballots mailed out so everyone has the ability to vote.

Just a few thoughts to start with.

[PDJane]

6. Start from the beginning and eliminate the electoral college.

Remove all private funding, institute proportional representation, and educate the people on the issues. Scrap the two-party system, which is not democratic and leads to a vast chasm in the electorate and incivilities galore.

Cut out the entire media circus around presidential elections.

[WinkyDink]

7. You mean ASIDE from the guillotines?

[SomethingFishy]

8. I like it...

I would start with public financing though. Word is over a billion will have been spent by the 2 candidates in this election. While people are running around bitching about the economy

And the automatic voter registration should be simple. My son turned 18 a couple months ago. His draft papers came in the mail last week. Draft was automatic but he had to go register to vote?

We can do better and your ideas are great!

[libtodeath]

9. Mandatory instant fact checking presedential candidates

forget the debates they are almost useless and a performance show.
Each person running faces a solo interrogation from a member of the press.
Questions are asked and direct answers are needed to be given.
If they wont or lie then they are disqualified.

[hifiguy]

13. We could use the truth-o-scope from Futurama

for that.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

14. OPT-OUT love that!

Shit-can the electoral college OR modify it such that votes are directly proportional to population. For instance, based on population, CA's electoral votes are worth 25% of that of WY's when CA is 76 times larger than WY. Since CA is the largest state, peg it at 100 electoral votes. To fill in the remainder requires using decimals. For instance, Florida would receive 51.6423 EVs and WY would receive 1.5070.

Use instant runoff voting.

Old school paper ballots.

Fire pollsters.

[Lightbulb_on]

17. Why would any national politician go to Wyoming then?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

20. lol Wyoming?

They wouldn't go to talk to cows.

A better question is, why do national candidates ignore major population centers now? Because the electoral college is ridiculous.

Shit-can the electoral college, go to a popular vote, and candidates will ignore the cows just the same. I'd rather they ignore cows than masses of people.

[SoCalDem]

21. Most don't go NOW, and with less than 1/2 million residents for the whole state

they should not get the over-representation they now have anyway..

A pure popular vote scenario would be best anyway..

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

30. add: Early voting in every state!

[librechik]

15. limit campaign to 6 wks before primaries. Delete the electoral college. NO CORPORATE MONEY

Allowed. All elections financed publicly by a $10 checkbox on your tax return. Every candidate gets an equal amount, no personal money allowed. Candidates vetted by petitions. Local media outlets would be required to offer a certain amount of free airtime to all candidates.

No campaigning in between elections. Penalties apply.

Straight popular vote on paper ballots counted by local high school kids (how they do it in Canada) NO "WEIGHTING." Ballots saved by law for 6 years. Mail in ballots allowed.

Instant Runoff voting: http://www.fairvote.org/instant-runoff-voting#.UImHUKC0KSo

Exit polls taken by non-partisan groups at every precinct.

And, as they do in Australia, I would make it mandatory for registered voters to vote in each election, with a small fine for non-compliance.

This is the federal elections I'm talking about. Similar local versions would exist for mayor, city council etc.

[reformist2]

16. Let Ohio decide everything.

[MrYikes]

19. lol

scared my wife with my outburst.

[Quantess]

18. Primaries all in the same week.

Each vote is worth the same: no electoral college.

[Javaman]

22. A lottery...

Everyone of voting age would be eligible. If you get picked, you don't have to serve.

First round is for the house and senate.

From that group, the president and vice president are picked.

The supreme court would have a capped limit of 15 year service. Off set by 3 year intervals, unless someone dies then a new lottery is held.

There would be no more electoral collage, no more vote rigging, no more eternal campaign season, no more special interest groups, citizens united would effectively be destroyed and it would be the most anticipated event in the US and the world.

Granted, some people who win will be crazy, but how is that different from now?

The voter rolls have gone down and interest in our nations government is at best blase'. Just think how a massive event such as a lottery where anyone could potentially be a member of congress or president would be?

I'm sure at this point, you have read my post, paused, and thought, "hmmm, that's interesting" then thought, "wait, what am I crazy?"

I have thought about this for a very long time and yes, there is a great deal of snark with this, but there is also a lot think about.

Cheers!

[SoCalDem]

24. I have thought about it from a Publishers' Clearinghouse angle

YOU MAY ALREADY BE PRESIDENT.. SEND IT IN !!!!

[Yavin4]

25. That's All Well And Good . Say, Who Gets To Pick The Ping Pong Balls? n/t

[Javaman]

29. it will be your favorite monkey from the national zoo.

makes sense, right?

[Yavin4]

31. Who Trains The Monkey?

The monkey handler could be on the Koch brothers payroll.

[Javaman]

35. I'm thinking free range monkey.

no training. And if it can't pick a ball, we have a huge board with numbers on it and it throws it's poop at it.

[backscatter712]

26. Hybrid parliamentary system for Congress, instant runoff for President.

The House would be divided in half. Half of the House would be elected by proportional representation, seats allocated by party based on the percentage of votes each party receives. The other half would be by district, districts carved from the nation as a whole, not by state, and with equal population between districts. District boundaries would be set by an independent redistricting body.

Senate would be the same way - half proportional representation, half district-elected. The Senate would be smaller, and members would have the longer six year terms rather than the House's two years.

No term limits - term limits actually make things worse, as the legislature loses institutional memory, the bad actors continue to participate either by moving on to a different legislative body, or becoming lobbyists.

The President would be elected by an instant-runoff election, rather than a first-past-the-post election - when you vote, you rank your candidates in order of preference - this gives more of a chance to third-parties, and prevents third-party votes from spoiling for the opposition.

Campaigns would be publicly financed - no private money allowed. Financing would come in stages structured like a sports championship - the initial rounds are open to everyone, small amounts of money are doled out to each candidate/party, people can organize on a non-paid basis as much as they want. An initial screening election is held, only the top few parties make it to the second round, while the loonies that can't get votes get screened out. The second round makes much more money available to the survivors for campaigning.

[mick063]

32. My biggest concern is election fraud.

Not voter fraud, but election fraud. Put the best minds in the country at work on resolving this, using modern verifiable technology, while maintaining archived hard paper for reference, to a majority of US citizen satisfaction.

Randomized districting, every two years, federally implemented, so that no single political party can develop a permanent stronghold.

Outlaw direct influence peddling by former members of Congress. Make it illegal for former members to become lobbyists.

[XemaSab]

34. New Hampshire, New Mexico, Iowa, Idaho, and South Carolina should all be "first"

Most of the people in Iowa that I talked to 8 years ago took voting very seriously. Almost all of them had been out to see all the candidates talk in small settings with maybe 100 people there.

I think this is a much better way of doing politics than if, say, California was the first state to vote. If California was the first state, then only the rich candidates could ever hope to win here. Most of their time would be spent courting donors in LA and San Francisco, and talking in front of crowds of 5000 people.

If 5 less-urbanized states in different parts of the country went "first," then I think that spirit of retail politics would be kept, while at the same time different demographic groups and constituencies would be able to have a larger say.

So in the Xematopia, they'd all go on, say, the second Saturday in May, followed by Oregon, Alabama, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Vermont on the second Saturday in June, then Nevada, Arkansas, Nebraska, Michigan, and Delaware on the second Saturday in July, then all the other 35 states and territories and districts and whatnot on the second Saturday in August.

The brilliance of this plan is that a candidate could not hope to be competitive in all five of the first states, so instead of Iowa and New Hampshire being the sine qua non of the primary process, a candidate could build a regional base and expand from there.

I think doing it like this would create stronger national candidates and candidates who better represent the values of their party. And not the corn lobby.

[Hugin]

37. I like your idea, XemaSab. But, I would go further in scrambling up the primaries.

Base the first to vote on turnout per capita in the last general election or something of that nature.

I'm convinced that the swing to the right of the national Democratic candidates of recent years is driven by the Right Wing capture of the early primary states. It's another way of influencing who WE (the Democrats) choose as OUR candidate. Make the early States continue to EARN their positions and not become stagnant and therefore gamed by the opposition.

Thanks for bringing it up. I've been pondering this for awhile.

[Hugin]

36. No voter ID card.

It's not necessary.

In fact, I'm beginning to believe the whole Voter ID bru-ha-ha is yet another money making middle-man scheme dreamed up by the financial non-producers as a means of privatizing the voting process and "taxing" for personal gain the proletariat.

For reference, see: gold medallion signature and
Notary