All voting should be open to all in a democracy. AND, the following should be dumped by law!

[RKP5637]

Get rid of the: Electoral College, Delegates, Super Delegates, PACs, Super PACs and Lobbyists. Also, term limits on ALL politicians. There are too many career politicians on the money trough. And limit this endless money flow into politics. Dump Citizens United, one of the most anti-democracy crap rulings by SCOTUS. Then, MAYBE, we could call the US a democracy than this half-assed corrupt system we have now.

[metroins]

1. I agree

Hillary would still be winning by a huge landslide.

However, I kind of like the system because it makes it difficult for Trump to prevail.

[RKP5637]

2. Probably, but it's not even about Hillary. It's about our supposed democracy in general. However,

yep, about Trump!!!

[metroins]

3. Representative Democracy

We elect representatives who speak for us.

Hence the delegate system.

[RKP5637]

4. ... but the delegates do not necessarily have to follow what the people voted for. n/t

[metroins]

6. Neither do our congressmen or presidents nt

[RKP5637]

9. Yep, is that ever true!!! n/t

[randome]

5. Too simplistic. To be heard you need to advertise. To advertise, you need money.

You would FORBID candidates from advertising? I know you wouldn't. Now if you're talking about public financing of elections, that has merit. But, again, how would you restrict a candidate from spending his/her own money to get his/her views to the public?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[RKP5637]

10. Yes on public financing. ...but I don't think politicians should buy elections with their own money.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

7. Career politicians are bad?

I thought you liked Bernie Sanders?

[RKP5637]

11. Far too many career politicians. I'm speaking of the future. n /t

[Dr Hobbitstein]

14. So he gets a pass...

IOKIYABS

[RKP5637]

18. Yep, as does Hillary! n/t

[Beaverhausen]

8. Get rid of caucases too

They are very Undemocratic.

[RKP5637]

13. Yep! Caucuses were likely great eons ago, but IMO not in the 21st Century. n/t

[stellanoir]

12. Don't forget the damned EVM's

The technology hurriedly implemented after HAVA that awarded maintenance & control of the voting machines to private partisan corps has rendered every election since vulnerable to untraceable hacking. That equipment was determined to be atrociously insecure by every single security geek who examined them. It also had a 9 year shelf life for functionality. So now, not only are they insecure, they are also degraded.

Optical Scanners employ paper ballots but the vote tallying software is suspect. Ballots are never scrutinized when margins of victory are greater than 3-5%. The percentage varies state to state.

This is not an argument to not vote. We have to overwhelm the machines with maximum participation.

Obama would have won by enormous landslides had it not been for flipping, & spoilage of millions of votes.

Kerry would have won also. The problem spread far beyond Ohio to all of the swing states. * had to win by the popular vote after the travesty of '00.

[RKP5637]

16. Definitely!!! But as is often the case, it just morphs along. The entire voting system needs to be

reviewed and brought into the 21st century, but it comes down to trust. Who can we trust? To me, our current congress, for example, is incapable of the task.

[stellanoir]

19. Congress could be challenged by this clause cleverly embedded in their oath of office. . .

“. . . I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;”

Kindly riddle me these two glaringly long winded puzzlements . . .

How pray tell, does pledging an oath to never, ever, ever, raise taxes on the “elite" beneficiaries of the greatest wealth from our economy, no matter what the heck the national circumstance (even boneheaded protracted exorbitant quagmires), *not* qualify as a rather *severe* “mental reservation”. . .?

Aaaand. . .

How are a flopping unprecedented seven year frenzy of filibusterings & onerous obstructions of any & all populist matters of legislation, and crucial judicial & ambassadorial confirmations, the often & long stated willful intent to entirely sabotage the executive branch, the intransigent avoidance of ever taking a transparent accounting of military, no-bid contracting, and “intelligence” expenditures & corporate subsidies, incessantly denying proven science, refusal to enact sensible gun legislation, whilst relentlessly hacking of our once emblematic “social safety net”, and environmental protections, not completely tantamount to gross “evasion."

To say nothing 'bout this : http://yournewswire.com/missing-13th-amendment-found-no-lawyers-in-public-office/

[whatthehey]

15. So let's go back to the genteel corruption-free politics of the 1870's!

Let's make America great again!

[RKP5637]

17. LOL!!! n/t

[Retrograde]

20. You mean the Tammany Hall era?

I say bring back ward bosses and smoke-filled rooms! Or maybe vap-filled rooms these days.

[Spider Jerusalem]

21. Voting in general elections, sure

but political parties can choose how to select their nominee. They don't have to have primaries at all. There's no requirement for them. Most other democracies don't have party primary elections to select candidates.

[Johonny]

22. I agree

They are the professional organization of politicians and there's an argument they have better knowledge of who they want to present to the people as the face of their party. In a perfect system there would be no parties, but such a system is not likely.

Also there have been numerous articles showing how the electoral college actually maximizes your vote (or at least has the potential too). Thus, in some ways it is better than a general popular vote in terms of maximizing the value of your vote. It's one system in which the minority can win (which is not always a horrible idea). I believe the ranking voting system is more powerful than the electoral college, but is extremely unpopular to the point of never being used here.