How I'd change the election system, if I had the power...

[MrScorpio]

1. All elections would be publicly funded, with no private association, trade union or corporate donations. However, individuals can contribute, but are limited to $250 to any one candidate during an election cycle. This would effectively end PACS.

2. Automatic voter registration for all citizens at age 18, by making voting a constitutional right. You can still opt out of voting, if you want to.

3. Make election days national holidays and on a Saturday or Sunday.

4. Standardized paper ballots that can also serve as ballots by mail that any registered voter can opt to do instead.

5. Instead of staggering primaries over several months, a single national primary day, as we have for the general election day. Three months before the general, sounds about right.

6. Automatic restoration of voting rights for all ex-offenders who have finished their sentences.

7. A TV and radio station set up to run election ads, free of charge to the candidate's campaigns, where each candidate is allocated an equal share of the air time.

8. End gerrymandering. http://www.endgerrymandering.com



That's pretty much all I can think of right now. If you'd like to dispute my suggestions of make other suggestions of your own, i.e., proportional representation, be my guest.

I think that we can do a way better job of how we're doing this now.

[Skinner]

1. I think that would be a huge improvement over our current system.

The one I disagree with is having a single primary day. Doing it like that would make it impossible for less-well-known candidates to have a shot at winning a major-party nomination.

We should keep the staggered primary schedule, but rotate the order of the states so the process isn't dominated by the same handful of states every election season.

[merrily]

4. I am not sure it's staggered primaries that make it difficult for less well-known candidates.

[Skinner]

7. Staggered primaries mean that a lesser-known candidate can focus limited resources on one state.

Win that state, get lots of attention, more resources flow to that candidate. Focus those limited resources on the next state.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

If we had a nationwide primary day, then the winning candidate would always be the one who went into the primary with name recognition and the billion-dollar war chest.

[merrily]

8. The Presidential debate schedule and mass media seem to have much more impact than primary dates.

And the early primaries are relatively close together anyway, as is Super Tuesday. JMO

[Skinner]

11. Super Tuesday pretty much proves my point.

Bernie Sanders was doing very well when the primary schedule was basically one-state-at-a-time. He got killed when the schedule changed to multiple-states-in-one-day.

[merrily]

13. Sanders fate on Super Tuesday didn't seem to me to be related to his fundraising, which was a phenom

[Skinner]

16. Not just fundraising. Candidate appearances. Media coverage. GOTV. Everything.

My point is that Sanders did well when he was able to focus his campaign on a single state. And each success gave him a base to build on going into the next state.

But I'm not trying to re-litigate the 2016 primary. My point is that a staggered primary calendar makes campaigns like Bernie Sanders's possible. It made Barack Obama 2008 possible. A single nationwide primary day would give a massive advantage to the candidate that already has the massive advantages.

[merrily]

24. I cited the media coverage in my first post, but that does not come because a candidate has money.

There is probably some truth in both our positions.

I don't think a discussion of how future primaries might be improved is re-litigating the 2016 primary, even if you use Sanders as an example, but, for purposes of DU, what you think about that subject is all that matters.

[MrScorpio]

6. Rotation is a great idea

The single primary day was the iffiest. Even if we'd keep them staggered, I would love to make the primary cycle as short as possible.

Probably during an entire single month, like June, on both Saturdays and Sundays. For example, this last Jun had 11 Sats and Suns. At least five states and territories can be allocated for each day.

[bigwillq]

2. Sounds good

I would like four regional primaries--- 1 per month in Feb-March-April-May or March-April-May-June and then hold convention in July or August

[merrily]

5. Why?

[bigwillq]

18. It might improve the primary system

Maybe,maybe not, but I am open to changing and improving the current system.

[merrily]

19. I got that you thought it might improve the system, but I was not sure

why you think that, so I'll re-phrase: How do you think it would improve the system?

[bigwillq]

21. Well, first off: I would like to eliminate caucuses and super delegates

And also change the schedule of which states vote first. They can rotate states and regions. Maybe it would increase turnout and make it more interesting. Maybe not. Just think it's time for a change in the process.

[merrily]

3. Work on the state level to make voter registration automatic at 18 and

to make registration easy for people moving into the state.

The federal constitution just ain't getting amended any time soon.


I agree with most of your list. I would add electing Presidents by the popular vote, but that would require either a constitutional amendment or all red states signing on to a statute and neither of those is going to happen, either.

I would also add that primaries, if paid for by state taxpayers, should be open, though I know most of the current composition of DU is against that.

[Scuba]

9. Agreed, except on Point #1 ...

That gives big money donors a leg up on the guy who can't afford to fund multiple candidates to the maximum limit.

I prefer a model that gives each voter a voucher for, say, $50. The voter can then donate the entire 50 to one candidate, split it up, pool it with other voters, burn it or whatever. But each voter then has exactly the same amount of "free speech" as every other voter.

[MrScorpio]

10. That's a pretty good idea. nt

[brooklynite]

12. I can still spend my own Independent Expenditure money?

[grubbs]

15. lol

an extra 50 bucks would have made the RNC $50 worth of beer more forgettable. As it stands I am seriously considering having my visual memory center removed via gamma ray laser.

[Cresent City Kid]

14. What about the Electoral College?

In Texas I could vote for Clinton, Trump, someone else or nobody, all with the same result, Trump wins Texas.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

17. I don't care for point 5. The rest, yes.

The staggered primaries, starting with smallish states, gives us a chance to learn about the little-known candidates. With a one-day primary, the candidate of early money would take it. If primaries were all on one day, Clinton would be wrapping up her 8 years as president, and Obama would be some little-known Chicago pol.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. Three of your eight suggestions are current practice in Oregon.

They work well, automatic registration, restoration (I'd like to see us to what Vermont does, let people vote even in jail) vote by mail.

I'm a big fan of #7, which I'd put like this: Each candidate gets a maximum number of ads, each equal. They are spread out among the outlets evenly and equally, no one can buy more but all are free to use less. Some might even use less, because it really is true that less is often more and currently many campaigns hang themselves with excess advertising. 'They are as sick that surfeit with too much as those who starve with nothing'.

With the way the internet works, a commercial of quality aired once on TV gets seen by millions viral style. The campaign being limited in airing it does not limit the voters from sharing it. So good ads still get great mileage.

[MoonRiver]

22. I completely agree with all your points!

K&R

[eastwestdem]

23. Agree with all but the personal contribution limit.

$250 is awfully low.