Reforms to our democracy that you'd like to see

[Mole 4333]

2 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Not a chance in hell a voter literacy test would ever happen. Like with a national ID card both the right and left would attack it. The ACLU would say it would disproportionately impact minorities and would run afoul of the Voting Rights Act. I’d like to see national service, increasing the number of representatives in the House and campaign finance reform.

With all of the lawsuits and just administering the test it would be expensive. We could offset that cost by charging a fee to take the test. Voter Literacy Test Fee sounds pretty stilted, so I’d just call it the Poll Tax. Much punchier.

[Buzzrock 14926]

Interesting topic on the Freekanomics radio hour today addressing, among other things, the duopoly of the US political system.
In addition to getting rid of party-specific primaries (moving to a single-ballot and non-partisan primary system), I thought the Ranked Choice ballot/counting method was interesting.  Out of the top 4 candidates that move out of the primary, in the general voters rank each in order of preference.  If nobody receives at least 50%, then the last-place candidate is dropped and the voters that has selected that loser (  ) has their votes moved to their second choice.  Repeat until someone gets to 50%.
May be too complicated for Broward County.
More here
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/politics-industry/

This is my number one because it seems so doable and has been done in some places at the state level.

I’m open to the electoral college conversation, but I’d want more power transferred back to the states first.

I’d also like to see a single 6-year presidential term. No re-election.

[G650 14264]

My number one would be campaign finance, but a close second is removing direct Senate election and putting it back in the hands of the states. This one swipe would eliminate all these insane assholes we get. We were never meant to vote for them directly, specifically to remove them from the whims of idiot voters and provide a stabilizing influence

[Longhorn_Fan68 33876]

 

57 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Without reading the rest of the thread:
1) Repeal Citizen's United and create a public campaign fund

2) Term limits for Congress and SCOTUS

3) End gerrymandering

4) Remove or effectively neuter the Electoral College

5) Automatic voter registration

6) Decriminalize weed (and possibly all drugs)

7) Tax the shit out of the 1%

There's probably more, but those are the big ones

 

13 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

1. Make all elections use Single Transferable Vote so that third parties have a chance, and pose a threat to our stupid 2 party system.

2. Reverse Citizen's United and reduce corporate funding for elections.

3. Remove the Electoral College and go with a national STV system for deciding president. STV would apply to each state for their EVs, since there is no popular vote. I would have loved to see the 2016 Presidential election done this way and see if Gary Johnson or McMullin could have won a state or two. 

4. Make the Supreme Court an 18 year appointment. Each president will nominate at least 2 justices during their term. Anyone nominated in place of a deceased or retiring justice would maintain their current time served, and be removed upon the completion of that term. You could have a rule where if >4 years remaining on the term, the person nominated can be re-nominated and confirmed by the Senate, so it's not such a short role.

5. Remove the Attorney General from the President's appointments. Instead have the Supreme Court nominate the individual, and have them go through the Senate Approval process. This position should be more non-partisan than it is now. The AG's office is in charge of investigating the people that appoint them, so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The Solicitor General would still be nominated by the President.

6. Decriminalize marijuana. I think this would have an enormous positive impact on our nation by reducing people arrested and sent to our prison population, as well as being an economic boom for many states that produce it. It is a pointless and futile struggle to continue this particular part of the War on Drugs. 

7. Find some more equitable solution for drawing districts. 

*high five*

[Hornius Emeritus 12472]

The voter literacy test is a great idea.  But I would have it such that, the higher your score, the more your vote counts.

[wildcat09 29355]

1 minute ago, G650 said:

My number one would be campaign finance, but a close second is removing direct Senate election and putting it back in the hands of the states. This one swipe would eliminate all these insane assholes we get. We were never meant to vote for them directly, specifically to remove them from the whims of idiot voters and provide a stabilizing influence

Have you... have you ever seen the insane assholes in the Texas legislature?

Most of the crazy assholes are in the House, not the Senate. If you want to get them out, all it takes is ending partisan gerrymandering and drawing the districts to limit the number of safe seats.

[Mole 4333]

2 hours ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

The voter literacy test is a great idea.  But I would have it such that, the higher your score, the more your vote counts.

This could become extreme in terms of power disparity. A good compromise would be to cap it so that lower scores are worth no less than 60% of higher scores. We could call it the 3/5ths Compromise.

When did voter registration become a thing? Especially the 30 or so days prior to the election part.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, Mole said:

This could become extreme in terms of power disparity. A good compromise would be to cap it so that lower scores are worth no less than 60% of higher scores. We could call it the 3/5ths Compromise.

When did voter registration become a thing? Especially the 30 or so days prior to the election part.

 

How about we just work to educate everyone and fuck the test? 

[Mole 4333]

That’s the point/joke.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

3 hours ago, Dutchrudder said:

1. Make all elections use Single Transferable Vote so that third parties have a chance, and pose a threat to our stupid 2 party system.

2. Reverse Citizen's United and reduce corporate funding for elections.

3. Remove the Electoral College and go with a national STV system for deciding president. STV would apply to each state for their EVs, since there is no popular vote. I would have loved to see the 2016 Presidential election done this way and see if Gary Johnson or McMullin could have won a state or two. 

4. Make the Supreme Court an 18 year appointment. Each president will nominate at least 2 justices during their term. Anyone nominated in place of a deceased or retiring justice would maintain their current time served, and be removed upon the completion of that term. You could have a rule where if >4 years remaining on the term, the person nominated can be re-nominated and confirmed by the Senate, so it's not such a short role.

5. Remove the Attorney General from the President's appointments. Instead have the Supreme Court nominate the individual, and have them go through the Senate Approval process. This position should be more non-partisan than it is now. The AG's office is in charge of investigating the people that appoint them, so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The Solicitor General would still be nominated by the President.

6. Decriminalize marijuana. I think this would have an enormous positive impact on our nation by reducing people arrested and sent to our prison population, as well as being an economic boom for many states that produce it. It is a pointless and futile struggle to continue this particular part of the War on Drugs. 

7. Find some more equitable solution for drawing districts. 

What’s “STV”? The only thing that comes to mind is straight ticket voting.

[Macanudo 12990]

3 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Only individuals can contribute to policitical campaigns.  Corporations and organizations can no longer contribute.  They are not people.  That means companies and unions are SOL.  I would also limit the amount any single individual can contribute to something really reasonable, like 3,000 per person per candidate. 

Also, you can ONLY contribute where you are REGISTERED to vote.  So, if you live in Houston in the 2nd Congressional District, you can only contribute to President, Texas Senators, and your specific house race.  People in NY, CA, and TX should not be able to influence races in Florida, Washington, etc..

Here, here.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Legalize all drugs and restore civil rights of all non violent drug offenders.  Spend 1/2 savings on treating addicts and mental health, and save the rest.  Use extra prison space to warehouse violent offenders.  Rape, ahh assault and murder should be multi decade sentences.  

Get rid of direct election of senators

Raise voting age to 25

Eliminate collective bargaining for public sector unions

Neuter regulatory agencies rule making power.  They have way too much

Camapign finance reform.  Way too much corporate and special interest money in politics.  

[Longhorn_Fan68 33876]

I'm with you on about half of those

[deadshank 24653]

1 hour ago, Macanudo said:

Here, here.  

*hear, hear

[G650 14264]

How does he know where we're going

[hpslugga 4062]

-No Senate at all. None. Has no purpose. The House is more than adequate to act as the whole of Congress.
-Strict outlaw of political gerrymandering and set some ratio of representatives to people
-Eviscerate the Electoral College. 
-Overturn Citizens United and set reasonable caps on political donations. 
-RNC/DNC eradicated. Parties in general aren't the worst of ideas, but they do permit for the worst of behaviors. In a real democracy, when a candidate visits a town, the people tell him what they want him to do and if he's agreeable to it, they'll elect him. In our system, when a candidate visits a town, he tells the people what he's gonna do if elected. And yeah, they did give us Trump and Hillary because those parties select a very limited number of prospective candidates, and it's done completely internally. 
-Categorical end of the drug war. Aside from the fact that it was created and maintained by people who have a financial interest in keeping certain classes of people in prison, drug addiction is a medical issue and not a criminal one.
-Strict term limits for all elected officials. 1 term, 2 years.
-All officials must be elected. This includes Supreme Court Justices
-National healthcare system
-Nationally mandated paid sick leave, maternity leave, and vacation.
-Nationally mandated minimum wage of $15 per hour
-Election Day is a federal holiday
-All polling locations must have a paper option (I principally am ok with electronic voting, but not the shenanigans that it naturally entails)
-I've pondered the idea of age maximums for voters, but I cannot go along with it because there's no way to get around the fact that's disenfranchisement of a basic civil liberty. So to compromise, age maxes for public positions. If you're older than 55 years of age by the time your projected inauguration would be, you're ineligible. People like Chuck Grassley and Jim Inhoffe have no business setting public policies that effect 20-year-olds.
-Cabinet members must have 10 years experience in a related field (i.e. the Education Secretary has to have worked in Education for at least 10 years), and they have to be completely answerable to unions. So to return to the education analogy, education policy would be a 100% reflection of the consensus attitude of teacher unions.
-All private prisons must be demolished and pissed upon and the industry is henceforth outlawed.
-Progressive system of taxation (New Deal levels)
-Either renounce the US position in the UN as a permanent member, or at the very minimum put caps on its use of the veto.
-Enforce the Leahy law to the absolute letter

[staboner 4984]

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I'm with you on about half of those

and because of the R/D stranglehold on our government the two of you will never share shared success in any of that

yeah Debbie Downer

most fucking people agree on alot of shit. the issue is the fucking two party system has run its course. change that somehow and we can start to communicate again

looking forward to 2020 version of this game thread! 

[Lurch 5931]

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

3 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

What’s “STV”? The only thing that comes to mind is straight ticket voting.

Stevie Tay Vaughan...he was the brother of a bad ass guitar player and songwriter that was taken from us too early.

[Macanudo 12990]

1 hour ago, G650 said:

How does he know where we're going

Where we're going, we don't need roads.

 

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

-All officials must be elected. This includes Supreme Court Justices

How the fuck is the average voter capable of doing this?   

[Dutchrudder 11141]

3 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

What’s “STV”? The only thing that comes to mind is straight ticket voting.

Single Transferable Vote - It's a better system of voting that a few states are adopting. It allows you to vote for lesser liked candidates, like Libertarian, but still allow your vote to count towards the final 2 candidates. It allows you to rank candidates, so if no one gets 50% of the vote, it drops the lowest vote getters until and applies their votes to their next highest choice until a candidate gets 50% or more. In the event no one gets 50%+ after all that, which could happen if people don't select alternatives, you would have a run-off. Or you could throw out votes that have no alternative in the running to ensure someone gets 50% every time, but that has some drawbacks.

Here's a good video that explains how it works in detail. There are also several follow up videos that explain more details about it, and some of the issues you may encounter. Voting should be smarter, and allow for people to support third parties, or else we end up with this stupid duopoly of R & D, which will never end.

 

[Biff Tannen 45692]

2 hours ago, Lurch said:

 

Won't the Senate tell them to eat a dick?

[Mole 4333]

I like the lottery idea for choosing reps if we have quarterly confidence votes. If they ever receive 2/3rds no confidence or two consecutive quarterly votes of 50% against they are immediately executed. After each election, if they live, they can choose to resign or maintain their position. No term limits and no resigning mid quarter.

This solves a few problems. First, reps must be responsive to the people. Second, we reduce the chance of electing sociopaths from nearly 100% to something more manageable.

[Kyle 207]

2 hours ago, Lurch said:

 

I wonder if she'll bother reading the bill before she passes it?

[High Plains Drifter 11050]

End anonymity on the internet. Your user name on all social media accounts is your actual name. Your location is your actual address.

[Kyle 207]

2 hours ago, hpslugga said:

-No Senate at all. None. Has no purpose. The House is more than adequate to act as the whole of Congress.
-Strict outlaw of political gerrymandering and set some ratio of representatives to people
-Eviscerate the Electoral College. 
-Overturn Citizens United and set reasonable caps on political donations. 
-RNC/DNC eradicated. Parties in general aren't the worst of ideas, but they do permit for the worst of behaviors. In a real democracy, when a candidate visits a town, the people tell him what they want him to do and if he's agreeable to it, they'll elect him. In our system, when a candidate visits a town, he tells the people what he's gonna do if elected. And yeah, they did give us Trump and Hillary because those parties select a very limited number of prospective candidates, and it's done completely internally. 
-Categorical end of the drug war. Aside from the fact that it was created and maintained by people who have a financial interest in keeping certain classes of people in prison, drug addiction is a medical issue and not a criminal one.
-Strict term limits for all elected officials. 1 term, 2 years.
-All officials must be elected. This includes Supreme Court Justices
-National healthcare system
-Nationally mandated paid sick leave, maternity leave, and vacation.
-Nationally mandated minimum wage of $15 per hour
-Election Day is a federal holiday
-All polling locations must have a paper option (I principally am ok with electronic voting, but not the shenanigans that it naturally entails)
-I've pondered the idea of age maximums for voters, but I cannot go along with it because there's no way to get around the fact that's disenfranchisement of a basic civil liberty. So to compromise, age maxes for public positions. If you're older than 55 years of age by the time your projected inauguration would be, you're ineligible. People like Chuck Grassley and Jim Inhoffe have no business setting public policies that effect 20-year-olds.
-Cabinet members must have 10 years experience in a related field (i.e. the Education Secretary has to have worked in Education for at least 10 years), and they have to be completely answerable to unions. So to return to the education analogy, education policy would be a 100% reflection of the consensus attitude of teacher unions.
-All private prisons must be demolished and pissed upon and the industry is henceforth outlawed.
-Progressive system of taxation (New Deal levels)
-Either renounce the US position in the UN as a permanent member, or at the very minimum put caps on its use of the veto.
-Enforce the Leahy law to the absolute letter

You won't even have to start a new party ... that's about the platform of the national socialists. You just need an army and some trains.

[High Plains Drifter 11050]

4 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

 

 

Raise voting age to 25

 

Limit voting age to below 65. Or whenever SS kicks in.

[bolverk 29694]

2 hours ago, Lurch said:

 

Holy shit! That's a great start.

[bolverk 29694]

12 minutes ago, Kyle said:

I wonder if she'll bother reading the bill before she passes it?

 

9 minutes ago, Kyle said:

You won't even have to start a new party ... that's about the platform of the national socialists. You just need an army and some trains.

Negged for coming in here to troll with insulting shit posts. Up until your entry, this thread has been full of respectful conversation and worthy ideas from all sides. Take your shit elsewhere.

Come on...Kyle.

[CooterBrown 18015]

Its not about starving, its about setting environmental, agricultural, and energy policy, among others. The urban centers on the coasts don't understand or care about how those policies affect the middle of the country. Again, not arguing for or against, but I think the prospect of a majority of voters living in a minority of surface area setting all these policies is a valid concern.

You do realize that California produces the majority of food in the US? That’s 1/3 of vegetables and 2/3 of fruit and nuts. Add in RGV in Texas and Middle America produces dick.

[Mole 4333]

That dem bill is all kinds of awesome.

[texastough 1129]

1 minute ago, CooterBrown said:

 

You do realize that California produces the majority of food in the US? That’s 1/3 of vegetables and 2/3 of fruit and nuts. Add in RGV in Texas and Middle America produces dick.
 

 

You must be from CA if you think the universe of food is vegetables, fruits, and nuts

 

[DanRydell 799]

Either get rid of the Senate or establish a maximum population size for states. At the 1790 Census, Virginia had 12.5 times many people as Delaware. As of the 2010 Census, California was 66 times larger than Wyoming.

[Mole 4333]

1 hour ago, DanRydell said:

Either get rid of the Senate or establish a maximum population size for states. 

 

Like Logan's Run?

[Biff Tannen 45692]

No more trumps can president.

[EMAWesome 101]

I'm not exactly sure what length of time I would like it changed to but House terms need to be more than two years.  Two year terms mean everyone spends 75% of their time focusing on campaigns and getting re-elected and not on actually doing anything in Washington.

[Fudge Nuggets 19207]

8 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

End anonymity on the internet. Your user name on all social media accounts is your actual name. Your location is your actual address.

Tucker Carlson has an issue with this.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, EMAWesome said:

I'm not exactly sure what length of time I would like it changed to but House terms need to be more than two years.  Two year terms mean everyone spends 75% of their time focusing on campaigns and getting re-elected and not on actually doing anything in Washington.

and therein lies the victory for the people...

[G650 14264]

11 hours ago, Macanudo said:

 

 

How the fuck is the average voter capable of doing this?   

You know how stupid and insane it is now? Well @hpslugga  wants it 10 times more stupid and insane.

[bolverk 29694]

2 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

I'm not exactly sure what length of time I would like it changed to but House terms need to be more than two years.  Two year terms mean everyone spends 75% of their time focusing on campaigns and getting re-elected and not on actually doing anything in Washington.

I can't recall where or which congress-critter it was about, but about a year ago (maybe?) I watched some segment following one around and this one was his biggest complaint. He spent the majority of his time raising funds for reelection and meeting with lobbyists with deep pockets focused on single issues. Making changes to our campaign finance laws would go a looong way in taking care of that issue, so I'm not sure that changing their term length would be wholly necessary. Like many above, I'd ban the donation of any money from a group, whether that be a PAC, corporation, union, lobby, or any other organization, and limit it to donations (with a strict limit) from sole individuals who live in the jurisdiction served by that congressman, senator, governor, etc. One upside to the idea of small congressional districts is that the media market would also be smaller and, therefore, less expensive (at least theoretically) to advertise in.

Another upshot of more districts would be that it would resolve many of the complaints about the electoral college not reflecting the true will of the voters - although I haven't done all the math on the proposed 1 district per 500,000 constituents. For example, in 2020, Texas would get 58+2 electoral votes and Vermont would get 1+2 votes, or California would get 80+2 and Wyoming 1+2. 

[maninblack 7974]

Either get rid of the Senate or establish a maximum population size for states. At the 1790 Census, Virginia had 12.5 times many people as Delaware. As of the 2010 Census, California was 66 times larger than Wyoming.

The Senate was never supposed to be picked by popular vote. It's a body that represents the states.

Your gripe should be with the house. The bastards in DC capped it in 1911 to ensure the ones that were there stayed powerful. Imagine if there was a rep for every 10/30k people?

[hpslugga 4062]

10 hours ago, texastough said:

You must be from CA if you think the universe of food is vegetables, fruits, and nuts

 

Not the universe, just enough to keep people from riding rascal scooters at Wal-Mart at age 40

[WhatTheBuck 28788]

11 hours ago, Mole said:

Like Logan's Run?

Carousel! Carousel! Carousel!

[Fozzz 152]

Y'all realize the Senate was a shit load more corrupt prior to direct election?  Before the 17th amendment the Senate was the place where the rich went to cash in their bribes for real political power.

[DanRydell 799]

2 hours ago, maninblack said:

The Senate was never supposed to be picked by popular vote. It's a body that represents the states.

Your gripe should be with the house. The bastards in DC capped it in 1911 to ensure the ones that were there stayed powerful. Imagine if there was a rep for every 10/30k people?

All the more reason to get rid of the Senate.

And I'm all for increasing the size of the house significantly.

[Fozzz 152]

This is how things worked prior to the 17th amendment:

Quote

On April 23, 1900, after hearing extensive testimony from ninety-six witnesses, the committee returned a report unanimously concluding that William Clark was not entitled to his seat. The testimony detailed a dazzling list of bribes ranging from $240 to $100,000. In a high-pressure, well-organized scheme coordinated by Clark's son, Clark's agents had paid mortgages, purchased ranches, paid debts, financed banks, and blatantly presented envelopes of cash to legislators. In addition, the winning margin in Clark's election had been secured by the votes of eleven Republican legislators under suspicious circumstances. Clark did not enhance his position when he admitted that he had destroyed all his personal checks that dealt with campaign transactions. The committee cited a number of previous bribery cases, especially that of Samuel C. Pomeroy and Alexander Caldwell in 1872-1873, as precedents for declaring an election void if bribery on behalf of the winner could be proved even if no proof was found that the candidate knew of the actions. The report also noted the precedent from the Pomeroy case that, if the winner "clearly participated in any one act of bribery or attempted bribery, he should be deprived of his office," even if "the result of the election was not thereby changed." While concurring in the committee's conclusion, two members tried to reduce the impact of the anti-Clark testimony by pointing to the unlimited sums that his rival, Marcus Daly, had invested in an effort to block Clark's election. That observation, however, did little more than confirm the way in which corruption totally pervaded Montana politics without exonerating Clark.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/contested_elections/089William_Clark.htm

[FondrenRoad 4378]

13 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

End anonymity on the internet. Your user name on all social media accounts is your actual name. Your location is your actual address.

That sounds like a good plan if you want nutjobs coming to your door. I agree that the people behind the trolls should be responsible for their own words, but that isn't the answer. That will only quiet the sane voices. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

5 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Y'all realize the Senate was a shit load more corrupt prior to direct election?  Before the 17th amendment the Senate was the place where the rich went to cash in their bribes for real political power.

Yep. The Senate should exist, but the House should be the more powerful branch. The Senate should be largely advisory with some veto power like the House of Lords.  

[G650 14264]

 

 

3 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Y'all realize the Senate was a shit load more corrupt prior to direct election?  Before the 17th amendment the Senate was the place where the rich went to cash in their bribes for real political power.

 

That has nothing to do with direct election, it has to do with who was picking the Senate. Politics as a whole was significantly more corrupt in the 19th century, from top to bottom.

With the stronger institutions we have have now, removing direct Senate election would be a boon.

[Fozzz 152]

That's an interesting idea, Fondren.