Changing The Way We Vote & Elect

After seeing the commercials for both sides blasting and out right
lieing about eachother, I've come to decide that the state of affairs,
when it comes to politics and voting has just gotten to such a point,
that it's a disgrace, and something really needs to be done about it.


So, I've come up with some things that I think would not only make
more people vote, but would make more people willing to go into
politics and make our country less politically apathetic.



Get Rid Of
-Get rid of political parties, though not creating a one party state.

-Get rid of the electorate.


Laws
-Make it where if you commit Libel and/or Slander against another
candidate, you forefit your chance in the election.

-Fine any person or organization $10,000 if they knowingly commit
Libel and/or Slander against a candidate.


Candidate Equality
-Allow any person wanting to run for any position to campaign.

-Allow all candidates an equal amount of airtime on Radio & TV.

-Make the candidates positions on the issues readily and publicly
available.


Money
-Only allow a candidate to use $5,000 on private campaigning.

-Do not allow corporations or non-apporved special interest
groups to donate money, or give gifts to the candidates while
they run, and are in office.

-Give candidates who do not have money as readily available
$3,000 for campaigning.




I think if we did all of the above, not only would we be a much
better country, but we would also be much more free and much
more democratic.

And it would make us less politically apathetic, because when it
comes down to it, countries and empires don't fall from war,
or allwing a group to be treated equally, they fall from political
apathy.
Don't believe me? Ask the Romans.

i agree with u . here in rhode island there basically butchering each other lol

the commercial is based on "oh he did this he did that type of commercials"

it should be just based on how they think on issues and not the negatives about the person

After the 2000 fiasco, Florida adopted early voting to reduce the number of paper absentee ballots they cannot count. Correctly. I opted to use the new touch screen voting machines but I do hope they are not Diebolds.

have it right here for you


a new way to vote in this country

politics.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by iori_komei
A


Get Rid Of
-Get rid of political parties, though not creating a one party state.

-Get rid of the electorate.

I agree that changes must be made to the way we elect our government. However, getting rid of the "electorate" is certainly not the way of going about this. I am certain that you meant getting rid of the "electoral college". The "electorate", by definition, is the body of people who are the voters. That's you and me!

As for getting rid of political parties well I'm all for that. People should be able to run on their own merits and their own philosophies and not necessarily follow the dictates of an established political platform developed by a party. Still, as a matter of feasible expediency, this is exactly what we have.

I don't really see being able to eliminate political parties but I do think that enabling independent parties to stand with a more "even footing" -- a level playing field, to coin a phrase -- would be a good start at broadening the political scope and choice that the electorate -- the voters -- have to choose from.

-limiting or placing a spending cap on political campaigns would be one suggestion that I would make.

-making all media available for an equal time to all "viable" candidates (viablity established through petition)

-limiting the duration of any political campaign to fourty-five days. Certainly this would be enough time to make one's political views and positions known.

-weekend voting. Why limit voting to one day in the middle of a work week? Make voting accessible to everyone without interfering with ones' work. Make the voting take an entire weekend. Meanwhile, there should be absolutely NO media coverage of election returns.

I'm sure that there could be more improvements made to the election system but these are my .02 cents worth of thought on the matter.

Yeah, my mistake, I meant the electoral college.

I really got to be more careful, especially after what I did
today, ah but that's a story for another, more appropriate
thread.

posted by iori_komei

I agree with you . Here in Rhode Island they’re basically butchering each other . . the commercial is based on the "he did this he did that” type of commercials . . it should be based on how they think on issues and not the negatives about the person . . “ [Edited by Don W]

OK, but explain me this. Everyone condemns the negative and personal ads. They only add heat, not light, to the campaign which ought to be based on issues and philosophies. Yet, it is acknowledged by pollsters that negative commercials work for the person who uses them. Every candidate who is behind on the issues, may be able to even the race by running highly personal negative campaign ads. IF the general public did not respond as they do, there would be no more negative ads. So again, what do we do when the public “eats” it up? When it “works?” It's the campaign tactic of last resort. Cheap, and it works fairly often. It will be used as long as it does work. By the bye, it is made possible by the Sullivan v. New York Times case. It could be reversed by a Warren type Supreme Court. Judges do count. The Supreme Court is highly political as it showed in 2000, and that is why there is such a fight over who gets to sit on the courts.

posted by benevolent tyrant

posted by iori_komei

Get Rid Of

A-Get rid of political parties, though not creating a one party state.

B-Get rid of the electoral college.

I agree changes must be made to the way we elect our government. However, getting rid of the "electoral college . ."

The electoral college was a pro-slavery compromise to get the southern states onboard for the re-write of the Articles of Confederation in 1787. Today, the EC gives smaller states more clout in the presidential election. They fear if it is abolished and we use the national popular vote, then no candidate will ever visit them again. Most effected are, AK, DE, DC, MT, VT and WY. Each has 3 electoral votes. Moderately effected are HA, ID, ME, NJ, ND, SD and RI. Each has 4 electoral votes. Somewhat effected are, NB, NV, NM, UT and WV. Each has 5 electoral votes.

This list contains 17 states (and the District of Columbia which is not involved in the amending process). It takes 38 states (given equal weight in this case) to approve an amendment. I think it is unlikely an amendment abolishing the Electoral College would ever gain the 3/4th of the states required for approval. Several states have abandoned the “winner take all” method adopted long ago. In Colorado I believe, the EC vote is determined by congressional district and 2 more, at-large. In Maine I believe, the vote is divided (in whole units) based on the popular vote. No state has tried fractional votes. I do believe Congress could enact a Federal law (for uniformity) going to the fractional vote method without violating the Constitution . Because of the legacy of slavery, this may be as far as our country can ever go to “one man, one vote.”

“ . . getting rid of political parties well I'm for that. People should be able to run on their merits and philosophies and not follow the dictates of an established political platform developed by a party . . I don't really see being able to eliminate political parties . . Still, as a matter of feasible expediency, this is exactly what we have.“

Mr B/H, did you just say “Yes” and “No” to the same question? There were no political parties in our first election in 1789. By 1792, our second election, there were political parties. By 1800, the parties had morphed into ragged negative slanderous campaign instruments of invective. This does not mean we have to accept that low level of campaigning when we have learned better. I have always been a “strong” party man, favoring strong discipline, versus the contemporary “weak” party system with no discipline. My short explanation for holding my position is that parties endure, people don’t. And equally important, it is much harder to contaminate a group than it is contaminate an individual.

Why limit voting to one day in the middle of a work week? Week end voting makes voting accessible to everyone. Make the voting take an entire weekend.

This early voting is already in effect in KY and FL to name 2 states I have personal knowledge about. I voted last Wednesday in Florida. KY opens a special site for voting 28 days before the election. In both cases, the special voting places close on Sunday before Tuesday's election. Early voting is easy to do and cheap, too. I’m sure by 2008, all states will have early voting in place. That is one big improvement.

Meanwhile, there should be absolutely NO media coverage of election returns.

I assume you mean prior to the last polling place closing (in CA and not in HA). With 4 or 6 times zones, it is impossible to follow that rule. In the ETZ the counting must begin when the polls close. By the time 6 PM or 7 PM arrives in the AK-HA Time Zone, it will be 1 AM in Boston. There is no way you can keep the vote tally secret, nor is there anyway you can prevent the exit polls. Give up on that one.

Unless, on election day, you declare the whole US is under 1 time zone! From Puerto Rico to the Big Island, or the Land of the Midnight Sun, one time fits all.

“ . . enabling independent parties to stand with a more "even footing" - a level playing field . . limiting spending in political campaigns - making all media available for an equal time to all "viable" candidates - limiting the duration of any political campaign to forty-five days. . . these are my 2 cents worth on the matter. [Edited by Don W]

Sweet Jesus! If we had 6 week electoral campaigns, I’d think I’d died and had gone straight to Heaven. Actually, the British (and other Commonwealth countries) use the Parliamentary system which works well in that regard. They can get rid of the country’s’ leader - say Tony Blair who’s stepping down in May - anytime he fails to carry a majority vote on a critical issue. We could have been done with Bush43 after Katrina, for example. Instead, we are “stuck” with him until January 20, 2009. Come hell or high water. As in married, for better or worse. Further, their election laws provide that the resulting election cannot be held sooner than 30 days nor later than 60 days.

We could by law severely limit the time available for public campaigning. But neither the Dems nor the GOP want to do that. We could severely limit the amount of lobbyist’s money spent on elections, but neither the Dems nor the GOP want to do that. We could open the electoral process much more favorably to third parties and independent candidates, but neither the Dems nor the GOP want to do that. Hmm? So where does that leave us small guys? On the farm, they call that “sucking hind teat.”



[edit on 10/28/2006 by donwhite]