Presidential Election Reform Idea

I think we can all agree we have problems in our Presidential electoral system. Money, partisanship, a lack of diversity in economic status, race, culture, etc.

So how do we get some of that bad stuff out of there? An idea occurred to me. Run the Presidential election like a beauty pageant.

We start with Congressional Districts. Only people who live in that district and meet the eligibility requirements can run, only people who live in that district can vote for them. A winner is elected from that district.

That’s a little more than 400 candidates. Those candidates receive one million dollars in funding from the federal government to run their campaign. No other outside money is allowed. Once a candidate looses, any unused campaign funding is returned to the government.

Those candidates face off in state elections. The winners of the state elections move on to the nationals. That would be followed by a semi-finals to whittle it down to a manageable number like 10 or so.

The whole election would cost the taxpayers less than 500 million, a bargain. We would have a very diverse field of candidates. Political parties, corporations, billionaires, etc., would be less influential since they can’t fund their candidates.

Another benefit would be that we could find out how judicious the candidates are with money. Do you spend a lot on the State or Nationals, or do you save it for the Semi-finals?

Of course, all this would require a Constitutional Amendment. A man can dream, though, can’t he?

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

How does the nationals work regarding the Electoral college?

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

How about, instead of electing people, we voted on particular policies that we would like implemented.

In that way, partisanship and personalities would not get in the way of good governance.

It also makes for a government that does not follow a party line, but operates according to the will of the people on actual issues.

a reply to: chr0naut

Because 3 wolves and a sheep are voting on whats for dinner.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom
My recommendations for cutting the cost would be;
1) Give up the primary election system, and let the parties choose their own candidates internally. As is done elsewhere in the world. That takes away the need for candidates to fight two successive public elections in the same year, and should cut the cost in half.
Any party that wants to win an election will still look for a candidate acceptable to the voters, so it isn't necessary to have their direct input.

2) Let the funding for the main election go through the party machinery, not the personal organisations of the candidates themselves. As is done elsewhere in the world. That takes away the need for candidates to have money of their own or raise it from elsewhere. The rich man would no longer have that advantage over the poor man. In fact it takes away the need for money to be raised for the sake of a particular election, because the parties would take the money from their permanent financial resources.

If you're feeling really radical. you could also ban political advertising on television. How much money would that save?

Place them all in a huge cage with various weapons strewn about and allow them to eliminate each other until only one candidate is left. Then shoot that candidate. Twice.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

How about, instead of electing people, we voted on particular policies that we would like implemented.

In that way, partisanship and personalities would not get in the way of good governance.

It also makes for a government that does not follow a party line, but operates according to the will of the people on actual issues.

Blind elections?
You never see the candidates face or hear their voice. You only get to know their policies.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Place them all in a huge cage with various weapons strewn about and allow them to eliminate each other until only one candidate is left. Then shoot that candidate. Twice.

Ahh THUNDERDOME!!!......wait what?
2 men enter no men leave?

a reply to: shooterbrody

We can call it Survivor (Just Kidding!).

a reply to: chr0naut

Because you vote for a policy, and by the time that policy is crafted it has little to nothing to do with what was originally voted for. Not to mention that is basically mob rule and is exactly what destroys democracies.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Great ideas! The problem is you are not in charge.

The people in power LOVE the way things are right now. They love the lack of regulations. They love all the tax breaks. They LOVE the way they can use lobbyists to pass laws creating cartels and monopolies. And they LOVE the FREEDOM and LIBERTY that comes from having no responsibilities to the community.

The point is the people holding all the cards and power do not want anything to change. So how are you going to take the power away from the people in power when they hold ALL the cards?

The only solution I have been able to come up with is to pray to God for second coming of Jesus. My thinking is maybe if Jesus returned wealth inequality could finally be addressed in this country.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

How about, instead of electing people, we voted on particular policies that we would like implemented.

In that way, partisanship and personalities would not get in the way of good governance.

It also makes for a government that does not follow a party line, but operates according to the will of the people on actual issues.

Blind elections?

Yes, the answer is only the blind can vote and run for office.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

How about, instead of electing people, we voted on particular policies that we would like implemented.

In that way, partisanship and personalities would not get in the way of good governance.

It also makes for a government that does not follow a party line, but operates according to the will of the people on actual issues.

Ummm...you do understand...how utterly easy...it is to lead the majority of people around by the nose...right...?

You assume...that any of those voted on policies...would be presented in a facts only manner...and not spun like a top to satisfy...agenda...

You also assume...that Jose four pack...would take the time away from soy searching...to fully educate their self on any given issue...

Instead...you'll be up to your ass in exactly what we have now...

The herd...and the not-herd...

Which loweth loudest...?





YouSir

Ta reply to: VictorVonDoom

No other outside money is allowed.

Good Luck with that. How exactly do you do that?

I vote for the cage match as well .
put them all in the cage thye kill each other the last is shot o and seeing how no matter how many movies there is the evil guy alawys comes back shot twice burned and the ashes shot into the sun .
Just to be extra safe lift off into space and Nuk the site from orbit .

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

Because you vote for a policy, and by the time that policy is crafted it has little to nothing to do with what was originally voted for. Not to mention that is basically mob rule and is exactly what destroys democracies.

I am trying to find a single historical instance where mob rule has destroyed or usurped a democracy. Most frequently, a despotic dictator replaces democratic rule and establishes a tyranny.

There is much propaganda that defines democracy as mob rule. In fact, organized and systematic rule by the citizens of a country is in fact the very definition of a democracy.

The use of the word 'mob' to imply disorder and anarchy, instead of the rule of the preference of the majority of electors, is part of the propagandist smear campaign often used by those wanting to impose tyranny. The implication is; that a small group or a single dictator 'knows what is best' for others. The truth is that these groups or individuals are invariably selfish and can never allocate resources or administer fairly.

Also, technology is such that we can publish and respond to policy statements almost immediately. There is no need to delay, except as it is prudent to allow discussion.

There's nothing wrong with our election process. It's what the founding fathers worked to create in comparison to what Europe was doing at the time. It's lasted for 224 years. Why change it.

There are 50 states in our union. Each should have an equal say in the election. The country cannot be driven by California and New York. We are a republic after all.

If there is something to change that our founders couldn't foresee, it is the ridiculous amount of money that someone can spend on a campaign. Bloomberg has spent half a billion dollars so far. That's outrageous! Imagine what that money could do for our country by paying college tuition for underprivileged kids (a mind is a terrible thing to waste). The question becomes, how much is enough?

A candidate shouldn't have to drop out because they ran out of money. We should not have candidates based on what George Soros wants.