Any support for these ideas to change our election system?
I'm curious as to what support or objections there would be to these ideas to change how we run our elections, and other aspects of our political system. Please add your thoughts or other ideas as you see fit. While many of us here are separated by ideology, I'm wondering how close we are on these ideas...
- Require super PACs and “dark money” political organizations to make their donors public.
- Stopping members of Congress from using taxpayer money to settle sexual harassment or discrimination cases.
- Beefing up elections security, including requiring the director of national intelligence to do regular checks on foreign threats.
- Ending partisan gerrymandering in federal elections and prohibiting voter roll purging.
- Support for a constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United case, which prohibits caps on campaign expenditures by for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations.
- Make going to the national polls a national holiday to improve voter turnout.
- Requiring the president and vice president to disclose 10 years of his or her tax returns. Candidates for president and vice president must do the same.
Tags
Who is online
73 visitors
I'm betting that a large majority of NT participants would jump at the opportunity to implement most of these changes to our political and election systems. But lets find out!
Dear Friend FlyNavy!: I wholeheartedly support each and everyone of these proposed reforms.
Hopefully 2019 is going well for you and yours.
Enoch.
Were doing well here in Germany Enoch, but we're starting to get homesick. I think 2019 may be the year we transition home.
Hope you've been well my friend.
Dear Friend FlyNavy1: Stay happy, healthy and safe.
Come back as soon as possible.
The USA is not the same without you and yours.
E.
I'm all for each and every one of them!
It's a left wing shopping list, complete with vague and unenforceable initiatives based on subjective "feelings".
Really Tex.... unenforceable.... feelings.
Removing PAC and Dark money is a touchy-feely thing? Hardening our election system to hacking and outside interference is unenforceable?
Hell, I see many a conservative poster here on this seed that most definitely would like to get money out of politics...., or would move to hardening our election system. I'd even go for voter sane ID requirements to get that. Who'd of thought....
Absolutely.
It's an impossible thing. The idea that it could possibly happen is the touchy-feely part. Need some examples of the US Govt's inability to control the flow of money? How much do Mexican drug cartels make in a year? How many giant US corporations pay zero income tax. Think those are US Govt approved?
You can't control the money. It's more liquid than water. What you can control is what it buys.
I would vote for all of them.
And I only vote with a paper ballot. I tried voting by computer when it first came available, but, I never felt comfortable with it and never used one again.
Hey brother good to see you again....
I can pretty well predict what your going to get....
The liberal side will love it, the conservative side will not.....
Me, you have some very good mixed with some very bad......
Enough so to create one heck of a vociferous debate....
What are the negatives of these ideas that you see....? If you can spare the time?
point by point:
Better yet, totally eliminate any and all public campaign contributions from anyone, in any way shape or form.
This should be law already with severe penalties including loss of their seat for people caught doing it.
Since we do the same to our friends/enemies how can we possibly stop them from doing it to us? Go to War? Let Congress and/or law enforcement proceed as they see fit.
"Gerrymandering" has been around since the late 1790's (see Elbridge Gerry, Founding Father and it's creater/progenitor) It will always occur and will continue to occur. Federally mandated congressional districts is the only way to stop it and who's going to allow that level of federal involvement in a practice that is guaranteed by the constitution to be a states right?
WE should NEVER allow Voter Roll Purging! Ellie Mae Picklpusher, 215 years wise SHOULD have her vote counted! after all she has a right to vote. It is well established in some states that the right to vote superceeds death.
See my first point, Eliminate ALL campaign donations to any political cause......
Could care less, except for the politicians who want the time to vote expanded as long as possible I would say use tech to make it easier and less involved.
Irrelevant to me. Except for those that wish to use it to their advantage, the practice of demanding tax returns from anyone in elected office as a requirement of office should be specifically BANNED. It's a political demand meant to question the integrity of the oppositions candidate. Reference the current demands from the liberal side for the current presidents tax returns. If there was any issue with his returns the IRS would be all over it.... The last democrat administration would have made sure of it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would add this ideal below
What would improve elections? PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP to vote in Federal Elections. Federal elections ID. Federal Elections should be for US CITIZENS ONLY. The tech is already there, we give every single citizen that has the right to work an SSA card for free. (required to be able to work) And one has to prove citizenship to get that don't they.... why not a voter id in the same fashion....
Lots of thing we can do to improve the system. The problem, not everyone wants to do them, especially the politicos, those they would effect the most being those that would have to implement the changes....
Impossible to actually achieve. Stop focusing on the money and start focusing on what it buys.
Sound great in theory. So all I need to do to keep somebody from running for re-election is generate enough fake sexual harassment claimants to bankrupt the person. It nearly worked with our last SCOTUS nominee.
In Dallas last November we had reports of a group of black men outside a polling place telling everybody that only Democrats were allowed in. We now know that 58,000 votes have been cast illegally in Texas by non-residents. Our major threats are not foreign.
Again....58000 votes cast by people that should have been purged. Also, define "partisan gerrymandering". Huge numbers of people simply claim "partisan gerrymandering" any time their candidate doesn't win. It's easier than admitting to themselves they are batshit crazy.
It will be easier to colonize Mars. The fact is the SCOTUS made the right decision. This is a free country and people can spend their money how they want, even if you don't happen to like it.
We have 2-4 weeks of early voting most places in the US. If it's not important enough to drop by and cast your vote on a Saturday, you don't care enough for us to care about your vote.
Why? Just because you don't like Trump? Why shouldn't candidates have the same rights as other private citizens?
Even easier, a voting ATM, in the two week allowed just drive on up to the kiosk slip your card in, cast your votes and go on home..... Done in 60 seconds.....
The only difference with what is done billions of times a day is you aren't voting for how much money your getting out of your account....
We still have a bunch of senior people that don't use ATMs..... Think banks don't have a political lean as well.
And how about a paper trail? I'm an electronics nerd through and through, and can see a much more costly and error prone system then just going with paper ballots.
I live in a paper ballot system, in the state that had the first modern magically appearing box of ballots arriving after a certified election. with four different recounts.... flipped an election from one side to the other.... You know what? the opposition hasn't had a chance since that day. Every election is a massive one party win. One party controls this state. To me, they learned from the first one and fixed their mistakes....
Right now there is more opportunity for fraud in the paper ballot system than any voting machine could ever have. I would also submit that if the ATM was such a security or accuracy risk why do banks and people rely on them for billions of transactions per day? totaling trillions of dollars. And each transaction has to be to the penny accurate.....
They print receipts for a paper trail also......
What about the credit card system? multiply the ATM idea by a thousandfold....
The tech exists to do this with minuscule fraud, easy tracking and easy accessibility.......
The real issue? The politicians don't want it.... Recounts where there is no committee checking and rejecting voted ballots, no "hanging chads" and a recount is simply scanning the receipt listing the votes at the same kiosk where it was printed....
No magical boxes of ballots mysteriously appearing from the ether....
I don't see any real downside.....
Good points and something for me to think about..... Glad to hear from you.
That's a decent idea.
You're still going to have electronic counting, so measures need to be taken there.
Absolutely to this one. Some will claim "but my first amendment rights...." Yeah, well, TG says your FA rights are not being infringed upon if I know who you donated to because I have the right to counteract your "speech" with either donating to someone else or boycotting your product or business.
I'd go one further and eliminate PACs and private money in elections. Citizens United has proven to be a horrendous decision.
Eliminate computerized voting machines that aren't secure or reliable and return to paper ballots, preferably as absentee ballots for everyone.
For me, I like the idea of a national holiday for national elections. I would also move the day to Wednesday. My thinking is that we want more participation in our democracy, thus we need to make it easier to get to the polls. By moving to Wednesday, there will be less of a trend to make things "a long weekend" which is counter to the goal of improved participation.
I would say hold the election over three days, Friday thru Sunday. The Tuesday elections were a good idea when this country was mostly farming but that need is no longer there. We maintain a Tuesday election cycle just because "that's how we've always done it".
Amen to all of the above. Many people on social media are even suggesting we make Election Day the same day as Veterans Day, ensure it is a federal and bank holiday so our Veterans who fought for our rights to vote can easily participate.
Dear Friend Freepress: Or on my birthday.
Already a National Holiday.
We are just not sure in what country.
Smiles.
Enoch.
And some of the Republicans are opposing that. Why do they try so hard to make it difficult for people to vote, especially our veterans? Trump actually wanted to cut off the counting of absentee ballots during the midterm, even though many of those were mailed from overseas by veterans! All because they were leading to a Democrat winning that seat. So much for wanting a fair election.
Early voting is a great option.
Early voting is a good thing as long as there is a paper trail, and that the security of the votes can be guaranteed. And I sure as hell don't like people screwing with military ballots as we have seen both Dems and Pubs want to do.
When I vote early, I have to show my ID or voter registration card, and my name is recorded as having voted. So on election day, I can't go to my polling place and vote again. But the voting process itself is the same as it is on election day.
In earlier elections, I didn't have to show my ID. This must be a fairly new requirement for my state. I could probably have voted early as myself, and then, if I had a friend who I knew wasn't going to vote, I could have pretended to be her on election day and voted again (well, maybe not since I live in a small town and would probably run into someone working who knew either me or her, but you get the picture). I have absolutely no problem with the requirement for voter ID.
I too am good with voter ID as long as we don't disenfranchise people intentionally. Many of our older and poor have been made to jump through hoops in an effort to keep them from voting.
Me... the critical point is to get after the money.
True, but it really is hard to get along these days without an ID. I don't recall hearing any backlash at all when my state implemented the requirement for voter ID. Even my more liberal friends didn't complain about it. Really, if someone can't figure out how to get an ID, they're probably not going to be able to figure out how to vote anyway. I've heard that some old people don't have birth certificates, but how do they file their taxes if they don't at least have an SSN?
Hi Fly! Nice to see you again!
So point by point:
I totally agree. Dark money takes influences our politicians and removes the little guy from the equation (that would be the average citizen)
Totally agree. They got themselves into this, they can pay to get themselves out of this. What a waste of our money.
Agree again. I know that there are those in denial about this, but we have had foreign interference in our election as I am sure we have done the same.
Agree again. Personally, I think the nation should be put on a grid. It will all balance out in the end and no one can say it favors one side or the other ( well they will, but people will always complain).
I despise Citizens United. Corporations and unions are not individuals. Again, it removes the average voter from the equation.
Interesting idea. Never thought of that. Sad that we should contemplate do that instead of realizing what a gift we have been given. I would not be opposed.
Totally agree. As an accountant, I know so many of my clients need to disclose their taxes for housing, loans, etc. If you can't be honest with your taxes, then you won't be honest in the White House.
I feel everything you presented is reasonable and acceptable.
Hi Perrie.....Figured that this was a pretty neutral to start topic to post. Thought I might get some decent thoughts for/against with it. Yours was nothing less than what I expected.
Hope you've been well.
This one stuck out at me:
"Requiring the president and vice president to disclose 10 years of his or her tax returns. Candidates for president and vice president must do the same."
What does requiring that actually accomplish ?
To me....more Constitutional amendments is just a waste of time to further someone else's agenda. Money is all about "Commercials". If you are voting for someone because they has them the bestest and the moistest commercials, you aren't doing your job as a relevant voter ! Hell, My State voted for a State "Constitutional" amendment to not allow farmers to put pregnant pigs in boxes while they give birth. To many "Stupid" folks out there to try an add MORE to the already "Great" constitution.
An election holiday is a bit ridicules. We've known for decades, when voting occurs. It's not some "Surprise" thing ! Plan for it before hand, instead of waiting until the last minute, then bitching ! Besides....we've had "Mail-In" voting for awhile now !
As for the other stuff.....I can get on board with them !
The "Beefing up" of Election fraud monitoring, should have been a given for decades now though ! What the heck are the ones that are supposed to protect us and our system actually doing ?
My point about the tax disclosure goes along with the emoluments clause of the constitution. The Founders were worried about out leaders beholden to someone other than the country they take an oath to serve and protect. Tax records would be a way to detect if the candidate for president and vice president are in bed with other countries or companies that might constitute a conflict of interest.
Furthermore, in the military, in order to obtain and maintain a security clearance, the FBI does a background check of one's financial records. History has shown that some of the easiest way to compromise a person that holds a security clearance is through bribery. If someone is in debt, often times they will not be granted clearances.
Thanks for your other thoughts....
Regards
Let the first politician without guilt.....throw the first stone ?
"Tax records would be a way to detect if the candidate for president and vice president are in bed with other countries or companies that might constitute a conflict of interest."
Did you know that the IRS put out a massive "Tell-All" book on how to Fudge on your taxes ?
I hear it's called the "Tax Code" !
Soooooo…..
Back to what I asked before:
What does requiring that actually accomplish ?
I'll be the first one to agree with you..... Most Americans don't like their political system, nor their tax system.
That being said, I'm not willing to throw in the towel yet in an effort to make either or both better.
Are you at the point of thinking nothing can or should be done?
I'm at the point where I know …. NOTHING will be done !
It would effect EVERY Politician on Capital hill, and we all know, what's good for one, isn't good for another up on that high hill. "THEY"....will never limit or hand tie themselves like that. They're Stupid most times, but not so "Stupid" to hang themselves !
They don't mind doing something they don't have to do if no one is really checking, But it's way more fun for them USING that same "Don't have to do" thingy against the opposition, especially if the opposition doesn't do what isn't required.
"And this is pointed specifically at Donald Trump."
For now..... yep. I want transparency, plain and simple. And the only people that will sit in judgement of those tax disclosures would be the voters from the point of conflict of interest. I don't want any boards, we don't need any committees, just voters that want to understand who and what they are voting for. They alone will decide what they will tolerate.
I would require them to undergo a background check to ensure they qualify for a security clearance before they can get on the ballot. Last election, we had two people on the ballot - Clinton and especially Trump - who, if they were regular citizens, would likely not have been granted security clearances. The idea that the American people can determine that the candidates are trustworthy is ridiculous - voters tend to be idiots.
I took my security refresher the other day, and out of all the things I would be expected to report my colleagues for, at least 7 would require me to report Trump. Clinton isn't as bad, but any regular person who pulled that crap with the personal email server would have had their clearance yanked.
A lot of good idea's there but i'm curious about one thing you didn't include which i find interesting since i assume what you are trying to here is make sure our election system is as fair and accurate as possible.
What about requiring a national voter ID of some sort? Personally i feel proving bona fides is more important than all these other items combined
Sure, as long as it is made based on honest and fair means, this left of center person would move for voter IDs...... in order to achieve some of the things I'm most interested in..... like getting undisclosed and/or unlimited money out of our political system.
Couldn't agree more on all accounts.
It's clear to me that none of that will ever happen unless it's a heavy grassroots movement. The politicians will clearly never agree to any of it and/or have any desire to get it done. The extremists on both side will continue to chirp only about how bad the other side is and not compromise on anything
The only way it happens is if the majority in the middle make it happen. A tall order in these times .....
There is one simple solution:
Ban political parties.
The entire problem comes down to the fact that we are not voting on actual people and their positions but mainly on which political party they belong to. The money that goes into politics is really aimed at getting party members elected and not about actually creating a true message and electing people whose views actually meet our own.
Let us remember, Donald Trump was loved by the Left until it looked like he would win the Republican nomination for President. He never changed his message or his positions from before that point to even when he won the Presidency. But, when it looked like he was going to win the Republican Primary, the Democrats and many so-called Conservative Republicans went from supporting Trump to actually hating him. Some would point to the Billy Bush tape; but that is actually a symptom of that switch in supporting versus hating Trump. Remember, that tape did not come out until it looked like Trump would win the Republican nomination. The so-called FBI investigation into Trump didn't start until July, after Trump had actually won the Republican primaries. In other words, Trump's winning the nomination is what triggered the entire investigation and set up the platform for creating the Russian collusion scandal. Remember, the dossier was already being peddled to the FBI on July 5, 2016 BEFORE Trump asked Russia to release the missing Hillary emails on July 26, 2016.
Those two links are a story from Time regarding Trump's comments published on July 27, 2016 and the second shows when the DNC Convention was held as Trump's comments were on the 2nd night of the DNC Convention, I thought it would be appropriate to remind everyone of the timeline.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/politics/steele-timeline/?utm_term=.79af95999a5b
This link shows the timeline of the FBI getting the dossier pushed to them and it is from the LIBERAL Washington DC paper.
EDIT: Now, I had gotten off the topic by going into depth about Trump and the hatred directed at him from simply winning the Republican primaries. But, if we were voting on individuals as we are meant to be doing, we may have elected someone not a member of either the Republican or Democratic Parties. Remember, our original system of government was not meant to be about any sort of political party system, it was about individuals and their rights. But, when the Federalist and Anti-Federalist parties were created, we had a political party system created by accident and as time has gone on it has gotten more and more corrupt.
Interesting concept..... eliminate parties. Then would we need to move to a coalition government, or simple majority rule?
Me... I'm a simple person.... Get the unlimited money out. How about we limit the whole election season to 120 day prior to the election? That might force our elected officials to work more, and have to fundraise less.
Thanks for the response.....
Actually, the original rules for both the House and Senate were straight-up majority votes. There were no confirmation hearings using committees either. No cloture or filibusters for anything, and the only supermajorities required were for those situations specified in the Constitution. On top of that, the states were able to decide how the Senators were chosen. The 17th Amendment killed that aspect and eliminated the state legislatures’ voices from the Federal government and gave us 2 Houses of Representatives instead of a House of the People and a House of the state governments as was the case before 1913. But, Rhode Island twice failed to even send a single Senator to Congress.
If you want to go that way, eliminate the primary system. It is run by the parties, of the parties, and for the parties. Make the General Election the only election unless there is no clear majority winner and have a run-off in that case.
True, and most politicians seem to put their party above our country. And the pressure to vote in Congress along party lines would be eliminated. Imagine all the people who would be upset because they'd have to actually think before they voted, rather than just choosing the person with the D or the R after their name!
Of course, some of them would just pick whoever was listed first on the ballot in that case, but we'll never be able to require intelligence as a requirement to vote. Maybe people should have to pass a civics test before they could get their Federal voter ID
If you ban parties, then your government is no different than one that has only one party, like China.
All of these ideas are good.
I'd like to see a fairly low limit on campaign expenses, and strict cost reporting for enforcement.
Time for bed here in Munich...... It looks as though everyone is behaving so I'll leave the thread open. Keep the ideas coming.....
There just might be a bi-partisan petition from Newstalkers to consider.
Best regards to all......
Sleep tight my friend,
As I said good to see you again....
Be careful out there...... And yeah come home soon.
Welcome back FLYNAVY - happy to see your return. But expecting something bi-partisan from the members of thenewstalkers, except maybe from Perrie herself, is, as you will soon determine yourself, unlikely.
Bi-partisan results comes from crawling out of your respective trench, searching for the truth, and being willing to compromise.
I have to agree with you Buzz. Over the past three or four years I've popped in to see how things are here, and with the exception of a few, it's pretty tribal. This piece does show one thing..... the overwhelming majority want money out of politics. Imagine if we could harness that effort on a national level. That would be the place to start.
Nice hearing from you, and I trust you and your wife are well. Spent seven months in China last year moving a plant from Shanghai to Suzhou. I enjoyed the time and culture both.
Regards
We are living in Chongqing now, which is my wife's home town, so she's happy to be close to her family and friends, and we'll now most likely remain here. We live in a lovely modern area called "University Town", surrounded by three beautifully landscaped and wooded universities.
We have been to Shanghai and Souzhou. Did you take a nighttime tour in a canal boat, and the magnificent gardens in Souzhou? I've posted photo articles about them.
Yes to the canal boat and the gardens and enjoyed both greatly. I couldn't handle working every weekend.
I'm in agreement will all of them FLY.
I think one think that tells us that money controls who gets elected is the cost of winning a seat in the house of representatives. It was $1.6 million in the 2012 election.
It interesting to read the link and see the money spent by incumbents to ''save'' their seat...Politics pays.
These are all good ideas that the Democratic Party of America supports and which the damn gop fears...
I'm not sure that the Dems support all of them at heart, but they have paid lip service to them. I think if we can put elimination of dark and undisclosed PAC money front and center for the next election cycle, we just might have a chance to make some headway.
Vox carried a good article a while back:
The case for massively expanding the US House of Representatives, in one chart
Please forgive my lack of knowledge of American Politics, but wouldn't representation be more effective if there were a ratio of less persons represented by a lawmaker? With such a ratio as the USA has, just how effective can minority groups be in the legislative process?
That’s the idea. Representation is far too diluted in the House. Canada has 338 Members in the Commons, compared to 435 Representatives in the US House. Considering the difference in population...
If I remember correctly the 435 number has been static since the early 1900's.
Meanwhile the population has exploded.
Exactly
But what can you do? To emulate Canada's representation ratio you'd have to have more than 3000 persons in Congress.
The more of them there are, the more problems they will cause
Why not?
There might be a problem fitting them all in, physically... but that's not really a problem.
A 5000-seat auditorium isn't very big, so...
How do you figure that?
they cause more problems than they solve and all the new ones will want full staffs
Or this.
1. $250 max contribution per candidate per election cycle. This would apply to everyone and everything. (Example) A Super Pac with $300 million in its coffers could only contribute $250 to a candidate of its choice. For every dollar exceeding that the fine would be $100,000 per occurrences. Five bucks over=$500,000.
2. Candidates would reveal their tax returns, tax liabilities and investments. Failure to do so would be a disqualification.
I agree with FLYNAVY1 on most of his points. But, not all.
Not bad..... The fines are split up to opposing candidates?
No. The fines to be returned to government services. Veteran Administration. Medicare. Social Security. Education. Etc.
I imagine the return on the fines would be small. Separating the SuperPacs and MegaDonors from their money would be worse than the death penalty for them. It isn't worth the risk. Especially if it were enforced with an 'extreme prejudice'.
Our Australian members are probably better at minding their own business than I am, but I have a couple of suggestions. First of all I believe that in Australia an eligible citizen commits an offence by NOT voting and will have to pay a fine unless they have a legitimate excuse for not doing so. If a person does not want to vote for any candidate they can always spoil their ballot and commit no offence for having done so. That does lead to a much more universal suffrage and a more realistic result at the hands of a true majority. When people don't vote, then the result could very well be a result that is considered quite undesirable by the majority and I don't have to explain that, do I? Sure you can brag about having the freedom NOT to vote, and look what it got you. Hey, where I am now, there is no right to vote so if enough people don't, then maybe you'll lose that right.
The second is that in Canada the voting method is universal across the country - paper ballots and pencils, with representatives of the parties observing the eligibility determination, the voting, counting and reporting - no hanging chads, no computer glitches, no way for any cybergeniuses to interfere with the machinery, no hiding the ballots like in Florida - just the good old fashioned way it worked well for hundreds of years.
Voting is mandatory in Australia. Also voting is held on one day and that is a Saturday.
Also campaigns run around 6 weeks...
Some of this may have changed since I lived there but I don't believe that these items have.
Cousin says nothing has changed...
I don't think I'd like the idea of mandatory voting. If someone can't be bothered to care, I really don't want them making decisions that will impact me like that. I know a few people who refuse to register to vote because they think that will result in them getting called for jury duty - seems to be a general disinterest in doing their civic duty all around.
6 week campaigns, though? I'm all for it.