Proposals for Electoral Reform

[Cancel11]

I favor eliminating the Electoral College and replacing it with a direct, instant-runoff vote. The Electoral College made excellent sense in its day, but the country is different now than it was back then. We're no longer "these United States." We're one nation, one people.

We are also in need of increasing the size of the House of Representatives. I believe we should adopt the formula R = √P(.001), R being the number of Representatives, and P being our national population. This would effectively increase the membership from 435 to 548.

By 2050, there would be approximately 700 Representatives.

Furthermore, we must repeal campaign finance legislation, and replace it with term limits. Representatives should be limited to four 2-year terms; Senators should be limited to two 4-year terms.

I believe these changes would go a long way in returning the government to the people.

 

[uscitizen]

I favor shooting the most corrupt 1/3 of congress to get the rest to straighten up.

 

[Cancel11]

I favor shooting the most corrupt 1/3 of congress to get the rest to straighten up.

Typical communist.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I favor eliminating the Electoral College and replacing it with a direct, instant-runoff vote. The Electoral College made excellent sense in its day, but the country is different now than it was back then. We're no longer "these United States." We're one nation, one people.

Instant-runoff voting may not be the best alternative method, but it's the most convenient to implement, and therefore I'd support it.

We are also in need of increasing the size of the House of Representatives. I believe we should adopt the formula R = √P(.001), R being the number of Representatives, and P being our national population. This would effectively increase the membership from 435 to 548.

By 2050, there would be approximately 700 Representatives.

The house size shouldn't increase with population because after a while it would become ungovernable.

Furthermore, we must repeal campaign finance legislation, and replace it with term limits. Representatives should be limited to four 2-year terms; Senators should be limited to two 4-year terms.

I believe these changes would go a long way in returning the government to the people.

Alright.


Also, we need to elect the house by either single transferable vote or open party lists. Proportional representation is an idea whos time has come.

 

[Cancel11]

The house size shouldn't increase with population because after a while it would become ungovernable.

China's Congress has 3,000 members. They seem to manage it just fine. Granted, there are practical limitations (i.e. the size of the chamber). For this reason, we should cap it at around 800 Representatives (640,000,000 population).

Also, we need to elect the house by either single transferable vote or open party lists. Proportional representation is an idea whos time has come.

How would this be implemented? At the State level, or would it be a National slate? I prefer the idea of single-member districts, with the Representatives chosen via instant-runoff voting.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

China's Congress has 3,000 members. They seem to manage it just fine. Granted, there are practical limitations (i.e. the size of the chamber). For this reason, we should cap it at around 800 Representatives (640,000,000 population).

Well if we're going to have to cap it in the future anyway why even start?

How would this be implemented? At the State level, or would it be a National slate? I prefer the idea of single-member districts, with the Representatives chosen via instant-runoff voting.

STV just wouldn't be possible at a national level (you'd be asking the people to rank like 10,000 candidates)! STV couldn't really be done with more than 5 to 7 members per a district. Open party lists are simiarly limited to district to prevent confusion, although you could probably get away with much larger districts.

 

[Good Luck]

I favor eliminating the Electoral College and replacing it with a direct, instant-runoff vote. The Electoral College made excellent sense in its day, but the country is different now than it was back then. We're no longer "these United States." We're one nation, one people.

We are also in need of increasing the size of the House of Representatives. I believe we should adopt the formula R = √P(.001), R being the number of Representatives, and P being our national population. This would effectively increase the membership from 435 to 548.

By 2050, there would be approximately 700 Representatives.

Furthermore, we must repeal campaign finance legislation, and replace it with term limits. Representatives should be limited to four 2-year terms; Senators should be limited to two 4-year terms.

I believe these changes would go a long way in returning the government to the people.

First, there is nothing different about this nation that negates the reason for the electoral college.

As for term limits, if people want to turn out their rep after 4 terms, they can choose to not vote for them. Myself, I believe that getting rid of experienced legislators on a simple time limit would be ultimately detrimental. If a legislator is doing a good job why turn them out for someone who is A:inexperienced and B: not necessarily any better, and quite probably worse? If they are not doing a good job, then let the voters turn them out for someone else.

While there are drawbacks to the relative electability of an incumbent compared to a challenger, there are also advantages to the experience and knowledge brought about by longevity. IMO the latter outweighs th former.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

95% of incumbents win. Something needs to be done. If you can't get what you want done in twelve years, someone else needs to try. Give up your seat. A virtual dictatorship based on how familiar and friendly an incumbent seems is not going to improve the nation.

"Experience" - christ, we're talking about making laws here. Its not the most complicated thing in the world.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

First, there is nothing different about this nation that negates the reason for the electoral college.

The electoral college was virtually negated in its first two elections. Its an anachronism that needed to be abolished with slavery.

 

[uscitizen]

Typical communist.

Naah conservative, Moderate at worst a communist would shoot em all.

 

[Good Luck]

The electoral college was virtually negated in its first two elections. Its an anachronism that needed to be abolished with slavery.

Try learning a little something about the constitutional convention, the debates, and the reason a president (instead of other type of leader) was selected to head the executive branch of the federal government.

The president is not a representative. The position is that of an executive. The two jobs - representative and executive - are very different with very different powers which complement and check the powers of the other branches.

Representatives are popularly elected because it is their job to represent popular opinion. It is NOT the job of the president to represent popular opinion. The president's job is to execute the legislation passed by the real representation body of the federal government. (Or veto it as part of the checks and balances between branches.)

Since it is not the job of the president to represent popular will, it is not desirable to elect a president through popular vote. The first idea for selecting a president was to let congress do it. But there were problems and many objections over that idea, so they came up with the idea of a separate body to select the president. From that evolved the electoral college. The college selects the president, but the people select the members of the college. The college places a barrier between the popular vote and the selection of the president, which is exactly what it was designed to do.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Try learning a little something about the constitutional convention, the debates, and the reason a president (instead of other type of leader) was selected to head the executive branch of the federal government.

The president is not a representative. The position is that of an executive. The two jobs - representative and executive - are very different with very different powers which complement and check the powers of the other branches.

Representatives are popularly elected because it is their job to represent popular opinion. It is NOT the job of the president to represent popular opinion. The president's job is to execute the legislation passed by the real representation body of the federal government. (Or veto it as part of the checks and balances between branches.)

Since it is not the job of the president to represent popular will, it is not desirable to elect a president through popular vote. The first idea for selecting a president was to let congress do it. But there were problems and many objections over that idea, so they came up with the idea of a separate body to select the president. From that evolved the electoral college. The college selects the president, but the people select the members of the college. The college places a barrier between the popular vote and the selection of the president, which is exactly what it was designed to do.

Do you think I haven't heard all of these same long-winded arguments before? ZOMG ITS A REPUBLIC ITS NOT A DEMOCRACY ZOMG?!

The electoral college is idiotic. It was born out of the elitism of our founders, and they found within two elections that the people were intelligent enough to vote for a president rather than vote for a man to elect the president. It is bullshit and you spout out this bullshit without even thinking about it.

 

[evince]

First, there is nothing different about this nation that negates the reason for the electoral college.

As for term limits, if people want to turn out their rep after 4 terms, they can choose to not vote for them. Myself, I believe that getting rid of experienced legislators on a simple time limit would be ultimately detrimental. If a legislator is doing a good job why turn them out for someone who is A:inexperienced and B: not necessarily any better, and quite probably worse? If they are not doing a good job, then let the voters turn them out for someone else.

While there are drawbacks to the relative electability of an incumbent compared to a challenger, there are also advantages to the experience and knowledge brought about by longevity. IMO the latter outweighs th former.

I agree with you on this one GL, term limmits at this level of government only limmits the voters choice as to who represents them.

 

[Good Luck]

95% of incumbents win. Something needs to be done. If you can't get what you want done in twelve years, someone else needs to try. Give up your seat. A virtual dictatorship based on how familiar and friendly an incumbent seems is not going to improve the nation.

"Experience" - christ, we're talking about making laws here. Its not the most complicated thing in the world.

Yea, making laws is not complicated.

A government balanced between the will and freedoms of the people on one hand, and the necessities of a stable and functional society on the other hand is perhaps the most complicated man-made structure in existence.

And who says the incumbent in office 12 years has NOT accomplished anything? Perhaps part of their popularity with their constituency is that they DO get things done - things their constituency LIKE having done. After all, it IS their job to REPRESENT the will of their constituency.

You want something different done, then get off your dead ignorant ass and work to get someone elected who will do what you do like. But don't tell me, as a voter, I cannot continue to elect people who are doing a good job for me. If they fail to do a good job, then I vote for someone else. If they do a bad enough job, then lots of people vote for someone else, and the incumbent loses. That is the way the system was designed.

 

[Good Luck]

Do you think I haven't heard all of these same long-winded arguments before? ZOMG ITS A REPUBLIC ITS NOT A DEMOCRACY ZOMG?!

The electoral college is idiotic. It was born out of the elitism of our founders, and they found within two elections that the people were intelligent enough to vote for a president rather than vote for a man to elect the president. It is bullshit and you spout out this bullshit without even thinking about it.

I am sure you have heard the arguments before. And like a whiny little child, you scream and cry how unfair it is and it's all a bunch of bullshit rather than learn anything about it. Your knowledge of history is absolutely pathetic, as is your knowledge of government.

The men who wrote the Constitution were much more than a bunch of elitists. If they were elitists they sure as hell would not have bothered to build a system that protects YOUR right to whine and bitch like a little baby. Were they eleitists they would have made a system that put them in power permanently, WITHOUT any challenge, and pretty much told the likes of you (and me) to shut their pie holes and get to work.

That they did not do. The fact that you are on a BBS whining and bitching without any solid support of your claims is due to the founders NOT being elitists.

 

[uscitizen]

Yeah the president is the executive with no resume or job qualifications required except be a natutal born citizen and over 35 ? i think it is.

We hire the most powerful man in this country (aside from uberman of course) and do not even require a resume.

 

[Good Luck]

Yeah the president is the executive with no resume or job qualifications required except be a natutal born citizen and over 35 ? i think it is.

We hire the most powerful man in this country (aside from uberman of course) and do not even require a resume.

Sure we require a resume. That's what the campaign cycle is for. Lately it has been getting tougher and tougher to get an honest resume, but we get one anyway. (was the last resume YOU used 100% accurate?)

Do we not know a lot more about Obama (not all info necessarily volunteered from him) than we did at the beginning of the primaries? Like any job application process, the candidates give us their resume with all the nice glowing phraseology that is used to convince us they are the best one for the job. We (the employer) check out the resume and "interview" them via a variety of campaign gatherings. - (though unlike other job applications, we often receive more than enough help from the candidate's opponents) for accuracy. The more responsible "employers" look at the resume claims (I support blah blah) and compare it to their work history (actually he voted against blah blah 5 times.)

The primary process narrows down the applicants to two major applicants and one or two minor applicants. Then the interview process gets more involved with debates and such where the applicants actually get to knock each other around a bit while defending their resumes.

It may be a WEIRD resume and application process, in the end. But we DO get one.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I am sure you have heard the arguments before. And like a whiny little child, you scream and cry how unfair it is and it's all a bunch of bullshit rather than learn anything about it. Your knowledge of history is absolutely pathetic, as is your knowledge of government.

The men who wrote the Constitution were much more than a bunch of elitists. If they were elitists they sure as hell would not have bothered to build a system that protects YOUR right to whine and bitch like a little baby. Were they eleitists they would have made a system that put them in power permanently, WITHOUT any challenge, and pretty much told the likes of you (and me) to shut their pie holes and get to work.

That they did not do. The fact that you are on a BBS whining and bitching without any solid support of your claims is due to the founders NOT being elitists.

You know shit about history, otherwise you would agree with me, all you know is something you read off of some random right wing blog that you thought sounded nice.

You whiny, fucking, little, child.

 

[Damocles]

Instant-runoff voting may not be the best alternative method, but it's the most convenient to implement, and therefore I'd support it.



The house size shouldn't increase with population because after a while it would become ungovernable.



Alright.


Also, we need to elect the house by either single transferable vote or open party lists. Proportional representation is an idea whos time has come.

Open party lists suck, it makes the politician a slave to the party. If they step even a tidbit out of line they're doomed by people who otherwise would be their staunchest allies.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Open party lists suck, it makes the politician a slave to the party. If they step even a tidbit out of line they're doomed by people who otherwise would be their staunchest allies.

Don't you mean closed party list?

In an open party list, the list is decided on by the parties voters, and the party leadership has no voice in the matter.