Campaign Reform

[Ben Kenobi]

So, the original systems intention was that, because the crowd is too uninformed to select the president themselves, they should select an educated individual, which they thrust and who is better able to select a president (according to his own conscience and knowledge).
But now, with the current system, you actually have the situation that the founding fathers tried to prevent ... i.e. that the president actually is selected by the crowd and not by some better educated/informed individuals.

At the time the only ones who could vote were property owning white men. The electors would also have been property owning white men. Would you really want a selection from property owning white men only?

[Egbert]

Donald Trump is mentally ill, pick someone else.

Umh.

I gather the mentally ill can't get to join the US Army as a common soldier but ................ can be Commander in Chief of the whole military.

Can somebody explain why, really slowly and in words of one syllable please.

[Aeson]

'cause ... MAKE ... 'MERICA ... GREAT ... AGAIN

I did the best I could ...

[Proteus_MST]

At the time the only ones who could vote were property owning white men. The electors would also have been property owning white men. Would you really want a selection from property owning white men only?

There is a difference between changes or the good (universal suffrage) and changes for the worse (electoral college becoming part of the party system)

Fact is, that the electoral college has become meaningless now that its members just vote for the candidate they are sworn to vote, according to party allegation.
Something that will be proven as soon as the EC convenes to cast its votes for Trump ... I am quite sure that not a single member of the EC will vote according to its conscience instead of voting for the candidate of his party. And this despite the fact that Trump even among the republicans themelves is highly controversial.

I am aware of the fact that you cannot return to a truely "independent" electorate btw. as, even if you vote totally independent people into the EC (who aren't affiliated with either the GOP or the Democrates) the 2 parties with their huge amounts of money will try to influence the members of the EC, as soon as the names of the members of the EC are known.

So you can just do away with the EC altogether ... whose "only" effect at the moment is, to give lower pop states an unfair advantage with regards to the influence on the election (for comparison: in Wyoming you have 0.53 EC votes per 100k inhabitants ... in California just 0.148 ... that is more than 3 times the voting power for each inhabitant of Wyoming (a state btw. that is below US average when it comes to percentage of people with bachelors degree))

So, if you want to let the masses decide, do so (as Ming suggested in his OP) ... abandon the EC and let the POTUS get decided by popular vote.

Or do it like other countries do (for example germany) ... don't let the ordinary people decide on the position of POTUS, but rather let the parliament take the decision ... this way you get away from an individual centered election altogether and only vote for parties

[Ben Kenobi]

Fact is, that the electoral college has become meaningless now that its members just vote for the candidate they are sworn to vote, according to party allegation.

If the electoral college were in fact useless, people wouldn't be clamoring to change the electoral college. People object to the electoral college because they reject the federal model of states. Candidates should have broad regional support - if Hillary had support that wasn't confined to the coasts, she'd be president now.

I am aware of the fact that you cannot return to a truely "independent" electorate btw. as, even if you vote totally independent people into the EC (who aren't affiliated with either the GOP or the Democrates) the 2 parties with their huge amounts of money will try to influence the members of the EC, as soon as the names of the members of the EC are known.

Who would select the initial slate of electors? Why would an electorate that supports universal suffrage, return to a system that took them out of the process entirely?

to give lower pop states an unfair advantage

Lower population states that went Hillary:

Hawaii, New Mexico, Nevada, Delaware, Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, plus the electoral votes for the District of Columbia.

That's 9 states right there.

The system is pretty balanced, so that these states get some representation.

Or do it like other countries do (for example germany) ... don't let the ordinary people decide on the position of POTUS, but rather let the parliament take the decision ... this way you get away from an individual centered election altogether and only vote for parties

The German system sucks. Westminster is better.

[Ben Kenobi]

Another interesting way to do it would be to divvy up states into districts.

[Proteus_MST]

If the electoral college were in fact useless, people wouldn't be clamoring to change the electoral college. People object to the electoral college because they reject the federal model of states. Candidates should have broad regional support - if Hillary had support that wasn't confined to the coasts, she'd be president now.

Very probably ... with those states being the states where the majority of the population of the USA lives.

Who would select the initial slate of electors? Why would an electorate that supports universal suffrage, return to a system that took them out of the process entirely?

Hypothetically (if you didn't have a factually 2 party system) you could do this with a multi stage system:
Every person with a certain certified IQ (for example 120+) and/or education level (for example Bachelors degree at least) can run for the electorate election in his/her district.
Then, you first have district elections (where each voting district votes for one elector that represents him) and afterwards you have a state wide election where, from the candidates of each district, the number x of electors (with x = number of electors that are allowed for this state) get chosen.

Alternative:
You divide each state into x voting districts (with x = number of electors allowed for the state).
Every person with a certain certified IQ (for example 120+) and/or education level (for example Bachelors degree at least) can run for the electorate election in his/her voting district.
Each voting district then independently votes for an elector that represents this district.

Both systems work very well with universal sufffrage, as running for the position of elector is allowed for everyone as long as s/he has a certain intelligence and/or level of education ... totally in spirit with the original intentions of the founding fathers.

Also you get away from person centered election campaigns that cost billions, as the electors cannot promise anything, but to try to cast their vote with the best intentions for their district

Lower population states that went Hillary:

Hawaii, New Mexico, Nevada, Delaware, Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, plus the electoral votes for the District of Columbia.

That's 9 states right there.

That a few lower population states went to Hillary doesn't mean that the system isn't flawed

The system is pretty balanced, so that these states get some representation.

It isn't, as the vote of someone in lower pop states is worth more than the vote of someone in a high pop state

[Ben Kenobi]

Hypothetically (if you didn't have a factually 2 party system) you could do this with a multi stage system:
Every person with a certain certified IQ (for example 120+) and/or education level (for example Bachelors degree at least) can run for the electorate election in his/her district.

Umm, wow. That would never fly. You really believe that people with less than a 120 IQ and without a bachelor's degree shouldn't vote?

I'm rather shocked. I'm actually the more liberal person - in supporting universal suffrage.

[Proteus_MST]

Umm, wow. That would never fly. You really believe that people with less than a 120 IQ and without a bachelor's degree shouldn't vote?

I'm rather shocked. I'm actually the more liberal person - in supporting universal suffrage.

Nope ... everyone should vote (as long as he is above the age where s/he is allowed to vote), but in my suggestion only people with an IQ of >= 120 or an Bachelors degree should be able to run for the position as member of the electorate college.

Just as it is in spirit with the founding fathers, who intended the electorate college as something where better educated/informed people should select the president

[Ben Kenobi]

in my suggestion only people with an IQ of >= 120 or an Bachelors degree should be able to run for the position as member of the electorate college.

There are tremendous problems with this. One - IQ tests are not empirical.

Two, barring candidates without a bachelor's degree from running essentially disenfranchises 80 percent of Americans. The modern education system of today would make zero sense to make this distinction. In the 18th century there were significant proportions of the population who could not read. Now, this is not the case. Yes, education is important but nowadays everyone in school is lettered.

[Proteus_MST]

There are tremendous problems with this. One - IQ tests are not empirical.

Two, barring candidates without a bachelor's degree from running essentially disenfranchises 80 percent of Americans. The modern education system of today would make zero sense to make this distinction. In the 18th century there were significant proportions of the population who could not read. Now, this is not the case. Yes, education is important but nowadays everyone in school is lettered.

The world has become more complex since the 18th c entury ... so, yes, IMHO also the needed prerequisites to make an informed decision (on selecting someone as president) have increased.
Yes, in my suggestion the prerequisite for a bachelors degree may bar 70-80% of the americans (the percentage of people with bachelors degree seems to vary depending on the state, between 17% (West Vorginia) and 42% (Ohio), with an US wide average of ~28%)) from becoming part of the electorate college ... but they may still influence it by electing "their" representative into the electorate college).

Only allowing those with higher education into the EC also could result in less influence of populism in the elections (as I said, the electorate college candidates won't be able to make any election "promises" except casting their vote in a beneficial matter for the district ... and due to their higher education and intelligence they may be less prone to populist speeches)

Nevertheless it doesn't matter ... due to the amount of money behind the 2 parties of the USA, my suggestions would only result in those party winning, which is best in bribing the members of the EC ... my suggestions would only make sense if there weren't this factrual 2 party system

[giblets]

Umh.

I gather the mentally ill can't get to join the US Army as a common soldier but ................ can be Commander in Chief of the whole military.

Can somebody explain why, really slowly and in words of one syllable please.

WE NEED A WALL

[kentonio]

Umm, wow. That would never fly. You really believe that people with less than a 120 IQ and without a bachelor's degree shouldn't vote?

I'm rather shocked. I'm actually the more liberal person - in supporting universal suffrage.

I'd happily raise that to 140 and have a special qualification on civils required. **** stupid people and their moronic decisions.

[giblets]

Perhaps a test on knowledge of the Constitution should be administered before someone is allowed to run for office

You have to be at least 35 years old (counting from when you were born, not including fetus years) to run for President, so clearly the requirements for voting and running for office don't have to be the same.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'd happily raise that to 140 and have a special qualification on civils required. **** stupid people and their moronic decisions.

You do realize what would happen, right? People would get their certificates stating that they have 140 IQ.