Campaign Reform

[Ming]

Now that this election is in the rear view mirror, We really need to change how we elect our president.

My thoughts...

1) Get rid of the Electoral College
Enough is enough... it was system designed for the times... and the times have changed.

2) Shorten the Process. Does it really need to stretch out over 2 years.
It seems like half the time we are in election mode.
Have a declaration day... Primaries follow 2 months later with more on the same day and none of this one or two a week crap.
Have the conventions, and then hold the election 3 months later.

3) Change the lead time for getting people on the ballot. Making 3rd party candidates jump through hoops just to get on the ballot is just another rig by the major parties. Yes, there should be some requirements, but let's not make it near impossible to get on all state ballots. Heck, since it's for federal office, maybe the process should be a national one... Qualify, and you are put on all state ballots.

4) Campaign Finance Reform. Why do elections have to cost more than a Billion Dollars.
I think there should be set limits. Maybe this will keep our candidates from being bought before they even get into office.
Add more debates or have the government buy time on the major networks for the candidates to talk about their stances.

Those are just a few ideas... any others

[self biased]

do away with ludicrous Gerrymandering, and enforce sensible political districts. That's the Forest to the EC's Trees.

[Spaced Cowboy]

Ban All Ads and non-manned signs (that should get the cost down). Free televised debates and news coverage only (although the second could be biased).

[Ben Kenobi]

do away with ludicrous Gerrymandering, and enforce sensible political districts. That's the Forest to the EC's Trees.

The reason the house has a republican slant is because of Democrat gerrymanders to protect certain districts. It's not our fault if they suck at doing math and care more about getting re-elected than making competitive districts...

[Ben Kenobi]

Ming:

The way that Canada does it is the same way the House of Representatives does it. The districts are assigned by population. I personally think the EC system is a better system for the US, but not for Canada. Canada is not as spread out as the US has so the district system works better.

2- you really should switch to Westminster. That would lead to shorter election times.

[onodera]

Gerrymandering can be solved by changing how you vote for congressmen: instead of having, say, 5 districts in a state you let people vote for multiple candidates statewide. Top 10 across the state win the seats. Or just switch to the DPR altogether.

[-Jrabbit]

The reason the house has a republican slant is because of Democrat gerrymanders to protect certain districts. It's not our fault if they suck at doing math and care more about getting re-elected than making competitive districts...

The depth of wrongness in this post is only exceeded by the hilarious use of "our" by a resident alien.

Look at the 6 house districts in the Austin area and tell me it's not a 2-party problem.

[Ben Kenobi]

The depth of wrongness in this post is only exceeded by the hilarious use of "our" by a resident alien.

Look at the 6 house districts in the Austin area and tell me it's not a 2-party problem.

Last I checked Doggett was re-elected handily. If that's an attempt at Republican gerrymanders, it didn't do very well.

What happens is that Democrats themselves preserve certain districts at the expense of competitive races to ensure their re-election. If you're rolling up 30+ margins in a congressional district, you are part of the problem.

[giblets]

Ben is retarded.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Ben is a masochist.

[Jon Miller]

If 40 electors change from Trump to ... Mitt... maybe we could see evidence that the Electoral College is useful.

JM

[rah]

The Dems have rigged the Illinois house so to say it's a one party is silly. Whoever has the power to do it, does it. Plain and simple.
Neither party should have that power.

My reform would be either have the election on the weekend or make the day a national Holiday. The reason for it being on Tuesday is well outdated.
And if people whine that this would help the democrats too much, just force a national ID requirement to even it out.

[MJW]

If you were to cut up the map randomly the DEMs would have to beat the GOP by 20% to take the House. This is because college grads and minorities cluster together extremely harshly. You have to artificially draw the map to overcome this. The reason why this isn't as bad in other countries with FPTP is because they have much lower amount of minorities and don't have a President so politics centers around winning districts and the voters get dragged along. The question is if representatives represent their community or party. Well unless you artificially draw the map (which would make them not represent a community in the first place because 1/4 of a black district and 3/4 of a white district is not a community) the vast majority of general elections are total massacres so the real elections are the Primaries. This makes it in practice that representatives represent their party. This would make the party list system just better. There's issues (like what happened to the blue dogs and non-voters disappearing into the void) but I don't care to address them because the Founding Fathers made the Constitution too hard to amend.

[Lorizael]

This is probably a terrible idea.

(1) Make citizenship requirements extremely rigorous (but with the barriers to entry as egalitarian as possible).

(2) Don't grant citizenship with birth.

(3) Every ~4 years, randomly select a set of representatives from the pool of citizens.

Oh, this was about the president?

(4) Have that set of representatives vote one of their members president (I guess more Prime Minister) for the ~4 year term.

[rah]

Actually I've always like your number 3 but I usually get hung up on determining a base level of competence.
Do you want a homeless wino as a rep? Now the odds of the happening would be slim and maybe they should be represented.
Should there be a bar where education is concerned that might turn into bias.
Who is the judge of who would be qualified?
If we could work those out fairly, I'd support it.