Radical Election Reform is what we need

In the next few weeks or months, we will get an estimate of how much money the midterm races spent on their campaigns. I think if you were to include local elections into the mix, the total may be close to or exceeding $1 billion. Of course, a good chunk of it was spent on TV advertising. Not to mention the hordes of emails, text messages, and phone calls. Election campaigns are big business in the United States.

But why? And how effective is it really? And does the astronomical cost justify whatever perceived gains? We say we don't want our politicians sold to the highest bidder, but do we really do anything about it?

I realize realigning our elections is a tall order since it relies on politicians presenting a bill that essentially might put them out of a job, especially for those politicians who have gotten good at the game. And that game takes about 50% of a legislator's time. That game is all about raising money for your campaign, about how to build momentum for more $$$.

I would like to propose two changes that I think can eliminate not only this prostitution of elected candidates but maybe even break up the strange hold of partisan politics.

1) I think it has been proven to work quite well in the areas it has been implemented. I'm talking about ranked-choice voting. This really puts a greater emphasis on which candidate, regardless of party, is considered better suited for a position. Our primaries are a joke for the most part and only favor the political parties. With so many states now allowing participation in primaries regardless of party, this should be a no-brainer.

2) My second proposal is the harder sell. Switching to public funding of political campaigns. The caveat here is that there would be a hard limit as to how much money any candidate would receive, and it would be used only for the administrative operations of a campaign, not the advertising. We need to get rid of this whole advertising concept. It tells the voting public very little and relies on all the marketing gimmicks that have nothing to do with what a candidate will do in office. It's visual fluff.

Candidates should prepare platforms that reflect how they will legislate and it should be printed on their websites, and the government already has two versions of C-Span to have them air those platforms out.

Debates? Sure, why not? Have the candidates do a bake-off, we can do that too!

The point is, to break the political parties' grip on our elections, and to reign in the wasted money of advertising that bombards us to death and does squat to inform us.

Your thoughts?

 

The best way is to shorten the election season to a total of 6 months from the first day that candidates can declare their candidacy to the general election. This will affect the amount of money spent and the candidates to run, among other things. But given that the Supreme Court has stated that political donations are a form of free speech, and thus the PACs and Super PACs are the ones who finance most of the federal and state elections in one form or another, it will limit their power as such. Ranked choice voting will have to be at the state level and in states with solid D or R. The second proposal has already been decided by the Supreme Court and was rejected. It could happen again, but given the current makeup of SCOTUS, that will be a long shot, if at best.

But after December 6, almost the day after or two, it will be the unofficial season of the 2024 Presidential Nomination the games will begin.

 

Swap your vote day or make them a national holiday for anyone of voting age (no wait - that might leave the 16 year olds in charge of the country - yeeeech!).
Use a “ranked” or “preferential” system which would bring it down to ‘on the day”.
Make it mandatory to enrol once you are eighteen - small fine (less than $50) if you don’t but free if you do vote.
Federal oversight in the form of a bit of a toothless tiger in an American equivalent of the Aus “electoral commission”. They do not run election - merely oversight them in ensuring there is no hanky lanky

Ditch the electoral college

 

Thanks to SCOTUS, the game was permanently rigged in Citizens United vs FEC where they decided corporations (a paper created fiction) have the same protected rights as human beings. And Congress isn't going to change anything because SCOTUS made sure by that lunacy that these phony Congress critters' pockets are lined regularly. Not that it would ever happen anyway but without Citizens United, laws could have been enacted that prohibit corporations from making deep pocket or any contributions in elections that of course benefit those very same corporations. Along with such laws would be a provision that limits private contributions so that the uber wealthy would also not be capable of such bribery (which is of course what campaign contributions really are).

 

Money = Speech.

I'm for free speech.

 

Radical Election Reform is what we need

Informed voters is what we need.

 

I too have wondered why we don't make the elections a natural holiday, especially when one party has an affinity for wrapping itself in the flag. I also find the electoral college to be an extremely outdated concept. I don't know if I'm for fining people who don't vote, though many folks around me would probably think I would be for that, but I just don't think we will ever have a consensus on that one.

 

Yeah, Citizens United is the biggest thorn on our side, but if RvW can be overturned, so can that. It's just a matter of will, and the public is too easily distracted for them to truly discern its impact. Let's face it, half of America views our politics and elections like a Friday night football game.

 

You are correct, but how well has that perspective served us?

 

I agree, so why do Repubs keep cutting education from their platform? Why do they go off on made-up issues like CRT? Why are so many conservative parents so antagonistic toward schools and teachers?

The bottom line truth is that many conservatives do not have a high priority in educating their children to think for themselves.

 

A couple things, first “corporate personhood”needs to be revisited. It’s currently a cake and eat it too situation—all rights no responsibility proposition.

Second, campaign finance. Especially “Super PAC’s” and non- disclosure. That’s the place in the system we have no idea where the “speech” is coming. 2.8 billion dollars during 2020 cycle. Let’s just say that dwarfed individual donations making a mockery of the notion one person, one vote. We need to know who is speaking and this is the area where it’s suspected foreign country’s express themselves in American politics.

The latest effort currently in Congress to address the latter is the Disclose Act.

IMO if you want to speak, speak but have the balls to take responsibility for your speech. There should not be responsibility free zones carved out in our system.

 

All very lucid points that need to be addressed.

 

It serves us by ensuring that as a Free People we are free to publically speak our minds on the issues of the day.

 

Oh please. Stop that. CRT is the name they use for teaching racism to children. The schools do it. You can call it whatever you like. They are antagonistic because they want their children to be taught academic subjects, not political ideology. Hope that clears it up for you.

 

Children are incapable of thinking for themselves. They lack cognitive maturity and the wealth of experience necessary.

Children repeat what the teachers teach them which is anti-white and radical gender theory these days.

 

And yet your "free speech" isn't as equal as Jeff Bezos, or any other multi-billionaire, is it?

 

You're the one that has bought that line of bullshit hook line and sinker.

 

Then they need to prove it, rather than just keep shouting. So far, there has been none.

 

Prove it to whom?

I am satisfied and so are many others. And we vote.

 

Sure it is. Their free speech doesn't limit my free speech.

 

You're fooling yourself if you honestly believe that. Speech with lots of $$$$$$$ will always drown you out.

 

No. I'm correct.

You're claiming a Free Person cannot have Free Speech unless another Free Person's speech is limited, which is ridiculous.

You want to police what other people hear, which isn't liberalism, it's authoritarianism.

 

No, it is the parents of kids who are subjected to it. I merely relay their feelings. There are public schools where kids are taught to be racist. Certainly you understand that.

 

And a provem mess in Alaska, there is NOTHING wrong with our system of elections and if necessary a runoff between the top two candidates. Get rid of the PRIMARIES, all for it the party in their own conventions and conclaves should choose their candidates to run in the general election.

OK as long as Reps get to control who gets funded. Of course liberals would want the Dems to do so. And yes let's have campaigns where the only exposure of candidates is live in person rally's you must go to and attend.

 

Spoken like a true foreigner to the United States with no concept of our founding and history and system of government.