What change(s) would you make to our political process, were you granted the power?

[CajunCrimson]

Well done guys.....really appreciate your input. I really like your ideas.

Hope to see more from some who haven't posted yet.....

Anyone in particular you are seeking wisdom from?

 

[Bamabuzzard]

1. Term limits for congress

2. Heavily tax campaign and PAC spending on advertising. Tax receipts will go to subsidizing third, fourth party campaigns.

3. Heavily tax corporate donations to party, PAC, ect. Tax receipts will go to subsidizing third, fourth party campaigns.

4. Any elected official or government employee above a certain level may never work for any individual or corporation that conducts business with the government after leaving office or leaving their position.

5. Anyone running for office must pass a basic IQ exam.

After listening to some of the questions asked during the FB-Zuckerberg questioning, along with hearing some of the other politicians speak. This is the best idea I've read.

 

[Bamaro]

1. Eliminate the electoral college
2. Presidential race would require 50% to win, otherwise top 2 would be in a runoff.
3. Totally eliminate Gerrymandering.

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

1. Eliminate the electoral college
2. Presidential race would require 50% to win, otherwise top 2 would be in a runoff.
3. Totally eliminate Gerrymandering.

The problem then, would become how do you define districts? I don't disagree with you, just wondering how you would go about defining the geography.

 

[Bazza]

Anyone in particular you are seeking wisdom from?

No - no one in particular. Anyone who hasn't posted.

 

[Bamaro]

The problem then, would become how do you define districts? I don't disagree with you, just wondering how you would go about defining the geography.

Someone posted here about a computer program that could do it 'blindly'

 

[Aledinho]

For Tidewater:

How about we try this - ABA - Constitution including amendments

 

[jthomas666]

So voting for only the wealthy?

Just as God intended.

 

[Crimson1967]

I hope everyone wanting to take away voting rights won’t complain when people try to repeal the second amendment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I’d make it harder to vote.

In order to vote you must:

1) pay taxes
2) receive no monies or benefits from Uncle Sam

1) I ASSUME this is FIT? Because everybody pays sales taxes when they buy something
2) I'm a veteran who draws disability. Am I disqualified in this world? If so, why?

End the 2 party system. It is polarizing and limiting of new ideas.

I'm all for it....but.....HOW? I mean, we have the 2-party system BECAUSE of the way the constitution is written (even though they're not in there)

I misread the title:

End the two party system
End PAC money for candidates
Agree with Go Bama - you have to pay taxes and can not be on government subsidies to vote
All ballots are in English
Require a government issued ID (DL, State ID, Passport)
You can only vote in the state where your ID is issued/the address on your ID

Again - how do we eliminate the 2-party system?

(Some of y'all aren't realizing that this will limit office holding SOLELY to someone wealthy enough to run a campaign on his/her own money)

What is a government subsidy? Is VA disability? The others I can go for but they're peripheral items anyway.

#1 Make Congress subject to all laws.
#2 Force all campaign funding to come from a government fund so that everyone would have the exact same amount to spend and nobody would own them.
#3 Limit secret service protection to immediate family for a limit of one term after leaving office. (If you lay low and keep your mouth shut you will be safe enough)
#4 allow people under 40 to opt out of social security and make them responsible for their own future.

Which would immediately bankrupt the system.....

Well, it would be much less efficient but I suppose a good "Plan B" would be:
1) Term Limits
2) Mandatory reduction of Federal Government spending by 50%+
3) Amendment removing the horribly abused, so-called "general welfare" clause, transferring more power back to the States
4) Privatization of as many Federal Government programs and employees as humanly possible

Ok, what specifically are you going to cut in #2? Because once you do, there won't be any need for #1 because whoever gets their cuts will vote you out next election.

In no particular order:

1) Institute local/state/national holiday for standard voting.
2) Pay taxes to vote.
3) Term limits for all elected offices.
4) Eliminate two-party system.

1) Why do we need this with early voting?
2) Everyone pays taxes
3) I can get behind this but we do sort of have term limits called "elections"
4) Again, I'd like to be for this but the problem is HOW

1. ID to Vote in every precinct in the country....
2. Term Limits in Congress (6 terms in the House, 2 in the Senate)
3. 10 Year Terms on the Supreme Court -- have to be re-approved after 10 -- for a second 10 year term (2 terms max)
4. All primaries/caucuses on the same day - nationwide

3) Won't work and will turn SCOTUS into MORE of a political body than it already is; it's why we have lifetime appointments
4) A truly bad idea that ensures the candidate with the best-known name on day one will win the nomination

4. Any elected official or government employee above a certain level may never work for any individual or corporation that conducts business with the government after leaving office or leaving their position.

5. Anyone running for office must pass a basic IQ exam.

5) I'd change the word "IQ" to civics.....

1. Eliminate the electoral college
2. Presidential race would require 50% to win, otherwise top 2 would be in a runoff.
3. Totally eliminate Gerrymandering.

1) A terrible idea that will basically let the cities run all the states. No big cities in Montana? Well, New York City will decide for you!
2) Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, GW Bush, Donald Trump and Alexander
Haig all were President with less than 50% of the vote. And besides - the Electoral College spares us the absolute nightmare of a
popular vote recount. Can you even imagine what the lawsuits from 2000 would have been like had there been no EC?
3) Politicians hate gerrymandering except when they like it.

I hope everyone wanting to take away voting rights won’t complain when people try to repeal the second amendment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It will never happen, but I wouldn't mind going back to the old pre-primary system. Sure, it gave us Goldwater, but the voters took care of that (and Barry wasn't nearly as bad as his press clippings).

The voters, quite frankly, are too stupid to be trusted in the pre-election process. GW Bush? Trump? Hillary? Obama? I'd include Bill Clinton, but you better go back and look at who his opponents in the 92 Dem primary were - and he WAS the best of those.


Now, I'm not picking on anyone as I can't actually give you answers any better than some shared here - it's just they lack realism (save for Matt, of course).

I DO agree with MOST of what folks say are problems. The two-party system causes a lot of problems but a third party is simply going to siphon votes away from one party and make the other of the two majors dominant, where they can do whatever they want.....which is why this doesn't work. Besides, there was Johnson and Stein and McMuffin running in 2016 with a whole nation saying they hated the Big Two - and yet almost everyone voted for one of the Big Two.

One change I'd like is that the NH primary be the SOLE early contest - and no contest can occur one month before or after. This would enable the electorate THERE in a small enough universe that is generally representative of the nation as a whole with one major exception (very few blacks) that they would at least be able to make an informed choice.

And only after the results of NH would it be, "Hey, the next contests are in (random draw by area) Arizona, Michigan, South Carolina, and Washington state on February 4." The problem, of course, is that running in all four states would be impossible due to money so what would happen? They'd all flock to the state with the most delegates at stake. (I'm conceding the problems in my solution at stage one).

I'd have a random draw of states in different geographical areas on the same day (e.g. no Southern Super Tuesday block primary).

I actually don't mind the Election Day holiday idea, I just think it's probably pointless. I don't think it's going to make someone any more likely to vote than they are now.

 

[mikes12]

Step 1: Instead of employers withholding taxes, everyone gets their full check throughout the year. On or before tax day (April 15 most years), everyone has to write out the check for the full amount they owe. No more refunds.

Step 2: Move election day to April 16.

 

[CajunCrimson]

Step 1: Instead of employers withholding taxes, everyone gets their full check throughout the year. On or before tax day (April 15 most years), everyone has to write out the check for the full amount they owe. No more refunds.

Step 2: Move election day to April 16.

You would turn the IRS into a full time collection agency and everyone would end up on a wage garnishment system.....so what’s the difference?

 

[crimsonaudio]

1- ban all lobbying outside of personal communication from constituents
2- audit the personal finances of all elected officials annually or on demand
3- ban all pork barrel spending / unaffiliated amendments or rider in bills
4- remove 17A
5- eliminate the IRS by simplifying tax law

 

[uafanataum]

What's wrong with the 17th amendment?

 

[Bamaro]

Quote Originally Posted by Bamaro View Post
1. Eliminate the electoral college
2. Presidential race would require 50% to win, otherwise top 2 would be in a runoff.
3. Totally eliminate Gerrymandering.

1) A terrible idea that will basically let the cities run all the states. No big cities in Montana? Well, New York City will decide for you!
2) Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, GW Bush, Donald Trump and Alexander
Haig all were President with less than 50% of the vote. And besides - the Electoral College spares us the absolute nightmare of a
popular vote recount. Can you even imagine what the lawsuits from 2000 would have been like had there been no EC?
3) Politicians hate gerrymandering except when they like it.

1. So you feel that a voter in Montana is worth more than a voter in NYC. I feel they are equal.
2. I'm more concerned about getting it right rather than doing the easy thing.
3. Couldn't agree more.

One thing I forgot to add to my original list - line item veto to do away with pork and sneaking in pet issues.

 

[cbi1972]

1. So you feel that a voter in Montana is worth more than a voter in NYC. I feel they are equal.

If you want to put it that way, sure. Direct democracy disenfranchises rural people. This principle is what gave us a Senate, and the willing participation of less populous states in the Union. NYC and California can pound sand. They have enough influence as it is.

 

[chanson78]

Someone posted here about a computer program that could do it 'blindly'

Link here

My political change suggestion.1. Ranked choice voting
2. Get rid of gerrymandering and use a compactness model.
3. Get rid of citizens united

 

[Go Bama]

1) I ASSUME this is FIT? Because everybody pays sales taxes when they buy something
2) I'm a veteran who draws disability. Am I disqualified in this world? If so, why? .

The vote should be earned rather than a birthright. So yes, FIT rather than sales tax. Because everyone pays sales tax, it cannot be a qualifier.

Thank you for your service. My biggest regret in life is that I did not serve and your service definitely should count for something. Be that as it may, you would have the choice of taking the disability money or getting to vote. No one is disqualified. Each person would choose which is more valuable, the vote or the benefits.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Tidewater]

For Tidewater:

How about we try this - ABA - Constitution including amendments

I'd be for it.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

1. So you feel that a voter in Montana is worth more than a voter in NYC. I feel they are equal.

I have a choice between:
a) the politician actually GOES to a place like Montana because of the EC
b) he/she never sets foot in Montana but spends all his time in NYC

I prefer b to a given that those are the two choices we have.

No, Montana isn't a 'swing state,' but New Hampshire most certainly is.

Much was made about Florida, but the FACT is that if Gore would have won New Hampshire (he lost by 7,000 votes) OR West Virginia (which the Democrats had only lost in 72 and 84), he would have won.


And I reiterate - if you think that 67 county recount was a fiasco just IMAGINE the kind of nonsense if they had to recount every single vote in the country.

2. I'm more concerned about getting it right rather than doing the easy thing.
3. Couldn't agree more.

One thing I forgot to add to my original list - line item veto to do away with pork and sneaking in pet issues.

I'm for the line item veto, which IIRC the GOP gave Clinton, but didn't SCOTUS rule it was unconstitutional?