5 ms·

It's curious, because he's actually (unusually) explicit about what this referendum would be for.[1] 1) 'Equal Right to Vote' - "...automatic registration, and

by toufka 11y ago

It's curious, because he's actually (unusually) explicit about what this referendum would be for.[1] 1) 'Equal Right to Vote' - "...automatic registration, and shift election day to a national holiday." 2) 'Equal Representation' - "ranked choice voting" & degerrymandering 3) 'Citizen Funded Elections' - to align, [money = citizen] rather than [money = moneyed citizen] [1] https://lessigforpresident.com/the-act/ https://lessigforpresident.com/the-act/

ZoeZoeBee 11y ago
# 3 Sounds great # 2 Sounds like a move to a Parliamentary System which I'm for. #1 Well, Unfortunately I'd be more in favor of ensuring voters actually know who and what they're about to cast a vote for. Our Nation was Founded as and is a Republic, The Average American Citizen is not informed enough for us to live in a true Democracy
- dublinben 11y ago
  Re #1, thankfully we live in a republic, so your fears about the ignorant masses won't come true.
  - ZoeZoeBee 11y ago
    Unfortunately the ignorant masses, continue to reelect the problem at a 95% rate
- ben010783 11y ago
  I don't think #1 is as bad as you think. It works if you make it easier for people to vote, but don't force them to vote. Additionally, emphasizing that citizens have a right to vote and giving them more time to do so can lead more a more engaged population and voters that are more informed.
  - ZoeZoeBee 11y ago
    We'll have to agree to disagree and use for example cities and rural areas where literacy rates hover around 50%, see Detroit. Do you honestly believe these people have an accurate grasp on the civics of the nation, or the logic and understanding necessary to come to an informed decision?
    - shkkmo 11y ago
      Do you honestly believe we should restrict their ability to vote based on your preconceptions about their understanding of the world? Edit: I do agree that lots of people don't posses the quality of information to make good voting choices. I just think that isn't a good justification for disenfranchising people.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - ZoeZoeBee 11y ago
        No I would not do it on my preconception of their understanding, that is what a civics test would confirm or deny. If its required to gain citizenship why should it not be a requirement of voting? LowInformation voters have not been a benefit to this country.
JoshTriplett 11y ago
Unfortunately, the second seems to be implemented via a site that promotes Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), which is one of the only voting systems that manages the impressive feat of being worse than first-past-the-post voting (our current system). Not least of which because IRV is one of the few systems where voting for someone can make them lose. IRV encourages people to list their full preferences, but then completely ignores all rankings except the first until the first loses. So if you vote A>B>C, your vote does absolutely nothing to help B win unless A loses first. There are several different systems that are quite a bit better, including approval voting (simpler) and Condorcet (closest to ideal, still easy to explain until someone asks what happens with a tie, which rarely happens anyway). As for #3, sure, I'd love to see candidates' election campaigns funded primarily by citizens, at the option of those citizens. That doesn't mean I want to see them funded by mandatory taxes. Where can I cash in my voucher for an "all of these candidates suck" refund, for instance? #1, on the other hand, seems like a great idea. Could go hand-in-hand with making sure it's a severe crime to deprive anyone or any group of their ability to vote (such as the various stunts that have occurred in past elections where certain districts "mysteriously" had malfunctions).
- elihu 11y ago
  I assume that in a voucher-funded campaign system, if you don't give your voucher to any particular campaign, it would expire and go back into the general fund. I really like the voucher idea because it solves the issue of "I don't want my tax money being spent on candidates I don't agree with".
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    > I assume that in a voucher-funded campaign system, if you don't give your voucher to any particular campaign, it would expire and go back into the general fund. One would hope, though that's still wasteful. And without seeing a particular proposal, I don't know whether it would think to include such a provision or whether it would simply decide it knows better how to allocate those funds towards election campaigns based on the people who do use their "vouchers". > I really like the voucher idea because it solves the issue of "I don't want my tax money being spent on candidates I don't agree with". There's a much easier way to solve that issue: don't give tax money to candidates.

by toufka 11y ago

ZoeZoeBee 11y ago

# 3 Sounds great # 2 Sounds like a move to a Parliamentary System which I'm for. #1 Well, Unfortunately I'd be more in favor of ensuring voters actually know who and what they're about to cast a vote for. Our Nation was Founded as and is a Republic, The Average American Citizen is not informed enough for us to live in a true Democracy

dublinben 11y ago
Re #1, thankfully we live in a republic, so your fears about the ignorant masses won't come true.
- ZoeZoeBee 11y ago
  Unfortunately the ignorant masses, continue to reelect the problem at a 95% rate
ben010783 11y ago
I don't think #1 is as bad as you think. It works if you make it easier for people to vote, but don't force them to vote. Additionally, emphasizing that citizens have a right to vote and giving them more time to do so can lead more a more engaged population and voters that are more informed.
- ZoeZoeBee 11y ago
  We'll have to agree to disagree and use for example cities and rural areas where literacy rates hover around 50%, see Detroit. Do you honestly believe these people have an accurate grasp on the civics of the nation, or the logic and understanding necessary to come to an informed decision?
  - shkkmo 11y ago
    Do you honestly believe we should restrict their ability to vote based on your preconceptions about their understanding of the world? Edit: I do agree that lots of people don't posses the quality of information to make good voting choices. I just think that isn't a good justification for disenfranchising people.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - ZoeZoeBee 11y ago
      No I would not do it on my preconception of their understanding, that is what a civics test would confirm or deny. If its required to gain citizenship why should it not be a requirement of voting? LowInformation voters have not been a benefit to this country.

JoshTriplett 11y ago

Unfortunately, the second seems to be implemented via a site that promotes Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), which is one of the only voting systems that manages the impressive feat of being worse than first-past-the-post voting (our current system). Not least of which because IRV is one of the few systems where voting for someone can make them lose. IRV encourages people to list their full preferences, but then completely ignores all rankings except the first until the first loses. So if you vote A>B>C, your vote does absolutely nothing to help B win unless A loses first. There are several different systems that are quite a bit better, including approval voting (simpler) and Condorcet (closest to ideal, still easy to explain until someone asks what happens with a tie, which rarely happens anyway). As for #3, sure, I'd love to see candidates' election campaigns funded primarily by citizens, at the option of those citizens. That doesn't mean I want to see them funded by mandatory taxes. Where can I cash in my voucher for an "all of these candidates suck" refund, for instance? #1, on the other hand, seems like a great idea. Could go hand-in-hand with making sure it's a severe crime to deprive anyone or any group of their ability to vote (such as the various stunts that have occurred in past elections where certain districts "mysteriously" had malfunctions).

elihu 11y ago
I assume that in a voucher-funded campaign system, if you don't give your voucher to any particular campaign, it would expire and go back into the general fund. I really like the voucher idea because it solves the issue of "I don't want my tax money being spent on candidates I don't agree with".
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > I assume that in a voucher-funded campaign system, if you don't give your voucher to any particular campaign, it would expire and go back into the general fund. One would hope, though that's still wasteful. And without seeing a particular proposal, I don't know whether it would think to include such a provision or whether it would simply decide it knows better how to allocate those funds towards election campaigns based on the people who do use their "vouchers". > I really like the voucher idea because it solves the issue of "I don't want my tax money being spent on candidates I don't agree with". There's a much easier way to solve that issue: don't give tax money to candidates.