3 ms·

It seems as if the two party system cemented everything until an absolute disaster is at hand. I have hopes that RCV and National Popular Vote can at least add

It seems as if the two party system cemented everything until an absolute disaster is at hand. I have hopes that RCV and National Popular Vote can at least add some dynamism to the system. But, besides that, I am at a loss for solutions. Although I found this recent discussion with Jon Stewart left some more breadcrumbs in my mind to follow. https://youtu.be/n_EofYXRBnM?si=6GL_bT6siM9A7IHn https://youtu.be/n_EofYXRBnM?si=6GL_bT6siM9A7IHn

richrichie 2y ago
I think being a good citizen is where it starts. It used to be the case - no matter who won, people rallied behind the elected for the good of the country. Things have become very different since 2016.
- philips 2y ago
  If you are saying rallying behind a president no matter what is part of being a good citizen then I disagree wholeheartedly. Since I began voting I have experienced two votes, including 2016, where the President lost the popular vote. Very very difficult to rally behind someone who wins through a bad quirk of our democracy. It is a sad history[1] and the only fix I know of is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presid...
- vharuck 2y ago
  I honestly don't remember this ever being the case. There were always large groups of people who hated the president and blamed most of society's woes on him and his entire party.
  - richrichie 2y ago
    People rallied behind Bush Jr even though he was a rank idiot and was surrounded by crazy neocons (most of who now are part of Democratic party). In many ways he was worse than Trump.
- clipsy 2y ago
  Funny, none of the Republicans I knew at the time rallied behind President Obama in 2008.
  - philips 2y ago
    Obama also won the popular vote. So, much easier to rally when the system randomly worked.
WillAdams 2y ago
My take on a more dynamic election system is to set up a window during which primaries/caucuses may be held, then allow the states/districts/&c. to choose a date based on their metrics from the previous election --- in particular voter registration percentage (this would probably get everywhere to do motor voter) and voter turnout percentage --- no choosing the same or adjacent dates. I think it'd be awesome to have a little variety in initial primary settings EDIT: and for the ordering to be dynamic and to change from cycle-to-cycle. The other thing to do would be to rate limit donations --- corporations are people? Money is speech? Fine. Set the maximum donation to be some multiple of the current Federal minimum wage (about what one could reasonably expect an individual to donate) and each political donation must be done individually in that amount, and any donation after the first must be done as a printed check mailed in a first-class envelope with a handwritten note explaining what the donation is for.
- creato 2y ago
  Direct political donations are already limited in amount to a fairly small amount. Where things get messy is trying to limit contributions to “independent” groups making political comments. We obviously don’t limit donations to groups making a movie or publishing a newspaper. How do you propose doing so? Would you limit the size of a donation to Wikipedia? I personally don’t like the outcome of the citizens united case, but I can’t argue with the case itself.
  - WillAdams 2y ago
    Not seeing much limiting at: https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donors https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donor... Wikipedia is a non-profit organization, not a political action committee.
    - creato 2y ago
      Those numbers include contributions to PACs, which was the point. It was also my point that it isn’t obvious how to limit donations to groups publishing information, such as Wikipedia. Today, PACs have a carveout that distinguishes them from organizations like Wikipedia or propublica, but not in a way that limits contributions. Those organizations would be the subject of lawsuits and scrutiny that would be hard to codify in a reasonable way if that were not the case.

richrichie 2y ago

I think being a good citizen is where it starts. It used to be the case - no matter who won, people rallied behind the elected for the good of the country. Things have become very different since 2016.

philips 2y ago
If you are saying rallying behind a president no matter what is part of being a good citizen then I disagree wholeheartedly. Since I began voting I have experienced two votes, including 2016, where the President lost the popular vote. Very very difficult to rally behind someone who wins through a bad quirk of our democracy. It is a sad history[1] and the only fix I know of is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presid...
vharuck 2y ago
I honestly don't remember this ever being the case. There were always large groups of people who hated the president and blamed most of society's woes on him and his entire party.
- richrichie 2y ago
  People rallied behind Bush Jr even though he was a rank idiot and was surrounded by crazy neocons (most of who now are part of Democratic party). In many ways he was worse than Trump.
clipsy 2y ago
Funny, none of the Republicans I knew at the time rallied behind President Obama in 2008.
- philips 2y ago
  Obama also won the popular vote. So, much easier to rally when the system randomly worked.

WillAdams 2y ago

My take on a more dynamic election system is to set up a window during which primaries/caucuses may be held, then allow the states/districts/&c. to choose a date based on their metrics from the previous election --- in particular voter registration percentage (this would probably get everywhere to do motor voter) and voter turnout percentage --- no choosing the same or adjacent dates. I think it'd be awesome to have a little variety in initial primary settings EDIT: and for the ordering to be dynamic and to change from cycle-to-cycle. The other thing to do would be to rate limit donations --- corporations are people? Money is speech? Fine. Set the maximum donation to be some multiple of the current Federal minimum wage (about what one could reasonably expect an individual to donate) and each political donation must be done individually in that amount, and any donation after the first must be done as a printed check mailed in a first-class envelope with a handwritten note explaining what the donation is for.

creato 2y ago
Direct political donations are already limited in amount to a fairly small amount. Where things get messy is trying to limit contributions to “independent” groups making political comments. We obviously don’t limit donations to groups making a movie or publishing a newspaper. How do you propose doing so? Would you limit the size of a donation to Wikipedia? I personally don’t like the outcome of the citizens united case, but I can’t argue with the case itself.
- WillAdams 2y ago
  Not seeing much limiting at: https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donors https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donor... Wikipedia is a non-profit organization, not a political action committee.
  - creato 2y ago
    Those numbers include contributions to PACs, which was the point. It was also my point that it isn’t obvious how to limit donations to groups publishing information, such as Wikipedia. Today, PACs have a carveout that distinguishes them from organizations like Wikipedia or propublica, but not in a way that limits contributions. Those organizations would be the subject of lawsuits and scrutiny that would be hard to codify in a reasonable way if that were not the case.