4 ms·

The electoral college is incredibly unfair to voters who live in states that lean opposite their view. I fully understand that the popular vote option has its

The electoral college is incredibly unfair to voters who live in states that lean opposite their view. I fully understand that the popular vote option has its issues (focusing on large population areas, etc.). However, a lot of this can be mitigated through legislation and regulation of the process. Here's a random set of ideas: - Candidates are only allowed to visit each state capital once. That's it. - Candidates are not allowed to trash the other candidates. They are only allowed to discuss their views. - Candidates are awarded an amount of money to run their campaigns. No external contributions from any source whatsoever. None. - Candidates must participate in detailed interviews for a period of several weeks. Some of these interviews are aired in national networks and the rest made available online. - Candidates are obligated to participate in detailed debates - Television networks are prohibited from endorsing or communicating bias - The publication of poll data is illegal - A candidate must post a huge bond. If he or she is found telling lies they end-up in prison and have huge financial consequences. - Campaign promises are recorded and signed in a document that is publicly available. A politician that does not deliver on promises made is exposed to financial and criminal liability. Don't make promises you can't keep. - Public endorsement of any candidate is illegal. They have to float and survive on their platform and track record. - The incumbent is not allowed to campaign in any way at all. His or her opponents cannot trash him/her. The incumbent can only rely on having done a good job and kept promises. People will vote and want to keep someone who is doing a good job. The only thing they are allowed to do is announce their running for office and participate in scheduled debates or interviews. - Politicians are limited to serving in public office for a certain period of time, perhaps ten years. After that they must return to private life --no connection whatsoever to government and politics-- for five years before they can run for office again. This is to infuse balance and perspective and not have a race of politicians, by politicians and for politicians. There are probably a number of other interesting ideas out there. What we have it horribly broken in many ways. It'd be nice to see real dialog and actions to change it.

anigbrowl 14y ago
This would be great if voting were restricted to smart people with halos.
ewillbefull 14y ago
First you want to place a legislature in charge of how they are elected? We have enough problems with gerrymandering as it is. Most of the rest of your points are arbitrary things that nobody could be in a position to judge, like "trashing" the other candidates. Publishing poll data being illegal? A politician is a criminal if they don't align with promises? What about compromises or emergencies? What happened to free speech? Who would be in a position to judge any of these restrictions and how would they not eventually result in tyranny? I feel like you're trolling... this doesn't sound democratic at all.
khawkins 14y ago
Is this a joke? What you're proposing is almost fundamentally contradictory to the principles the nation was founded upon. Banning bias? No "trashing" other candidates? No polling? No public endorsements? Incumbent can't run? You propose some of the most egregious restrictions on freedom of speech I've ever heard of. Only can use government money to campaign (and not their own)? Can only visit state capitals once? Candidates obligated to participate in debates? Are you suggesting candidates have to become slaves to the process in order run for office? On top of that, you expect government officials, the same ones put into office by this process to be the ones deciding whether someone is "biased" or not and who "didn't deliver" a campaign promise. Your proposals, if enacted, would probably generate a horribly corrupt government, where every politically motivated person would take every chance to destroy opponents through legal processes until an establishment party has so permeated the government they're basically a dictatorship. As much as I'd like to believe this post was made in jest, I feel like you're taking cues from Hugo Chavez.
- Volpe 14y ago
  While I agree with your points, I also think there are problems that should be resolved. - Historically, the majority of presidents have been rich and white. How do you fix that? - Candidates make heavy use of propaganda, there is no accountability to what is said. Is censoring information (i.e What China's PRC does) any different from glutting all forms of media with YOUR information so other information is harder to find? This (among other things) was how Berlusconi came to power, and stayed there in Italy. - Industry getting involved in matters of state... is this any different from Church and state? Should the same 'fix' be applied?
  - corwinstephen 14y ago
    Pretty sure that's what he was trying to fix when he said candidates should be awarded a lump sum of money and nothing more can be used. It levels the playing field.
- MichaelApproved 14y ago
  As a citizen, you're allowed full freedoms but if you're running for office, it's reasonable to ask you to adhere to certain restrictions so the process doesn't get corrupted. We ask people who hold certain positions in government and the public sector to give up some freedoms while holding their job (CIA, military and Pentagon personnel, certain contractors, etc.), I think it's fair to ask people to give up some restrictions while trying to run for public office. A job that has a lot of power that can easily be exploded. What those restrictions are, I don't know, but I do know that we should be able to brainstorm without being accused of taking cues from Hugo Chavez.
wisty 14y ago
> - Candidates are only allowed to visit each state capital once. That's it. > > - Public endorsement of any candidate is illegal. They have to float and survive on their platform and track record. > > - Candidates are not allowed to trash the other candidates. They are only allowed to discuss their views. > >- Candidates are awarded an amount of money to run their campaigns. No external contributions from any source whatsoever. None. > >- Television networks are prohibited from endorsing or communicating bias So, you want to ban free speech in an election? Let's say Bill Clinton wants to appear at a pro-choice rally in Ohio, in the run-up to an election. Can he do so? Can he talk about "extremists" who are trying to ban abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, and for medical reasons? He won't mention Obama or Romney, and might not even refer to their exact positions (attacking a straw man is more fun anyway), he's just a guy exercising his right to speak about political issues. Can Republican supporters fund an ad about the dangers of socialised healthcare? What is "communicating bias"? >- The publication of poll data is illegal I'm not even sure what problem you are trying to solve. Can parties conduct opinion polls for internal use? Can they talk to people in the mall about what issues they care about? >- A candidate must post a huge bond. If he or she is found telling lies they end-up in prison and have huge financial consequences. > >- Campaign promises are recorded and signed in a document that is publicly available. A politician that does not deliver on promises made is exposed to financial and criminal liability. Don't make promises you can't keep. So, you want candidates to deliberately be even more vague than they already are?
dwiel 14y ago
We need to address the problem at its heart which is the separation of wealth. If there weren't huge players with lots of money to throw at the election (people and corporations), or if at least everyone had the same opportunity to do so, then a lot of those problems would be somewhat relieved. unequal distribution of wealth == unequal distribution of money == unequal distribution of power != democracy
outside1234 14y ago
I know you mean well, but all of these laws would end up getting used to suppress other political parties. Take for instance, this one: - A candidate must post a huge bond. If he or she is found telling lies they end-up in prison and have huge financial consequences. Laws like this, for instance, are used to great effect in Singapore to suppress alternative parties. The party in control uses the threat of bankrupting the other candidate to make it impossible for them to basically run a campaign. And god forbid they talk about the Yew family!

anigbrowl 14y ago

This would be great if voting were restricted to smart people with halos.

ewillbefull 14y ago

First you want to place a legislature in charge of how they are elected? We have enough problems with gerrymandering as it is. Most of the rest of your points are arbitrary things that nobody could be in a position to judge, like "trashing" the other candidates. Publishing poll data being illegal? A politician is a criminal if they don't align with promises? What about compromises or emergencies? What happened to free speech? Who would be in a position to judge any of these restrictions and how would they not eventually result in tyranny? I feel like you're trolling... this doesn't sound democratic at all.

khawkins 14y ago

Is this a joke? What you're proposing is almost fundamentally contradictory to the principles the nation was founded upon. Banning bias? No "trashing" other candidates? No polling? No public endorsements? Incumbent can't run? You propose some of the most egregious restrictions on freedom of speech I've ever heard of. Only can use government money to campaign (and not their own)? Can only visit state capitals once? Candidates obligated to participate in debates? Are you suggesting candidates have to become slaves to the process in order run for office? On top of that, you expect government officials, the same ones put into office by this process to be the ones deciding whether someone is "biased" or not and who "didn't deliver" a campaign promise. Your proposals, if enacted, would probably generate a horribly corrupt government, where every politically motivated person would take every chance to destroy opponents through legal processes until an establishment party has so permeated the government they're basically a dictatorship. As much as I'd like to believe this post was made in jest, I feel like you're taking cues from Hugo Chavez.

Volpe 14y ago
While I agree with your points, I also think there are problems that should be resolved. - Historically, the majority of presidents have been rich and white. How do you fix that? - Candidates make heavy use of propaganda, there is no accountability to what is said. Is censoring information (i.e What China's PRC does) any different from glutting all forms of media with YOUR information so other information is harder to find? This (among other things) was how Berlusconi came to power, and stayed there in Italy. - Industry getting involved in matters of state... is this any different from Church and state? Should the same 'fix' be applied?
- corwinstephen 14y ago
  Pretty sure that's what he was trying to fix when he said candidates should be awarded a lump sum of money and nothing more can be used. It levels the playing field.
MichaelApproved 14y ago
As a citizen, you're allowed full freedoms but if you're running for office, it's reasonable to ask you to adhere to certain restrictions so the process doesn't get corrupted. We ask people who hold certain positions in government and the public sector to give up some freedoms while holding their job (CIA, military and Pentagon personnel, certain contractors, etc.), I think it's fair to ask people to give up some restrictions while trying to run for public office. A job that has a lot of power that can easily be exploded. What those restrictions are, I don't know, but I do know that we should be able to brainstorm without being accused of taking cues from Hugo Chavez.

wisty 14y ago

> - Candidates are only allowed to visit each state capital once. That's it. > > - Public endorsement of any candidate is illegal. They have to float and survive on their platform and track record. > > - Candidates are not allowed to trash the other candidates. They are only allowed to discuss their views. > >- Candidates are awarded an amount of money to run their campaigns. No external contributions from any source whatsoever. None. > >- Television networks are prohibited from endorsing or communicating bias So, you want to ban free speech in an election? Let's say Bill Clinton wants to appear at a pro-choice rally in Ohio, in the run-up to an election. Can he do so? Can he talk about "extremists" who are trying to ban abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, and for medical reasons? He won't mention Obama or Romney, and might not even refer to their exact positions (attacking a straw man is more fun anyway), he's just a guy exercising his right to speak about political issues. Can Republican supporters fund an ad about the dangers of socialised healthcare? What is "communicating bias"? >- The publication of poll data is illegal I'm not even sure what problem you are trying to solve. Can parties conduct opinion polls for internal use? Can they talk to people in the mall about what issues they care about? >- A candidate must post a huge bond. If he or she is found telling lies they end-up in prison and have huge financial consequences. > >- Campaign promises are recorded and signed in a document that is publicly available. A politician that does not deliver on promises made is exposed to financial and criminal liability. Don't make promises you can't keep. So, you want candidates to deliberately be even more vague than they already are?

dwiel 14y ago

We need to address the problem at its heart which is the separation of wealth. If there weren't huge players with lots of money to throw at the election (people and corporations), or if at least everyone had the same opportunity to do so, then a lot of those problems would be somewhat relieved. unequal distribution of wealth == unequal distribution of money == unequal distribution of power != democracy

outside1234 14y ago

I know you mean well, but all of these laws would end up getting used to suppress other political parties. Take for instance, this one: - A candidate must post a huge bond. If he or she is found telling lies they end-up in prison and have huge financial consequences. Laws like this, for instance, are used to great effect in Singapore to suppress alternative parties. The party in control uses the threat of bankrupting the other candidate to make it impossible for them to basically run a campaign. And god forbid they talk about the Yew family!