America's Sick Election System

[questor]

the USA has a sick presidential election system. in the last election probably 60 million dollars or more was spent on electing a president. we also had to listen to 6 months or more of character assasination from both sides, deceit and lies, false promises and shameless pandering to special interests. criticism of the current administration on all fronts, but no plans as to how to rectify the perceived malfeasances. we had to listen to endless arguments by pundits on TV which were little more than pointless shouting matches. TV debates were nothing more than beauty contests to determine which
contestant scored the best debating points or had the best suit and tie. a narrow range of issues was debated with the emphasis on the ones most likely to provoke confrontation.
after these presentations the viewer was left with little information about the true direction of the candidates. so the poorly informed and apathetic voters went through their usual
challenge of voting using antiquated or inaccurate voting machines.
is this the best we can do? what are some ideas for improving our voting system?

[IrishEyes]

Some suggestions:
Strictly limit campaign contributions from special interest groups.
Make each candidate personally responsible for all financial dealings.
Put a cap on the amount of money spent on 'advertising'.
Have a rigorous debate schedule, requiring each candidate to participate. At least 1 debate each week, starting immediatly after the primaries. No debates to be held in either of the candidates home states.
Each candidate should have to write out their views on a myriad of subjects and submit it to different publications for general review. They must write this themselves, allowing a campaign manager to do it is not allowed.
The Electoral College should be expelled. Every person has the right to vote. Each vote should count just as much as the next. Why should we allow candidates to play to states with more vote-power, and forget about the rest of the country.(No offense, Buffy, but the people in California don't know crap about what's best for rural Virginians. )
Ahh, there are many more, but this should do for now...

[questor]

very good suggestions. how about no contributions? paid for out of general fund. how about debates only in the last
month on freeTV time morning and evening ? four debates moderated by a bipartisan
moderator. list of the 50 most pressing issues of the day with each person stating his position and/or how he would solve this particular problem. how about people being required to vote? how about people being required to answer a few simple questions to determine if they know who is running and what the vote is all about? how about not letting incarcerated felons vote?

[IrishEyes]

Those are all good.
Most of mine were about money. I really believe that the hand that controls the purse strings is the hand that answers the phone in the oval office. If we require accountability for finances, there will be far fewer people that are willing to put themselves under the scrutiny, and we might even end up with a n almost honest one.
When you say "No contributions, paid for out of general fund", what do you mean, exactly? That no companies or persons are allowed to contribute to their parties, and that the tax payers will really be footing the bill?
And I don't think that four debates is enough, especially just in the last month. I want to hear what these guys have to say about things over the long haul. One month is just a snapshot. Give me at least six. Then the smart voter will have the chance to compare answers over a period of time, and check for consistency. The lazy voter will still get the same infor spoon-fed to them in the NYT or on CNN, so it's pretty fair.
And I'm not sure it's such a good idea to require some type of test people before they are allowed to vote. This has been done in such awful ways in the past that it chills my blood just imagining it. And I really don't see the point in requiring people to vote either. The people that care - vote. The people that don't vote - complain. That just seems to be the way of it.

[Buffy]

Only thing I took away from my Poli Sci professors thats really been useful: "Beware of the law of unintended consequences" or if you're Confucian, "Becareful what you wish for".

Funding: I actually agree with the proposition that the conservatives harp about that contribution limits limit free speech. The real problem is that we can't see who's doing the contributing: Its partially exposed with requirements of the candidates to expose their contributors, but most of that huge pile of money that was spent came through "soft money" (to the parties) or "individual groups" (the "swift boat" hit squad). ALL political advocacy, candidates OR issues should be out in the open. If you want to have influence, you can't do it from behind the curtain. The powers that be (folks with the money) don't want this, won't let the politicians they've bought vote for this, so it won't happen.

Aside: McDonalds, General Motors, Budweiser and Coke all individually spend more every year on advertising than *ALL* political advertising...

Electoral College: I go back and forth on this one. Apropos to Irish's comment, the number of votes in the electoral college is roughly proportional to population of each state, and if anything, it gives an *advantage* to small states: no one lives in Wyoming, but they *still* get three votes... Its biggest problem is the anomalies that occur because you can have a different winner depending on whether you count popular votes or electoral college reps, but this MOSTLY has to do with the fact that they are mostly winner take all. Conversely, you note what problems we have counting votes in each state: imagine what it would be like if we were arguing about *all* votes *everywhere*: nightmarish. My suggestion is that all states allocate electoral votes proportionately, but due to the Constitution, this is left to the states, and each state's political parties realize that they have more influence if they keep winner-take-all, so they won't do it.

Debates: Jeez these are stilted exercises in futility. Weak candidates have their negotiators set them up so that they can just endlessly repeat their talking points, and I have no idea how you'd "make them do their own homework." I don't call Bush stupid, but Karl is not called "Bush's Brain" for nothing. How about a constitutional amendment on debating rules? Think that would go anywhere?

Voting rights: "Poll tax!" "Dumb illiterate <minority here>'s shouldn't be allowed!" Glad to see you don't have a confederate flag along with a shotgun in the back window of your pickup, Irish! All of the proposals listed are really bad ideas. Its not a free country unless you can *choose* to vote. Although its vexed politicians from Jefferson (who did lots of things including making the Univ of Virginia what it is today because he wanted an educated electorate (although women and slaves still couldn't vote in those days!)), to Adlai Stevenson ("the American people get exactly the government they deserve), you still need to leave this sleeping dog alone.

Cheers,
Buffy

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by IrishEyes

.. The Electoral College should be expelled. Every person has the right to vote. Each vote should count just as much as the next. Why should we allow candidates to play to states with more vote-power, and forget about the rest of the country.(No offense, Buffy, but the people in California don't know crap about what's best for rural Virginians. )...

IE- This is why we have the electoral college. If the US ran on a pure popular vote, then candidates would never heed the needs of weakly populated states. Candidate time would be weighted toward more populous states, even when there was no chance of winning a majority.

Specifically, Californians would get a lot MORE input if we went to a national popular vote. It is the largest state population, and Republicans visit rarely, since the state leans so heavily Democratic. But the Republican vote in California is far larger than the Republican vote in West Virginia.

[UncleAl]

what are some ideas for improving our voting system?

Get a better electorate. You may only vote if you are a taxpayer with minimum 20% of your income stolen by the government. You may not vote if you are employed by the government or are on the Dole (including Social Security and Medicare). Only those with a stake in the System - being sent its bills - have a right to direct its expenditures and policies.

What about the military? Heinlein argues that anybody who places their life between their country and its enemies has earned the right to vote. In Heinlein's vision of the military this is a supportable argument. Given the real world, no special exemptions or privileges re the first paragraph are to be granted.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by IrishEyes

The Electoral College should be expelled. Every person has the right to vote. Each vote should count just as much as the next. Why should we allow candidates to play to states with more vote-power, and forget about the rest of the country.(No offense, Buffy, but the people in California don't know crap about what's best for rural Virginians. )

I strongly disagree.

Imagine the following ficticious World Series.

The games begin on Monday and Team A is hosting the first game. Team B shows up at the airport Sunday for the trip but the plane is down for repaiirs. By the time they make it to their hotel rooms it is 5 in the morning and they have to report for warm-ups at 9. With little sleep they lose the first game 20 - 0. The next 6 games are close and Team B wins each of those 1 - 0. In the end Team B has won 6 games to Team A's one but Team A has 20 points to Team B's 6. Who should be declared the winner?

The electoral college is a system that insures that every state is represented in the federal system in a way that is weighted by it's population. This is the same is the people's representation in congress with more populous states having more representation. This is balanced against equal representation for each state in the senate. Unfortunately that part of the system is broken because of the 17th amendment.

With a popular vote a candidate need only win the states of North Carolina ,Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Florida, New York, Texas, California since they hold more than 50% of all US voters. Why should these 9 states hold the power to select the president alone?

It is important to remember the the US is a federation of 50 sovereign states. The President is the representative of that federation and not the people thereof directly or the states directly. The people's representatives are their congressmen and the state's representatives are their senators. To change any of that structure would require changing all of it to be fair. That means erasing all state lines and eliminating all state governments. IMO, that is a bad idea.

You may also find another point of view here. It covers the history and function of the electoral college quite well.

[IrishEyes]

Thanks, C1ay. That was very educational. I'm printing it out for Michael's 'government' lesson for the day.
I understand what you are saying, both you and Bio. And I can see your point, about it being more fair in some respects. All states have some say, and they are proportional to their respective populations, mostly.
But you mention the states with the bigger populations (North Carolina ,Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Florida, New York, Texas, California), and that, under the popular vote, a candidate need only to win those states to take the election. How many electoral votes are controlled by those states?
North Carolina (15) ,Michigan (17), Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (21), Illinois (21), Florida (27), New York (31), Texas (34), California (55). That's 241, right? (My math may be off, sorry) So you add a state or two, and you've got the winner anyhow, right? I guess I'm missing how this is supposed to be a good thing.
Your argument is that if a candidate wins those 9 states, under a popular vote system, he basically wins the election. So he could just campaign in those states and win. But I don't see that as true. I can't picture a situation where an entire state would vote for one person, can you? Yet all of the states votes go to one person in the electoral system.
I understand that, in theory, it is supposed to help the under-populated states. But how often do those candidates get out to the less-populated places to be heard and try to win votes? It seems that they target the higher population areas/states, and keep their fingers crossed when it comes to the other people/places.
Just my 2...

[pgrmdave]

In America, we have a strange duel government system, neither of which should truly be more powerful than the other. By this, of course, I mean the Federal Government and the State Governments. Each State is like an independent country - we have our own taxes, laws, cultures, etc. The Federal Government should have little power in most of the states affairs (read the constitution). FDR overstepped his bounds, and made the Federal Government truly more powerful than the State's, even though that is not what was intended by the framers. The electoral college is there to protect State's rights, even as they are being eroded away by ignorance, complacency, and poor judgement. I cannot support removing the electoral college because I am in favor of stronger State governments.

You may only vote if you are a taxpayer with minimum 20% of your income stolen by the government.

Yes, lets all disenfranchise the poor people, who most need help from the government. Let's ignore the idea that the US was founded on the principle that all men are created equal...