dismalist has asserted the system is working. Granting that, we have always been changing the rules and processes.
For example, I'm not enamored at all with the current method of selecting electors to the Electoral College; I definitely think the current process allows minority political viewpoints to wield too much power. We would still have a republic if we went to a popular vote for President as long as we maintained the Congress and States' rights. I now live in a state that has accepted the popular vote as the method for selecting its electors.
Here is a link to that initiative: https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status
What other changes would you like to see enacted? Big or small, all are welcome.
Well, this is interesting: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11618
"Racial and Language Minority Protections
Another federal requirement comes from Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), as amended, which prohibits states or political subdivisions from imposing any voting qualification, practice, or procedure that results in denial or abridgement of the right to vote based on race, color, or membership in a language minority. Under the VRA, states cannot draw district maps that have the effect of reducing, or diluting, minority voting strength."
I can see at least on interesting scenario. The southwest corner of Centerville is mostly black and votes democratic. The southeast corner is a mixture of hispanic and black and votes republican. The Southwest corner borders a neighborhood full of white liberals. The 'people of color' in government want to redraw the district so more of the liberals can vote together, increasing their clout. But they can't because they'd be breaking up the POC voting strength.
Whose voting rights are enhanced/protected?
ETA: But the proposal (my bold) is made to order for preventing interracial bonding, going forward.
As for what I'd like changed, I think 2022 will be like a 'market correction.' Without Trump to run against, the democrats have nothing but their faux self-righteous social justice cards to play. If they lose the hand big time, I'd say something is still working right. That is, the outcome matches the mood of the electorate, and we still have a free republic. Aren't those two things enough?
An easy one: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/589330-majority-in-new-poll-support-reform-to-law-trump-tried-to-use
Clarify role of VP and put guardrails on state legislatures to prevent them from, for example, giving themselves permission to disregard the vote count in their state and send an alternative slate of electors instead. In a perfect world I can think of some other things that would make the system better, but for the moment these would be sufficient to safeguard the process.
Something that would make it impossible for George Soros to pick the district attorneys for parts of the country where the working poor live, so they could once again enjoy their right to safe streets, simply because he a has a lot of money and free time. I don't know exactly what would change that. It's possible that the law already exists, but needs enforcing. Why wouldn't a district attorney be sworn to do his share to protect the public from drug gang wars, drive by shooting, carjacking, etc?
Quote from: mahagonny on January 12, 2022, 07:49:21 AM
Something that would make it impossible for George Soros to pick the district attorneys for parts of the country where the working poor live, so they could once again enjoy their right to safe streets, simply because he a has a lot of money and free time. I don't know exactly what would change that. It's possible that the law already exists, but needs enforcing. Why wouldn't a district attorney be sworn to protect the public from drug gang wars, drive by shooting, carjacking, etc.
Getting money out of politics would be good. Obviously that goes for the rich donors to Republican campaigns as well. However, the conservative SC ruled that political donations by advocacy groups (as well as corporations) are protected free speech. That predictably opened the door to this kind of thing.
Provide American citizens unrepresented in the Senate with representation. Puerto Rico, American Samoa, District of Columbia are all suffering taxation without representation.
A thoughtful piece on fundamentally but fairly changing the method of how we choose and the number of SC Justices:https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/01/15/supreme-court-reform-justices-527111
Instead of win / loss record, a new criteria for judging the job effectiveness of individual prosecutors. More transparency regarding law enforcement generally.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 15, 2022, 07:11:15 AM
A thoughtful piece on fundamentally but fairly changing the method of how we choose and the number of SC Justices:https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/01/15/supreme-court-reform-justices-527111
Strangely, the proposal for a floating number of justices [worth reading the article] is something Justice Scalia, of all people, might have supported. He saw that the Supremes were being forced to make decisions that belonged in the sphere of legislation. If that is the case, Scalia reasoned, politics must explicitly get into choosing the justices: Let the people decide.
I don't like any of it. It's merely another step to majoritarian democracy and the tyranny of the majority -- indeed, shifting majorities.
Not a registered voter since here on a Green Card, but after a long time here, the things I would change:
1. Electoral College - kill it
2. Supreme Court - term limits, say 8 years
3. Primary System - topic 2-3 vote getters for each party after the primary go on to the general
4. First past the post voting system - change to ranked choice voting
5. Publicly funded elections - get the dark money out of the system
Truth be told, I'd like to see at least three viable political parties and they would work in a parliamentary system. What we have in the US is so fracked up that any reasonable person would stay home out of disgust. Which of course means that only the red meat D's and R's carry the day. Somehow, this country managed to create a system where tiny minorities have outsized influence and individual politicians have an outsized influence.
Quote from: secundem_artem on January 15, 2022, 12:56:03 PM
Not a registered voter since here on a Green Card, but after a long time here, the things I would change:
1. Electoral College - kill it -- Leave it, to force broader coalitions.
2. Supreme Court - term limits, say 8 years -- 15 years. Independence, and all that.
3. Primary System - topic 2-3 vote getters for each party after the primary go on to the general - Abolish primaries, except NH and WVA, like before the '68ers came. Only troublemakers vote in primaries.
4. First past the post voting system - change to ranked choice voting -- OK. It's a quicky for a runoff. I don't think it would change much.
5. Publicly funded elections - get the dark money out of the system -- then no volunteer work. Get the free labor out of the system.
Truth be told, I'd like to see at least three viable political parties and they would work in a parliamentary system. We had Southern Democrats, essentially a third party, part of the Roosevelt coalition. That's not what anybody wants. .What we have in the US is so fracked up that any reasonable person would stay home out of disgust. Which of course means that only the red meat D's and R's carry the day. Somehow, this country managed to create a system where tiny minorities have outsized influence and individual politicians have an outsized influence. No, it's just that the majority can't have all it wants. Which is healthy.
Most of this can be reasonably disagreed with. See above.
Quote from: dismalist on January 15, 2022, 01:16:48 PM
4. First past the post voting system - change to ranked choice voting -- OK. It's a quicky for a runoff. I don't think it would change much.
Most of this can be reasonably disagreed with. See above.
Ranked choice doesn't have to be a runoff. I'll again suggest single transferable as a better way. A much better way.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 15, 2022, 01:24:04 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 15, 2022, 01:16:48 PM
4. First past the post voting system - change to ranked choice voting -- OK. It's a quicky for a runoff. I don't think it would change much.
Most of this can be reasonably disagreed with. See above.
Ranked choice doesn't have to be a runoff. I'll again suggest single transferable as a better way. A much better way.
Ranked choice is a substitute for a run-off. Single transferable in Senate elections? No need, as the two Senators are elected at different times. In House elections, STV would be a movement to proportional representation, which is undesirable.
Try it out for school board elections!
I think we should move to requiring 2/3 Senate approval for judges. Right now, everyone tries to game the system in order to get the judges they want. Once it's clear no one can get all the judges they want, that stops.
For that matter, maybe we should require 2/3 approval for everything. For the Presidency, we should have two Presidents of equal and cancelling power, like the Roman consuls. The idea is that nothing can get done without a consensus, and hopefully that will force everyone to make compromises. Ditto for all the states.
And if forcing ourselves to compromise in that way doesn't work, we should divorce. Note that, under this scheme, as long as one of the Presidents is okay with secession, it can happen, because they can countermand any order from the other President for military force to be used to stop it.
Quote from: quasihumanist on January 15, 2022, 03:55:33 PM
I think we should move to requiring 2/3 Senate approval for judges. Right now, everyone tries to game the system in order to get the judges they want. Once it's clear no one can get all the judges they want, that stops.
For that matter, maybe we should require 2/3 approval for everything. For the Presidency, we should have two Presidents of equal and cancelling power, like the Roman consuls. The idea is that nothing can get done without a consensus, and hopefully that will force everyone to make compromises. Ditto for all the states.
And if forcing ourselves to compromise in that way doesn't work, we should divorce. Note that, under this scheme, as long as one of the Presidents is okay with secession, it can happen, because they can countermand any order from the other President for military force to be used to stop it.
Absolutely for judges, even or especially if they're making legislative decisions [though I'd settle for 60 per cent]. Once upon a time that was the case, I think. What happened? One nuclear option after the other? I don't remember all the details.
Sixty per cent in the Senate comes close to what you want and what we have had. Let the House express the vagaries of opinion. Two executives? No. We have too many independent executive agencies as it is. They are not answerable.
In general, we don't want to become the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
The problem with ranked choice voting is that the scheme is confusing, and, like it or not, many Americans would be flummoxed by it. Better to have, for president and probably for many other offices, French-style run-off elections.
As to plural execs, is there any country now that does this? I have long been partial to the idea of having a joint exec a la Westminster, with a parliamentary president and prime minister. But I would rig that system to ensure that some actual powers remain in the hands of the president.
Quote from: dismalist on January 15, 2022, 01:52:52 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 15, 2022, 01:24:04 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 15, 2022, 01:16:48 PM
4. First past the post voting system - change to ranked choice voting -- OK. It's a quicky for a runoff. I don't think it would change much.
Most of this can be reasonably disagreed with. See above.
Ranked choice is a substitute for a run-off. Single transferable in Senate elections? No need, as the two Senators are elected at different times. In House elections, STV would be a movement to proportional representation, which is undesirable.
Try it out for school board elections!
Sorry. I just meant for President. However, there are are almost always multiple candidates for Governor also.
It already is used for Governor in Maine.
Quote from: dismalist on January 15, 2022, 01:52:52 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 15, 2022, 01:24:04 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 15, 2022, 01:16:48 PM
4. First past the post voting system - change to ranked choice voting -- OK. It's a quicky for a runoff. I don't think it would change much.
Most of this can be reasonably disagreed with. See above.
Ranked choice doesn't have to be a runoff. I'll again suggest single transferable as a better way. A much better way.
Ranked choice is a substitute for a run-off. Single transferable in Senate elections? No need, as the two Senators are elected at different times. In House elections, STV would be a movement to proportional representation, which is undesirable.
Try it out for school board elections!
We use ranked choice here in San Francisco and it works quite well. What is interesting is that some candidates, especially in large races, will do a co-vote strategy. So candidate X says "vote for me first and Y second" and candidate Y says "vote for me first and X second." It's a good way to get a plurality of thinking bundled into one candidate instead of splitting the vote.
Imagine had this been the situation in the R primaries in 2016. Trump never got a majority, but he got the most votes. Supposing the 30% of people who voted for Trump had consistently put a second candidate. And that second candidate, with enough first and second votes, might have actually pulled ahead into the >50% mark.
In SF we have had the top vote-getter not actually win the election for that reason. But everyone is reasonably satisfied with the end result. Say what you want about SF but you can't define any city by its scariest block.
Quote from: ciao_yall on January 16, 2022, 09:10:26 AM
Say what you want about SF but you can't define any city by its scariest block.
Maybe not
define, but it's certainly an unavoidable consideration when discussing or evaluating the place.
Oh, hell, let's repeal the 17th amendment.
Quote from: dismalist on January 16, 2022, 08:31:57 PM
Oh, hell, let's repeal the 17th amendment.
Here is a 2020 op-ed by Ben Sasse, the Republican Senator, about the Senate. Some nice ideas, but anyway, quite instructive.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/make-the-senate-great-again-11599589142 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/make-the-senate-great-again-11599589142)
Quote from: dismalist on January 17, 2022, 02:12:05 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 16, 2022, 08:31:57 PM
Oh, hell, let's repeal the 17th amendment.
Here is a 2020 op-ed by Ben Sasse, the Republican Senator, about the Senate. Some nice ideas, but anyway, quite instructive.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/make-the-senate-great-again-11599589142 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/make-the-senate-great-again-11599589142)
Some of what he says here makes a lot of sense. More generally, I'm a big fan of Sasse and rooting for him to nudge the Republicans in a sane direction.
I would like to see the rules for complete receptions at the collegiate and professional levels of football "flip-flopped". As the college teams recievers are required to have two feet in bounds at or after the moment of the catch and pro recievers only require one foot down, it seems that the pros have the easier task. Logically, in my opinion, it should be the other way around to move from a lower level of a higher level of play with a progressively difficult task required at the higher level of play. Huh?
Quote from: Economizer on January 19, 2022, 07:54:17 PM
I would like to see the rules for a complete receptions at the collegiate and professional levels of football "flip-flopped". As the college teams recievers are required to have two feet in bounds at or after the moment of the catch and pro recievers only require one foot down, it seems that the pros have the easier task. Logically, in my opinion, it should be the other way around to move from a lower level of a higher level of play with a progressively difficult task required at the higher level of play. Huh?
What is the race of the players in your example?
I am pretty sure that they are variations of Mulatto.
Quote from: Economizer on January 19, 2022, 07:54:17 PM
I would like to see the rules for complete receptions at the collegiate and professional levels of football "flip-flopped". As the college teams recievers are required to have two feet in bounds at or after the moment of the catch and pro recievers only require one foot down, it seems that the pros have the easier task. Logically, in my opinion, it should be the other way around to move from a lower level of a higher level of play with a progressively difficult task required at the higher level of play. Huh?
Your wish is grated. But only b/c you have the current rules exactly backwards. One foot for college, two for pros.
Oh! That's probably why I played offensive guard all those years.
Isn't that kind of what we have for the moment? if parties have a 50/50 divide, then the deadlock forces compromise. But there's very little. I think people are starting to develop all or nothing attitudes and refuse to negotiate with "the enemy."
Quote from: Economizer on January 19, 2022, 08:05:56 PM
I am pretty sure that they are variations of Mulatto.
Then if no one's guilty, I'm going to stop kneeling in protest. What's the point?
Quote from: mahagonny on January 19, 2022, 08:02:41 PM
Quote from: Economizer on January 19, 2022, 07:54:17 PM
I would like to see the rules for a complete receptions at the collegiate and professional levels of football "flip-flopped". As the college teams recievers are required to have two feet in bounds at or after the moment of the catch and pro recievers only require one foot down, it seems that the pros have the easier task. Logically, in my opinion, it should be the other way around to move from a lower level of a higher level of play with a progressively difficult task required at the higher level of play. Huh?
What is the race of the players in your example?
Quote from: Ruralguy on January 20, 2022, 09:40:35 AM
Isn't that kind of what we have for the moment? if parties have a 50/50 divide, then the deadlock forces compromise. But there's very little. I think people are starting to develop all or nothing attitudes and refuse to negotiate with "the enemy."
That's certainly the idea. Our system is supposed to encourage compromise and moderation.
That's why I'm skeptical as to whether tinkering with the political system would actually improve things. It's hard to imagine
any system that would work well with as badly broken a political culture/culture in general as we now have. Remember, the U.S. is not the only democracy suffering from increasingly serious political dysfunction. Things are going downhill pretty much everywhere. We're not even the worst example of dysfunction, although we've certainly moved up (or down) in the rankings a great deal in recent years.
Quote from: apl68 on January 20, 2022, 10:03:40 AM
Quote from: Ruralguy on January 20, 2022, 09:40:35 AM
Isn't that kind of what we have for the moment? if parties have a 50/50 divide, then the deadlock forces compromise. But there's very little. I think people are starting to develop all or nothing attitudes and refuse to negotiate with "the enemy."
That's certainly the idea. Our system is supposed to encourage compromise and moderation.
That's why I'm skeptical as to whether tinkering with the political system would actually improve things. It's hard to imagine any system that would work well with as badly broken a political culture/culture in general as we now have. Remember, the U.S. is not the only democracy suffering from increasingly serious political dysfunction. Things are going downhill pretty much everywhere. We're not even the worst example of dysfunction, although we've certainly moved up (or down) in the rankings a great deal in recent years.
Our system is intended to make broad agreement on what is to be done a
condition for doing anything at the federal level. Compromise is
not forced. If there is no broad agreement on something, it will not be done. That's a feature, not a bug.
Note that a so-called Infrastructure Bill indeed passed in the Senate with 69 votes, whereas the Big Bill de facto got 48 votes. System is working.
I would like to see the US surrender to Canadian rule and make the world a better place.
We would be benevolent, dont worry...
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 20, 2022, 02:08:05 PM
I would like to see the US surrender to Canadian rule and make the world a better place.
We would be benevolent, dont worry...
You can have California and New York. That should take care of the problem. :-)
Quote from: apl68 on January 20, 2022, 10:03:40 AM
Quote from: Ruralguy on January 20, 2022, 09:40:35 AM
Isn't that kind of what we have for the moment? if parties have a 50/50 divide, then the deadlock forces compromise. But there's very little. I think people are starting to develop all or nothing attitudes and refuse to negotiate with "the enemy."
That's certainly the idea. Our system is supposed to encourage compromise and moderation.
That's why I'm skeptical as to whether tinkering with the political system would actually improve things. It's hard to imagine any system that would work well with as badly broken a political culture/culture in general as we now have. Remember, the U.S. is not the only democracy suffering from increasingly serious political dysfunction. Things are going downhill pretty much everywhere.
This makes us look more favorable
unless the others caught the malady from us (USA).
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 20, 2022, 02:08:05 PM
I would like to see the US surrender to Canadian rule and make the world a better place.
We would be benevolent, dont worry...
Since they have trouble surrendering to
their own rule, that wouldn't end well.