What changes would you like to see?

[jimbogumbo]

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.

[mahagonny]

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?

[jimbogumbo]

An easy one: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/589330-majority-in-new-poll-support-reform-to-law-trump-tried-to-use

[Sun_Worshiper]

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.

[mahagonny]

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?

[Sun_Worshiper]

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.

[Istiblennius]

Provide American citizens unrepresented in the Senate with representation. Puerto Rico, American Samoa, District of Columbia are all suffering taxation without representation.

[jimbogumbo]

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

[Wahoo Redux]

Instead of win / loss record, a new criteria for judging the job effectiveness of individual prosecutors.  More transparency regarding law enforcement generally.

[dismalist]

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.

[secundem_artem]

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.

[dismalist]

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.

[jimbogumbo]

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.

[dismalist]

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!

[quasihumanist]

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.