What changes would you like to see?

[dismalist]

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.

[kaysixteen]

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.

[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 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.

[ciao_yall]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

[dismalist]

Oh, hell, let's repeal the 17th amendment.

[dismalist]

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

[Sun_Worshiper]

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

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.

[Economizer]

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?

[mahagonny]

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?

[Economizer]

I am pretty sure that they are variations of Mulatto.

[FishProf]

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.

[Economizer]

Oh! That's probably why I played offensive guard all those years.

[Ruralguy]

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."

[mahagonny]

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?

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?