Patters

Is there any way to make elections not only more fair, but more dignified and honest? Despite our disagreements, we generally discuss issues in this forum. As a rule, we don't rely on soundbites, character assassination, or distortions to make our points. Sure, we have disagreements, but I think we honestly know where each other stands and no one pulls the wool over our eyes.

With politicians, you seldom know what you're getting and what the truth really is? Did Kerry deserve his medals? Was Bush AWOL? These issues and the like become clouded by political opportunism, and there is no voice of objectivity that we as Americans are willing to trust. (I'll trust DailyKos; you trust Drudge.)

I think it would be great if elections at levels consisted of a series of debates, discussions, and articles, with no ads except to promote voter turnout. I don't know if there's a way this can be done in a free society, and I'm not sure how severe the downside to this idea is.

So, the question is this: Can we, liberal, conservative, libertarian, come up with election reforms that we would all truly support? Or do you think the current approach is pretty much the best one, and we doomed to be led by a mediocre lot.

PatsFanInEaglesLand

A great step would be TERM LIMITS.

dryheat44

Sure, if you want to get drastic. Do it the way they did 150 years ago. No PAC money. No fundraising at all. No television ads. No primaries, even. The candidates go from town to town delineating their policy, and why they believe it's the right one for our country. Each candidate is entitled to a train ticket and a free night lodging, courtesy of the federal government. Every time a candidate goes negative on an opponent, all other candidates get to punch him/her in the mouth. Every time a candidate starts screaming at ludicrous volume, the moderator gets to punch him/her in the mouth. Every time a candidate interrupts the one who is speaking, the interuptee gets to punch him/her in the mouth. All questions will be answered to the satisfaction of the person asking it. He/she has three minutes to answer, or to say "I don't know".

The President will be elected to one six-year term. There will be no electoral college. A vote in California will be worth the same as a vote in Vermont.

__________________
When it's third and 10, you can have the milk drinkers and I'll take the whiskey drinkers every time. -- R.I.P. Max McGee

mgcolby

That is funny. Not sure I like the 6 year deal. I do think that every vote should count and do away with the electoral college. With todays technology there should not be a reason why everyone's vote should not be counted and applied.

__________________
Hey, Bill you're wasting Brady's prime years......oh wait....
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

BlueTalon

The electoral college is not the reason that votes in California and Vermont are not equal. The reason is that Vermont polls open and close three hours before those in California, which gives the media three hours worth of predictions, exit polls, and various other spins, to influence the outcome. Since I do not favor any restriction on what can be reported, I'm convinced the best way to address the issue is to have every polling place in the country open at the same time, and close at the same time.

For example, in Vermont, the polls could open at 6:00 am and close at midnight. In Hawaii, they would open at midnight and close at 6:00 pm. Then everyone's vote has an equal chance at being effective, and it simply wouldn't matter who in the media predicts what.


The other thing is to get rid of electronic voting machines-- those are ripe for fraud. Do it the old fashioned way with paper ballots, preferably with no punch-out systems.

All_Around_Brown

Election reform must begin with a paper verification of electronic systems, first and foremost. We'll never get away from the electoral college, unfortunately....it just won't happen. But if we develop the electronic system reliably, with transparent results, we can possibly get to a point where the popular vote gets the authority it deserves. With real time verifiable results, maybe the electoral college can more closely represent the popular vote. (just a couple of pennies)

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

dryheat44

The situation you describe is why a vote in Vermont is more valuable than a vote in California.

However, that's not what I was describing. I mean to say the all-or-nothing nature of voting in the electoral college. You know, if the Democrats get one more vote than the Republicans in California, the Democrats get all 48 or whatever the number is now electoral votes. If the Republicans get one more vote than the Democrats in Vermont, they get all 3 electoral votes. Hence, those California votes become a lot more important.

I'd be more okay with the EC if every state gave a percentage of electoral votes to each candidate, although in this day and age I still think the EC is useless.

__________________
When it's third and 10, you can have the milk drinkers and I'll take the whiskey drinkers every time. -- R.I.P. Max McGee

BlueTalon

You could get virtually the same speed if you start with paper ballots that can be optically scanned, as you would with electronic systems that have paper backups. If we absolutely have to use electronic voting machines, then paper verification is vital, but I think we are far better served to do away with electronic voting machines completely. There's just too much potential for fraud.


One other voting reform I would recommend is to have universal ballots for military, embassy personel, etc., that can be faxed or electronically transmitted. Someone would have to figure out some safeguards on that, as electronic transmission can also be an avenue for fraud, but that's something worth doing.

BlueTalon

I'd go with dumping the electoral college, if safeguards against fraud were adopted.

AND there would have to be a runoff election between the top two candidates in any election where third party candidates accounted for more votes than what the difference was between the top two.

All_Around_Brown

IMO, scans vs touch screens have equal opportunity for fraud as computer based systems, and I agree with you that both need to be verifiable.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.