How would you improve the US electoral system?

[Violet_Crumble]

If you had the ability to change 3 things about the system before the next election, what would they be? I like making suggestions from afar, so here's mine:

1. Introduce mandatory voting - that one thing would put a stop to all the Republican voter suppression tactics. It would mean that every opportunity to vote is made available. It's stunning that US citizens are actually deterred from voting. I've seen an argument made that mandatory voting would bring ignorant folk out who have no knowledge or understanding, but given that over 70m US voters voted for Trump, I'd safely say that already happens.

2. I was totally gobsmacked when Republicans were in positions where they could make real attempts to delay certification. The whole electoral system needs to be made apolitical and independent. We have the Australian Electoral Commission that takes care of everything. https://www.aec.gov.au/

3. I was going to say that voting for a local representative, who if part of the winning party then votes for a leader, rather than a President is a good change, but your election was a referendum on Trump, and if he hadn't been on the ballot I suspect the results may have been different.

[brush]

1. Since ditching the EC is not within reach, let's reallocate how EC votes are tallied.

Last edited Wed Nov 25, 2020, 04:49 AM - Edit history (1)

Nebraska and Maine give them to the candidate who wins each Congressional district instead of winner-of-the-state-take-all. If we do that, we eliminate how small states like Wyoming have more clout per voter than large states like California or NY.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. What's required to ditch the EC?

I ask out of total ignorance and confusion about the EC. The purpose of the EC makes no sense to me at all. The votes have been tallied and certified. That should be the end of it. I'm guessing it is how it is because of how slow things were back in the times of the founders?

[BainsBane]

28. A constitutional amendment

which requires approval of 2/3 of congress and 75% of the state legislatures.
The hurdle is so high, it will never happen. It would require the small states to give up their own power.

It's purpose was to distance election of the president from the people. Direct democracy was never something the founders wanted.

[brush]

34. It was also a sop to southern states who were allowed to count their enslaved people...

as 3/5 of a person and thus give them more EC votes. It's a racist anachronism that should've been ditched long ago. It is, as you said, such a high hurdle to clear, it'll never happen which is why if we change the allocation of the votes to individual Congressional districts, we may be able to persuade go along as that would be infinitely and undeniably fair—one vote per district.

Who can argue with such evident fairness?

[treestar]

52. Why say never

I am sure there were people who were sure that women would never get the vote.

In time people will insist on Democracy. And not all small states are intransigent. Delaware signed the National Compact. Several of the small states are blue.

[onenote]

42. If electoral votes were based on Congressional Districts, Obama and Clinton might have lost

re-election. I don't know how many Congressional districts "split" in 1996 and 2012, but the Republican candidates for the House won more districts than the Democrats.

It wouldn't have helped Hillary Clinton, either: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/under-a-new-system-clinton-could-have-won-the-popular-vote-by-5-points-and-still-lost/

So long as there is gerrymandering, linking electoral votes to Congressional districts is a terrible idea.

[brush]

45. I agreed gerrymandering can be a problem but even that is more fixible than the present...

EC vote tallying where the winner of the state takes all of the votes. The winner of each Congressional district seems fairer.

Think about it—winner take all of a state's EC votes or the votes are apportioned by who wins each district.

[HariSeldon]

2. Given the difficulty/impossibility of changing anything laid out by the Constitution

I'd go for an Apportionment Act of 2021 setting the number of representatives in the House to about 3,000. This would severely dilute the "over-representation" of sparsely populated states in both House and, for the purposes of the Electoral College, the Senate. I'd also add back the clause from older Apportionment Acts that required Congressional districts to be compact. Yes, we would have to figure out how the House chamber would be used and how House business can be done with so many Representatives, but that is easier than a Constitutional amendment.

[brush]

36. See post 1 and 34. Diluting the power of the small states can be accomplished without...

such a huge enlargement of the House.

[HariSeldon]

37. That would have to be fought out in each state

The Constitution states (in Article II, Section 1):

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress....

My proposal requires passing one federal law, though it probably requires a Democratic majority in the Senate and removal of the legislative filibuster. I view this as more likely than getting Republican-dominated states to agree to a system that would send any Democratic electoral college votes.

[Blue Owl]

3. Get rid of touch-screen machines; demand secure verifiable paper trails

[fierywoman]

14. This

[Violet_Crumble]

17. I used a touch screen to vote for the first time this year...

It didn't bother me all that much, but maybe that's because I'm a digital first type of person. I think it was every bit as secure as voting on paper, though I do remember hoping they'd disinfected the screen after the person before me voted, because voting and getting covid as a reward would suck...

[Hermit-The-Prog]

21. Electronic voting eliminates a verifiable election.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. How did they verify the vote in the battleground states?

Because those votes were verified somehow.

Paper is safer in that it's safe from being hacked, but if electronic voting can produce paper-verifiable ballots, the downsides are outweighing the upsides. I don't think it'll be all that long before voting will happen in the comfort of your own home as long as you've got a wi-fi connection.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

29. Electronics break the chain of custody

Once an electronic device takes over the ballots, it becomes relied upon even though it cannot be verified by the electorate.

With paper ballots (physical tokens):

* Paper ballots allow the voter to verify that the ballot represents the voter's vote.

* The general public can verify that the voter cast a ballot, without having to know the vote.

* The general public can verify that the paper ballots are not tampered with while waiting to be counted.

* The general public can observe and verify the count of the ballots.

In electronic voting (abstractions, not physical tokens):

- The voter cannot verify that the internal state of the device represents the voter's vote. (This is true no matter how many pre-election or post-election tests are performed on the device).

- The general public cannot observe or verify that the voter cast a ballot. (The electorate has a critical, prime responsibility to observe and verify this).

- The general public cannot observe or verify the (abstract, invisible, electronic) ballots are true to the forms (state) they were in when cast.

- The general public cannot observe or verify the (invisible, electronic) count of the (abstract, invisible, electronic) ballots.

Elections are far more important than the check-out line at the grocery store, bank or Amazon. Verification is needed by the individual voter, by the rest of the electorate, and by the general public while still maintaining a secret ballot. Physical tokens that human beings can perceive are required.

[questionseverything]

51. Plus one

Our entire system is built on checks and balances, with out paper to count “we the people “ can not oversee our own elections and without that transparency it’s a “trust me “ system


😎

[kurtcagle]

4. Eliminate winner take all voting

Changing the EC is probably out of the question, but moving away from a winner take all approach would make a big difference, especially in the presidential race. This condenses what should be a relatively population oriented metric (electoral legislative districts) into a much smaller state-oriented metric that tilts heavily conservative.

[Salviati]

30. The danger of going this way is if it's broken down by congressional districts...

then things have the possibility of being even worse. Then the gerrymandering that distorts the house makeup bleeds into the presidential election as well.

There becomes even more incentive to gerrymander districts to partisan advantage. If one is going to proportionally allocate electoral votes it should just be on a straight percentage of the state's election results.

[HariSeldon]

39. This would have to pass in each legislature

Please see post 37 above but, in short, the Constitution says it is up to state legislatures how their electoral voters are selected.

[Dem2]

5. Add 50 electors (one per state) to be given to the candidate who wins the national popular vote

This would make the electoral college more equitable.

[treestar]

53. Like that idea

but might also require a constitutional amendment

Clause 2: Method of choosing electors
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.


It seems there we are at least stuck with the number of electors. Though maybe a constitutional amendment such as this would be easier to pass. I also though the idea of taking out the Senators, so it was at least proportional that is each state would have two less electoral votes and that would be more proportional.

[Dem2]

55. Legislators could direct one of the two Senate electors to vote in line with the national vote

This would require the agreement of all (or most) of the 50 states, but would work just as well to prevent a candidate who lost by 7 million votes from potentially winning an election.

Edit: they could require a minimum margin in the national vote. Maybe 2% before said elector was to align with the national vote winner.

[frazzled]

6. Public funding for elections, plus ...

I’m so tired of money—and increasingly obscene sums of money—being the main goal of political races, and the (often false) metric by which the horse races are called.

I’d like to see candidates who qualify receive, and be limited by, a generous but set amount of federal funds, with the playing field even. Candidates could then spend time studying issues instead of running around raising money.

I’d also like to do away with the established format for debates. No more 2-minute answers with 1-minute responses. Give them solid topics and allow them 15 minutes to expound. Instead of slogans and prepared bits of shade, we’d hopefully get more in-depth discussion that would show the depth (or not) of knowledge of a candidate and a fuller conception of their thinking processes.

Of course I also want to see an end to voter suppression, gerrymandering of districts, and ... shorter election cycles!

[Violet_Crumble]

11. Public funding is an important one...

There's something seriously wrong when politicians are asking for donations from people who are likely struggling to make ends meet because there's no real protection for workers in the US....

I'd never watched a presidential debate till recently (I watched the first, and the one with Kamala Harris debating the fly on Pence's head). Not sure if expanding the time to respond would go. It would provide serious contenders time to dig into detail on policy, but it would give disruptors like Trump time to treat it like one of his rallies where he talks crap and his adoring base lap it up...

Gerrymandering is another thing that's out of control in the US. I can't remember what state it was, but I saw a gerrymandered map and it was crazy looking.

[BainsBane]

31. +1

Without public financing of elections, politicians will be influenced by money. It's central to good government, and SCOTUS has made it illegal. It's another thing that requires either a constitutional amendment or a new supreme court, which now won't be in my lifetime.

[TlalocW]

7. States run their elections but

A separate federal paper form only for the presidency is available at every polling station as well with their own tally machines. As soon as each state is done with their election, the ballots and data are taken away, and the information is input into whatever database is used. There are no, "Results coming in from this area of this state yet may be a game changer, yada yada yada." No, so-and-so is projected to win. When all the states are accounted for, the networks can go to Election Central where there is a large, game show like map of the United States. Not a computer screen but a physical model where each state can light up red or blue.

A trusted member of the citizenry chosen from a group consisting of Weird Al, Elvira, Mistress of the Dark, Fran Drescher, Ryan Reynolds, Mark Hamill, etc. is chosen to pull a lever. This sets the states blinking red and blue while electronic boop-boop-boop noises are made while a program tallies up each states' votes. The tallies probably take less than 20 seconds, but let's put some style into it. States are chosen at random by the computer, and whichever party wins that state, the color stops flashing and is locked down with a clunk noise. After less than a minute, all the states will have their colors chosen, and the electoral votes tallied with each state will constantly be updated until it's over, and we all know at once who won together.

TlalocW

[Violet_Crumble]

18. I like your idea! n/t

[Bucky]

8. No to mandatory voting. I don't want to give police avenues for harassing citizens

Instead I would recommend making interference in voting a federal offense and start aggressively prosecuting offenders.

I would definitely clean up the voter registration process. It's used by too many states to suppress voting by disadvantaged populations. I think Congress has authority under the "ensuring republican government" clause of the Constitution to legislate away all state level impediments to registration.

I would reactivate the Voting Rights Act of 1964.

It's entirely unpassable under our current system, but the Electoral College needs be done away with and the Senate needs to be more representative of the country. It doesn't have to be "one person - one vote" but the underrepresentation of our urban centers amounts to taxation without representation.

If you can't give separate Senate seats to large metropolitan areas, then maybe we could create regional or even nationwide Senate seats. Make it six seats per election, so a total of 18 new US senators. Heck, you could even make it proportional representation and we'd get the occasional Green or Libertarian senator.

I think the most important electoral reform would be putting an iron wall between fundraising and lobbying. If you give money to a congressional candidate, then sending a representative to talk with them about legislation creates a gross conflict of interest.

No lobbyist can have affiliation with a campaign donor; no donor can have affiliation with any lobbyist. No administration or Congressional official can meet with anyone who's given them money. Attach criminal penalties to all violations, with a mandatory minimums. Add in lifelong bans on lobbying by former government employees. Add in strict 12-year term limits for Congress. Reelection after ending service requires 7-year or 9-year in-state residency (this is already in the Constitution).

I'm fantasizing, of course. But I think we need to take Draconian steps to get the money out of politics.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Police aren't involved when someone doesn't vote...

They get a fine, and if they ignore it then it goes to court.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-08/what-happens-when-you-dont-vote-in-a-federal-election/8786684

I agree with you about voter registration. We call it the Electoral Roll, and the thought of being tossed off it for any sort of ridiculous reason is beyond comprehension. Voting is a right, not a privilege, and I think if that side of things got sorted out, the US would be partway towards getting its shit sorted.

[Bucky]

25. If a court summons is involved, then the police will be involved

That's how it works here, especially in poor and minority communities. Anyway, I'd be no less concerned about harassment from the DA's office, which hosts an equal proportion of power-drunk jerks.

[csziggy]

57. Way back, my husband had an idea about getting people to vote

No individual tax deduction for eligible voters who do not vote.

While voting is a right, not a privilege, getting that tax deduction is a privilege. It certainly would encourage people to get their asses out to vote!

[canetoad]

33. You have no idea how mandatory voting acts in pratice

And I wish more US citizens would suspend their prejudices and disbelief and acept that it can actually be an aid to a free and fair election.

Obama believes it works. But of course, America knows best. Sometimes you are your own worst enemy.

[meadowlander]

9. 1. Campaigning limited to the six weeks before election day.

2. Election day is a national holiday.

3. Ditch the electoral college.

[Bucky]

26. I don't know how you enforce the six weeks rule

You getting into basic First Amendment territory, plus incumbents would have all sorts of advantages for PR stunts that are not formally campaigning.

[meadowlander]

32. In New Zealand, your campaign can't receive donations more than nine weeks before election day.

There's restrictions on spending on advertising and displaying campaign signs. The US already had laws on who and is how much people are allowed to donate (at least until Citizens United). This would just restrict the time period in which they were allowed to spend that money.

Alternately you could cap the total amount that any campaign was allowed to spend. They already have reporting requirements.

The point is that it's ridiculous that the next election cycle starts two years before the actual election. That makes it impossible for anyone of ordinary means to sustain a campaign that long without taking huge amounts of money from corporate donors and it means that incumbents are spending way too much time campaigning and not enough time governing.

Nobody needs two years to decide who they want to vote for for President. What did we learn about any of the candidates in the last year of the last election cycle that we didn't already know? Every election now is a grueling unnecessary ordeal for everyone involved but nobody wants to be the first one to refuse to participate in it and lose their shot.

[RainCaster]

10. There is a pact in western states about sending EC votes...

... to the candidate that wins the popular vote. If enough states sign up, this has the effect of eliminating the EC. All we need is enough EC votes to break 270.

[Bucky]

27. I just have a sense that idea can end up backfiring

Particularly when it's mostly Democratic states that would sign onto this pledge.

[treestar]

56. And the first time

a state had to give its EV to the popular vote winner that had not won that's state's popular vote - the people in the state would be angry about it.

[marie999]

54. The pact is probably unconstitutional without congressional approval.

Article I Section 10 Clause 3 states that states can not make compacts with each other without congressional approval.

[RainCaster]

12. Rotate the first states to primary

I'm so sick of all the attention heaped on Iowa and New Hampshire. Corn subsidies haven't done us any good. Either rotate the states or have all primaries the same day.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. I don't understand the purpost of primaries...

To me it seems like all this energy and fighting goes into them, and they go on forever, and then just when you think it's over they kick it off again with the presidential election, and this time they're focusing on something other than pulling their own parties apart.

Shorten the whole thing. Seriously, a US election cycle has a longer lifespan than a mouse....

[Azathoth]

13. Well...

1) Mandatory voting. Pros and cons have been debated for decades. Tends to be rooted in the myth that there is a large bloc of would-be progressive voters out there who need to be forced to the polls. 2020 exploded that myth. Extremely high turnout benefits both sides. If Trump had been only slightly more sane, he might have won. Obviously, then, it comes down to whether the political process in general benefits by forcing a large group of people into it who don't want to be there and likely have no idea what's going on. And that avoids the theoretical difference between a right and a legal duty. Having the right to mandatory voting is like saying you have the right to pay taxes. There's a strong argument to be made that the right to vote for whoever you choose necessarily entails the right to not vote at all.

2) There's been discussion about a federal election commission for some time. There's a couple problems. First is US Federalism. States are sovereign entities and for the most part have the right and responsibility to conduct their own elections, which the federal government can regulate only in certain ways. Then there's the unique problem with presidential elections and the monkey-assed Electoral College system. The state legislatures pick the Electors and no one else. Presidential elections are complete fictions; despite what's written on the ballots, the voters are not actually voting for candidates, nor are they voting for Electors. They're essentially voting in a referendum on which electors the legislature should appoint. There will *always* be the possibility that the legislature could change the law or find a reason not to comply with the referendum. Finally, there is no such thing as an electoral commission that is "apolitical and independent." Everyone votes and has political views and partisan allegiances. Either members of the commission are voted in directly by the public, in which case they're by definition political figures, or else they're appointed through some process that must ultimately be the product of, and subject to, politics (see also: the courts, civil service positions, etc.) When one of the major parties becomes a corrupt death cult, no electoral commission will be immune from that corruption for very long. The basic idea of vote certification is that you cut out all the extra nonsense and have representatives from both parties vote to confirm the election results. If one side flagrantly cheats, the system will grind to a halt and no one will get elected, which is not what any party wants.... except in the special case of presidential elections, where jamming the system doesn't actually prevent someone from being elected, it merely shifts the voting power to another body.

3) This sounds like a prime minister-type system. Ironically, the Electoral College actually *does* work that way when the system functions as originally intended. Originally, the Electors were supposed to function as full-fledged representatives who would meet and debate and investigate and bargain and compromise until they could settle on a president.

[questionseverything]

16. Hand counted paper ballots,tight chain of custody in counting and reporting

Automatic registration

Fix the money issue

I have way more but that’s top three i 🤔

[uponit7771]

40. +1, Rudy's buddies proved "dark money" in campaigns caught after the fact is meaningless ...

... I remember Obama warning Roberts of this during a SOTU address and Roberts shaking his head no.

Obama was right on

[Polybius]

20. Would 1. require a Constitutional Amendment?

It would probably face court challenges.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Not sure at all. All it took here was a private members bill*...

After the First World War, there was a significant decline in voter turnout in Australia from 71 per cent at the 1919 election to less that 60 per cent at the 1922 election. In order to address the problem, concerned political parties agreed to introduce a system of compulsory voting, and a private member's bill to amend the Electoral Act was introduced in 1924.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/why-does-australia-have-compulsory-voting

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_member%27s_bill#Australia

I suspect with it being the US, nothing would be simple in making that sort of change, especially as it would sound the death knell for voter suppression and by extension, Republicans ever winning a presidential election again..

[canetoad]

35. Back in the 1990s days of European soccer violence

I read an interesting theory that the violence arose because soccer is traditionally a low scoring game, often ending in a draw, that promotes a dangerous build up of tension with few moments of relief. Compare and contrast soccer with Aussie Rules football, where there can be a score every couple of minutes and barely ever any violence.

The US is in constant campaign mode. Joe and Kamala are only just starting the transition period but some are already talking about 2024. Four fucking year campaigns? It's no wonder that there is polarisation, division and ultimately violence.

Why can other countries announce, plan and carry out an election in six or eight weeks? It's not that hard; most commonwealth countries do it with ease.

Money is the reason. The twisting, corrupting force in US politics, which is driven NOT by the will of the people but by how many dollars they can throw into the endless pit of waste that is a political campaign.

I guess you get what you pay for.

[uponit7771]

38. BRING BACK THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT !!!

[kentuck]

41. Since we don't count the popular vote for President, and only count Electoral votes....

...then there should not be a third or fourth way to win the Presidency. The Electors must vote the will of the people, not the will of a dictator. They could put that into legislation.

[DFW]

43. Change a few rules

This is how I would improve it. I'm not saying any of this could ever be enacted.

!. If you are citizen of the USA having attained the age of 18, you have the right to vote. No exceptions.

2. The president and vice-president shall be determined by popular vote. The Electoral College is abolished. It was bone thrown to a few tiny colonies like Delaware and Rhode Island in 1787 who feared getting swamped by the "big" colonies like New York, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Georgia. It was never meant as a way to have sparsely populated areas like Wyoming, Idaho, Montana and the Dakotas overwhelm the population centers and hold them hostage to their interests.

3. Make it a felony with a mandatory 5 years jail sentence to even try to disenfranchise someone's right to vote. Much of this would be made redundant by #1 anyway, but just in case. Hacking of electronic voting machines would be included here, including fraudulent pre-programing for a certain number of votes to be internally transferred from one candidate to another. ALL machines are to be forensically examined after every election to verify that no hacking ot switching took place. No more Ohio 2004.

[COLGATE4]

44. Do away with the Electoral College. Person

who received the most votes, wins.

[Captain Stern]

46. I'm good with your #2. I don't really get your #3, and I vote a big 'NO' on #1.

You said: "The whole electoral system needs to be made apolitical and independent." I'm behind that 100%.

But 'mandatory voting'..no. There are so many problems with that idea, that I don't even know which ones to list first.

[roamer65]

47. Michigan secession and confederation with Canada.

🇨🇦

Better democracy, better health care and BETTER BEER.

[Yavin4]

48. 1. Appoint non-partisan, non-party affiliate officials to oversee the electoral process from...

registration to voting.

2. Allow for month-long voting at the very least instead of just one day, in person voting.

3. Instaneous national registration once you get a Social Security card at birth. You are certified as a U.S. citizen and you are automatically registered to vote. You just need to enter a party affiliation or no affiliation and a current address once you turn 18.

[bluestarone]

49. In tossup states i'd like to see a $50 vote card given to everyone that voted, BUT

Has to used INSTATE! Helps the economy! ( i know can't be paid to vote) I really believe MONEY is the key here. If you vote you will receive a $50 vote card! Vote 5 years in a row, get maybe $100 card?

[Yeehah]

50. The electoral college is a fundamental flaw in our democracy

It's disheartening to see so many people posting, "it's too hard to fix."

It MUST be fixed.