How to fix US Federal Politics...

[lewisnotmiller]

Sorry, the title is a little tongue-in-cheek. I was listening to a podcast outlining the current state of primaries, the impact of those on the Presidential candidates, and the likelihood that alternative voices are probably chewed up and dismissed during the primary process. Obviously paraphrasing there.

Still, I got to thinking about it less from disappointment in current candidates, and more in a systemic sense. If something about the US electoral system could be changed to foster improvement over time, what would it be?

Whilst I'm sure electoral college reform and voter access, and vote security would all be mentioned by people, I think the single most positively impactful thing you could do is to move to some sort of preferential voting model. There are various versions of this, and I'm not (yet) going to jump into specifics, but one type is more commonly known as Instant-Runoff voting in the US I believe.

Ultimately the rationale here is to allow third-party candidates to run, and for them to align their voting bloc with either of the main parties, or neither of the main parties, based on how they suggest voters allocate preference.

These third parties would broadly remain as impactful as they are today when it comes to legislative decisions (ie. Not impactful), in the short-mid term. However, it would give them a reason and an opportunity to engage with the electorate at large, and not just the primary audience.

As a current example, someone like Vivek Ramaswamy would (in my opinion) be better served by this model than running as a somewhat aligned republican and getting monstered in primaries. Andrew Yang much the same.

The biggest roadblocks?
Educating the populace on why a slightly more complicated ballot and voting process is 'good' won't be simple. And the two main parties have very little reason to entertain changes to improve choice for voters.

At best, a party in power who suffers from a major schism (let's say the Republican party was in power, and the MAGA group went full breakaway) might see it as a way to remain competitive against their opponents.

In any case...if I could make a single systemic change to the US system which would over time naturally help correct current polarisation to at least some degree...that would be it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

For me, first and foremost, the notion of "bi-partisanship." It is ridiculous to suppose that there are only 2 sides to every question. Democrat or Republican, I can guarantee you that a Libertarian like @Revoltingest is going to differ significantly on all sorts of issues -- as will those who think of themselves as "progressive" (by which many Americans, and some of them themselves, mean "socialist.") Open it up. Minority government isn't a bad thing, it really isn't -- and often satisfies more of the electorate that create said government than most majority governments do.

Second, election financing. Politicians in the US are bought by and beholden to individuals and cabals with tons of lovely money. In many other countries, there are strict rules about contributions to political parties and candidates, and even some measure of political financing by taxpayers (the latter being reasonable if you assume that getting elected is just another part of the governing prrocess). Thus, parties might receive government funding of a few cents or dollars per vote received in the most recent election, as the numbers of votes could be seen as a measure of popular support for their platform. And if no individual, no association, no PAC, no corporation could contribute more than a set amount to any candidate or party, then they lose the ability to own that candidate or party.

If schismatic groups in any party want more control for themselves, or can't live with the party's agreed-upon platform, let them break away, create their own new party, and see how well they fare. (Trust me, most of the time, you'll appreciate this change, as it will make them go away.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I forgot one -- one of the most important of all. Centralize in a non-partisan way the drawing of electoral districts.

In Canada, Elections Canada makes all such decisions, without the participation of any political party. (Elections Canada reports to Parliament itself, which means, essentially, to the Speaker of the House of Commons). As a consequence, our districts (we call them ridings) are boring and regular and generally follow banal geographic and social boundaries.

In other words, a lot more fair, and not controlled by partisan gerrymandering.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I forgot one -- one of the most important of all. Centralize in a non-partisan way the drawing of electoral districts.

In Canada, Elections Canada makes all such decisions, without the participation of any political party. (Elections Canada reports to Parliament itself, which means, essentially, to the Speaker of the House of Commons). As a consequence, our districts (we call them ridings) are boring and regular and generally follow banal geographic and social boundaries.

In other words, a lot more fair, and not controlled by partisan gerrymandering.

Similar here, although ours is a two part process. A federal body determined number of seats per state, etc. A state body determined distribution of those.

 

[Shaul]

The solution is simple. Start throwing politicians. Throw them out of office if their incompetent or throw them in jail if they are crooked.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Similar here, although ours is a two part process. A federal body determined number of seats per state, etc. A state body determined distribution of those.

But political parties aren't involved, right? That, to me, is the most important part. It speaks to the question of whether the voters choose the candidates, or the candidates choose the voters. I prefer the former.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

But political parties aren't involved, right? That, to me, is the most important part. It speaks to the question of whether the voters choose the candidates, or the candidates choose the voters. I prefer the former.

Nope. Much like yours (I think) it's an independent department, and not impacted or controlled by government change in any direct fashion.

 

[Revoltingest]

For me, first and foremost, the notion of "bi-partisanship." It is ridiculous to suppose that there are only 2 sides to every question. Democrat or Republican, I can guarantee you that a Libertarian like @Revoltingest is going to differ significantly on all sorts of issues -- as will those who think of themselves as "progressive" (by which many Americans, and some of them themselves, mean "socialist.") Open it up. Minority government isn't a bad thing, it really isn't -- and often satisfies more of the electorate that create said government than most majority governments do.

Second, election financing. Politicians in the US are bought by and beholden to individuals and cabals with tons of lovely money. In many other countries, there are strict rules about contributions to political parties and candidates, and even some measure of political financing by taxpayers (the latter being reasonable if you assume that getting elected is just another part of the governing prrocess). Thus, parties might receive government funding of a few cents or dollars per vote received in the most recent election, as the numbers of votes could be seen as a measure of popular support for their platform. And if no individual, no association, no PAC, no corporation could contribute more than a set amount to any candidate or party, then they lose the ability to own that candidate or party.

If schismatic groups in any party want more control for themselves, or can't live with the party's agreed-upon platform, let them break away, create their own new party, and see how well they fare. (Trust me, most of the time, you'll appreciate this change, as it will make them go away.)

Oh, you cynics.
Sure, politicians are influenced by money.
But that money is usually for campaigning, ie, to get votes
from people they pander to. So the results we decry are
due to what the voters want....some voters. People are
unhappy because other voters got their way. And those
other voters are unhappy cuz they don't get their way on
different issues. Get the money out of politics, & what
you'll do is put government & news media in even greater
control of who gets to pander to the voters. But they'll
still be the same voters, giving us the same results.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The US needs a Constitutional Amendment limiting campaign donation to only from individual citizens and with a maximum amount, adjusted for inflation. Also politicians should be prohibited from taking perks or employment from businesses for at least a decade after leaving office.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Oh, you cynics.
Sure, politicians are influenced by money.
But that money is usually for campaigning, ie, to get votes
from people they pander to. So the results we decry are
due to what the voters want....some voters. People are
unhappy because other voters got their way. And those
other voters are unhappy cuz they don't get their way on
different issues. Get the money out of politics, & what
you'll do is put government & news media in even greater
control of who gets to pander to the voters. But they'll
still be the same voters, giving us the same results.

C'mon...I'm game...what are your thoughts on the OP.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The solution is simple. Start throwing politicians. Throw them out of office if their incompetent or throw them in jail if they are crooked.

I agree, but I still think you're left with a limited choice between two parties, and I think that leads to a polarised environment.

To some extent you'll always have that, but it's more extreme where there is FPTP voting involving 2 parties, imho.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Nope. Much like yours (I think) it's an independent department, and not impacted or controlled by government change in any direct fashion.

Sorry, I was really meaning in the U.S., since that's the subject of the thread. But good to know there's some protection from gerrymandering in Australia.

 

[PureX]

The American people would need to stop blaming each other, and playing political football, and unite to fix their own government.

Then they would need to vote out every incumbent candidate in every election regardless of party, clearly stating that the people will no longer elect politicians that engage in the legalized bribery enabled by the citizens united decision. If any elected official does not actively fight to end the legalized bribery of the US government by corporate entities, they will not be re-elected.

Then, once the wholesale legalized bribery had finally been eliminated, the people need to make it clear that the essence of politics is compromise, not power. That politicians that are not willing to find a workable compromise are unfit for the task they sought to engage in, and will not be re-elected.

We still have the power to fix this mess. But we have to stop buying into the media's constant efforts to divide us against each other. We can't do anything so long as we remain divided.

 

[Revoltingest]

C'mon...I'm game...what are your thoughts on the OP.

Fixes that I'd like...
- End franking privileges.
- More prosecution of politicians for material violations of law.
- Eliminate the Electoral College.
- Ranked choice voting.
- Plurality voting.
- Eliminate gerrymandering with "at large" voting.

Ref....

Plurality voting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ranked voting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Nakosis]

Sorry, the title is a little tongue-in-cheek. I was listening to a podcast outlining the current state of primaries, the impact of those on the Presidential candidates, and the likelihood that alternative voices are probably chewed up and dismissed during the primary process. Obviously paraphrasing there.

Still, I got to thinking about it less from disappointment in current candidates, and more in a systemic sense. If something about the US electoral system could be changed to foster improvement over time, what would it be?

Whilst I'm sure electoral college reform and voter access, and vote security would all be mentioned by people, I think the single most positively impactful thing you could do is to move to some sort of preferential voting model. There are various versions of this, and I'm not (yet) going to jump into specifics, but one type is more commonly known as Instant-Runoff voting in the US I believe.

Ultimately the rationale here is to allow third-party candidates to run, and for them to align their voting bloc with either of the main parties, or neither of the main parties, based on how they suggest voters allocate preference.

These third parties would broadly remain as impactful as they are today when it comes to legislative decisions (ie. Not impactful), in the short-mid term. However, it would give them a reason and an opportunity to engage with the electorate at large, and not just the primary audience.

As a current example, someone like Vivek Ramaswamy would (in my opinion) be better served by this model than running as a somewhat aligned republican and getting monstered in primaries. Andrew Yang much the same.

The biggest roadblocks?
Educating the populace on why a slightly more complicated ballot and voting process is 'good' won't be simple. And the two main parties have very little reason to entertain changes to improve choice for voters.

At best, a party in power who suffers from a major schism (let's say the Republican party was in power, and the MAGA group went full breakaway) might see it as a way to remain competitive against their opponents.

In any case...if I could make a single systemic change to the US system which would over time naturally help correct current polarisation to at least some degree...that would be it.

I'd get rid of political parties. Make them illegal if that were possible/feasible.
Now it is like watching team sports. Including cheerleaders, promoters and alumni-supporters. Good policy is less important than making sure your team gets in power to control the tax dollar.
Our politics is too tribal. Whom ever is on the opposing team needs to be burned in effigy. Especially the quarterback.
Better off to see the person themselves than the letter next to their name representing their party.

Funny watching videos of people criticizing what politicians say until they are told these are comments coming from folks in their own party.

 

[wellwisher]

Sorry, the title is a little tongue-in-cheek. I was listening to a podcast outlining the current state of primaries, the impact of those on the Presidential candidates, and the likelihood that alternative voices are probably chewed up and dismissed during the primary process. Obviously paraphrasing there.

Still, I got to thinking about it less from disappointment in current candidates, and more in a systemic sense. If something about the US electoral system could be changed to foster improvement over time, what would it be?

Whilst I'm sure electoral college reform and voter access, and vote security would all be mentioned by people, I think the single most positively impactful thing you could do is to move to some sort of preferential voting model. There are various versions of this, and I'm not (yet) going to jump into specifics, but one type is more commonly known as Instant-Runoff voting in the US I believe.

Ultimately the rationale here is to allow third-party candidates to run, and for them to align their voting bloc with either of the main parties, or neither of the main parties, based on how they suggest voters allocate preference.

These third parties would broadly remain as impactful as they are today when it comes to legislative decisions (ie. Not impactful), in the short-mid term. However, it would give them a reason and an opportunity to engage with the electorate at large, and not just the primary audience.

As a current example, someone like Vivek Ramaswamy would (in my opinion) be better served by this model than running as a somewhat aligned republican and getting monstered in primaries. Andrew Yang much the same.

The biggest roadblocks?
Educating the populace on why a slightly more complicated ballot and voting process is 'good' won't be simple. And the two main parties have very little reason to entertain changes to improve choice for voters.

At best, a party in power who suffers from a major schism (let's say the Republican party was in power, and the MAGA group went full breakaway) might see it as a way to remain competitive against their opponents.

In any case...if I could make a single systemic change to the US system which would over time naturally help correct current polarisation to at least some degree...that would be it.

I would treat political campaign as businesses and tax campaign revenues. Presidential campaigns can raise over a $billion. This will generate tax revenue and allow the IRS to audit campaigns to keep them honest, while helping all politicians understand the affect of taxes on big, medium and small businesses. Too many politicians seem to live in a bubble.

Next, I would have term limits. We have term limits for the biggest job, President; two terms, so why not for all elected officials. New people entering office for the first time are more idealized than those who are there too long. The latter learn to become self serving puppets to special interests. Terms limits can break the cycle of influence peddling and corruption. It takes time for lobbyist to corrupt a new batch of fresh motivated leaders, without old puppets in place.

I would also have term limits on all government jobs; seven year cycle. Government jobs are good paying and exciting jobs. By having term limits, this will allow more Americans, of all ages, to get these good paying temporary jobs as public servants.

Term limits on Government jobs, will also disrupt the bureaucratic state which is a big part of the bottleneck problem in Washington. You cannot fire incompetence or corruption that can linger from the distant past; outdated previous administrations. Term limits will minimize tax payer exposure to incompetence and corruption, by constantly adding fresh blood for easier adaptation to changing social needs. Maybe 1/7 of the work force can be replaced each year, for a seven year government worker term limit cycle; faster management tracks for the new 7 year workers; keep it fresh.

I would require an objectivity test to vote. There are too many trained horses who vote yeh or nay, or straight party line, without understanding all sides of the issues. The two main parties depend too much on trained horse with blinders. This will make voters act more like the Independents who can vote either way based on objectivity and the times. This can open up voter eyes to other options so we have more adults voting and less voters being trained horses. The test will present both sides of issues and you need to demonstrate you are awake and not asleep; pass or fail.

I would also add a balanced budget amendment. If one is not competent enough to balance a check book, you may not be right for the job. When you can exceed your revenue; debt, you get too many teenager and crooks putting the tax payers into debt. This is a good way to weed the garden.

The Constitution says to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare. Provide means to spend money on the common defense, while promote the general welfare can be done with good policy instead of debt ridden money pits. These too big to fail money pit programs are ripped off by donors and special interests and then money laundered back to politicians as campaign donations. Taxing and auditing campaign donations can help end this.

To get a balance budget, I would allow the tax payer to decide how their personal tax obligation will be spent. One way to do this is to give each tax payer two pie charts at tax time. One is empty and the other shows last years national budget spread over that chart. Each tax payer will then fill in their blank pie chart with their personal tax obligation. For example, if you will pay $1000 in taxes, you might give defense $300, Social Security $200, etc, education; $100, until you spend all your taxes. Last years budge is there help you understand the current obligations, for better decision making.

The IRS then then add up all the pie charts, of all the tax payers, to get a balanced budget, that is of the people and by the people. It is Congress's job to make it happen; public servants instead of overlords. I would give all school children and all non tax payers a pie chart and $1 to they can participate and learn. This will better prepare them for the future when they are in charge; power to the people. Parents can also give extra allowance, so better off children can add more taxes to their learning exercise and the balanced budget.

This would be a good way to introduce a Fourth Branch of Government. We currently have a Representative Republic. Back when the Constitution was written you needed this since it was not easy for the people organize for self representation. Today, we have the internet, social media and many other ways for people to be connected, in real time, that was not possible when the Constitution was written. These logistics make a fourth branch; Popular Branch, possible. We can start with the pie chart non binding pilot study. Over time, individuals, via the Popular Branch, can vote on issues, to give the other three branches; public servants, collective directions.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The US needs a Constitutional Amendment limiting campaign donation to only from individual citizens and with a maximum amount, adjusted for inflation. Also politicians should be prohibited from taking perks or employment from businesses for at least a decade after leaving office.

I mostly agree. Let's get rid of lucrative government salaries as well. Government isn't made for the purpose of making one rich and wealthy beyond the pale. It's for service, not personal wealth and power building.

 

[Stevicus]

Sorry, the title is a little tongue-in-cheek. I was listening to a podcast outlining the current state of primaries, the impact of those on the Presidential candidates, and the likelihood that alternative voices are probably chewed up and dismissed during the primary process. Obviously paraphrasing there.

Still, I got to thinking about it less from disappointment in current candidates, and more in a systemic sense. If something about the US electoral system could be changed to foster improvement over time, what would it be?

Whilst I'm sure electoral college reform and voter access, and vote security would all be mentioned by people, I think the single most positively impactful thing you could do is to move to some sort of preferential voting model. There are various versions of this, and I'm not (yet) going to jump into specifics, but one type is more commonly known as Instant-Runoff voting in the US I believe.

Ultimately the rationale here is to allow third-party candidates to run, and for them to align their voting bloc with either of the main parties, or neither of the main parties, based on how they suggest voters allocate preference.

These third parties would broadly remain as impactful as they are today when it comes to legislative decisions (ie. Not impactful), in the short-mid term. However, it would give them a reason and an opportunity to engage with the electorate at large, and not just the primary audience.

As a current example, someone like Vivek Ramaswamy would (in my opinion) be better served by this model than running as a somewhat aligned republican and getting monstered in primaries. Andrew Yang much the same.

The biggest roadblocks?
Educating the populace on why a slightly more complicated ballot and voting process is 'good' won't be simple. And the two main parties have very little reason to entertain changes to improve choice for voters.

At best, a party in power who suffers from a major schism (let's say the Republican party was in power, and the MAGA group went full breakaway) might see it as a way to remain competitive against their opponents.

In any case...if I could make a single systemic change to the US system which would over time naturally help correct current polarisation to at least some degree...that would be it.

Federal politics can often be tied in with state politics, and it's when the two levels interact that can be problematic. It's most obvious during presidential elections, such as all the consternation raised about the electoral college and how individual states choose and certify their electors. There are federal rules, but then, the states have some leeway as to how they do it on an individual basis - and that's where some of the recent problems come into play. Primary elections are also largely managed and controlled at the state level, although the major parties tend to fall in line with their respective national committees.

States also generally oversee public education, which is where we can see sharp divides in how states interpret and exercise their role in that process.

It seems a lot of the issue around voting has to do with "who" gets elected as the be-all and end-all, but not much attention paid to giving the public control over "what" they do after they get elected. An election is merely a means of communication between the voters and government, and many of the rules and traditions associated with democracy in America were formulated and fostered at a time when communication was very slow and arduous.

Other things which could be done:

- President and Vice-President no longer come as a package deal; voters should be able to vote for each separately
- Cabinet posts also should be elected directly, not appointed (just as it's done at the state and local level)
- I would also include certain unelected bodies, such as the FCC, as posts which should be directly elected by the people
- Ballot propositions at the federal level (just as we do at the state and local level)

I was also thinking that, a large part of the problem has to do with the quality and veracity (or lack thereof) of information which is commonly disseminated - along with the absence of information which probably should be disseminated but isn't due to a profound and wanton lack of government accountability and transparency. As a result, large segments of the populace are easily confused and manipulated - or often deceived by "fake news," while struggling to find the straight story and reliable information. A democracy thrives on the free flow of accurate information, but if there's too much confusion and people don't really know who to believe anymore, then that democracy will suffer greatly.

 

[wellwisher]

The two things that make the social world go around is money and power. Money is regulated through taxes and business laws and rules. The question is, how is power regulated, when those in power make the rules? What would happen if those who made the money; billionaires, got to decide how much taxes they should pay? This will not be a fair system. The still happens with power, since it still self regulates. Now we have a dual injustice system based on power leading itself.

Elections are useful, but today they are more for show to give the populous the impression they can control power by voting. But this is hard to do with elections, when those in power; two political parties, decide who they will run, so their power is not sacrificed.

For example, in the 2016 election cycle Bernie Sanders was leading Hillary Clinton in the Democrat primaries. Bernie and his supporters had the energy and enthusiasm. The powers that were and still wished to be, ripped off Bernie in favor of Hillary, using a super delegate scam. Hillary was more beneficial to their needs for power.

This is also why Trump was made a big target. He was challenging the status quo of power; drain the swamp, instead of playing by its rules. Every crooked person in government ganged up on Trump, to resist any power change. This was damaging to the country, but it useful since it showed us the degree of the power cancer in US Government; bureaucratic state, on up to the top, spilling over into media and even business.

This is why I do not see fine tuning elections, as a viable solution for taxing power. A fourth branch or Popular Branch; people vote on issues, would allow the people to share power; power tax given back to the people, to keep the system honest; public servants and not overlords.

Taxing campaign donations at free market rates, allows us to monitor power through IRS audits, which I suppose can also be corrupted by power. But that is easy enough to fix. Pit power against power via bipartisan audits or use AI.

Term limits for elected official and government jobs, can also put sand into the gears of power, which is why power will alway try to kill any such a change. A balance budget also helps, since debt can be used to buy a mercenary army with tax payer money, to protect power, such a though votes leveraged via handout dependency. Balanced budgets shrinks that power/money strategy.

 

[Alien826]

I think the USA is way past time for a review and major revision of the Constitution. The review should concentrate on how well it has worked and at no time be seen some kind of holy document that is immune from criticism. Here are some thoughts.

Freedom of Religion. By all means allow people to practice their own religion, but severely curtail the right of religious people to impose their customs and morality on the rest of us and religious institutions to claim exemptions from laws that apply to everyone else.

Freedom of speech and the press. Lots of freedom of speech, which is generally good, but much more control over what is said.

Guns. A dramatic rework is required. The general right to ownership of firearms should be removed.

Unreasonable searches or seizures. Much more control is required.

Justice. The more powerful a criminal is, the more severe the punishment should be. In particular, elected officials should be held to a higher standard of ethics than the average person, not lower. Judges and Supreme Court Justices should be removed from the electoral process to prevent politicization of the process.

State's rights. Should be curtailed. Many human activities are applicable no matter where you live, and should be regulated accordingly. A national driver's license is an example.

Voting rights. Needs a serious shakeup. The electoral college, the system of electing Senators and gerrymandering are obvious examples. The right of all citizens to vote should be expanded to make it a duty that Federal and State authorities, subject to reasonable fraud prevention, to make it as as easy to vote as reasonably possible. This would include severe restrictions on the influence of money in the voting process, as well as dates and times when polling stations are open and voting by mail and, with reasonable safeguards, online.

Term limits. Should be seriously considered.

Immigration. Rules that follow from a consideration of all stakeholders should be implemented.

Additions. The right to a reasonable standard of living, affordable health care, support in old age and privacy should be specifically spelled out. Discrimination against all minorities should forbidden, in general terms that cover race, sex, gender, and any future categories that might come up.

A living document. The constitution should specifically be described as changeable, based on changing circumstances.