Talk:Election Reform

From Pete Ashdown Campaign Collaboration Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What about electronic voting machines with no paper trail. Running an ISP and a Wiki, doesn't that tell you how inconsistant technology can be? Why not just paper receipts for a valid, human recount if needed?

Contents

Stochasticracy

This article is not the proper place for information about Stochasticracy. The author admitted, "Stochasticracy isn't as much a method of election reform as it is an alternative to elections." If this is not an election reform issue, it belongs in another article. Progressive 23:26, 4 January 2006 (MST)

I guess it depends on the definition of "election". Stochasticracy is a method of selecting leaders for the government, but it removes the act of voting. So if you believe that an election requires a vote, then Stochasticracy isn't a form of election. However, if an election is merely the selection of officials, then Stochasticracy is a suggestion to reform this process. --RevHealey 08:28, 5 January 2006 (MST)

Um, Pete, this Stochasticracy idea is interesting, but I don't think we're going to move in this direction anytime soon. I would vote to remove this, before someone gets the wrong idea. Chadlupkes 16:33, 5 January 2006 (MST)
My 20-sided die says otherwise. --RevHealey 17:02, 5 January 2006 (MST)
What the? Have we all been playing Dungeons and Dragons for too long? But seriously, as Winston Churchill once said "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Too true. Our government relies on too much institutional knowledge that cannot be passed in a system where random chance and short terms that are always turning over to new people. This is the government of the greatest country in the world, not some McDonald's or telemarketing firm. Without a decided reform of the bureaucracy the government would quickly become a technocratic nightmare of red tape ruled by the military-industrial complex and the IRS (ok, so that's hyperbole, but still). What we need is more transparency and accountability, not less. Nightmare scenario, but what if Michael Savage, Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed, and others of their ilk all took control of the government by complete random chance? Sure, it's statistically not likeley, but still possible. --whillice 18:11, 18 January 2006 (MST)

Moved from article page

Much of what was on the article page was not authored by me. So I have moved it here into discussion. I will try to write a position on this soon.--pashdown 22:23, 5 January 2006 (MST)

Abolish the Electoral College

Abolish the Electoral College and implement direct, national popular election of the President.

Description

  • The Electoral College disproportionately favors small states with more electoral votes per person.
  • The Electoral College allows a President to be elected without winning the popular vote; and 16 times since the founding of the Electoral College, more than half of the voters voted against the candidate who was elected.
  • The Electoral College reinforces the two party system, where third parties cannot enter the race without being tagged as “spoilers.”
  • In 21 states, electors are not obligated by law to vote for the candidate for whom they were selected; and since the founding of the Electoral College, 157 electors have not cast their votes for the candidates they were designated to represent.

External links


Implement Instant Runoff Voting

Implement Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) in all single-seat districts.

Description

IRV is a voting system that uses a ranked ballot, upon which voters rank candidates in order of preference.

  • IRV eliminates vote splitting, sometimes called the "spoiler effect."
  • IRV saves taxpayer money by consolidating primary and runoff elections.
  • IRV ensures majority winners, rather than minority plurality winners.
  • IRV reduces negative campaigning, as candidates seek second place votes.

External links


Expand size of the House to equalize representation

The current makeup of 435 House members creates a situation where populations from certain states are represented by an unequal number of representatives. We should equalize the representation in our Congress so that every voice is heard. Chadlupkes 14:07, 9 January 2006 (MST)

Give voting rights in Congress to Washington DC

Right now, citizens living in Washington DC are not represented by a voting member of congress. We should give them representation in Congress. Chadlupkes 14:07, 9 January 2006 (MST)

Implement Proportional Representation

Implement Proportional Representation (PR) in all multiple-seat districts.

Description

PR is a voting system which recognizes that the right to rule belongs to a majority, but the right to representation belongs to all. With PR, like-minded groupings of voters win legislative seats in better proportion to their share of the population; and voters in a minority are permitted to win a fair share of representation.

  • PR allows for a broad range of election methods.
  • PR provides more accurate, balanced representation of the political spectrum.
  • PR is used in more than 100 communities throughout the United States.
  • PR is becoming the international norm, chosen by almost all emerging democracies.

External links


Reform the Presidential "Debates"

Establish a nonpartisan Citizens' Debate Commission comprised of national civic leaders to sponsor presidential debates that are rigorous, fair, and inclusive of important issues and popular candidates.

Description

  • The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is a private corporation, founded and controlled by the major parties.
  • Nominees sign secret contracts dictating how the "debates" will be structured, shielding them from public criticism.
  • Candidates that voters want to see are often excluded.
  • Issues the American people want to hear about are often ignored.

External links

Repeal the 17th Amendment

After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the federal government announced that it would preempt all state jurisdiction over airport security. The federal government preempted state powers without regard to balancing federal and state responsibilities so that these responsibilities, and related costs, could be distributed across federal, state, and local governments. To carry out this preemption, the federal government recently reported that it will employ more than 47,000 federal recruits in the fight against terrorism as newly trained security screeners. They are to begin working at 424 airports nationwide.

These developments, and numerous others in the past, remind us that there are no checks and balances available to the states over federal power or over Congress itself in any area. However, in the history of our country, it was not always this way. In the original design by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, there was an effective check on Congress through the state legislatures' power to appoint (and remove) United States Senators.

As such, the core of the problem with federal preemption lies in the passage of the 17th Amendment which abrogated the state legislatures' right to appoint United States Senators in favor of popular election of those officials. This amendment created a fundamental structural problem which, irrespective of the political party in office, or the laws in effect at any one time, will result, over time, in expanding federal control in every area. In addition to preemption issues, it caused a failure in the federalist structure, federal deficit spending, inappropriate federal mandates, and federal control over a number of state institutions.

The amendment also caused a fundamental breakdown in campaign finance issues with respect to United States Senators. As to United States Senators, campaign finance reform, which has been a hot topic in Congress, can be best achieved by repealing the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution. It should be readily apparent that United States Senators, once appointed by the state legislature, would have no need for campaign financing whatsoever.

The reason for the passage of the 17th Amendment should be stated. The 17th Amendment was passed because of a procedural problem in the original concept and not because of a need to alter the balance of power. The procedural problem consisted of frequent deadlocks when the state legislatures were trying to select a senator. When deadlocked, a state would go without representation in the Senate. For instance, in the very first Congress, the State of New York went without representation in the Senate for three months. Additionally, numerous other problems resulted from the efforts to resolve individual deadlocks. The problem of deadlocked legislatures continued unabated from 1787 until 1913. The 17th amendment, calling for popular election of senators, fixed the procedural problems, but also inappropriately and unintentionally altered the balance of power. Instead, the 17th Amendment should have fixed the procedural problems and left the balance of power between the states and the federal government intact.

The 17th Amendment should be repealed. This would reinstate the states' linkage to the federal political process and would, thereby, have the effect of elevating the present status of the state legislatures from that of lobbyists, to that of a partner in the federal political process. The state legislatures would then have the ability to decentralize power when appropriate. It would give state legislatures direct influence over the selection of federal judges and the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary and much greater ability to modify the power of the federal judiciary. This structure would allow the flow of power between the states and the federal government to ebb and flow as the needs of our federal republic change. Figure A below portrays the existing relationship be­tween the states and the federal government. This relationship, combined with the effect of the Supremacy Clause, is guaranteed to concentrate power into the hands of the federal government with little hope of return.

Stochasticracy

Voting is not only inefficient, but also caters to the wealthy and corrupt. The only way for candidates to secure the majority vote is to agree with the majority, no matter how wrong they are. This leads to a system where candidates are actually encouraged to have little (if any) real opinions on issues.

Stochasticracy proposes the abolishment of Democracy in favor of a system where political leaders are selected by random chance to serve limited terms (6 to 12 months) with no chance of re-election. Since the political leaders have only a limited term and no possibility of re-election, they will make judgements based on their desire to improve society, not their desire to fund a reelection campaign.

Stochasticratic govenment also calls for the elimination of the president, a position which places too much power in a single individual. Thus only the randomly selected congress will serve to make laws for the country. Probabilistically, any corrupt or incompetent leader will be vastly outnumbered by a random assortment of his peers.

Repeal Felon Disenfranchisement Laws

As of November 2004, approximately 5.3 million Americans were prevented from participating in our election process due to being disenfranchised for being convicted felons, prisoners, and in other parts of the judicial system. We should repeal these laws, and federally protect the right to vote for all adults in our society, no matter their criminal background.

See http://www.soc.umn.edu/~uggen/felon_disenfranchisement.htm

Public Campaign Finance

There is a currently a professional and bi-partisan effort underway to bring an Arizona-style campaign finance system to federal offices at Just$6. It would be an easy and credible shorthand on this issue to endorse that effort.

] Deseret Morning News, May 22, 2006 Article details how little campaign money is dontated by Utahns, and who the big donors tend to be.

Voting Reform and Anti Black Box Voting

America, indeed the world, is now embarking upon a grand new era of interconnectivity that is actively and vastly changing the landscape of almost every facet of human life, through the means of technology.

This has several implications, some of which have already revealed themselves, as our culture shifts towards a techno-centric lifestyle. Business especially knows these real and practical problems of securing information and maintaining a respectable degree of transparency in day to day operations.

Beyond business, these problems can directly impact the makeup of our entire governing body (and should these potential problems come to full fruition, either by innocent error malicious intent) explicitly against the will of the people.

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 was a great first step towards ensuring that every vote counts and that every vote gets counted, however as citizens and great patriots we have to demand more transparency, accountability and accuracy in the American voting process. Furthermore, our mandate is to elect those with the knowledge to act as guardians for the integrity of American voting systems, especially in regards to electronic voting systems. This means empowering the people to decide the voting systems of their choosing are used and held to a higher standard of scrutiny, thereby elevating the level of accuracy. This ensures that the American democracy functions properly, because without the public's faith in our system our democracy will not and is not functioning.

Statutorily speaking I am unable to provide a starting point for an effective, balanced policy. However, it is my hope that through discussions we can arrive as such a proposed policy and it is furthermore my hope that this policy can be integrated into the official platform.

Retrieved from "http://www.pashdown.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Election_Reform&oldid=4815"
Personal tools