How do we restore democracy to the United States?

[New Grestin]

Bust the two party system first and foremost. It's led to a "Us versus Them" mentality that's pulling the country apart at the seams.

Level the playing field and people might actually be able to vote for smaller, lesser funded parties with more agreeable views without throwing away their vote.

The elections should never have become a choice between the shiniest of two turds in the first place.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Bust the two party system first and foremost. It's led to a "Us versus Them" mentality that's pulling the country apart at the seams.

Level the playing field and people might actually be able to vote for smaller, lesser funded parties with more agreeable views without throwing away their vote.

The elections should never have become a choice between the shiniest of two turds in the first place.

How do you propose eliminating a two-party system?

[Valaran]

Honestly don't mind the Two-party system that much. Obviously in its current form its damaging, but it wasn't always polarised in this manner, so I'm not sure the basic idea is inherently bad.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Honestly don't mind the Two-party system that much. Obviously in its current form its damaging, but it wasn't always polarised in this manner, so I'm not sure the basic idea is inherently bad.

Federalism.
Westward expansion.
Slavery.
Virtually everything has been polarized from the start.

[New Grestin]

Bust the two party system first and foremost. It's led to a "Us versus Them" mentality that's pulling the country apart at the seams.

Level the playing field and people might actually be able to vote for smaller, lesser funded parties with more agreeable views without throwing away their vote.

The elections should never have become a choice between the shiniest of two turds in the first place.

How do you propose eliminating a two-party system?

The money is clearly the issue here. This last election made it abundantly clear that the only reason the Republicans and the Dems stay in power is because they've got money in the right places.

Creating an overall limit on campaign funding from private interests and companies would be a good start. Perhaps even reducing the time the elections take would help too. Establishing a set period where all candidates can advertise, publicize and do their thing, then requiring them to shut the fuck up for two weeks so people can actually make an informed decision could work.

I won't argue that's the correct option, only a potential solution with it's own inherent set of issues.

The only thing I can argue with any certainty is that the hegemony that the Republicans and Democrats hold over the government, thereby edging out other, potentially more productive parties, is a cancer on the American political system. Both parties have had their day to shine, and leveling the playing field and allowing a multi-party system similar to those in Europe would be a good way to allow different viewpoints other than the same two groups of rich dipshits arguing over guns and fetuses ad nauseum while the domestic issues tear the country apart.

[Valaran]

Honestly don't mind the Two-party system that much. Obviously in its current form its damaging, but it wasn't always polarised in this manner, so I'm not sure the basic idea is inherently bad.

Federalism.
Westward expansion.
Slavery.
Virtually everything has been polarized from the start.

Issues can be polarising, but this didn't always result in Parties being polarised, in ways that damaged the nation. For instance, there were equally many instances were the Parties were able to work through differences, compromise, and generally just be focused on resolving problems, instead of rigidly enforcing legislative gridlock and the like. That isn't a halcyon view of 'how great democracy used to be', but I think its fairly apparent that issue-based division didn't always translate into gridlock and Party polarisation.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

How do you propose eliminating a two-party system?

The money is clearly the issue here. This last election made it abundantly clear that the only reason the Republicans and the Dems stay in power is because they've got money in the right places.

Creating an overall limit on campaign funding from private interests and companies would be a good start. Perhaps even reducing the time the elections take would help too. Establishing a set period where all candidates can advertise, publicize and do their thing, then requiring them to shut the fuck up for two weeks so people can actually make an informed decision could work.

I won't argue that's the correct option, only a potential solution with it's own inherent set of issues.

The only thing I can argue with any certainty is that the hegemony that the Republicans and Democrats hold over the government, thereby edging out other, potentially more productive parties, is a cancer on the American political system. Both parties have had their day to shine, and leveling the playing field and allowing a multi-party system similar to those in Europe would be a good way to allow different viewpoints other than the same two groups of rich dipshits arguing over guns and fetuses ad nauseum while the domestic issues tear the country apart.

In addition to capping campaign funding, I strongly suggest STV popular elections. I also stand against the election of judges.

[Great Minarchistan]

Honestly?

Constitutional monarchy. And since the US has no royal family, go grab someone from George Washington's bloodline :^)

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Federalism.
Westward expansion.
Slavery.
Virtually everything has been polarized from the start.

Issues can be polarising, but this didn't always result in Parties being polarised, in ways that damaged the nation. For instance, there were equally many instances were the Parties were able to work through differences, compromise, and generally just be focused on resolving problems, instead of rigidly enforcing legislative gridlock and the like. That isn't a halcyon view of 'how great democracy used to be', but I think its fairly apparent that issue-based division didn't always translate into gridlock and Party polarisation.

Despite the passing of some "Compromises," like those in 1820 and 1850, those actually made it harder and harder to pass legislation regarding issues at hand. It's a nasty wheel that we're simply seeing spin one more time.

[Valaran]

Issues can be polarising, but this didn't always result in Parties being polarised, in ways that damaged the nation. For instance, there were equally many instances were the Parties were able to work through differences, compromise, and generally just be focused on resolving problems, instead of rigidly enforcing legislative gridlock and the like. That isn't a halcyon view of 'how great democracy used to be', but I think its fairly apparent that issue-based division didn't always translate into gridlock and Party polarisation.

Despite the passing of some "Compromises," like those in 1820 and 1850, those actually made it harder and harder to pass legislation regarding issues at hand. It's a nasty wheel that we're simply seeing spin one more time.

I'm not going to defend every compromise as being good, but I think its fairly clear that it wasn't my point anyhow.

Nonetheless, each turns brings up new twists; its never exactly the same. The sheer presence of divisive issues doe not mean one has to have legislative gridlock, or national polarisation.

[Mer Salcia]

Allow regions to secede and govern their own affairs.

[Feriq]

Why is it that American democracy in enslaved to the Southerners? They're not significant enough to warrant such power much less competent enough to wield it. It is the educated coastal elites that will usher in a new age of American dominance, not irrelevant xenophobic laborers.

[Forsher]

Honestly?

Constitutional monarchy. And since the US has no royal family, go grab someone from George Washington's bloodline :^)

While I agree that, as far as over-arching structures go, constitutional monarchy is both cutting edge and pre-disposed to certain outcomes... democracies tend not to fare well when you introduce something that substantial parts of the population dislike (i.e. monarchy) and the inevitable narrowing of the electoral issue to "shall we keep this Thing?" That is, no, I think this would be a step for the worse... unless you managed to get 80% of the electorate to show up and decisively vote for such a measure. Then, maybe, you could see it taking.

[Mattopilos]

Allow regions to secede and govern their own affairs.

i.e. less focus on the federal level and more on the local level?

[Great Minarchistan]

Honestly?

Constitutional monarchy. And since the US has no royal family, go grab someone from George Washington's bloodline :^)

While I agree that, as far as over-arching structures go, constitutional monarchy is both cutting edge and pre-disposed to certain o
utcomes... democracies tend not to fare well when you introduce something that substantial parts of the population dislike (i.e. monarchy) and the inevitable narrowing of the electoral issue to "shall we keep this Thing?" That is, no, I think this would be a step for the worse... unless you managed to get 80% of the electorate to show up and decisively vote for such a measure. Then, maybe, you could see it taking.

That is why I think American Independence should've been different... Or if british government wasn't simply dumb at the point of raise taxes like crazy and spark an anti-monarchist feeling among the population.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

While I agree that, as far as over-arching structures go, constitutional monarchy is both cutting edge and pre-disposed to certain o
utcomes... democracies tend not to fare well when you introduce something that substantial parts of the population dislike (i.e. monarchy) and the inevitable narrowing of the electoral issue to "shall we keep this Thing?" That is, no, I think this would be a step for the worse... unless you managed to get 80% of the electorate to show up and decisively vote for such a measure. Then, maybe, you could see it taking.

That is why I think American Independence should've been different... Or if british government wasn't simply dumb at the point of raise taxes like crazy and spark an anti-monarchist feeling among the population.

If you think the taxes on the American colonies were punitive, you should read up on them.

[The Great Freeland]

Reform the Electoral College not eliminate it. I think all states should move to a system that allocates their electoral votes based on the popular vote in your state. Currently if you vote Republican in California or Democrat in Texas your vote really doesn't matter because all of the electoral votes goes towards either the Democrat Candidate in California or the Republican in Texas. Instead split them based on your states popular vote. Going to a straight up popular vote nationally I think is a terrible idea. You end up with politicians only catering to a handful of cities. Only the needs of those in those areas will be catered to. The nation is to large and diverse to discount the electoral college. Also get rid of electors. No need for them.

Stronger campaign finance laws.

End Gerrymandering. Either set up by partisans boards in each state for the redistributing process or creat a non-partisan formula for redistricting.

Automatically register all citizens to vote.

All parties should adopt open primaries in all states. No more super delegates.

Ranked choice voting in all elections.

Doing those things I think would drastically level the playing field.

[Mer Salcia]

Allow regions to secede and govern their own affairs.

i.e. less focus on the federal level and more on the local level?

I.e. get rid of the federal level altogether and recognize we are, at the very least, several nations instead of one. It would be better for everyone involved if we went our separate ways and pursued our own destinies without trying to come to an agreement on issues that nobody is ever going to reach consensus on.

[Socialist Nordia]

While I agree that, as far as over-arching structures go, constitutional monarchy is both cutting edge and pre-disposed to certain o
utcomes... democracies tend not to fare well when you introduce something that substantial parts of the population dislike (i.e. monarchy) and the inevitable narrowing of the electoral issue to "shall we keep this Thing?" That is, no, I think this would be a step for the worse... unless you managed to get 80% of the electorate to show up and decisively vote for such a measure. Then, maybe, you could see it taking.

That is why I think American Independence should've been different... Or if british government wasn't simply dumb at the point of raise taxes like crazy and spark an anti-monarchist feeling among the population.

Well, when your country has tons of war debts after fighting a major war to expand your colonial territories, it kind of does make sense to tax the Americans, especially considering that even after the new taxes, America paid a considerably lower amount than the mainland British.

[New New Reno]

Don't just say remove the electoral college cause it favors the republicans, you know theres more to do than that. What would you personally do to put forth a fair electoral system in the United States? Besides the electoral college, you may want to put your opinions on
-Referendums
-Prisoner Voting Rights
-Superdelegates
-Third Parties
-E-Democracy
-Voter IDs
-Run off voting

... America isn't a democracy, it is a republic. Secondly, the electoral college has been around since the start of the nation, so I am unsure what you mean by, restore.

^

[Ifreann]

All parties should adopt open primaries in all states. No more super delegates.

How a political party chooses who to endorse is entirely their own business and is not actually part of the election process. You'd be as well suggesting that football teams should let the public vote on who plays quarterback.

[Post War America]

Reform the Electoral College not eliminate it. I think all states should move to a system that allocates their electoral votes based on the popular vote in your state. Currently if you vote Republican in California or Democrat in Texas your vote really doesn't matter because all of the electoral votes goes towards either the Democrat Candidate in California or the Republican in Texas. Instead split them based on your states popular vote. Going to a straight up popular vote nationally I think is a terrible idea. You end up with politicians only catering to a handful of cities. Only the needs of those in those areas will be catered to. The nation is to large and diverse to discount the electoral college. Also get rid of electors. No need for them.

You want to reform the EC, by getting rid of the EC? That sounds a little ridiculous, further as others have pointed out in other threads, your point is largely invalid. In order to win the NPV (assuming that every person who was eligible to vote actually votes, which is far from the case in the US), you would need to win every single vote (a virtual impossibility) in 70 cities spread out over 38 different states to win the presidency. I know its anecdotal evidence only, but from my own experiences living in three different cities in the SAME STATE (Springfield, Worcester, and Boston Massachusetts), I can tell that the differences in needs between cities can be significant, and mind you I'm only talking about three different cities in the same state, a state which is fairly politically homogeneous. We're not even beginning to approach the differences that Phoenix, Arizona might have when compared to New York City. It is ridiculous to assume that any platform that could reasonably apply to at least 70 different cities doesn't have broader appeal. Our current system and our current political climate means that the EC only gives voice to a select group of (usually white) suburban swing voters in a small handful of swing states, not the Rural vote, not the Urban vote, just the swing vote, and more specifically the swing votes in purple states.

[Holy Jakelandion Empire]

DO NOT DISMANTLE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. The electoral college gives power to the states with lower populations, hence why the Primary vote is held in Iowa. If it was repealed, it would be held in the state with the most population, so CA. Rural areas would be abandoned by politicians, as they would only heed the needs of urban areas.

Bring back voter ID and stricter voting laws, to prevent mishaps from voting, like illegal immigrants voting even if they aren't citizens, which is probably why Hillary won the popular vote.

Our Founding Fathers knew that without proper representation, the politicians would abandon the rural populations and mooch up the filthy urban dwellers.

The electoral college is an anachronism, and it undermines the most basic principle of democracy (that every person's vote is equal in worth). Also, voter ID laws as they exist today are little more than poll taxes that purposefully depress turnout among Democratic-leaning demographics, and no, Hillary Clinton did not win the popular vote because of undocumented immigrants voting. This is a far right lie, and a stupid one at that.

Also... "filthy urban dwellers"? That's you insulting many of your fellow posters.

America was never truly a democracy, so why make it one? America is a representative republic.

Plus, I don't happen to care about offending people...

[Post War America]

The electoral college is an anachronism, and it undermines the most basic principle of democracy (that every person's vote is equal in worth). Also, voter ID laws as they exist today are little more than poll taxes that purposefully depress turnout among Democratic-leaning demographics, and no, Hillary Clinton did not win the popular vote because of undocumented immigrants voting. This is a far right lie, and a stupid one at that.

Also... "filthy urban dwellers"? That's you insulting many of your fellow posters.

America was never truly a democracy, so why make it one? America is a representative republic.

Plus, I don't happen to care about offending people...

You would be incorrect, as many have already state on this very thread, representative republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive.

[Arlenton]

Why is it that American democracy in enslaved to the Southerners? They're not significant enough to warrant such power much less competent enough to wield it. It is the educated coastal elites that will usher in a new age of American dominance, not irrelevant xenophobic laborers.

Lol.