How do we restore democracy to the United States?

[Thermodolia]

I do think that prisoners should be granted the right to vote while in prison. However only the ones that are not held in maximum security will get to vote, and for the time being it should be a state by state thing.

The right to vote is one of those things that should be lost in prison.

I disagree.

[San Cervantes]

-Referendums: I'd rather not have the uneducated, idiotic masses making important decisions concerning matters like economics or foreign policy thank you.

[The Realm of Lordaeron]

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

I am quite partial to the parliamentary system. I believe there should be room for all parties in the Congress of the United States. We should vote for parties and let them elect the leaders, similar to the United Kingdom. I do appreciate the system of checks and balances in the U.S. though, and think the U.S. should keep them.

[Thermodolia]

The unicameral legislature has nothing to do with a two-party system. Several states have a bicameral legislature and a multi-party system. The voting system needs to change not the legislature

I'm speculating that they were emphasizing the proportional nature of a parliament when writing that. And very few states have more than the two big wigs in their legislature.

Even then one can still have a bicameral legislature and it be proportional. The make up of the legislature has nothing to do with the amount of political parties. That's all on the voting system

[Lalaki]

-Referendums: I'd rather not have the uneducated, idiotic masses making important decisions concerning matters like economics or foreign policy thank you.

I wouldn't be so quick to judge.

In the State of Nevada, our elected legislators continually failed to increase taxes in order to fund the construction of new schools in the Washoe County School District. They did however, raise taxes to fund the construction of a sports stadium in Las Vegas. That isn't very "educated." Do you know how we eventually got the funding to build new schools? The voters of Washoe County directly voted on a referendum that increased the sales tax by half a penny per dollars' purchase. The voters saved us from the wisemen at the legislature.

Tell me again about the "uneducated, idiotic masses."

[Thermodolia]

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

I am quite partial to the parliamentary system. I believe there should be room for all parties in the Congress of the United States. We should vote for parties and let them elect the leaders, similar to the United Kingdom. I do appreciate the system of checks and balances in the U.S. though, and think the U.S. should keep them.

Personally I prefer the semi-presidential system specifically the French model.

You get the benefits of the parliamentary system with the benefits of the presidential system and those checks and balances.

[Conserative Morality]

I disagree.

How else can one disenfranchise one's enemies under the guise of 'law and order'?

[Thermodolia]

-Referendums: I'd rather not have the uneducated, idiotic masses making important decisions concerning matters like economics or foreign policy thank you.

I wouldn't be so quick to judge.

In the State of Nevada, our elected legislators continually failed to increase taxes in order to fund the construction of new schools in the Washoe County School District. They did however, raise taxes to fund the construction of a sports stadium in Las Vegas. That isn't very "educated." Do you know how we eventually got the funding to build new schools? The voters of Washoe County directly voted on a referendum that increased the sales tax by half a penny per dollars' purchase. The voters saved us from the wisemen at the legislature.

Tell me again about the "uneducated, idiotic masses."

While I'm not opposed to referenda in theory, in practice at the federal level it will be a mess.

[Chinese Peoples]

IMO the electoral college serves no useful purpose. Either enable electors to make up their own minds about whom they vote for or abolish them altogether. Because if their sole purpose is to represent the people's votes, the people can do it themselves.

I agree we should have third parties, but they need to rise on account of their own merits.

Prisoners should be allowed to vote, as long as they haven't been convicted of treason.

[Lalaki]

I wouldn't be so quick to judge.

In the State of Nevada, our elected legislators continually failed to increase taxes in order to fund the construction of new schools in the Washoe County School District. They did however, raise taxes to fund the construction of a sports stadium in Las Vegas. That isn't very "educated." Do you know how we eventually got the funding to build new schools? The voters of Washoe County directly voted on a referendum that increased the sales tax by half a penny per dollars' purchase. The voters saved us from the wisemen at the legislature.

Tell me again about the "uneducated, idiotic masses."

While I'm not opposed to referenda in theory, in practice at the federal level it will be a mess.

I have to disagree.

If a significant amount of the electorate sign a petition for a referendum to appear on a ballot, then the American people should have the right to vote on it come November of an even-numbered year.

[The Realm of Lordaeron]

I I like the idea of democracy, but i don't believe in direct democracy. I believe in a Republic that balances the interests of justice, democracy and practicality.

[Liriena]

Well, a good first step would be coming to terms with the fact that the GOP is an enemy of democracy and that it should be treated as such by its opponents. From rampant gerrymandering and voter suppression, to their recent antics in North Carolina and their general eagerness to throw the country's political institutions under the bus just to undermine their opponents, Republicans do not deserve to be considered a political party worthy of respect and bipartisan compromising.

Voter IDs would be a decent idea if they were provided free of charge, and coupled with automatic registration for everyone eligible to vote. In their current form, voter ID policies seem to exist solely as a thinly veiled poll tax.

I would also agree with recognizing the voting rights of convicts (save perhaps for extreme exceptions), ending the electoral college in favor of a popular vote with the possibility of a runoff, and changing FPTP/winner-take-all systems for proportional representation.

[Thermodolia]

While I'm not opposed to referenda in theory, in practice at the federal level it will be a mess.

I have to disagree.

If a significant amount of the electorate sign a petition for a referendum to appear on a ballot, then the American people should have the right to vote on it come November of an even-numbered year.

If we can bearly get people to vote during midterms what makes you think people will want to vote for that?!

The only way that would happen is if we instituted compulsory voting. Plus the logistical mess would be a nightmare

[Lalaki]

I have to disagree.

If a significant amount of the electorate sign a petition for a referendum to appear on a ballot, then the American people should have the right to vote on it come November of an even-numbered year.

If we can bearly get people to vote during midterms what makes you think people will want to vote for that?!

The only way that would happen is if we instituted compulsory voting. Plus the logistical mess would be a nightmare

We need to get people to participate in the midterm elections. Previously, I've never supported the idea of compulsory voting. But recent events have made me change my tune a bit. I'm not sure I'd go out and campaign for CV just yet -- but I'm definitely flirting with the idea.

[The Realm of Lordaeron]

Well, a good first step would be coming to terms with the fact that the GOP is an enemy of democracy and that it should be treated as such by its opponents. From rampant gerrymandering and voter suppression, to their recent antics in North Carolina and their general eagerness to throw the country's political institutions under the bus just to undermine their opponents, Republicans do not deserve to be considered a political party worthy of respect and bipartisan compromising.

Voter IDs would be a decent idea if they were provided free of charge, and coupled with automatic registration for everyone eligible to vote. In their current form, voter ID policies seem to exist solely as a thinly veiled poll tax.

I would also agree with recognizing the voting rights of convicts (save perhaps for extreme exceptions), ending the electoral college in favor of a popular vote with the possibility of a runoff, and changing FPTP/winner-take-all systems for proportional representation.

I would prefer having a prime-minister like figure, appointed by Congress that has more than two parties dominating it. Similar to the UK.

Gerrymandering in such a system would be pointless in that case. If everyone in the state voted for the party they wanted, and the party were allotted a certain number of representatives based on the vote they received.

I don't believe either party is completely without blame. Gerrymandering has created very blue and very red districts where you have to play to your base to win. This has caused a situation where both parties are extreme left and extreme right -- during the Clinton era, things were much better in terms of cooperation.

You can't run a country by declaring your side right and your political opponents unadulterated evil that can not be negotiated with.

If you don't negotiate with the other half of the country, you risk tearing the country apart, destroying it. Compromise is the leading principle of democracy, without it, honestly, there would be no democracy or republic at all.

Which ironically makes you more of an enemy of democracy with that attitude than the Republican party.

Of course, there are crazy far-right Republicans, but let's not forget the millions and millions of Americans who are not extreme one way or the other, but are stuck with a two-party system that doesn't appropriately reflect their views and opinions.

[Thermodolia]

Well, a good first step would be coming to terms with the fact that the GOP is an enemy of democracy and that it should be treated as such by its opponents. From rampant gerrymandering and voter suppression, to their recent antics in North Carolina and their general eagerness to throw the country's political institutions under the bus just to undermine their opponents, Republicans do not deserve to be considered a political party worthy of respect and bipartisan compromising.

Voter IDs would be a decent idea if they were provided free of charge, and coupled with automatic registration for everyone eligible to vote. In their current form, voter ID policies seem to exist solely as a thinly veiled poll tax.

I would also agree with recognizing the voting rights of convicts (save perhaps for extreme exceptions), ending the electoral college in favor of a popular vote with the possibility of a runoff, and changing FPTP/winner-take-all systems for proportional representation.

I would prefer having a prime-minister like figure, appointed by Congress that has more than two parties dominating it. Similar to the UK.

Gerrymandering in such a system would be pointless in that case. If everyone in the state voted for the party they wanted, and the party were allotted a certain number of representatives based on the vote they received.

I don't believe either party is completely without blame. Gerrymandering has created very blue and very red districts where you have to play to your base to win. This has caused a situation where both parties are extreme left and extreme right -- during the Clinton era, things were much better in terms of cooperation.

You can't run a country by declaring your side right and your political opponents unadulterated evil that can not be negotiated with.

If you don't negotiate with the other half of the country, you risk tearing the country apart, destroying it. Compromise is the leading principle of democracy, without it, honestly, there would be no democracy or republic at all.

Which ironically makes you more of an enemy of democracy with that attitude than the Republican party.

Of course, there are crazy far-right Republicans, but let's not forget the millions and millions of Americans who are not extreme one way or the other, but are stuck with a two-party system that doesn't appropriately reflect their views and opinions.

The UK is still crazily unrepresentative and that wouldn't solve gerrymandering. Only changing the voting system will do that.

I prefer a semi-presidential system where the president appoints the Prime Minister with the approval of the legislature a la France.

[Liriena]

Well, a good first step would be coming to terms with the fact that the GOP is an enemy of democracy and that it should be treated as such by its opponents. From rampant gerrymandering and voter suppression, to their recent antics in North Carolina and their general eagerness to throw the country's political institutions under the bus just to undermine their opponents, Republicans do not deserve to be considered a political party worthy of respect and bipartisan compromising.

Voter IDs would be a decent idea if they were provided free of charge, and coupled with automatic registration for everyone eligible to vote. In their current form, voter ID policies seem to exist solely as a thinly veiled poll tax.

I would also agree with recognizing the voting rights of convicts (save perhaps for extreme exceptions), ending the electoral college in favor of a popular vote with the possibility of a runoff, and changing FPTP/winner-take-all systems for proportional representation.

I would prefer having a prime-minister like figure, appointed by Congress that has more than two parties dominating it. Similar to the UK.

Gerrymandering in such a system would be pointless in that case. If everyone in the state voted for the party they wanted, and the party were allotted a certain number of representatives based on the vote they received.

I don't believe either party is completely without blame. Gerrymandering has created very blue and very red districts where you have to play to your base to win. This has caused a situation where both parties are extreme left and extreme right -- during the Clinton era, things were much better in terms of cooperation.

You can't run a country by declaring your side right and your political opponents unadulterated evil that can not be negotiated with.

If you don't negotiate with the other half of the country, you risk tearing the country apart, destroying it. Compromise is the leading principle of democracy, without it, honestly, there would be no democracy or republic at all.

Which ironically makes you more of an enemy of democracy with that attitude than the Republican party.

Of course, there are crazy far-right Republicans, but let's not forget the millions and millions of Americans who are not extreme one way or the other, but are stuck with a two-party system that doesn't appropriately reflect their views and opinions.

You make good points, but I object to you characterizing the Democratic Party as "extreme left". Even by American standards, and even after the Bern, the Democratic Party remains generally centrist, and center-left at most.

[New haven america]

Destroy the US, start over, it's obvious it's not fixable.

[Mushet]

You all support me in a coup and I promise I'll bring democracy...eventually.

[Frank Zipper]

... America isn't a democracy, it is a republic.

Where do people get this weird idea that the two are mutually exclusive? I'd never come across it until I came to NSG.

[Zakuvia]

IMO the electoral college serves no useful purpose. Either enable electors to make up their own minds about whom they vote for or abolish them altogether. Because if their sole purpose is to represent the people's votes, the people can do it themselves.

I agree we should have third parties, but they need to rise on account of their own merits.

I agree with everything written above. The Electoral College is a political vestigial tail: useful 200 years ago, but serves no purpose in the modern world.

And I swear to C'Thulhu, if I hear one more mental defective vomit out 'We're not a Democracy, we're a Republic!', I'm going to bury them in installments. That has NOTHING to do with how representatives of the population are put into office, it only entails what they are able to do with their power, federally or by subdivision.

[The Realm of Lordaeron]

... America isn't a democracy, it is a republic.

Where do people get this weird idea that the two are mutually exclusive? I'd never come across it until I came to NSG.

They're related, but they are also different. It's important to make that distinction in regards to certain things, i believe.

For one, saying we're a republic is not a complete picture, either. We're actually a federal republic.

A Republic and a Democracy are mutually exclusive, because a Republic places certain restrictions on the will of the people. There are certain inalienable rights, as outlined in the Bill of Rights, that cannot be abridged by the People by direct vote. You can't make a referendum to kick all the black people out, for example, as you could in an actual pure democracy.

We're a federal republic, so States share sovereignty with the federal government.

[Frank Zipper]

Where do people get this weird idea that the two are mutually exclusive? I'd never come across it until I came to NSG.

They're related, but they are also different. It's important to make that distinction in regards to certain things, i believe.

For one, saying we're a republic is not a complete picture, either. We're actually a federal republic.

A Republic and a Democracy are mutually exclusive, because a Republic places certain restrictions on the will of the people. There are certain inalienable rights, as outlined in the Bill of Rights, that cannot be abridged by the People by direct vote. You can't make a referendum to kick all the black people out, for example, as you could in an actual pure democracy.

We're a federal republic, so States share sovereignty with the federal government.

A republic is an alternate system to monarchy - those two are mutually exclusive. You can have a Bill of Rights without being a republic, there is no connection there.

[The Realm of Lordaeron]

They're related, but they are also different. It's important to make that distinction in regards to certain things, i believe.

For one, saying we're a republic is not a complete picture, either. We're actually a federal republic.

A Republic and a Democracy are mutually exclusive, because a Republic places certain restrictions on the will of the people. There are certain inalienable rights, as outlined in the Bill of Rights, that cannot be abridged by the People by direct vote. You can't make a referendum to kick all the black people out, for example, as you could in an actual pure democracy.

We're a federal republic, so States share sovereignty with the federal government.

A republic is an alternate system to monarchy - those two are mutually exclusive. You can have a Bill of Rights without being a republic, there is no connection there.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

decent article.

[Frank Zipper]

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

decent article.

"Most modern nations are democratic republics" rather proves my point that the two are not mutually exclusive.