NationStates

Region of Dwipantara wrote:

New haven america wrote:End

Burn it down.

Hell yeah! CCP's communism with capitalist characteristics FTW! #DirectRuleFromBeijing

I think you're in the wrong thread.

Risottia wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
"Easier, quicker, simpler" for the voters though? Quite often having to vote twice?

I don't see what's the problem in voting. Takes you how much time, three minutes? Five?

Voting by mail is rather quick too. But however small the effort, having to do it twice is not easier. Not quicker. And not simpler.

This is one of the thing that will contribute to the upcoming Civil War 2.0 aka the Kek War.

Region of Dwipantara wrote:

Risottia wrote:I don't see what's the problem in voting. Takes you how much time, three minutes? Five?

Voter suppression, for starters? When I first heard that in the US you have to go to somekind of official place and complete a somekind of bureaucratic registration before any election, I was confused.

You don't, actually.

I mean, there are dedicated parts of town halls or county government institutions that have dedicated voter registration stations, but most people just sign up online or go to the local public library.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Region of Dwipantara wrote:Hell yeah! CCP's communism with capitalist characteristics FTW! #DirectRuleFromBeijing

I think you're in the wrong thread.

I was joking, and besides that's the logical thing that would happen if we "burn the system down", but who cares.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Risottia wrote:I don't see what's the problem in voting. Takes you how much time, three minutes? Five?

Voting by mail is rather quick too. But however small the effort, having to do it twice is not easier. Not quicker. And not simpler.

The super confusing, super costly presidential primaries might decline in relevance or go away entirely if such system is implemented, though.

Nakena wrote:This is one of the thing that will contribute to the upcoming Civil War 2.0 aka the Kek War.

Getting rid of the Senate has always seemed more important to me.
But since it can't be done by the amendment process, I guess it goes on the Revolutionary Agenda.

Region of Dwipantara wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
I think you're in the wrong thread.

I was joking, and besides that's the logical thing that would happen if we "burn the system down", but who cares.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Voting by mail is rather quick too. But however small the effort, having to do it twice is not easier. Not quicker. And not simpler.

The super confusing, super costly presidential primaries might decline in relevance or go away entirely if such system is implemented, though.

Like, 1/2 of the states in the country have mail in voting as on option or the sole way to vote, so no, it's probably not going anywhere.

New haven america wrote:

Region of Dwipantara wrote:Voter suppression, for starters? When I first heard that in the US you have to go to somekind of official place and complete a somekind of bureaucratic registration before any election, I was confused.

You don't, actually.

I mean, there are dedicated parts of town halls or county government institutions that have dedicated voter registration stations, but most people just sign up online or go to the local public library.

I believe some states allow registration on election day, too.

New haven america wrote:

Region of Dwipantara wrote:Voter suppression, for starters? When I first heard that in the US you have to go to somekind of official place and complete a somekind of bureaucratic registration before any election, I was confused.

You don't, actually.

I mean, there are dedicated parts of town halls or county government institutions that have dedicated voter registration stations, but most people just sign up online or go to the local public library.

Still, things like voter suppression would become far easier to solve if y'all have a national ID system, though. And let's be honest, the NSA and Big Techs already know everything about us so it's not like there would be any noticable change. In fact, the benefits would far outweigh the costs.

Region of Dwipantara wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Voting by mail is rather quick too. But however small the effort, having to do it twice is not easier. Not quicker. And not simpler.

The super confusing, super costly presidential primaries might decline in relevance or go away entirely if such system is implemented, though.

Primaries are an essential feature because both major parties have been using them for so long. They're not actually required by the constitution though.

States generally organize and fund primaries, but a few have abolished them (for President). And that's pretty bad because then parties have to organize their own and generally go for the cheaper caucuses.

Primaries may seem bad to you, but caucuses are worse!

New haven america wrote:

Region of Dwipantara wrote:I was joking, and besides that's the logical thing that would happen if we "burn the system down", but who cares.


The super confusing, super costly presidential primaries might decline in relevance or go away entirely if such system is implemented, though.

Like, 1/2 of the states in the country have mail in voting as on option or the sole way to vote, so no, it's probably not going anywhere.

Huh. Maybe. But what I mean is that if there are more than two dominant candidate in a presidential election, the primaries itself might not be necessary. Like, Sanders could've form a Democratic-Socialist Party and run himself. Right now, the problem with primaries (at least from what I've heard) it's that its super long and tend to benefit those with deep pockets.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Region of Dwipantara wrote:
The super confusing, super costly presidential primaries might decline in relevance or go away entirely if such system is implemented, though.

Primaries are an essential feature because both major parties have been using them for so long. They're not actually required by the constitution though.

States generally organize and fund primaries, but a few have abolished them (for President). And that's pretty bad because then parties have to organize their own and generally go for the cheaper caucuses.

Primaries may seem bad to you, but caucuses are worse!

That's probably right, I mean I don't know any of the representative I elected to serve on the various parliaments here. I just know their party.

This video sums it up well in my opinion:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

The electoral college exists because the Founders hated democracy and originally wanted electoral processes easily manipulated. For about a century and some change after the War of Independence, people couldn't even directly vote for their Senators. The only institution that they created where people had actual participation in the legal process was through the House of Representatives, which continues to have the most limited range of power at the federal level. Of course it should be abolished and it should follow from the same reforms that people made after the fact, like what happened in 1913.

Nakena wrote:This is one of the thing that will contribute to the upcoming Civil War 2.0 aka the Kek War.

Yeah Bro It Will Just Be Like Epic Maymay War Lol

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

New haven america wrote:You don't, actually.

I mean, there are dedicated parts of town halls or county government institutions that have dedicated voter registration stations, but most people just sign up online or go to the local public library.

I believe some states allow registration on election day, too.

They do.

On election day you can hop over to a public library, register to vote, and then actually vote within the span of 15-20 minutes.

Region of Dwipantara wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Primaries are an essential feature because both major parties have been using them for so long. They're not actually required by the constitution though.

States generally organize and fund primaries, but a few have abolished them (for President). And that's pretty bad because then parties have to organize their own and generally go for the cheaper caucuses.

Primaries may seem bad to you, but caucuses are worse!

That's probably right, I mean I don't know any of the representative I elected to serve on the various parliaments here. I just know their party.

That begs the question: if an electoral system allows or even pushes for a multiparty system, the current bipartisan status quo will fall apart into differing new parties. A demsoc don't have to run on a Democratic primary anymore, they can make their own party and run their own primaries. Or stop doing primaries entirely and just rely on caucuses.

Will electoral reform damage the present primary system, if we have like 7 different major presidential primaries running at the same time? Or major parties that don't do primaries? Bad ending is that candidates ended up decided through backdoor negotiations by oligarchs from an ever-changing coalition of parties. But it also can lead to a way more democratically active society, IF the primary-like aspects remained.

“It keeps smaller states relevant.”

Yes, I too remember the many times candidates made Wyoming a critical point in their election strategy.


Truman and Kennedy/Nixon, and that seemed to be more of a “everywhere is contestable” deal.

Kowani wrote:“It keeps smaller states relevant.”

Yes, I too remember the many times candidates made Wyoming a critical point in their election strategy.


Truman and Kennedy/Nixon, and that seemed to be more of a “everywhere is contestable” deal.

Well it does increase the voting power of residents there. By nearly two times.

(Let's just dispose of the "rural areas" thing though: small population states aren't particularly "rural" due to some being small and crowded, and some being arid or mountainous)

Wyoming perhaps comes off well. As you said, no-one campaigns there, and it's a reasonable inference that they also don't think much about what's good for Wyoming. There are two factors in representation: there's number of votes, but there's also how much attention the elected representative pays to those votes. There's practically nothing a Republican president could do to lose Wyoming's votes, and practically nothing a Democratic president could do to win them. Double voting power perhaps compensates Wyomingites for that.

But what about a small swing-state like New Hampshire? They get some small state bonus voting power, but they also get candidate attention. Where there's a winner like that, there has to be a loser somewhere else.

With fifty states I'm not going to try to categorize them all. Just go to California and Texas, the biggest losers. People there have the least voting power, they're also in fairly polarized states (well until this year, Texas will get attention). They both do get some campaign visits, but not many considering their populations.

In summary there are wide inequalities of voting power, due to the EC. There are wide inequalities of candidate attention, due to how swing or safe the states are. The two different factors don't match up that well, so if the idea of the EC was to provide political equality to all states, the EC should be scrapped in favor of something that is more effective.

I think national popular vote would be more effective for the latter problem. If a vote in Wyoming is just as important to a candidate's total as a vote in California, Wyoming will at least get a share of attention corresponding to its population. If it was desirable to actually make it more, the votes themselves could be weighted: say 1.6 votes for a Wyomingite.

Mushet wrote:I like the reasoning, giving the less populous areas more of a voice so they don't get almost completely overlooked.

That would make sense if hectares of land were the citizens.
Turns out that people are the citizens.

We could increase the number of electoral votes nationwide via the Wyoming Rule, which would increase the number of seats in the House of Representatives which could, in turn, lead to electoral votes being allocated proportionally.

Popular vote is much better than any kind of Electoral College. End the Electoral College.

Also shouldn't there be a poll?

Risottia wrote:

Mushet wrote:I like the reasoning, giving the less populous areas more of a voice so they don't get almost completely overlooked.

That would make sense if hectares of land were the citizens.
Turns out that people are the citizens.

Well also Las Vegas. The metro area has a population of 2.2 million, more than two thirds of the whole state population.

Handing out bonus EC electors to Nevada doesn't help the "less populous" parts of the state. They get outvoted by the city folks anyway.

Valentian Elysium wrote:Also shouldn't there be a poll?

Yes. It should have the names of ten people we've never heard of, then the winner of that gets to choose Reform, Keep or End

Get rid of it. Popular vote all the way.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

New Bremerton wrote:Scrap the EC and the entire presidential system and replace it with a European-style parliamentary system with proportional representation. A party must win at least 5% of the popular vote nationally in order to be represented in the new Congress Parliament of the United States. A German-style, proportional system that encourages coalition/minority governments and consensus-building between a complex grouping of many larger and smaller parties is preferable to a divisive two-party system that encourages extremism and polarization. The President will be reduced to a mere figurehead like the Queen of England. The Prime Minister, who must be a Representative from the Lower House, will serve as the country's actual leader.

As consensus takes precedence over adversarial power struggles, voters on the "winning" side may have slightly less to gain in the short term, but more importantly, voters on the "losing" end of the stick will have far less to lose as the more moderate, centrist partner(s) in any coalition government will likely moderate the more hardline party's policies, resulting in more moderate, sensible governance.

I support this as long as the Bill of Rights are kept.

The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with what form Congress takes.

Eastern Guitaloscialand wrote:We could increase the number of electoral votes nationwide via the Wyoming Rule, which would increase the number of seats in the House of Representatives which could, in turn, lead to electoral votes being allocated proportionally.

In fact, the present US electoral system makes certain that proportional allocation of electoral points *would* result in disaster. As third party candidates gets more and more electoral points, reaching the 270 required treshold would be more and more difficult.

Meaning that the president will be elected by the House.

Before proportional allocation, that system needs to go first.