Focus Fanatics Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Grey Friar
Joined
·
927 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I heard a discussion on NPR today, concerning election reform. The speaker had a few great sounding ideas, so probably won't be able to get past the anti-democracy majority of the GOP, but still worth a grassroots try.

My favorites were: Ranked Voting, SCOTUS term limits, and making voting day a national holiday (ideally on Veterans Day).
-Ranked voting allows you to vote for more than one person, but you rank them 1, 2, 3, points awarded in reverse order. The top point scorer gets the nomination, or wins the office.
-SCOTUS terms would be set at 18 years, with one judge expiring every 2 years, that way every POTUS is guaranteed to place 2 judges. No more stacking the court on dumb-luck of a single POTUS, as the court population will swing with the people's votes for POTUS. That would remove some of the polarizing desperation in the election of a POTUS and the approval of a court candidate, knowing that by next election 2 more judges are coming up... creating the opportunity for a more balanced court with a lot less crazy drama.
-National holiday voting, means no job conflicts for most people, and potential greater participation. Also, a perfect homage to all men and women, who have actually put their futures on-the-line for their country.

One thing they proposed I did NOT like... making voting mandatory. Too much potential for draconian punishments for people who couldn't make it to the poles, or hate their country's politics or democracy too much to participate... infringing on freedoms and first amendment rights.

Even with those "improvements", nothing will get better until Citizens United is struck down or overridden, and social media outlets are reined-in.

Opinions?
 
  • Like
Reactions: zacautomotive

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
At the state level and below, they are free to enact ranked voting. But multiple party systems tend to naturally whittle down to dualities anyway.

Supreme Court Justices have life sentences for a reason, and it is a nonpartisan position in theory, and in the part of Republicans in practice. They're free to resign when they think favorable conditions exist for appointing their replacement.

We already have mail-in and, in many places, early voting. Anyone that can't get it together for that is probably what we call a low-information voter and unmotivated to boot. Also, at least where I am, polls are open for 14 hours on general elections. It's hard to make it any easier. I also oppose the national holiday because there is no national holiday for all voters, so it's inherently discriminatory against the essential worker that still has to show up and keep civilization running.

So there should be no political parties, as Geo. Washington wanted. We'll have to admit that RBG is dead at some point in Trump's second term and replace her. What is really needed is voter ID and literacy tests. The interested and informed people are already voting. We want quality, not quantity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,075 Posts
Every American citizen should have a right to vote. I have no issue with it being a holiday. I personally early vote.

A test to vote wow you really are a troll.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,075 Posts
I heard a discussion on NPR today, concerning election reform. The speaker had a few great sounding ideas, so probably won't be able to get past the anti-democracy majority of the GOP, but still worth a grassroots try.

My favorites were: Ranked Voting, SCOTUS term limits, and making voting day a national holiday (ideally on Veterans Day).
-Ranked voting allows you to vote for more than one person, but you rank them 1, 2, 3, points awarded in reverse order. The top point scorer gets the nomination, or wins the office.
-SCOTUS terms would be set at 18 years, with one judge expiring every 2 years, that way every POTUS is guaranteed to place 2 judges. No more stacking the court on dumb-luck of a single POTUS, as the court population will swing with the people's votes for POTUS. That would remove some of the polarizing desperation in the election of a POTUS and the approval of a court candidate, knowing that by next election 2 more judges are coming up... creating the opportunity for a more balanced court with a lot less crazy drama.
-National holiday voting, means no job conflicts for most people, and potential greater participation. Also, a perfect homage to all men and women, who have actually put their futures on-the-line for their country.

One thing they proposed I did NOT like... making voting mandatory. Too much potential for draconian punishments for people who couldn't make it to the poles, or hate their country's politics or democracy too much to participate... infringing on freedoms and first amendment rights.

Even with those "improvements", nothing will get better until Citizens United is struck down or overridden, and social media outlets are reined-in.

Opinions?
I agree with you on this.
I don't have much of an opinion on this, but everything you have pointed out and said I agree with.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Ranked choice voting is a scam. One person, one vote. Not one person, 3 votes. It convolutes the ballot and makes is more complicated resulting in voting errors. The State I live in has it and it is responsible for the person who won the election to lose because of how many 2nd place votes the candidate who came in 2nd place got. The Ballot Measure to repeal ranked choice voting is now going to be on the Ballot this November in this State.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HAPPYCOMMUTER

·
Grey Friar
Joined
·
927 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Not a scam, just an excuse to be disgruntled if your candidate didn't win. SEE, what state do you live in?

Example: 1000 votes are cast.
Candidate A gets 100 1st place votes, 450 2nd place votes, and 450 3rd place votes... 1,650 points.
Candidate B gets 200 1st place votes, 350 2nd place votes, and 350 3rd place votes... 1,650 points.
Candidate C gets 300 1st place votes, 200 2nd place votes, and 100 3rd place votes... 1,400 points.
Candidate D gets 400 1st place votes, 0 2nd place votes, and 100 3rd place votes... 1,300 points.
Candidate B would be the winner, because tie for total points, but more 1st place votes... or there would be a run-off between A and B.

B winner is justified because, although everybody wanted A (1000 votes out of 1000 cast), almost everybody wanted B (900 total votes) and more people wanted him/her best. Also, while D had a fanatical following and got the most 1st place votes, half the total voters rejected him/her completely (500 total votes). A similar thing applies to C, 400 didn't want him/her at all, even though they got the second most 1st votes. That means A appealed to the highest number of people, and D appealed to the least, but B wins because more people actually wanted him/her first. The optional run-off between A and B, would collect votes from the minority of people who voted for C and D.

That system seems a whole lot more fair to the majority of citizens than having two polarized parties ramming bullshite down our throats and forcing us to vote for the "lesser of two evils".

HAPPY, I totally agree with NO PARTIES. The above system is perhaps the best way ever to get rid of parties and hold fair elections.
 

·
Grey Friar
Joined
·
927 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
In order for anything like the above election reform to take place, a few things have to happen.

1) We have to wait for the GOP to lose all control of congress, and for DNC to be taken over by real progressives, not just middle-of-the-roaders... but hopefully the GOP will still be around, due to the following observation from a conservative writer:
“Maybe you do not care much about the future of the Republican Party. You should. Conservatives will always be with us. If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.”
― David Frum, Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic

2) A limit of total number of candidates on any ballot would have to be decided on. In the absence of parties, petitions would need to be generated and endorsed. So maybe parties would still be around, and each could propose two candidates, so 10 parties, gives 20 candidates. The same barriers for party affiliation that apply today would be enough.

3) We'd have to agree to go back to our original system of Pres-VP, where it would be possible to have a VP that was not in the same party as the POTUS. That way 1st and 2nd place totals would get the seats.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
Mandatory voting is the one issue that will define you as a Republican or Democrat. Republicans do not what everyone to vote... or want to make it extremely difficult to vote. Democrats feel everyone must vote in order for the government to represent the majority.

I feel it is a disappointment that I can log into my cell phone (with a fingerprint), purchase a product from China, Have it shipped to my house in a week, and feel comfortable that no funny business is going on...… but we make voting such a chore? I can get paycheck direct deposited into my bank account... but we cannot find a way to make voting electronic, accurate, and verifiable?

My two biggest wishes for this country are

1) Every citizen must serve at lest two years in the Armed service to qualify for social security benefits.. or any other government assitance
2) If you want a tax return... then you have to vote
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Democrats feel everyone must vote in order for the government to represent the majority.
To include the dead, illegal aliens, illiterates, felons... Others interpret this as a certain party wanting low quality voters because out of self-interest. You know, how a certain form of government only survives until the populace realizes they can vote themselves money from the treasury.
If you want a tax return... then you have to vote
That's backwards. It's actually a song lyric: "If you don't pay taxes, you shouldn't vote" and it makes sense. Why would non-stake holders, people with no contribution or skin in the game, deserve a say? Flipping it again, I have absolutely no problem saying that anyone paid by taxes should not be allowed to vote. Conflict of interest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,075 Posts
If you are an American citizen you should get to vote.

My view has nothing to do with politics.
I simply believe all American citizens should get to vote.

Just because someone struggles to read dyslexia for example doesn't mean they shouldn't get to vote.


People with diagnosed learning disabilities like dyslexia, dysgraphia and dyscalculia typically have above-average IQs they just struggle with one particular thing.







Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
There are provisions for the handicapped, and the real goal of literacy tests is to keep out uninformed voters, not the visually impaired or otherwise afflicted. The general pool of citizenship questions is a simple start point, although scrolling through them I already see an error:
26. We elect a President for how many years?
Trick question, unless you are a member of the Electoral College! I'm being pedantic, but anyone that doesn't understand the fundamentals of a republic, or that we are a republic and not a democracy, is de facto incapable of voting in a national election, as they don't even understand the process in which they are participating.

But let's move on to felons. Should a convicted murderer, let's say one sentenced to multiple life sentences or on death row, have the right to vote? His actions have proven him to be incompatible of existing within a lawful society, but he is to have a say, even indirectly, in the formation of law?

3) We'd have to agree to go back to our original system of Pres-VP, where it would be possible to have a VP that was not in the same party as the POTUS. That way 1st and 2nd place totals would get the seats
Amen on that, this country started mucking with the formula way too soon. Of course people always start talking of assassination schemes when they hear this, but that really doesn't happen all that often, maybe every century or so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Not a scam, just an excuse to be disgruntled if your candidate didn't win. SEE, what state do you live in?

Example: 1000 votes are cast.
Candidate A gets 100 1st place votes, 450 2nd place votes, and 450 3rd place votes... 1,650 points.
Candidate B gets 200 1st place votes, 350 2nd place votes, and 350 3rd place votes... 1,650 points.
Candidate C gets 300 1st place votes, 200 2nd place votes, and 100 3rd place votes... 1,400 points.
Candidate D gets 400 1st place votes, 0 2nd place votes, and 100 3rd place votes... 1,300 points.
Candidate B would be the winner, because tie for total points, but more 1st place votes... or there would be a run-off between A and B.

B winner is justified because, although everybody wanted A (1000 votes out of 1000 cast), almost everybody wanted B (900 total votes) and more people wanted him/her best. Also, while D had a fanatical following and got the most 1st place votes, half the total voters rejected him/her completely (500 total votes). A similar thing applies to C, 400 didn't want him/her at all, even though they got the second most 1st votes. That means A appealed to the highest number of people, and D appealed to the least, but B wins because more people actually wanted him/her first. The optional run-off between A and B, would collect votes from the minority of people who voted for C and D.

That system seems a whole lot more fair to the majority of citizens than having two polarized parties ramming bullshite down our throats and forcing us to vote for the "lesser of two evils".

HAPPY, I totally agree with NO PARTIES. The above system is perhaps the best way ever to get rid of parties and hold fair elections.
You must have missed the whole "One person, One vote" part. Giving someone 3 votes is unconstitutional. It is a scam to try and let the loser win. In your example, Candidate D gets the most 1st place votes but loses the election. That is F'ed up. This is how elections are stolen.This is how mob rule becomes the norm. Only the mob want to subvert a system that has worked for the last 240+ years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
unconstitutional
Which constitution? Not the US one, which is unconcerned with how the states choose their government and basically assumed that governors would appoint men to the Senate and House to be electors.

Anyone that has watched a silly reality competition game surely knows the risks of alliances and elaborate game theory, spoilers, etc. My gripe is that ranked voting would be too stable, a path to bland mediocrity. Let's see if I can do an example as was presented before.

Candidates A&B are fiercely opposed and their supporters hate the other main candidate. Candidate C is some schmuck that nobody really cares about, a fifth wheel so to speak.

Example: 1000 votes are cast.
Candidate A gets (500) 1st place votes, (5) 2nd place votes, and (495) 3rd place votes... 2,005 points.
Candidate B gets (490) 1st place votes, (5) 2nd place votes, and (505) 3rd place votes... 1,985 points.
Candidate C gets (10) 1st place votes, (990) 2nd place votes, and (0) 3rd place votes... 2,010 points.

The guy that 1% of people cared about and 99% of voters just put in as a place holder to spite their most hated candidate wins. Presumably this would be a rare exception, but it is a possibility that doesn't exist with a simple direct single vote system,.
 

·
Grey Friar
Joined
·
927 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Mandatory voting is the one issue that will define you as a Republican or Democrat. Republicans do not what everyone to vote... or want to make it extremely difficult to vote. Democrats feel everyone must vote in order for the government to represent the majority.
Agree with the spirit of that statement, but I'd like to mention a few more issues that define a person as belonging to one cult or the other. Government services and programs that help the needy and disadvantaged, and/or supply relief after disasters, and/or regulate/control/limit corporate power in government, and wage disparity (min/max or no min/max). Labels can be applied, "socialist" and "fascist", although we have been pushed so far to the right by corporate lobby manipulation of congress and the media fear-tactics of the oilmen's agenda that socialism appears to many people as "communism" and fascism appears to many people as "conservatism"... the current-day shifted view is why we are stuck with a destroyed natural environment, a divisive social environment, no campaign finance reform, Citizens United, no term limits, boom and bust economy, no regulation of banking and Wall Street, and a polarized and alienated population that gets angry about minutia (like the race of a POTUS) while ignoring all the aforementioned problems.

My two biggest wishes for this country are

1) Every citizen must serve at lest two years in the Armed service to qualify for social security benefits.. or any other government assistance
2) If you want a tax return... then you have to vote
My wish is similar, government assistance/relief, as well as voting, should be tied to service. But I think people should be allowed to serve in internal disaster relief work or community work (like fighting forest or home fires, police support, aid to handicapped, etc), and Peace Corp, as well as National Guard or Military.

There are provisions for the handicapped, and the real goal of literacy tests is to keep out uninformed voters, not the visually impaired or otherwise afflicted.
Are you aware that the states currently have province over how their elections are regulated, with only a few federal mandates and mostly guidelines to follow? A whole new set of federal mandates would have to be approved and federal oversight and regulation of all state's voting... basically a federal takeover of state's rights, concerning elections... in that framework, literacy tests would be resisted by old-school conservatives and they'd be able to drag the neo-cons along with them. If their are NO federal mandates and requirements (a codified "literacy template" and guaranteed access to it), which all states would be forced to use and apply, then the idea of tests would be resisted by the ACLU and other liberal groups. Never happen, give it up, the idea is toxic and divisive.

Back in the Jim Crow south, some states mandated literacy tests. If you were black (properly educated or not) you could be asked to prove your "math skills" by having to count the number of gumballs in a half gallon jar, without removing them. Or in other race-fear/race-hate places blacks could be asked to count the number of bubbles on a bar of soap (go quick now, bubbles pop before the total can be "verified"). Without a federal takeover of the state's election processes, the courts would be filled with lawsuits against unfair election practices. But then, I think federal elections should be under the control of the federal government... we need election reform, one system of voting, and access for all.

But let's move on to felons. Should a convicted murderer, let's say one sentenced to multiple life sentences or on death row, have the right to vote? His actions have proven him to be incompatible of existing within a lawful society, but he is to have a say, even indirectly, in the formation of law?
Not while serving time. But after they have "paid their debt to society", they should be allowed to vote. Most 1st and 2nd degree murderers would permanently lose their right to vote (die in prison), but some of the manslaughter types could regain it. That's what "paying your debt to society" means. A person is supposed to be able to regain their citizen rights after they have paid the price for their crime. What's wrong with that?
 

·
Grey Friar
Joined
·
927 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Example: 1000 votes are cast.
Candidate A gets (500) 1st place votes, (5) 2nd place votes, and (495) 3rd place votes... 2,005 points.
Candidate B gets (490) 1st place votes, (5) 2nd place votes, and (505) 3rd place votes... 1,985 points.
Candidate C gets (10) 1st place votes, (990) 2nd place votes, and (0) 3rd place votes... 2,010 points.

The guy that 1% of people cared about and 99% of voters just put in as a place holder to spite their most hated candidate wins. Presumably this would be a rare exception, but it is a possibility that doesn't exist with a simple direct single vote system,.
I'd gladly take that risk to be rid of the craptastic two-party polarized system. You just said it, "rare exception". If C was truly hated he/she would get many more 3rd place votes, even if the other two were as polar as the current candidates are... but we could expect more than three candidates anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
To include the dead, illegal aliens, illiterates, felons... Others interpret this as a certain party wanting low quality voters because out of self-interest. You know, how a certain form of government only survives until the populace realizes they can vote themselves money from the treasury.

That's backwards. It's actually a song lyric: "If you don't pay taxes, you shouldn't vote" and it makes sense. Why would non-stake holders, people with no contribution or skin in the game, deserve a say?
If you are an American citizen you already have skin in the game. I never said non-citizens get to vote.
If everyone voted for having 10,000 a year provided to each citizen... and paid for by a tax on the super rich..... and it passed with a simple majority. Then that is Democracy. If the small percentage of super rich use their influence to ensure the majority of poor have no way for their needs to be met …. then that is todays America.

We were founded in 1776 by a group of domestic terrorists who did not believe that Britain had their best interest in mind. Taxation without representation is the spark that created this great country. The current police state just might be what brings it down. We cannot have the police use assault rifles and armored vehicles to enforce the law. No knock warrants, choke holds, and surveillance are way out of control ( ruby ridge and Waco people). If we do not start to acknowledge that these protesters are still American citizens and at least understand what has caused them to become revolutionary... then we are no better than the British in 1775.

the British slogan " god save the Queen"
The new tyrants slogan "make America great"
 

·
Grey Friar
Joined
·
927 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
^Agree.

Don't forget what Bush-daddy said in a speech to a hanger full of military ready to go fight the Gulf War... "It's a new world order, and what we say goes!" Sounded a lot like his old Russian enemy, Nikita Kruscev, back when George was a CIA goon and Nikita was beating his shoe on a podium, saying, "We will bury you!" [BTW, Kruscev meant "economically bury" us, not by "warfare", which is how the press played it up at the time.]

The oilmen's agenda is what we are suffering under now. Human worth and value is determined solely by how much money you make. CEOs are paid the obscene amounts more than the people who make the company run and actually provide the good or service, because the social climate tells every board and all their chairman that they are ENTITLED to receive much more money than they are actually worth. It's the "American Dream" gone mad... fascism.

The university scientists who make discoveries, the sincere theologians who set forth examples of righteousness, the big-hearted and brave first responders who work to save the life of anyone in need (including the overpaid and amoral-capitalist CEOs), the community organizers who work diligently to enable oppressed minorities to raise themselves out of cycles of poverty and crime, and the young men and women who place themselves in harms-way to protect the rights and privileges enjoyed by all Americans (regardless of who they are), are not valued by the dominant fascist paradigm that only places a high value on a person if they have a lot of money. The Wall Street parasites, the conmen CEOs, the graft-taking politicians, the entertainment/sport idols and their "owners", are people held in high regard ever since the idea of "trickle-down" economics was accepted by a majority of gullible conservatives... "beg for your crumbs that fall from the table of the rich", and they swallowed it. That's what's wrong with conservative politics today, they equate fascism with the American dream, and it's the opposite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: paulrondelli

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Can you point me to the liberals of any influence that are a danger to the alleged establishment that you describe? I might be interested in them.
 

·
Grey Friar
Joined
·
927 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Not sure who is "a danger"... but look at any of the neo-socialists that won Representative seats in the last election, they are certainly against that establishment, at least. And don't forget Bernie, he's been speaking out about the waste and fraud perpetrated by the oilmen and their lackeys for decades... if he were to receive the candidacy over Biden, et al, someone would probably slip poison into his tea.

Every front runner in the current election is too old, running mates are the critical factor now... Pence, what a joke, he would be swallowed whole by the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, even our neighbors to the north and south would exert their will over us... his only positive contribution would be to return prayer to grade schools, but even that would be shot down by the SC. Too bad that self-entitled murdering cop in Minnesota ruined Amy Klobuchar's opportunity to be Biden's VP, she would have been good enough to vote for and be happy about it. We just seem to be screwed in every election lately. At least Ranked Voting would give us the opportunity for the majority to elect it's own POTUS and VP, separately.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top