Looks like there isn't much appetite for reformation in this reformation thread. Tinkering with the election process seems to be more like fine-tuning than reformation. Maybe a different approach to the question will be useful...
What would you like government to do that it doesn't do well, or not do that it does do? That is, if changes are made to the election process, becoming more representative, how would that improve government?
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. — H.L. MenckenBecause radically reshaping government doesn't address the problems, it just masks it.
The point of making a government more representative is that you avoid the current situation where you only have two major parties and one of them is dominated by destructive ideologues pushing an incredibly regressive and damaging agenda, despite having a support of a minority of the population even under FPTP, with no accountability to their voters in any form because almost entirely the current electoral situation just lets the incumbents select their voters rather than the other way around.
And a two-party system is so easily dominated by money that they mostly answer to corporate interests rather than public.
@ Nikkolas: Lobbying for elimination or reducing of the rules that prevent smaller parties from getting on the ballot would be the way, far as I can see. That's wrapped up in the whole idea of general campaign reform. Also, making what happens in elections relatively uniform across the country would probably help. In New York very small parties (that in some cases I think only exist in New York city) can band together and nominate their own or support a specific candidate on the rolls, as an official thing. Texas law doesn't really allow that, so you're usually stuck with one of two options as a consequence.
@Eyebones: That's probably because one, we've yet to agree what reform actually means, and two, we all have different ideas for different kinds of reforms that would work best. Also, this was basically a wish fulfillment discussion at the start, which means some people suggested things that blatantly can't be done in the current environment. In any case, it takes A LOT of motivation to create actual structural changes of the sort some people are suggesting, and just seem incredibly costly and impractical to me. There is no fullproof system, anyway, and I'm more in the line of someone who wants to find shit we can do right now, or relatively soon, to patch up the system we have.
Frankly, my wishlist would just include automatic voter registration, college ID being acceptable voter ID rather than fucking gun permits, instituting the STV in elections, and possibly the states giving serious thought to whether or not they really need two house legislatures. But structurally changing the federal level entirely? Yeah, I don't think we're in a place where we need to consider it just yet.
Also, the president? Not a king, and also subject to being fired after four years, out at eight years at the most. And the president sets a lot of the tone for how we operate in the world. Every country has someone like that, because it's something that needs doing in an increasingly global community. You eliminate the president, someone else is going to have to take up all of those duties. Either way, you end up with a leader, regardless of what the actual title is. (Further, all the shit that needs doing doesn't just happen without someone making it so. So yes, leaders are in fact necessary.)
edited 20th Feb '18 3:01:57 PM by AceofSpades
I'll reiterate that there are countries that don't have a solitary head of state. The concept is not science fiction. Also, "the president sets a lot of the tone for how we operate in the world" is one of the problems I'd like to remedy. I'd rather have law do so.
There have been kings with short tenure. Doesn't make them any less a king. Either elected or born to it, the role is very similar.
Limiting (or reassigning) the powers of the president is within the remit of "the checks and balances" folks without structural changes. Enforcement of law could be made utterly independent within the Executive, for example.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. — H.L. MenckenHaving multiple heads of state will only lead to contradiction and actual factionalism, not the masturbatory kind found in party politics. We don't need duumviri, we just need a president elected by a less moronic system.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."The thing with executives is that people look to them in times of trouble or crisis. The powers of the US president have grown as a direct result of the growing complexity of American society and our place in the global community. Americans think they need a powerful executive both to solve problems decisively, and to protect them from threats domestic and foriegn. Americans by and large do not trust governing institutions, while supporting and trusting the specific individuals who occupy positions within them. Polls have shown that Americans have a low opinion of Congress as an institutions, while often liking their specific Congressperson quite well. Something similar happens with the President. People have low trust in the executive branch as a whole, while often having a great liking (or at least less dislike) for the person they elected to office. Growing partisanship among the populace means that people are starting to experience decreasing trust in elected officials of the opposite party. The most important reform, it seems to me, is to encourage a greater sense of community and solidarity across party lines, while simultaneously not undermining the diversity of policies and positions that are offered and discussed in public debate. That seems challenging.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart."Solidarity across party lines" is kind of perfunctory, to be honest. Progressives and conservatives don't have much in common anymore. I mean, unless you're saying that politics in general needs to become more vanilla and less ideological.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.""Law" is a thing that changes as much if not more often than the people in charge of any given location. And, in the end, relies on people to interpret that law, because without that it's just words on paper.
You're not really being very convincing by just saying "other countries have done a thing" by the way. Again, so broad as to be meaningless. Also, most governments don't really change without a LOT of social upheaval beforehand, so it's unlikely to happen in America's case because as bad as things are I doubt we're headed for a structural collapse any time soon. And without a structural collapse, things like changing how our elections work are easier and much less disruptive to people's every day lives.
@De Marquis: Another reform I'd like is that our schools would actually better educate our students on what Presidents actually can and can't do, and what powers belong to Congress alone. Like, this last decade has revealed a lot of confusion and ignorance about how, exactly, the mechanisms of our government works and how many people just think that the President can order a thing done and it's done. That's not even how kings work anymore. But that's more a discussion for an education topic than about how to reform the government, I guess.
edited 20th Feb '18 8:10:29 PM by AceofSpades
You can't get ideological diversity in a system where an official can take his seat without having won 50%+1 of the voting electorate in the most recent contest of an election. Either runoffs or single-transferable vote, or whatever, but FPTP will never give you ideological diversity. Even the most prominent western exception, the UK, has a "right-wing" and "left-wing" slot that's occupied by one major party in each constituent country.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."Thought on Gerrymandering.
What if instead of districts, each citizen simply got a number of votes equal to the number of representatives they get in the state?
IE: State A gets 5 reps. So each person votes for 5 different people on the ballot and the top 5 people get the seats.
There's an argument about this hurting some districts, but really that's an issue at the state gov't level, not the national level.
I asked a few people around me and none of them even knew which district they lived in, let alone who the representative is.
At that point you’re just making each state a mixed member district.
Woudl be a tad awkward to vote in the bigger states, in fact in California, New York and Texas you’d have a serious risk of people jsut voting for either the first or also name on the ballot in enough numbers to make a big difference (and yes that’s a real measurable thing at elections, being first or last on the ballot gives a candidate a boost in votes).
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThat might work on for the Senate, locked in at two members as they are, but with House Reps appointed according to state population you'll get Californians having to vote for fifty or more people and Texans having to vote for close to forty. As that's way to many people to keep track of unless that's literally your job, yes it is a problem at the national level.
I'm certainly curious about how, exactly, you think that would work and why it's more a state level problem than a national one, though.
Still having districts have up to five members could work, the problem is it becomes an even bigger winner take all scenario if you still use FPTP, because if people vote down party lines you’ll see all five seats go one way or the other.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranGreat, so you want people to memorise the names of over 100 candidates just to vote? Great way to drive political apathy.
Representative government: the preserve of small states where you wouldn't have to memorise enough people to fill a small village just to tick boxes.
edited 22nd Feb '18 6:57:34 AM by RainehDaze
X4 And then almost every election gets won by the person whose name is first on the ballot, or the candidate with the most memorable name.
Not every voter has 5 minutes, or a good enough memory to remember who they were going to vote for by name even if they do do the research.
edited 22nd Feb '18 7:43:57 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

"In fact, some US electoral procedures are unknown outside of dictatorships: “Unlike other established democracies, the USA permits one set of standards of ballot access for established ‘major’ parties and a different set for all other parties.”
That America’s election system is uniquely repressive is common knowledge among experts. “Nowhere is the concern [about governing-party repression] greater than in the United States, as partisan influence is possible at all stages of the electoral contest,” concludes a recent survey of comparative election law.
“Perhaps the clearest case of overt partisan manipulation of the rules is the United States, where Democrats and Republicans appear automatically on the ballot, but third parties and independents have to overcome a maze of cumbersome legal requirements,” writes Pippa Norris,
a world elections authority at Harvard and director of democratic governance at the United Nations Development Program."
So I'm in favor of changing this. Does anybody know how?