discussion What should Americans do to fix their messy electoral system?

[Letters From Adi]

I came across this and was frankly shocked to realise so many people are that angry at the Dems that they would consider voting like this.

Normally I don't think it's appropriate to tell people of another nation how to vote but USA affects the globe drastically (especially through their coups/revolutions like what happened in Bangladesh and Chile).

US currently has a far right party and a right party, so basically US is alternating between regressing and then halting.

Also, the whole "winner takes it all" seems completely unfair to the voters. In normal countries like the UK, they have members elected by seat and not the whole state. In this regard, I think a parliamentary system would do US much better than a presidential one.

What do you guys think? 

PS: Mods can remove it to the right section, please (I'm unsure if it goes here or not)

[Gelato]

in the uk we also have hereditary peers (for now) and bishops in the house of lords, we ain't normal either 

[Peak Now]

Abolish the electoral college and have a 2-round system, but the first step in that sentence is not gonna happen without a constitutional amendment, which needs to be passed by 38 out of 50 state legislatures, and no GOP-controlled legislature is going to vote for that, so

 

[IBelonginYourArms]

Kill half of the braindead population or educate them somehow. Both options seem less possible than gluing back all continents into Pangaea. That country is unfixable 

[EtherealCat]

vote for jill stein

[The7thStranger]

We should break the country up into smaller countries with freedom of movement for citizens of each. And then install social democratic parlimentary systems based highly on those used in the Nordic countries or in New Zealand.

 

Québéc is invited to join New England if they no longer wish to be part of Canada.

[Vermouth]

12 minutes ago, The7thStranger said:

We should break the country up into smaller countries with freedom of movement for citizens of each. And then install social democratic parlimentary systems based highly on those used in the Nordic countries or in New Zealand.

 

Québéc is invited to join New England if they no longer wish to be part of Canada.

Ok. You've just got to get people to vote for that then. Shouldn't be much of a problem?

 

Oh…….

[Arrows]

It's insane they live in a 'democracy' that doesn't count all votes equally

[Vermouth]

Well you could start off by having a genuinely independent body to actually oversee the elections, election financing, and draw up the boundaries, such as the UK's electoral commission and boundary commission.  That might stop some of the egregious cost of US elections and the gerrymandering of districts.

 

Better still, do that, and add a substantial slice of proportional representation to the direct territorial election system, so something like Germany, or Scotland, or Ireland ( though the latter's system does require a PhD in maths!).

Edited October 22 by Vermouth

[The7thStranger]

1 minute ago, Vermouth said:

Well you could start off by having a genuinely independent body to actually oversee the elections, election financing, and draw up the boundaries, such as the UK's electoral commission and boundary commission.  That might stop some of the egregious cost of US elections and the gerrymandering of districts.

 

Better still, do that, and add a substantial slice of proportional representation to the direct territorial election system, so something like Germany, or Scotland, or Ireland ( though the latter's system does require a PhD in maths!).

Please... don't give us anything from the UK system...

[Vermouth]

5 minutes ago, The7thStranger said:

Please... don't give us anything from the UK system...

Well it's far from perfect, and in desperate need of reform, but elections are cheap, tightly financially regulated, and overseen by genuinely non partisan bodies, including ( crucially) the drawing of electoral district boundaries.

 

We just had an election, where power transferred peacefully within 24 hours of the ballots closing, and the two leaders ( who'd swapped positions) were seen happily chatting like adults a couple of weeks later. Nobody but nobody is disputing the voting, or the outcome. Now the system needs reform, sure, but credit where credit is due and all that.

 

[Mordecai]

13 minutes ago, Vermouth said:

Well you could start off by having a genuinely independent body to actually oversee the elections, election financing, and draw up the boundaries, such as the UK's electoral commission and boundary commission.  That might stop some of the egregious cost of US elections and the gerrymandering of districts.

When I read the US doesn't have this (like here in NZ, or in the UK/Aus and probably many other countries), I was bewildered. It doesn't get any more blatantly corrupt than that 

[nsst]

honestly they should just copy the brazilian electoral system  

[The7thStranger]

11 minutes ago, Vermouth said:

Well it's far from perfect, and in desperate need of reform, but elections are cheap, tightly financially regulated, and overseen by genuinely non partisan bodies, including ( crucially) the drawing of electoral district boundaries.

 

We just had an election, where power transferred peacefully within 24 hours of the ballots closing, and the two leaders ( who'd swapped positions) were seen happily chatting like adults a couple of weeks later. Nobody but nobody is disputing the voting, or the outcome. Now the system needs reform, sure, but credit where credit is due and all that.

 

The issue that I have with the UK system in general is the wide gap between those in power and those who actually go to the polls, i.e., the people. Quick and painless is great, but we still need results.

[Vermouth]

47 minutes ago, The7thStranger said:

The issue that I have with the UK system in general is the wide gap between those in power and those who actually go to the polls, i.e., the people. Quick and painless is great, but we still need results.

What do you mean precisely? The disproportionate results from the electoral system?

[khalyan]

Remove the electoral college, and implement ranked choice voting. 

[DAP]

Overthrow it

[spree]

popular vote is the winner.  That way every single vote from every single person matters.  Not sure what the problem is.  If it's an unfair advantage for Dems then the GOP needs to convert more to their side.  I don't even see the unfairness of it all.

[The7thStranger]

42 minutes ago, Vermouth said:

What do you mean precisely? The disproportionate results from the electoral system?

Perhaps I've misunderstood the system at some point, but I've been under the impression that Britons only had voting power at a fairly restrictive local level. And that by the time politicians climb the ranks, they don't necessarily represent the people who voted them into power in the first place. Or is that not accurate? (Genuinely asking.)

Edited October 22 by The7thStranger

[Letters From Adi]

25 minutes ago, spree said:

popular vote is the winner.  That way every single vote from every single person matters.  Not sure what the problem is.  If it's an unfair advantage for Dems then the GOP needs to convert more to their side.  I don't even see the unfairness of it all.

You do realize Trump won 2016 despite losing in popular vote?

[spree]

1 minute ago, Letters From Adi said:

You do realize Trump won 2016 despite losing in popular vote?

that has nothing to do with it.  The argument is that if it was decided by popular vote, Dems would win every time.  Well that's not the Dem's fault, R's need to convert more people. 

[Bloo]

4 hours ago, Letters From Adi said:

I came across this and was frankly shocked to realise so many people are that angry at the Dems that they would consider voting like this.

 

Arab Americans are the population in America that are most likely to personally know people that have died by bombs our tax dollars have been used to supply Israel's ongoing genocide. Why would they support the candidate who is part of the administration currently arming and supporting Israel's actions (and repeatedly says she will not change her mind on this issue?).

 

Using this poll to kickstart the thread is a bit random and not a good starting point.

—

However, abolishing the electoral college, implementing ranked choice voting, and criminalizing money in politics are great ways to improve our democracy.

[John Slayne]

4 hours ago, Letters From Adi said:

I came across this and was frankly shocked to realise so many people are that angry at the Dems that they would consider voting like this.

Normally I don't think it's appropriate to tell people of another nation how to vote but USA affects the globe drastically (especially through their coups/revolutions like what happened in Bangladesh and Chile).

US currently has a far right party and a right party, so basically US is alternating between regressing and then halting.

Also, the whole "winner takes it all" seems completely unfair to the voters. In normal countries like the UK, they have members elected by seat and not the whole state. In this regard, I think a parliamentary system would do US much better than a presidential one.

What do you guys think? 

PS: Mods can remove it to the right section, please (I'm unsure if it goes here or not)

the UK is not really a good model for functioning democracy lol, we still have a KING (that can, contrary to popular belief, lobby the government without our knowledge as he is exempt from FOI requests)

 

on top of that, we have an unelected 2nd chamber (Lords) that includes hereditary peers and lords spiritual (the only other ocuntry to have permanent religious representation in the legislative body is Iran)

 

the UK 'democracy' is a total mess, maybe even more so than in the US

[Vermouth]

31 minutes ago, The7thStranger said:

Perhaps I've misunderstood the system at some point, but I've been under the impression that Britons only had voting power at a fairly restrictive local level. And that by the time politicians climb the ranks, they don't necessarily represent the people who voted them into power in the first place. Or is that not accurate? (Genuinely asking.)

Yes I think there's a misunderstanding.

 

There are of course, local elections for county and city councils and such like, and in Scotland, Wales, and N Ireland there are local Parliaments in addition which have some powers devolved from the London Govt (what powers varies, but things like education, transport, health).

 

However, U.K. citizens can stand and vote every 4/5 years ( maximum of every 5 years) in a General Election like there was in July this year. The country is divided into 650 equal by population (there's a whole load of rules about exactly how equal overseen by the independent Boundary Commission, but they are pretty equal) constituencies (voting districts). Anyone can stand, and whoever gets the highest number of votes in each constituency becomes an MP ( Member of Parliament) for that constituency until the next election (unless they do something criminally wrong in between, resign, or die). Whoever can command  the support of a majority of MPs (so 325 plus) forms the Government.

 

MP's regularly hold "surgeries" a bit like a doctor ( hence the name) where people in their constituency can go and talk to them/complain/ ask about things. I have actually done this myself once and talked to my MP for an hour about something I wasn't happy about, and as a result I had a meeting for about an hour, a few weeks later, with an actual Minister to raise my points, after which some action was taken.

 

The voting system needs reform in my view, but you can directly and freely access people in power if you use the system, (and complain to their face😁).

 

 

[The7thStranger]

3 minutes ago, Vermouth said:

Yes I think there's a misunderstanding.

 

There are of course, local elections for county and city councils and such like, and in Scotland, Wales, and N Ireland there are local Parliaments in addition which have some powers devolved from the London Govt (what powers varies, but things like education, transport, health).

 

However, U.K. citizens can stand and vote every 4/5 years ( maximum of every 5 years) in a General Election like there was in July this year. The country is divided into 650 equal by population (there's a whole load of rules about exactly how equal overseen by the independent Boundary Commission, but they are pretty equal) constituencies (voting districts). Anyone can stand, and whoever gets the highest number of votes in each constituency becomes an MP ( Member of Parliament) for that constituency until the next election (unless they do something criminally wrong in between, resign, or die). Whoever can command  the support of a majority of MPs (so 325 plus) forms the Government.

 

MP's regularly hold "surgeries" a bit like a doctor ( hence the name) where people in their constituency can go and talk to them/complain/ ask about things. I have actually done this myself once and talked to my MP for an hour about something I wasn't happy about, and as a result I had a meeting for about an hour, a few weeks later, with an actual Minister to raise my points, after which some action was taken.

 

The voting system needs reform in my view, but you can directly and freely access people in power if you use the system, (and complain to their face😁).

 

 

Thanks so much for the explanation! I had this vision in my head of a bottleneck issue, where you can shove politicans through the opening but you can pretty much never get them out again. I think it's still there to some extent, but not to the extreme degree that I had imagined.