If you could change 1 and only 1 thing about the US election process, what would

1. 87

   RJ Schwartzposted 6 years ago

   If you could change 1 and only 1 thing about the US election process, what would it be?
   
   Nothing is off the table - eliminate only 1 thing and state why you chose it and the expected improvements we'd see.  Try not to be the person saying they need to put two or three ideas or several connected ideas - it takes the spirit of the process away.  This is a legitimate time to seriously think about something that would be helpful, possibly even a bi-partisan idea.
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 81

      jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Term limits for Congress. 2 terms for Senate, 4 terms for House members.

      replyreport
2. 60

   Live to Learnposted 6 years ago

   Make it illegal for corporate entities to contribute to campaigns. Cap contributions at a low amount. Allow only campaign advertising from the campaign, itself. Prohibit sensationalism And mud slinging in advertising. And ensure all campaigns have equal timeto run ads in comparable time slots.

   replyreport
   1. 87

      RJ Schwartzposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      How would you keep regular citizens from de-facto advertising of a candidate? I think your ideas would be helpful, but seem difficult to enforce.

      replyreport
   2. 70

      mike102771posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      How much equal time? There are many diffrent parties besides the big 2. who would decide who gets the equal time? Would a party with 200 followers get the same as one with 2 million?

      replyreport
   3. 88

      MizBejabbersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Only if the rule was clarified by the FCC. I worked in radio when the equal time provision was in effect,. The FCC didn't clarify rule & nobody knew how to interpret, result was chilling effect on political advertising and free air time to object

      replyreport
   4. 60

      Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Well, set contribution limits in line with reasonable amounts which could be afforded by an average income. Equal time for all candidates could include other parties. And should. The two parties don't appear to be representative of many.

      replyreport
   5. 82

      gregasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      How about setting spending limits for campaigns? They have to run on a limited budget. That way we know how good they might be with OUR money. Trump beat Hillary and spent a lot less than she did..

      replyreport
   6. 87

      RJ Schwartzposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      How would anyone be able to monitor the spending?  The DNC wouldn't even let the FBI look at their servers when they claimed to have been hacked - I doubt they would share any financial figures.

      replyreport
3. 82

   gregasposted 6 years ago

   Have to show ID or proof of citizenship in order to vote.

   replyreport
   1. 87

      RJ Schwartzposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I'd add some provision to monitor the mail-in balloting - real abuses happen through proxy voting that way

      replyreport
4. 81

   jackclee lmposted 6 years ago

   That is simple. I would institute term limits on Congressmen and senators. The current election process is in place to keep the imcumbent in power 90% of the time. All fund raising and time campaigning is tied to the goal of re-election. If a limit is in place, the politician, once elected, will focus on getting the work done that he promised the voters. He will know he has a fix amount of time to make a difference.

   replyreport
   1. 87

      RJ Schwartzposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I think most people would agree that we need term limits - interesting how the fear of having Steve Bannon crawl trough their lives is causing many of them to say they will not run again

      replyreport
   2. 81

      jackclee lmposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think that is what they are afraid of. They just look at the poll and figure they don't have a chance. These GOP RINO are spineless. They run at the first chance of losing...

      replyreport
   3. 50

      bradmasterOCcalposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Jack
      We already have term limits as the voters can initiate it at any time. The real problem is the voter and especially the loyal party voter. If a politician isn't doing the job for the people, the voters should not reelect them.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         True but you know as well as I that the system is rigged to help incombents...
         So, therefore, most voters don’t really have a choice do they? They are asked to vote for the candidates the party bosses dictate in primaries...

         replyreport
5. 67

   ptosisposted 6 years ago

   
   
   Since this is about the election process:
   
   Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 21, 2010, ruled (5–4) that laws that prevented corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for independent “electioneering communications” (political advertising) violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. In so doing the court invalidated Section 203 of the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA)—also known as the McCain-Feingold Act for its sponsors,
   
   https://www.britannica.com/event/Citize … Commission

   replyreport
6. 88

   MizBejabbersposted 6 years ago

   I have always questioned the existence of the electoral college. I still haven't made up my mind as to whether it is a good thing, but I would like to see an election or two without it. Today's U.S. is a far cry from years ago when the electoral college was thought to be needed. Our population has grown and populated areas have shifted. So is it really needed today?

   replyreport
   1. 82

      gregasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      If they did away with the electoral college there could be the ability for more than two parties.

      replyreport
   2. 70

      mike102771posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Without the EC most presidential candidates would ignore the needs of the small states and just campaign in the big ones. The rest of the states would become the flyover states. Should CA, TX and NY be the only ones to pick our leaders?

      replyreport
   3. 82

      gregasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Mike, that doesn't make a bit of sense.

      replyreport
   4. 70

      mike102771posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Large population centers would decide who wins by way of the larger population (votes).  A Vote in CA would be worth more than a vote in OK or CT. Why would a candidate go to a state with a population less than 1 million votes?

      replyreport
   5. 82

      gregasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Mike, It works the same way with EC. The larger the population the more electoral votes. Except all the EC votes go to the majority. By popular vote the votes go where they belong.

      replyreport
   6. 70

      mike102771posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      If the EC wasn’t limited to a set amount & just on population then places like CA & NY would have most of the EC. A state like mine (Ohio) wouldn’t matter. Just ask Hillary about the popular vote vs the EC. I think you will find her on her bo

      replyreport
   7. 88

      MizBejabbersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Greg and Mike, you are both making good theoretical points. That's why I would like to see an election with a real live demonstration. Our population has grown and shifted since the theory was first enacted.

      replyreport
7. 52

   peter565posted 6 years ago

   Start electing via popular vote, might be a better idea

   replyreport
   1. 82

      gregasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Popular vote would be the better way. That way everyone's vote would count. With EC personal votes don't count. I am glad EC worked this time around, but I have always been for popular vote. Also, have to show ID or proof of citizenship when voting.

      replyreport
8. 75

   Ken Burgessposted 6 years ago

   A 100% authentic, honest, one person one vote system with checks and balances to ensure it.
   
   No backrooms with biased 'election workers' filling out hundreds or thousands of ballots to change their county's results.
   
   No computer system voting machines that can be hacked, that have no paper trail, making entire states' votes suspect.
   
   With all our technology we can make a system where the only way you can vote, is with a DMV ID.  People who can't be bothered with getting a DMV ID shouldn't be allowed to vote... really, I mean, if you aren't capable enough, or willing enough, or determined enough to find your way to a DMV with the required documents to get an ID you shouldn't be voting.
   
   Why on earth do we want people who aren't capable of going and getting an ID deciding who runs the country?
   
   Why do we want a system where people can fill in absentee ballots and send them in, without being able to confirm it was those people who sent in those ballots?
   
   Why do we want a system where bus loads of people being driven from polling location to location and voting over and over again can actually happen?
   
   Make the system fair and honest, in the end, its the electoral process that decides, but it would be nice to know what the real votes were, and know that the election wasn't hijacked in half a dozen states because of identification and tracking measures required for voting.

   replyreport
   1. 87

      RJ Schwartzposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I like what you are saying - what's your thoughts/solution on how to deal with the growing numbers of mail-in or absentee ballots - i believe there is a lot of people who think this area of the vote is rife with fraud

      replyreport
   2. 75

      Ken Burgessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      it IS rife with fraud, the county right next to the one I live in had a poll station's workers caught in a backroom filling out ballots by the hundreds... the system is total garbage that we have today, it could easily be fixed with strong ID checks

      replyreport
9. 53

   ameliawangposted 5 years ago

   This discussion is of high interest for me as I am an academic writer at http://exclusive-paper.com/. Not only I write customized papers for students but also learn a lot of new things while doing each scientific research.

   replyreport