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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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..
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.
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.
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
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...
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.
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
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?
If they did away with the electoral college there could be the ability for more than two parties.
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?
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
by Old Poolman 2 years ago
The more I hear about this upcoming election the more confused I get.One of the so called "Delegates" even loudly proclaimed it was they who choose the next winner, not the voters.What if all Primaries were held on the exact same day?What if we did away with the Electoral College?What if...
by Ashley924 7 years ago
If you could change one thing about America what would it be?
by LoliHey 2 years ago
Has Trump lost this election? Is it over for him?He seems to be saying more and more things to piss people off. After the comment about the Kahn family, it appears that many Republicans are turning to Hilary, and the party is turning against him. Then he made comments about the...
by jacqui2011 7 years ago
If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?
by jlastevens 7 years ago
If you could change one thing about the world we live in today, what would that be?Would you want the world to have world peace, take care of the forest or would you just like the neighbor to turn down his music at night time? What would you personally like the world to have different than it is...
by Flo Belanger 6 years ago
If you had to change one thing about yourself, what would it be?I feel like I have to make sure everyone's needs are met before I can do something for myself. I would like to learn how to say no without feeling guilty.
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|