Should we make it easier for third parties to be able to better contest elections against the Democrats and Republicans? Should we switch to entirely publicly funded elections? Should we adopt the Australian ballot, which uses preferential voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting)? What else should be done?
2007-02-27 13:54:10 · 9 answers · asked by jasonbondshow 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
We need to have fairer ballot access laws for third party candidates (Ron Paul sponsored a bill to do so by having a candidate running for U.S. Representative to gather signatures equal to 0.5% of the registered voters and for U.S. Senator and Pres. signatures equal to 0.1% of the registered voters or 1,000 signatures, whichever is greater).
We also need to introduce public financing for all elections, even if it's only a partial funding, because candidates can get closer to the people not the money (and if people want to spend any of their money, they can). The Instant Runoff Vote (known in Australia as Preferential Voting) should be used because it gives candidates a majority mandate. I would favor Instant Runoff Voting as part of a mixed system like Germany (without the closed party lists). This brings me to the next important topic: introducing Proportional Voting systems like the Single Transferable Vote and Mixed Member Proportional for our state and federal elections. Since the Voting Rights Act of 1965 forbids the use of multi-member or at-large districts in state and federal elections, this means that no Proportional voting system can be used. But I think we should focus on petitioning it for 2008 or 2010 so we can use Proportional Representation. Besides, in many cases PR has been proven to give minority and women candidates better chances to get seats than our single-member district system and can increase their scope, instead of limiting them. We don't need a Constitutional Ammendment for the use of Proportional Representation for elections but we can work together to back Proportional Representation systems and petition it. The Voting Rights Act should include PR if it's so into helping minorities getting elected.
Finally, the electoral college should be reformed. Knowing that it would need a Constitutional Ammendment, we should favor a proportional allocation of the electoral votes by giving 2 electoral votes to the state winner and distribute the rest according to the popular vote (for 3 electoral votes, it should be proportional and giving the state winner any remaining electoral vote(s)). Now, if we want to eliminate the Electoral College, include Proportional Representation for state and U.S. House elections in the package. Thanks!
2007-02-27 19:05:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Although everybody agrees, nothing has been done. I think the Electoral College needs to be done away with. In today's technological world, the people are able to directly elect the President.
As a minimum, the electoral college should be made to split or parcel out their vote instead of having a winner take all system as many states currently have.
2007-02-27 15:01:39 · answer #2 · answered by txguy8800 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Since the election process we use today is the exact one written into our Constitution by our Founding Fathers, for very specific reasons, how could you get an election that was more "representative of the will of the people"? What's Australia got to do with anything? Publicly funded elections? Puhhlllleeeeeezze. God Bless you.
2007-02-27 14:07:36 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We just have to change the system so that the candidates be elected by the popular vote and not by the electoral college. In other words get rid of the electoral college.
2007-02-27 14:13:35 · answer #4 · answered by fox mulder 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
precisely how lots of the international as an entire replaced interior the final week? Are you at present at present gazing for unicorns? we are in a undertaking that has been construction over the final hundred years. as of previous due it style of feels that the left concentrated purely on the unfavorable and doubtless the main appropriate has come to concentration purely on the rich, supposedly. with a bit of luck we can push for honest standards that help human beings regardless and supply up attacking all of us who has such low morals as to prosper or prevail. it fairly is meant to be style of what we do here and it has consistently labored so this cutting-edge hobby of doing that which has on no account labored, nevertheless baffles me
2016-10-16 22:16:05 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Get rid of the electoral collage, and come up with a system that everyone can use that will calculate the votes accurately and who ever has the most votes wins and the 1st looser becomes VP.
2007-02-27 14:04:04 · answer #6 · answered by Gremlin 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
ALL contibutions should go into a fund that becomes equally split among the candidates.
STOP, companies from donating huge sums of money to a candidate that supports their interests
2007-02-27 13:59:44 · answer #7 · answered by pompanopete0 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
it's simple.....get rid of parties and get rid of the electoral college. Wit technology today, each individual vote can be counted. Then we get the will of the people.
2007-02-27 14:22:30 · answer #8 · answered by cor 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think we should make it easier for third party candidates to run for election, as well as making fund raising entirely public... basically what you said. :-)
2007-02-27 13:59:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋