On Fixing How U.S. Elects Presidents: A Discussion

[Narkra]

This thread is a bit bleak, because the majority of suggestions here are just suggestions that would bring the american voting process up to the same standards as how it's already done in other modern nations.

Meanwhile those other modern nations are already eyeing things such as: online voting, etc.

- - - Updated - - -



The "Rule of Law" (the law having no higher authority than the legislative branch of government (eg. not subject to the whims of dictators, religious leaders, a single political party or the military etc.) should be help supreme and more laws should be made to keep it that way. In Germany there is something like that already in place (due to the aftermath of WW2 obviously) that prohibits fascist and racist rhetoric in the country. Those people simply get prison sentences and have their political rights revoked. It should probably be taken further and made even harsher. Liberalism shouldn't offer freedom to fascism.

Yes, this is exactly what would work, I think... I was kind of hoping U.S. already had something like this in place but apparently not. :/ *sigh*

[Ausr]

Outlaw the Republican party. There, I just fixed the election process.

[Thepersona]

Yeah, let's just make everything a simple popularity contest! I mean, who cares about tyranny of the majority (think about if the majority was against YOUR stance/candidate/etc).

Seriously, take a civics class, it's embarrassing to read people advocating for mob rule.

As opposed to tyranny of the minority (which is the alternative you're spouting) right?

[Vegas82]

So, could changes be made to the process of electing candidates come about should Democrats have a senate majority? Or would this require other means?

I dont think I'd want to upset the status quo too much, just make it more difficult to elect someone who doesn't have the good of America in mind over themselves. Like the background checks/IQ tests--I feel as if there should be a baseline checklist that keeps certain types of people from running (aka narcissists). I just dunno how such a proccess could be realistically implemented.

It would take a true super majority of support across congress to change to the popular vote.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, let's just make everything a simple popularity contest! I mean, who cares about tyranny of the majority (think about if the majority was against YOUR stance/candidate/etc).

Seriously, take a civics class, it's embarrassing to read people advocating for mob rule.

“Mob rule” aka democracy. Get outta here with your BS.

[Felya]

This thread is a bit bleak, because the majority of suggestions here are just suggestions that would bring the american voting process up to the same standards as how it's already done in other modern nations.

Meanwhile those other modern nations are already eyeing things such as: online voting, etc.

Holly shit, I am looking forward to discovering your new character... How quickly Arch Angels fall...

The elections ran pretty smoothly in US... the ‘how to fix elections’ in today’s context, is getting Trump the fuck out.

[Shadowferal]

Outlaw the Republican party. There, I just fixed the election process.

No.
You just revealed how little you know about making laws.

Until campaign finance reform becomes a reality...getting the money out of the process..nothing will happen.

[tylenol]

No.
You just revealed how little you know about making laws.

Until campaign finance reform becomes a reality...getting the money out of the process..nothing will happen.

Well, considering that'll never happen here the next best thing is to just get rid of the republican party.

You have to wonder where they stand (if you are still in doubt) after 4 years of ignoring all the election security bills, after that old ghoul mcconnell ignored what Obama told him about election interference in 2016...then 4 years later they cry about election rigging when it's obvious there is none and the guy who said there was fraud in PA turned out he was paid to say what he said and now essentially we have coup going on because republicans are the biggest pussies on the planet, afraid of some old loser orange broke asshole failure.

[Endus]

As opposed to tyranny of the minority (which is the alternative you're spouting) right?

Like, seriously. Democracy is "tyranny of the majority". Literally all other systems of government are "tyranny of some minority". The entire point of democracy is that majority rules. That's the selling point. That's what makes it "better" than all other forms of government.

It's safe to assume anyone taking issue with "tyranny of the majority" is a proto-fascist who wants their particular minority group to hold the reins.

[Ausr]

No.
You just revealed how little you know about making laws.

Until campaign finance reform becomes a reality...getting the money out of the process..nothing will happen.

...because of Republicans.

I know what I said has little to do with actual law, hence the outlandish statement of saying that. What my idea suggested is that by outlawing the one political party who makes this shit hard to reform in the first place, you have nothing blocking you from doing it.

[PresidentGreymane]

1. Restore the Voting Rights Act, oh look there's a bill already waiting!
2. Universal Voting by Mail, oh look, there's another bill ready for that one!
3. Pass the National Popular Vote compact in more states. It needs an additional 74 electoral votes to go into effect.

Not as fancy and 4d chess ranking votes. Not as edgy as the ideas from corbynists discord groups.

It just makes more sense to build on established movements.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Get the money out of politics is really the only fix and it won't ever happen. It is to easy for politicians to get rich and have endless benefits because of it. People like to pretend this is a one sided issue but its wide spread and on both sides. One side just is extremely shameless about it while the other at least tries to vail it within reason and which side does which is usually determined by which side you are on and thus how you see it. I mean I voted against Trump because he is an asshole mostly. Couldn't even pretend to care about me in the slightest but I cannot sit here and pretend that Biden cares a whole lot about me either. But at least I don't have to hear the man "joke" about it openly on social media every day.

[Draco-Onis]

No.
You just revealed how little you know about making laws.

Until campaign finance reform becomes a reality...getting the money out of the process..nothing will happen.

Money in politics has to do with influence in the political process not voting, the strategy of the republican party for decades have been to do everything in their power to stop people from voting. Trump and several republicans have said it several times as they do every year.

"If we ever allowed all that level of voting no republican would ever take the white house again" said Donald Trump talking about the election funding and reform proposals of democrats.

[Shadowferal]

Moneyed politicians once saw the USPS as an obsolete branch of the government that even a couple here agreed with a year ago.
Lesson learned?

[enslockhart]

IQ tests are silly... debates are supposed to show the wit of a president.

This is my opinion too. It is about being informed about policy and articulating it and your position on the issue to the public.

[infinitemeridian]

This is my opinion too. It is about being informed about policy and articulating it and your position on the issue to the public.

The public at large, does not care about policy or positions. They care about epic owns and idpol signaling. Luckily for them, that is all both parties operate on these days.

Can't have us changing material conditions, that'd be hard!

[Easo]

Good thing we weren't founded as a democracy then. Might consider asking yourself why there's been such a concerted effort to claim we are a democracy.

What's better is no one being disenfranchised. That's the entire reason we have both a Senate and House, to use one of the examples in this thread. Otherwise, small states would effectively have no say.

USA oficially is a democracy. Trying to argue otherwise is just... insert word of your choice. The "argument" of "it is a republic, not democracy" has never made sense. All the "protect democractic values" really does not go together with "we are not democracy". Problem is the specific implementation of democracy by the USA.

Someone will ALWAYS be disenfranchised. You cannot indulge/accomodate everyone, you have to find some kind of balance. It is also incredibly dumb to think that state so important for the whole country as California should be dictated by some Maine, which has less population than any of the Baltic states.

[Feanoro]

USA oficially is a democracy. Trying to argue otherwise is just... insert word of your choice. The "argument" of "it is a republic, not democracy" has never made sense.

Unless of course you've actually read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and so on that make it very clear this was originally a constitutional republic, created by very learned political scholars who explicitly stated democracy was a bad model. It has since been altered into a democracy, and by very questionable means.

It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.

Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.

Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.

That's just a small sample of their thoughts. These United States were founded as a constitutional republic, no matter how many ignorant politicians today misuse the word democracy.

Someone will ALWAYS be disenfranchised. You cannot indulge/accomodate everyone, you have to find some kind of balance.

And that balance does exist, to make sure the minority is not voiceless, nor does it completely override the majority. It's the third option, where some people seem to only see two.

It is also incredibly dumb to think that state so important for the whole country as California should be dictated by some Maine, which has less population than any of the Baltic states.

It is also incredibly dumb not to realize that California's needs and wants do not necessarily apply to Maine. This statement is arguing Maine should not have a voice, based on simple numbers.

Completely made up example: California wants no fishing during fall and winter months. Fine for them, they have no fish during that time. Meanwhile, that's lobster season for Maine and they depend heavily on it. Should Maine then be economically harmed because California has more people?

[Elegiac]

Unless of course you've actually read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and so on that make it very clear this was originally a constitutional republic, created by very learned political scholars who explicitly stated democracy was a bad model. It has since been altered into a democracy, and by very questionable means.

We are all aware that this was intended as a tax evasion scheme for slaveowners.

What relevance has that in 2020?

[Feanoro]

We are all aware that this was intended as a tax evasion scheme for slaveowners.

Tell me, what color is the sky in your alternate reality?

What relevance has that in 2020?

Really? A "current year" argument? Democracy is a terrible model and always devolves to tyranny of the majority. Checks and balances exist for a reason.

[Elegiac]

Tell me, what color is the sky in your alternate reality?

Colorless, it only appears blue and such due to Rayleigh scattering.

Nuance.

Really? A "current year" argument? Democracy is a terrible model and always devolves to tyranny of the majority. Checks and balances exist for a reason.

Indeed, mostly to make it difficult for abolitionists to use the federal government as an instrument of reform.

We are aware that democracy is a terrible model of government for people that enjoy using other humans as disposable equipment but, as said, the social paradigm has since shifted so that woman can in fact vote and certain people are in fact allowed near golf courses.