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

[Endus]

I think some weirdly basic concepts should also be applied, to make elections "matter" less.

1> The leaders of the House and Senate should have absolutely zero control over whether/when bills are submitted to their respective sections of Congress. What Mitch McConnell has been doing should literally not be possible, not without criminal charges being filed against Mitch at least. The House submits a bill to the Senate, it goes to a vote after a set period of time to allow Senators to read it and come to a decision

2> No Presidential immunity to criminal charges. Being charged (not convicted, just charged) means immediate removal from office. VP steps in as President. If this causes problems because so many officials are committing crimes, your country's already broken and it isn't this policy that's the issue. And before you say "That's crazy and impossible!", this is literally how it works here in Canada.

3> Ethics watchdogs, with teeth. Independent agencies whose role is to ensure ethical conduct by elected officials. Lying to constituents or misuse of funds and such means penalties up to and including removal from office, from any level even up to and including the President, and potential criminal charges (they'd hand that information off to the DoJ in that case).

[PC2]

No offence but that's pretty inane. The EC is has blatant, material faults and needs fixing.

Policy questions obviously occur anyway. This is like saying "we can't plug the hole in the raft, we need to keep paddling".

I would say the system itself represents a microscopic leak in this metaphor. It's not worth patching anytime soon while voters are close to being evenly divided on real policy issues. This is a pointless conversation because even Democrat leaders don't believe the system itself is their primary obstacle and they know it's a bad idea to spend their political cache on a meta topic that has no real substance.

[Felya]

I would say the system itself represents a microscopic leak in this metaphor. It's not worth patching anytime soon while the public is close to being evenly divided on real policy issues. This is a pointless conversation because even Democrat leaders don't believe the system itself is their primary obstacle and they know it's a bad idea to spend their political cache on a meta topic that has no real substance.

How is it evenly divided, when GOP has won one popular vote in 30 years? Biden got nearly 5 million more votes, with it being likely to surpass it.

[Mihalik]

1. Proportional representation.
2. Complete elimination of the electoral college and electoral districts. State legislatures and federal legislatures would actually represent the voting intentions of the population.
3. The elimination of or the massive expansion of the Senate. The Senate is thoroughly un-representative in its current make up, thus it is either redundant (a hold over of the British House of Lords) or needs to be made much larger to allow for proportional representation.

The notion that New Hampshire or Montana hold the same sway in the Senate as New York, Florida, California or Texas is frankly asinine.

4. Electoral reform meant to eliminate corporate involvement in campaign funding.

[Mormolyce]

You've just described most of American politics from its inception as the 13 colonies to the end of the Civil War.

After which point it becomes "to preserve slavery in all but name".

- - - Updated - - -

I would say the system itself represents a microscopic leak in this metaphor. It's not worth patching anytime soon while voters are close to being evenly divided on real policy issues. This is a pointless conversation because even Democrat leaders don't believe the system itself is their primary obstacle and they know it's a bad idea to spend their political cache on a meta topic that has no real substance.

That's absurd, you're talking about a system that regularly disenfranchises a third of the country, discourages participation and suppresses third party votes. It's a terrible system, and not because it's an obstacle to Democrats being elected...

[Adam Jensen]

After which point it becomes "to preserve slavery in all but name".

Fair enough.

[Mormolyce]

I think some weirdly basic concepts should also be applied, to make elections "matter" less.

1> The leaders of the House and Senate should have absolutely zero control over whether/when bills are submitted to their respective sections of Congress. What Mitch McConnell has been doing should literally not be possible, not without criminal charges being filed against Mitch at least. The House submits a bill to the Senate, it goes to a vote after a set period of time to allow Senators to read it and come to a decision

2> No Presidential immunity to criminal charges. Being charged (not convicted, just charged) means immediate removal from office. VP steps in as President. If this causes problems because so many officials are committing crimes, your country's already broken and it isn't this policy that's the issue. And before you say "That's crazy and impossible!", this is literally how it works here in Canada.

3> Ethics watchdogs, with teeth. Independent agencies whose role is to ensure ethical conduct by elected officials. Lying to constituents or misuse of funds and such means penalties up to and including removal from office, from any level even up to and including the President, and potential criminal charges (they'd hand that information off to the DoJ in that case).

-No lifetime appointments anywhere, period.

-Pardons should be inapplicable to people convicted of abuse of office, or any case of obvious conflict of interest. I mean this is some 101 shit.

-Electoral boundaries abolished, or at worst set by independent agencies.


I actually think you need a constitutional amendment that promotes the office of government ethics to a fourth branch of government. Their duties would be impeachment and removal of member of government, sanctions for corruption and ethics breaches, enforcement of the Hatch Act etc, management of electoral boundaries, and the running of elections in the states.

[Theodarzna]

IF it were me

1. Election Day is a national holiday

2. Get rid of the Electoral College or at the least electoral votes shouldn't be winner take all. Every state should be like Nebraska and Maine

3. legislation for national elections so that the rules are standardized across the states and to stop voter suppression in national elections.

4. ranked choice voting

5. bring back the fairness doctrine

I don't agree with getting rid of the electoral college, but the Maine-Nebraska model is the way to go. Other than that, all of this seems perfectly fine.

[PC2]

How is it evenly divided, when GOP has won one popular vote in 30 years? Biden got nearly 5 million more votes, with it being likely to surpass it.

Biden won though. The vote percentage was 47.9% to 48.4% in 2000 and 46.1% to 48.2% in 2016. It's literally just a 0.5-2.1% difference. I highly doubt Democrat leaders would consider it worthwhile to change the system over those numbers. Of course they're free to make it their priority but I just don't see it happening.

[Bodakane]

1. EC gone. State representation mattering in Presidential elections is stupid, pointless and wrong. It should be 100% popular vote. States have their say in Congress.

2. Term lengths should be 2 years for Senate and 4 years for House. House is more specific to an area and I don't think its possible to get enough done in a given area if they can only govern for a year and spend the next year campaigning. The Senate, otoh, should be about much more broad state related matters to deal with and should be able to handle to lower term length.

3. SCOTUS is no longer lifetime and instead 18 years. Each president gets to nominate 2 in their 4 year term. A single, standard 18-year term at the high court would restore limits to the most powerful, least accountable branch of American government. Each new justice would be added every other year, and since 9 (justices) x 2 (years) = 18, it’d take 18 years to reach the end of the cycle, hence 18-year terms. Appointments would become predictable exercises, not embarrassing partisan spectacles.

4. Reset the clock on all of this, so voting for POTUS and Reps happen two years apart.

5. Expand mail in voting to be more like this past election, but normalize across all states. Come up with a single ballot template that all states use.

6. Fix districts and then end gerrymandering.

[kail]

Electoral votes make zero sense and made zero sense for the last two centuries. The whole idea of winner takes all in states is extremely undemocratic. Look at swing states or damn near all states and see how many votes are effectively thrown away when a state as a whole vote for R or D.

Ax the electoral college entirely. Set laws in campaign fundraising to keep money from having too much power during elections. Adopt something similar to France's run-off elections.

And before people cry about small states having no say, they do have representation in the legislative branch. The POTUS is a single individual that should serve the people, not empty lands.

[Daelak]

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.

Republicans have a structural advantage in the US senate due to conservatives in the 19th century enacting statehood on 8 extremely rural states stolen from Native Americans. This makes reform impossible unless its on the terms of the extreme minority (conservatives make up about 25-30% of the electorate) which control the mid-west.

[kail]

2. Get rid of the Electoral College or at the least electoral votes shouldn't be winner take all. Every state should be like Nebraska and Maine

Getting rid of winner takes all would be a decent first step but it would ultimately lead to popular vote because the electoral votes will go based on their split voters. PA this election would split their 20 votes to 10 each. CA would give some of its votes to the Republican candidate and Texas being visa versa. It will ultimately come close to matching the popular vote in the end if they do their math right.

[Feanoro]

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.

[Draco-Onis]

Biden won though. The vote percentage was 47.9% to 48.4% in 2000 and 46.1% to 48.2% in 2016. It's literally just a 0.5-2.1% difference. I highly doubt Democrat leaders would consider it worthwhile to change the system over those numbers. Of course they're free to make it their priority but I just don't see it happening.

You keep repeating that but that is false most of the election rules are made at the local level and if you look at blue states they have made great strides to changing things. The states where you have chaos and mayhem are republican controlled where their entire strategy is to stop people from voting which they have said many times. There are several leaders in the party that are trying but again local not federal and you cannot do much without control of the legislature in those states.

The system is indeed broken because your numbers are irrelevant since around half of the people don't vote because the electoral college means their vote doesn't matter. There are other democracies that have done a much better job than us, the electoral college was instituted to mend fences after the civil war. While I doubt it would ever go away but a system where half of people don't feel they matter is obviously broken.

[Theodarzna]

Getting rid of winner takes all would be a decent first step but it would ultimately lead to popular vote because the electoral votes will go based on their split voters. PA this election would split their 20 votes to 10 each. CA would give some of its votes to the Republican candidate and Texas being visa versa. It will ultimately come close to matching the popular vote in the end if they do their math right.

I think the EC must remain because every state joined the union on the assumption it would be the way the leader of the federation of states would be elected. Plus on some level I think winning over separate geographic regions, I.E. the States themselves should be relevant.

I think having most EC be divided up like Nebraska and Maine do it is a good idea, with maybe a bonus of two EC for winning the state in general. So there still is an incentive to win in a state. The problem of raw popular vote is it just becomes "Win in the big media markets" and thus its just switching which states become the important ones. Basically swapping out the poor Midwestern states for the rich coastal states with major port cities. Which I guess given how dictated by the wealthy the government already is that would make the elections more representative in outright terms.

[Adam Jensen]

I don't agree with getting rid of the electoral college, but the Maine-Nebraska model is the way to go. Other than that, all of this seems perfectly fine.

I can agree with that. We need a system that emphasizes the popular vote more and the states less.

The current system disenfranchises millions of Republican voters in California, Democrat voters in Texas and gives too much influence to small states.

[Theodarzna]

I can agree with that. We need a system that emphasizes the popular vote more and the states less.

The current system disenfranchises millions of Republican voters in California, Democrat voters in Texas and gives too much influence to small states.

Yeah, I think the current system, while I don't put primacy on the popular vote, unfortunately comes with the problem that some states get completely ignored on a national level and become effectively one party states because without the ability to make that FPTP is becomes worthless to invest in it.

I still think states should matter; but the Maine-Nebraska model seems good. Maybe raise the 270 bar a smidgen and throw in a bonus electoral vote or two for winning the states popular vote.

The current system just leads to janky maps and campaigns. Much as IMHO a direct popular vote would just switch out "Rural poor people states pick the president" for "Affluent media markets pick the president".

[Edge-]

Yeah, I think the current system, while I don't put primacy on the popular vote, unfortunately comes with the problem that some states get completely ignored on a national level and become effectively one party states because without the ability to make that FPTP is becomes worthless to invest in it.

But all the state/federal level elections would be unchanged. The only change would be to the way the votes for president are calculated, and this would remove states as "entities" altogether.

Would politicians go where the most people were? Probably, yeah. But that's not much different than what they do now, focusing on a handful of key battleground states with a fraction of the population. They'd have to treat a big state like CA or NY or TX as more than just a fundraising opportunity.

I still think states should matter; but the Maine-Nebraska model seems good. Maybe raise the 270 bar a smidgen and throw in a bonus electoral vote or two for winning the states popular vote.

But why should "states" get a vote at all? The people vote, the states should not override that vote or dilute the value of that vote. I mean, it was originally created to be a wall between democracy and the president because...like...slavery and people not being trusted to choose the president. And it evolving into a proxy-vote, which it was never designed for originally (electors were supposed to be able to easily vote for a different candidate than the state did), highlights how completely and totally meaningless it is.

There's already mechanisms for states to have power in the federal government, that's Congress. The House assigns power proportionally, the Senate does so equally.

The current system just leads to janky maps and campaigns.

That's state-level districting issue, and without ensuring that district lines are drawn in a non-partisan way (the Maine-Nebraska model has this flaw) it won't really help because it still allows for unrepresentative gerrymandering and still functionally "eliminates" the votes of whoever didn't win in that district.

Not to mention that it still vastly dilutes the value of votes in more populous states like CA, because the representation in the House isn't 1:1 proportional based on state population.

Much as IMHO a direct popular vote would just switch out "Rural poor people states pick the president" for "Affluent media markets pick the president".

No, it would swap to, "People pick the president, wherever they live, because each vote has equal value regardless of if you live in a closet in NYC, a luxury loft in SF, a blighted house in Detroit, or a farm in the middle of Idaho in a town of 50 people.

It would mean there's more focus on population centers, which is where people are, but it would not remotely let "affluent media markets" pick the president. Believe it or not, most of the folks that live in bigger cities.

And "affluent" is...not entirely accurate - https://www.baruch.cuny.edu/nycdata/...me-numbers.htm

Let's make the cutoff for "Affluent" $75K, which is a lot of money in most parts but realistically not a ton of money in an expensive city like NYC. That puts 1.8M people below this line and 1.3M people above it. Not a massive split, but still around 60% are far from the "affluent" measure. If we jacked it up to $100K, which is usually where the "rich" line starts, that puts the split at 2.15M below that line and 997K above it. Which closer to 70% of NYC not being a part of the "AFFLUENT media markets".

Unless we're generalizing that because cities have more wealthy people in them, everyone there is de-facto "affluent".

[Theodarzna]

But all the state/federal level elections would be unchanged. The only change would be to the way the votes for president are calculated, and this would remove states as "entities" altogether.

Would politicians go where the most people were? Probably, yeah. But that's not much different than what they do now, focusing on a handful of key battleground states with a fraction of the population. They'd have to treat a big state like CA or NY or TX as more than just a fundraising opportunity"

Swapping de-industrialized poor people for tech-hubs and port cities doesn't seem like a change, except it swaps which parties social base or easier territory is the one that needs to be appealed to every four years.

But why should "states" get a vote at all?

We are a federation of States, electing the leader of that federation of states? Also the EC was the agreed deal when states joined the union, reneging on the deal seems a bad move. Everyone agreed to the deal.

That's state-level districting issue, and without ensuring that district lines are drawn in a non-partisan way (the Maine-Nebraska model has this flaw) it won't really help because it still allows for unrepresentative gerrymandering and still functionally "eliminates" the votes of whoever didn't win in that district.

Much how the Supreme Court is subject to partisan capture, there is no non-partisan way to draw up districts.

No, it would swap to

Nope, the focus of campaigns becomes the big media markets, I.E. any major metro with a sea port and thus dominion over the media markets. Nothing really changes except who gets kowtowed to every four years.