>President
Abolish the electoral college and directly elect the President by preferential voting. Your state of residence shouldn't make your vote worth any more or less, and the winner-takes-all electoral college means only swing voters in a handful of states actually decide anyway.
Preferential voting is necessary because first-past-the-post (FPTP) forces voters to go for a lesser evil or risk splitting the vote.
This would altogether remove the need for corrupt party primary systems.
>House
Remove the district system and instead have the entire state elect a proportional number of candidates. For example, 1/3 of a state with 12 seats votes for a Democrat, 1/3 votes for a Republican, 1/6 votes for a Libertarian, and 1/6 votes for a Green; the result in seats is 4 DEM, 4 GOP, 2 LIB, 2 GRN.
This system should use optional preferential voting combined with proportional representation to most accurately express voter intentions. A system like this is used in the Australian Senate.
Gerrymandering and the issues with FPTP would be solved by this change.
>Senate
Elect Senators exactly as is currently done but use preferential voting.
>All elections
Make voting mandatory and automatically register all citizens to vote. This may sound extreme to an American but it would make the system more democratic. Parties trying to influence voter turnout (e.g. social engineering of older/younger voters) would no longer be a problem and instead voters could just focus on the issues.
I'm not pretending these changes would make the system perfect but it would go a long way to fixing political problems in the US.
>>71459697
>Abolish the electoral college
i fucking hate this meme
>Remove the district system and instead have the entire state elect a proportional number of candidates
i agree
>Elect Senators exactly as is currently done but use preferential voting.
absolutely not. We need to repeal the 17th
>Make voting mandatory and automatically register all citizens to vote
i agree. Election day should also be a national holiday
>>71460073
>>Abolish the electoral college
>i fucking hate this meme
Why?
>>Elect Senators exactly as is currently done but use preferential voting.
>absolutely not. We need to repeal the 17th
What benefit would an appointed Senate have over an elected Senate?
>>71460378
>why?
Because each state in the US is a country unto itself, even nations which have become amalgamated into a federal system.
>>71461033
Why should the residents of one "nation" (state) have less voting power to elect their President than residents of another?
>>71460378
rural states should not have be forced into an arrangement where no matter how they vote, large population centers will determine policy.
Shit like that is why we had a Civil War
Elected Senators will legislate for state's rights and reverse the clear trend toward Unitarianism that's happened since the 17th passed.
Reforms are needed, but people need to abandon the notion that a more democratic system is better. it just needs to be more representative, and that means devolving power back
>>71461289
because the idea is that the power of the president should ideally be limited, as should the federal government overall, and that more localized governments would take care of the people with "less voting power" at the top level.
This ensures everybody gets a fair shake at laws - especially when local laws are usually much more tailored towards that locations particular culture and customs.
>>71462321
>rural states should not have be forced into an arrangement where no matter how they vote, large population centers will determine policy.
>Shit like that is why we had a Civil War
Could not the same argument be made the other way?
>Larger states should not be forced into an arrangement where no matter how they vote, smaller population centers will determine policy.
>Elected Senators will legislate for state's rights and reverse the clear trend toward Unitarianism that's happened since the 17th passed.
The Senate makes decisions for the whole nation. Why should it not be somewhat unitarian?
>Reforms are needed, but people need to abandon the notion that a more democratic system is better. it just needs to be more representative, and that means devolving power back
Fair enough.
>>71462537
>because the idea is that the power of the president should ideally be limited, as should the federal government overall, and that more localized governments would take care of the people with "less voting power" at the top level.
This has nothing to do with disproportionate voting power across the states, unless I'm somehow misunderstanding you.
>>71459697
>Abolish the electoral college and directly
Is the united states, not the people's republic. States get the vote
A better solution is to give the Feds less power
>>71463318
It's just that, put into practice, I believe a lot of unwanted additional passages will be slipped into the bills and the system structure will not work as it should - trying to redistribute any sort of power is never a clean-cut job. I'm trying to say it won't work. I don't think anybody in America trusts the people in power enough to majorly alter the structure like that
>>71459697
>Make voting mandatory and automatically register all citizens to vote.
Fuck off you shit cunt. That's forcing someone into to work for no pay (aka slavery). To make it worse, you think the majority who already vote are low information voters? Just wait until you start making the people who don't vote vote. They'll be selecting the politician they know/who the media tells them to vote for, which in this case would be Clinton.
>>71463665
I guess what I'm trying to say is that philosophically it might work out, but logistically and realistically it would probably never work out for a multitude of reasons.
Forgot to add abolishing FPTP and installing Alternative Voting.
I'm fine with keeping the EC, if gerrymandering is addressed. I cannot for the life of me not see how people don't see it as a corrupt system.
>>71463806
Compromise would be not making it mandatory but still having the holiday.
>>71463806
>That's forcing someone into to work for no pay (aka slavery).
The opportunity to vote should be given to everyone whether they want it or not. If you prefer to be useless you can spoil your ballot or make up some excuse for not turning out. I would prefer the "slavery" of voting to having 25% of the country decide who forms government.
>To make it worse, you think the majority who already vote are low information voters? Just wait until you start making the people who don't vote vote. They'll be selecting the politician they know/who the media tells them to vote for
My opinion of those voters is not important. What concerns me is that significant numbers of voters will abstain because they think their vote won't matter. An electoral system that has people voting solely on the basis of policy and values is what I believe should be the goal and stupid issues like turnout and enrolment deadlines shouldn't come into it.
If the system is made more representative of citizens' political views and the media influences those views too much then the problem is either the media has too much influence or people are too fucking dumb to think for themselves. Either way it's not the electoral system at fault.
>>71464478
No, I remembered. Preferential voting is in my recommendation for each form of election.
Gerrymandering is utter cancer and I agree it should be more controversial than it is.
>>71464898
>My opinion of those voters is not important. What concerns me is that significant numbers of voters will abstain because they think their vote won't matter.
Sounds like code-word for "we need more democrat voters"
>>71463593
Fptp guarantees two party systems will evolve. Priority/alternative vote is hands down better.
Federal power needs to be reduced, and I respect the reason for the differences in proportional representation and per-state representation between the House and Senate, but Fptp is suboptimal and priority/alternative vote is better.
>>71464898
>The opportunity to vote should be given to everyone whether they want it or not.
They already have the opportunity to vote. Making it mandatory isn't an opportunity.
>My opinion of those voters is not important.
You'll change your mind when 70% of very low information voters arrive and elect Clinton in a landslide.
>What concerns me is that significant numbers of voters will abstain because they think their vote won't matter
Because they don't matter. You're voting for the right cheek or the left cheek, no matter which you vote for in a 2 party system chances are you're still going to get an ass.
The problem is the two party system.
>>71464972
If you think a more representative system is bad because it would help a different party right now then I would say it speaks more about your own bias than mine.
>>71465304
In a way that's a good thing at the federal level. The American system wasn't designed to have outlier parties take over and make massive changes.
While list voting might be more representative, give people more local representation and the president less power you'll see him become a more unifying role anyways
>>71465587
If all elections use preferential voting then the only thing keeping the 2-party system in place is moronic voters (see Liberal/Labor primary vote in Australia). That's not a problem we should solve with poor electoral design.
>>71466510
>see Liberal/Labor primary vote in Australia
So what you're saying is not only does it not work, it's been proven to not work, yet you want to try it anyway?
>>71466773
>So what you're saying is [some bullshit]
Maybe you should read the whole post because you clearly don't understand what I'm saying.
>>71466894
Then tell me, how often has a vote for another party mattered for us?
I'd wager it's about the same as the Americans. Even if they get a seat or two they have no power, only the two parties ever do.
>>71467261
If Australian voters decided at this election that they actually prefer a third party then they could express that preference easily without the risk of splitting the vote.
Under the US system that is not currently possible.
Yes, Australia still has a two-party system but that doesn't change the fact that preferential voting makes the system better. Broken electoral systems and dumb voters are both problems that need fixing.
>>71467820
>If Australian voters decided at this election that they actually prefer a third party then they could express that preference easily without the risk of splitting the vote.
Except this isn't the case.
Let's say there's PartyA which this group hates, PartyB which they don't mind, PartyC which they like.
PartyC takes votes from PartyB leaving PartyA to be in power.
>Under the US system that is not currently possible.
It is entirely possible and has happened before, it's just rare.
>preferential voting makes the system better
But it doesn't change anything, the two parties are still the only ones ever in power.
>Broken electoral systems and dumb voters are both problems that need fixing.
The broken electoral system won't be fixed as easily as this and dumb voters won't ever be fixed, especially not when forcing everyone to vote.
>>71468428
>PartyC takes votes from PartyB leaving PartyA to be in power.
Oh and before you say that's not how it works, they take the #1 spot resulting in less influence for the vote.
>>71468428
>Except this isn't the case.
>Let's say there's PartyA which this group hates, PartyB which they don't mind, PartyC which they like.
>PartyC takes votes from PartyB leaving PartyA to be in power.
No m8. At the seat level, preferences would flow from C to B and B would still get elected (assuming A & B are the more popular major parties). If B+C end up with a majority of seats then, for a voter who prefers C, this would be better than a B majority.
>they take the #1 spot resulting in less influence for the vote.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. 1 vote is worth 1 vote no matter how many of their preferences are exhausted.
>>71469116
Preferential voting is ranking your votes from 1->n, voting 1 for PartyC, 2 for PartyB, 3 for PartyA means PartyB only gets a 2 which is worth less than the 1 they would've gotten.
>>71459697
Fuck all this voting bullshit. It's time for a military dictatorship.
>>71469785
>posts an image that explains how preferential voting works
>still horrendously misunderstands it
So are you actually retarded or only pretending?
>>71470005
>vote A(1) B(2) C(3)
>A gets more votes because it's A
>C Still never wins because it's C
>B still has the same chance of beating A, in fact I'd consider it less of a chance since its votes are held back a step
It does fucking nothing m8, your vote for outlier parties are worthless, they only exist to hold up your votes that matter.
>>71459697
>Abolish the electoral college and directly elect the President by preferential voting.
This would concentrate power in a dozen big cities. Politicians would completely stop answering to the concerns of people in "flyover country". The electoral college exists to give disproportionate power to the people most likely to be ignored. Which states are "swing states" has changed over the years. Population centers generally have not.
>Remove the district system
Districts exist so that you vote for a candidate, not a party. I would prefer it stay this way.
>Elect Senators exactly as is currently done
Senators are supposed to represent states, not people. Senators should be selected by the state legislature or governor.
>Make voting mandatory
This is a violation of my natural rights, namely liberty.
>it would make the system more democratic
We're not a pure democracy for a reason.
>>71470627
I really don't think you understand how it works. Putting a candidate 2nd doesn't "hold him back a step" - it just means that if your 1st preference is exhausted, your vote will count for him instead. Then if your 2nd preference is exhausted it will count for your 3rd preference instead and so on.
>>71471387
Did you not see the image?
>1st count
>2nd count
>3rd count
Delaying your vote holds them back a step.
Now imagine it in a situation where you vote for multiple small candidates that have no fucking chance before the one that actually has a chance. You're more and more likely that your vote for the one that has a chance will be ignored because the shit guy will have already gotten 50%. To make this sound a bit less confusing:
>A and B are the main parties, you don't like A
>Your votes are (1->n) as follows
>C
>U
>K
>B
Your B is only counted if it gets to the 4th count, by then A could've won. C, U and K could never have won so they only really exist to hold back your vote for B.
>>71459697
>Make voting mandatory
Literally kys. But I guess I shouldnt expect an ausfag to understand freedom. Have fun living in the censorship capital of the first world, cuck
>>71471284
>Districts exist so that you vote for a candidate, not a party.
My recommendation wouldn't change this. You would still vote for your preferred candidates but your vote would be expressed more accurately in a proportional system. I just used parties as an example.
>This is a violation of my natural rights, namely liberty.
Wouldn't you consider voter suppression and similar problems a potentially more harmful infringement on your liberty? I said elsewhere in the thread, at least mandatory voting ensures that everyone submits a ballot paper. This opportunity is not guaranteed otherwise.
>We're not a pure democracy for a reason.
I'm not making the democracy vs republic argument. I'm making the argument for more accurate expression of voter intent on election day.
>>71472334
>voter suppression
You keep saying that like it's being forced upon people (which has happened from time to time). If people don't want to vote then that's their right to wave their right to vote.
>>71472005
>Delaying your vote holds them back a step.
No it doesn't.
>Now imagine it in a situation where you vote for multiple small candidates that have no fucking chance before the one that actually has a chance. You're more and more likely that your vote for the one that has a chance will be ignored because the shit guy will have already gotten 50%.
If the shit guy receives a majority from preference flows then it doesn't matter who you voted for. Shit guy would have gained that majority anyway, under either system.
If A and B are both close but fail to get a majority, it will be the preference flows of C/U/K voters that decide who wins.
This is why it's wrong to say "I'm just throwing my vote away" as the dingo did in the cartoon you posted.
>>71472005
If someone gets over 50% there's no possible way to beat them, you can't tie them
>>71473061
>under either system.
I meant "putting your preferred candidate 1st or not"
>>71459697
>Make voting mandatory
I would vote for the candidate that promises to get rid of that law.
>>71472334
>My recommendation wouldn't change this.
How can I vote for a person to represent me in a proportional system?
>Wouldn't you consider voter suppression and similar problems a potentially more harmful infringement on your liberty?
All forms of voter suppression are illegal in the US and have been for decades. If anyone believes their vote is being suppressed for any reason they can file a complaint with the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. There is not a binary choice between mandatory voting and voter suppression. You are creating a false dilemma.
>I'm not making the democracy vs republic argument. I'm making the argument for more accurate expression of voter intent on election day.
The only thing you listed which more accurately expresses voter intent on election day is preferential voting.
>>71473167
It's not 50% of people who've voted for that person on that count, it's 50% of people who've put that persons name on that count or above. You can have multiple with 50% or higher if you keep counting.
