Winds of Political Change?

[HoudiniDerek]

Please note that I am genuinely curious what people think, especially those of us in the United States.  I am not submitting this to have a partisan debate about electoral reform or whatnot, so please keep it civil.

Do you think this should be the way the United States holds elections in each state going forward?  Why or why not?  


Alaskan Election Reforms

[ForumPromotion.net]

This is what I see: "Ex-lawmaker dies using medical suicide law he helped pass nearly a decade ago"

I assume you meant to link to this: news.yahoo.com/alaska-is-about-to-try-something-completely-new-in-the-fall-election-193615285.html

I love the concept of moving away from political parties and having a free for all of sorts. I often feel that the better political candidates are thrown to the wayside because of the party system, so perhaps there's hope that this can be changed.

[harryk]

Not American, I'm Irish living in England.

As an outsider the current US electoral system is a bit of a joke. The self-proclaimed "Home of Democracy" (that was Athens BTW) is a two-party system. Not very democratic.

The amount of money that gets gifted by lobbyists is obscene and you can get to be Senator or even President just by being rich and famous.

Reform is much needed in my view but Countrywide. If done state by state it can only lead to further fractures in law and policies.

[HoudiniDerek]

Jan 21, 2022 19:22:55 GMT -8 ForumPromotion.net said:

This is what I see: "Ex-lawmaker dies using medical suicide law he helped pass nearly a decade ago"

I assume you meant to link to this: news.yahoo.com/alaska-is-about-to-try-something-completely-new-in-the-fall-election-193615285.html

I love the concept of moving away from political parties and having a free for all of sorts. I often feel that the better political candidates are thrown to the wayside because of the party system, so perhaps there's hope that this can be changed.

Thanks.

I hate when yahoo does that to me.

[Bugme]

harryk mentioned us being a democracy but, we were actually established as a Republic. There are differences. Sadly, we have adopted many democratic ideals into the Republic which has led to an imperfect system which has messed up our election process.

As for the electoral college which most people around the world and even a large percentage of Americans don't understand, is that it saves America from having the heavily populated East and West coasts(roughly 6 states) plus Texas, from determining the presidency for the the other 43 states. Admittedly this is not perfect but, it is a fail safe.

What Alaska is doing is getting back to a Republic type form of voting. If they can set the precedence for a better form of elections, more states will adopt it and eventually it will change voting on a Federal level. A trial run in a singular state is much preferred to an across the board change at a federal level at this time.

BTW, I like Alaska's idea and hope is works!

[:~:Sarapha:~:]

Jan 27, 2022 8:00:00 GMT -8 Bugme said:

As for the electoral college which most people around the world and even a large percentage of Americans don't understand, is that it saves America from having the heavily populated East and West coasts(roughly 6 states) plus Texas, from determining the presidency for the the other 43 states. Admittedly this is not perfect but, it is a fail safe.

See, not a single person has been able to adequately explain their line of thinking when it comes to this statement, yet it is always the same excuse people make when defending the electoral college.

With our current system, it does exactly that. Swing states are the only states that seem to affect the elections in any way, and the rest of the country basically just has to follow suit with what those swing states decide.

One person, one vote ensures that the voice of *every* American adult is counted; not just those handful of states that sometimes go this way or that. Population density doesn't matter because it is based on the individuals, rather than allowing terrible systems like gerrymandering to influence the outcome of elections, or the terrible system of "whoever gets to 260 state electors wins!" One person, one vote also ensures that the political figures are working to appeal to all voters, not just swing states.

As for the two party system; that was always going to be fundamentally flawed, and we should have never had it implemented in the first place. Individuality goes right out the window when everything is condensed down to a "Person 1" or "Person 2" situation. Making it so impossible for any other voices to be heard through the "Democrat vs Republican" haze will always land us in a heap.

[Capitan]

Not American. Many things definitely need to change about the US political system, or soon any democratic pretence will be completely lost. That means abolishing the electoral college, re-balancing the Senate, ending gerrymandering and corporate influence in Congress, some kind of de-politicisation of the Supreme Court, etc..

Jan 27, 2022 8:00:00 GMT -8 Bugme said:

harryk mentioned us being a democracy but, we were actually established as a Republic. There are differences. Sadly, we have adopted many democratic ideals into the Republic which has led to an imperfect system which has messed up our election process.

This is quite a confused statement! The definition of a republic, which I'll borrow from Wikipedia, is:

"A republic (from Latin res publica 'public affair') is a form of government in which "supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives"."

The concept of a republic thus inherently requires some form of democratic participation. Not all democracies are republics (e.g. the UK), but all republics are democracies.

[tecoyah]

Allowing non affiliated candidates would simply broaden the field of possibility which is a good thing. This two party system does not work very well.

[Bugme]

My apologies for taking so long to respond, I do not get on the PB forum very often. So, to answer the above rebuttals:


I agree to a point that a Republic has many Democratic components involved. The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law. Both forms of government tend to use a representational system — i.e., citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government. In the US form of a Republic, our constitution protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters.

However in a "pure democracy," the majority is NOT restrained in this way and can impose it's will on the minority. Thus my statement that we have adopted some democratic ideals which are in conflict with our Republic form of government. This is also why the "Electoral College" is used. It keeps certain heavily populated coastal states from imposing it's will for President on the other 50 states. Is it perfect? No. Does it work? Yes!

www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

[harrydeanstanton]

Feb 3, 2022 8:24:45 GMT -8 Bugme said:

My apologies for taking so long to respond, I do not get on the PB forum very often. So, to answer the above rebuttals:


I agree to a point that a Republic has many Democratic components involved. The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law. Both forms of government tend to use a representational system — i.e., citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government. In the US form of a Republic, our constitution protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters.

However in a "pure democracy," the majority is NOT restrained in this way and can impose it's will on the minority. Thus my statement that we have adopted some democratic ideals which are in conflict with our Republic form of government. This is also why the "Electoral College" is used. It keeps certain heavily populated coastal states from imposing it's will for President on the other 50 states. Is it perfect? No. Does it work? Yes!

www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

If they removed the Electoral College vote, a corrupt, amoral, scumbag like Fat Donnie trump (aka  The Mussolini of Mar-a-Lago) would never become President of the US again. Do away with the Electoral College and stop America's slide into GOP controlled fascism.

[Bugme]

Feb 10, 2022 22:30:16 GMT -8 harrydeanstanton said:

Feb 3, 2022 8:24:45 GMT -8 Bugme said:

My apologies for taking so long to respond, I do not get on the PB forum very often. So, to answer the above rebuttals:


I agree to a point that a Republic has many Democratic components involved. The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law. Both forms of government tend to use a representational system — i.e., citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government. In the US form of a Republic, our constitution protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters.

However in a "pure democracy," the majority is NOT restrained in this way and can impose it's will on the minority. Thus my statement that we have adopted some democratic ideals which are in conflict with our Republic form of government. This is also why the "Electoral College" is used. It keeps certain heavily populated coastal states from imposing it's will for President on the other 50 states. Is it perfect? No. Does it work? Yes!

www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

If they removed the Electoral College vote, a corrupt, amoral, scumbag like Fat Donnie trump (aka  The Mussolini of Mar-a-Lago) would never become President of the US again. Do away with the Electoral College and stop America's slide into GOP controlled fascism.

Ok, well I was trying to be apolitical not biased in my explanation. Since I am neither Republican nor Democrat and am pretty much disillusioned with both parties, it makes it easier for me to not be quite as biased as you might be. Thus, my response based on facts as they are in America and not on emotion.

[Bugme]

BTW, many people think it is easy to just do away with the Electoral College. However, it is part of the constitution implemented in 1804 with the 12th Amendment and not a simple thing to do away with. This amendment predates both the Democratic party(1828) as well as the Republican party(1854). So, it was not some devious plan established by either party.

Now, we really need to get back to the OP's original question on Alaska's voting idea.

[JMA 23]

Being a moderate, I would have nothing against that system.

[HoudiniDerek]

I would love to see a system like this because I could vote in both elections without having to pick a party. If everyone was on the ballot and we narrowed it down, then voted again, I think that's the ideal system.