Alternative Democratic Models

You could have Congress elect a president instead of the Electoral College. But, I wouldn't try it with a 2-party system. And, you still have the general population voting for congressmen.

Why are you trying to stick to democratic systems?

We could do like Exxon and Microsoft and sell shares in the government. Then provide 1 vote per share. ( )

 

The 2 party system is broke. It's the parties that run the government now as opposed to the person that's elected. Dismantle the republican and democratic party structures...that's the first step to real change.

 

RR, this subject could really get complicated. I believe what you propose could eventually lead to more fringe 3rd party candidates winning congressional seats. These small fry could then "sell" their vote for president to the highest bidding major party. I can't see this as a positive. The more power given to individual members of the House of Representatives, the more chaotic, unstable and corrupt our government would become.

So count me in as one who likes directly electing our president. I also prefer the electoral college over using popular vote totals.

There is a lot more to say on this and I'm only posting my initial reaction to your question. This is a great subject to spend 2-3-4 hours discussing in person.

MoonDogg, how would you go about dismantling both party structures? Not as easy as you think. Nearly every major (legit) democracy in the world has evolved into a 2 party structure. The others "democracies" have only one viable party. How fragmented would you like it to be and how would we get there?

 

OK, so you mean that the presidential candidates would be competing in 535 separate electoral college district elections instead of 50 state primaries? What this might do is further fragment the electoral process. Currently there are 10-15 "swing" states that determine the outcome. Depending on how these electoral districts are "gerrymandered", it could distill down to 20-25 of these tiny districts.
One big problem is drawing the boundaries for these districts, which would be a gigantic, politicized mess. Maybe you could use congressional boundaries and toss two additional votes per state based on the popular statewide vote for president. Even so, I'm not sure I want a few congressional districts determining who wins the presidency.

 

Except that I think in the proposal, the presidential candidate would not be campiagning to the citizenry but to the electoral college delegates who'd vote as they pleased. Those delegates in turn would have to campaign in their areas to get the job of choosing. Correct me if I'm wrong.

That (and my congressional example) sounds like an invitation for corruption. I think it is precisely to avoid corruption that we have the system we have.

 

Rocket River (where is that by the way? ) Thanks for quoting my post. I don't know what other systems might work better. I just noticed over the years that our democracy as it is does not necessarily yield best result. I think at one point people should leave the professionals to handle the jobs that only they know the best, and that even include the political system.

 

I think the only way it can ever be accomplished is with the rise of a strong third party which would weaken one or both. But then that third party is probably going to be as greedy as the other two. So the ultimate solution is no parties. But I don't think that will ever be allowed....



Enlighten me though, folks...what do you believe the purpose of your political party was when it was started....and does it still serve that purpose today?

 

The purpose of the parties are to obtain power. The goal of any politician is to be elected and reelected.

Term limits might help. A single 6 year term for the president might be good.

Or we could get an Emperor that is greater and wiser than normal men.

 

I think we should go the opposite way, I don't trust career politicians.

Give more power to the voter.

Get rid of the electoral college. make voting easier, same day registration, online voting, Put major issues on the ballot, there should be a national vote on big issues like the wall street bailout, natl health insurance, war with iran.

Let the people decide.

 

The Electoral College and Senate were brilliant solutions by our founders to the biggest potential issue with a republic our size. The biggest potential issue was the battle between small states and big states. Since the Constitution was ratified, that has never been an issue. All interstate tensions have been regional. Throwing away their genius over one Presidential election would be incredibly short-sighted, and would invite all kinds of new issues.

 

I agree with you on the Senate - but how does the Electoral College benefit small states? I know it theoretically does by giving them slightly more representation, but small states like Alaska, Wyoming, Utah, Delaware and Hawaii are completely ignored in Presidential campaigns, as are big states like California, Texas, and New York. All the EC seems to do is make a handful of 50/50 split states important while making the rest irrelevant.

 

You want people who don't understand the first thing about finance voting on the Wall Street bailout? People who don't understand health care issues voting on health care? And people without access to classified intelligence deciding whether to go to war with Iran?

That's like taking the worst of the political mudslinging of Presidential elections and transferring that to every issue. Imagine the two parties waging out all political advertising wars to decide on war with Iran. Or spending months debating a Wall Street bailout while the country goes into a depression.

 

Candidates campaign in Delaware when it's in play. They're campaigning in West Virginia this year. The rest of the states in your example almost always vote the same way. The reality of a Presidential campaign is that during the General Election season, you can't go everywhere.

 

Right - but if you didn't have the EC, a vote in Alaska or California would count the same as a vote in Ohio. So margins-of-victory in each state would matter, and it would encourage people to actually appeal to everyone instead of just tailoring their appeal to a handful of places.

I think small and large states alike would benefit without the EC. Swing states wouldn't, though.

 

And then candidates would only campaign in the 10 or 12 biggest cities, which could theoretically decide a popular vote. It would create all kinds of new issues.

 

This is one consequence many don't consider when they speak of abolishing the electoral college.

 

While the Constitution as written isn't perfect, it's damn good, and the set up of the legislature and Electoral College was a brilliant solution to a major potential problem. The wisdom has been proven over the centuries. It's worked too well to change now.