Three Things to Improve Politics in the U.S.?

[Golfingdad]

Yes. Most issues have two general ways to look at it. That's how political parties, which Washington and Adams so vehemently opposed, formed. Politicians found that generally "these guys said one thing, and these guys said the other," so parties almost naturally formed.  Don't forget also, back in the old days, state and local politics were more important than national politics. People from Virginia were generally one generation removed from wealthy British landowners while Massachusetts folk were here 100 years or more here already and were outcasts from Britain. They could barely hold the Union together at that point. National political parties made it easier to advertise a political platform. The same holds true for state and local politics now. Be honest - when you vote now, how much research do you do on the Superior Court judges running for office in your district? Your state legislators? Even the nat'l senators? At least a Dem or Rep next to their name lets you know generally what they stand for.

The primary process is an opportunity to vote for the candidate that most aligns with your beliefs. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney were both GOP in 2012, but had decidedly different platforms within the party. Allowing people to vote in runoffs is an interesting system that works in some local and state systems, but I'm not sure how it would fly on the national stage.

This is true.  I don't do too much research on the middle level stuff (national congressmen and senators, and state senators and assemblymen) yet I still vote for them.  And, unless I have learned something about them, I will just pick the Dem for the exact reasons you stated; I generally know where they fall on the bigger issues.  Lower level stuff, if I don't know anything about anybody in particular, I simply don't vote at all.

Party affiliation or not, the guy or gal with most exposure (i.e. the most money) is still the one with the best chance, no?

All in all though, I would think less, blind, party-line voting would be a good thing.

[danieldrieberg]

JUST SAW THIS THREAD>>>>>AWESOME

Might i tweak these 3 points.

1. Retain political parties as these 1st amendment is sacred to most.

2. Retain primaries but the individuals advance irregardless of their political party affinity.

3. Advance candidates with a critical mass of support of the primary voters....of course allowing voters freedom to vote regardless of political affinity in either the primary or finals.

I fail to understand the current system where we the voters are forced to expend precious tax dollars to help the political parties choose their particular candidate. This is especially true in the technologically advanced gerrymandering evident in the current political  environment. Making safe districts tend to create candidates of the predominate party run the the extreme left or right of center (under the current system). This allows the greatest separation from the other CHOSEN candidate. NOTE THAT CHOSEN candidate may not be their chief rival or the OVERALL voter choice.

If party A is the predominate party in a district then maybe 3 party A candidates advance past the primary. Now those three candidates MUST consider party B and C voters AND tend to their base A. Extremism is moderated.

[mmoan2]

JUST SAW THIS THREAD>>>>>AWESOME

Might i tweak these 3 points.

1. Retain political parties as these 1st amendment is sacred to most.

2. Retain primaries but the individuals advance irregardless of their political party affinity.

3. Advance candidates with a critical mass of support of the primary voters....of course allowing voters freedom to vote regardless of political affinity in either the primary or finals.

I fail to understand the current system where we the voters are forced to expend precious tax dollars to help the political parties choose their particular candidate. This is especially true in the technologically advanced gerrymandering evident in the current political  environment. Making safe districts tend to create candidates of the predominate party run the the extreme left or right of center (under the current system). This allows the greatest separation from the other CHOSEN candidate. NOTE THAT CHOSEN candidate may not be their chief rival or the OVERALL voter choice.

If party A is the predominate party in a district then maybe 3 party A candidates advance past the primary. Now those three candidates MUST consider party B and C voters AND tend to their base A. Extremism is moderated.

No tax dollars are given to political parties. Not sure where you got this idea.

[MEfree]

No tax dollars are given to political parties. Not sure where you got this idea.

I think danieldriberg was meaning the expense of running the primary election, not that tax dollars are actually given to the parties...So are you saying that each party that conducts a primary pays their share of the voting expense?

Edit- add http://www.ehow.com/facts_5661147_pays-primary-election_.html seems to indicate that most primaries are publicly funded (but this may help to reduce the expense of the general election by having fewer candidates who receive public funding.

[mmoan2]

I think danieldriberg was meaning the expense of running the primary election, not that tax dollars are actually given to the parties...So are you saying that each party that conducts a primary pays their share of the voting expense?

Edit- add http://www.ehow.com/facts_5661147_pays-primary-election_.html seems to indicate that most primaries are publicly funded (but this may help to reduce the expense of the general election by having fewer candidates who receive public funding.

Primaries are publicly funded, but elections are constitutionally required to be public endeavors. The sum of money required to hold them is paltry on the federal level, however, in the scheme of things. I don't think eliminating primary elections for fiscal reasons is a viable criticism. If anything, it's the failure of the system, not what it costs, that is the problem.

[dfreuter415]

Originally Posted by iacas

I'd propose three things to improve politics in the United States:

Do away with political parties.

Do away with the primaries.

Implement instant runoff voting.

My interest in politics is barely above nil, but I'm curious enough to know what people think of the above.

#1 - I don't like the political parties either as they exist now. I would rather we have 3 parties: independent, conservative, liberal

#2 - With parties you would need primaries

#3 - With 3 parties, after an election if a candidate did not receive 50% of the vote you would have an instant runoff between the top 2 candidates

[mmoan2]

#1 - I don't like the political parties either as they exist now. I would rather we have 3 parties: independent, conservative, liberal

#2 - With parties you would need primaries

#3 - With 3 parties, after an election if a candidate did not receive 50% of the vote you would have an instant runoff between the top 2 candidates

You are aware that those parties actually exist already, right? They just can't get their s*!t together enough to unseat the GOP and Dem parties, mainly because the GOP and Dem already represent their ideologies and are so entrenched. It can be done, though. Ross Perot almost did it. If he was more of a politician, he may have done much better. There's also a Green Party, Libertarian Party, Communist Party, and others from time to time.

[phan52]

What I'll propose is flat out never going to happen (not in the next 50 years), but join me on a thought experiment. Tell me why this would fail to improve politics in the United States. Or tell me if you think it would work.

I'd propose three things to improve politics in the United States:

Do away with political parties.

Do away with the primaries.

Implement instant runoff voting.

My interest in politics is barely above nil, but I'm curious enough to know what people think of the above.

I could go for that. Rather than "party" primaries, have one blanket non-partisan primary and the first two in the balloting have a runoff. It will force elected officials from the extremes. They will have to be more moderate in order to gain a consensus in the primary. All viable candidates have public funding for a campaign that lasts no more than 90 days, and the runoff election occurs in 30 days. Oh, to dream.

I think a few states already have this for their local elections, California for sure. The funding part and the schedule is my idea. It is ridiculous that election cycles go on for so long.

[Golfingdad]

... They will have to be more moderate in order to gain a consensus in the primary. All viable candidates have public funding for a campaign that lasts no more than 90 days, and the runoff election occurs in 30 days. Oh, to dream.

...

. It is ridiculous that election cycles go on for so long.

Amen to that!!  I especially like the public funding part ... so as to keep the rich guys from buying the elections.

[iacas]

@MEfree , again I'll ask you to stick to the topic. The topic is the discussion of the three things I listed in the first post. The topic is not "is there truly a problem?" nor is it "this is what I think the problem is and how to fix it."

[MEfree]

@MEfree, again I'll ask you to stick to the topic. The topic is the discussion of the three things I listed in the first post. The topic is not "is there truly a problem?" nor is it "this is what I think the problem is and how to fix it."

Was trying to edit before you posted to bring it more on "topic" but got timed out.  Is this better?  If not, please move it to its own thread titled "The Solution"  thx

[iacas]

Was trying to edit before you posted to bring it more on "topic" but got timed out.  Is this better?  If not, please move it to its own thread titled "The Solution"  thx

No, it wasn't any better. You basically said "no, that won't work" and then just went on with your original post.

And if you do copy whatever you typed over to a new thread, give it a better thread title than "The Solution."

[mmoan2]

Amen to that!!  I especially like the public funding part ... so as to keep the rich guys from buying the elections.

Campaign finance laws are better than spending taxpayer dollars on campaigns. And BTW, we used to have a robust public funding system in the state of Arizona that just got creamed by the Supreme Court of the US and will now probably go away because the current version is awful. It was determined to violate the 1st Amendment. If you want to spend money on a political campaign, it's your "free speech right" to do so, said the SCOTUS.

You may think that big money has corrupted politics more in the modern day than ever before, but trust me, as a former grad student in U.S. History, I can assure you it's not the case. Most of the Founding Fathers won office because they spent the most money on the biggest parties, especially in state elections. Conventions would produce more food and liquor than most poor citizens had ever seen, and the biggest party host won the election. Thomas Jefferson was Exhibit A. John Adams and his son JQ were some of the richest guys in Massachusetts. Madison - big time Virginia landowner. If anything, it was worse then.

[Stretch]

Has this been posted already? If so, I apologize.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/11/the-us-needs-a-new-constitution-heres-how-to-write-it/281090/

[phan52]

Campaign finance laws are better than spending taxpayer dollars on campaigns. And BTW, we used to have a robust public funding system in the state of Arizona that just got creamed by the Supreme Court of the US and will now probably go away because the current version is awful. It was determined to violate the 1st Amendment. If you want to spend money on a political campaign, it's your "free speech right" to do so, said the SCOTUS.

You may think that big money has corrupted politics more in the modern day than ever before, but trust me, as a former grad student in U.S. History, I can assure you it's not the case. Most of the Founding Fathers won office because they spent the most money on the biggest parties, especially in state elections. Conventions would produce more food and liquor than most poor citizens had ever seen, and the biggest party host won the election. Thomas Jefferson was Exhibit A. John Adams and his son JQ were some of the richest guys in Massachusetts. Madison - big time Virginia landowner. If anything, it was worse then.

So you agree that big money corrupts politics. Just because it has been deemed "Constitutional" or the Founding Fathers did it doesn't make it right. Obviously campaign finance laws (that were gutted by Citizens' United and will be further minimized via McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ) haven't worked, so attempting to minimize the money through public financing of viable candidates could be a pretty good solution. But I don't expect it to happen any time too soon with all the money available to corrupt the process.

[iacas]

Guys, the topic's been defined pretty narrowly. Let's stick to that. If you want to branch out, please start a new thread. If this one's reached the end of its line of discussion, let it.

[mmoan2]

So you agree that big money corrupts politics. Just because it has been deemed "Constitutional" or the Founding Fathers did it doesn't make it right. Obviously campaign finance laws (that were gutted by Citizens' United and will be further minimized via McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission) haven't worked, so attempting to minimize the money through public financing of viable candidates could be a pretty good solution. But I don't expect it to happen any time too soon with all the money available to corrupt the process.

You may be right, but I'm not sure that campaign finance reform has been properly legislated yet to allow it to work properly. I also don't totally agree that preventing ALL private money from going to political campaigns is proper either. The 1st Amendment is pretty explicit in allowing it, and I think it is right as well, just not maybe to the extent allowed now.