We have a presidential campaign period that goes on overtly for two years before the election—and may actually start the day after a presidential inauguration. I, like many people, find this annoying. Other countries get things done in just a few months. 

But how could we do it? You'll have to address the primary/caucus process for one thing. Do away with it in favor of a national primary day, perhaps.

Would you fund the primary winners entirely with government money? Would each candidate get the same amount of would it depend on primary performance?

If you could have a do over as far as how we elect our President, what would your approach be?

Views: 173

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The system is run by parties, and states, and the federal gov actually has little to say about it.


That's how it IS. How would you change it? 

How would I eliminate the existence of political parties?

And States?

Hmmm...elect Trump?

Wait for him to get us into a world war with North Korea and then China and Russia?


You're not trying very hard. 

Make congressional districts "one person one vote"? No gerrymandering?

Eliminate PAC's and have the government fund all elections?

Get rid of the Electoral College?

Put on your thinking cap!

I assume you mean that I need to pretend that I have the authority to completely change how thousands of individual entities run their own affairs?

OK, one man, one vote.  No campaigns.  No parties.  No contributions.

When you elect a president and a platform, that's it.

The complications begin when you try to avoid a state that has particular objectives being stymied because it has too few residents to impact the national outcome.

State's rights are a big deal, to states.  If we eliminate states, we eliminate that entire mess.

Similarly, all the districts within each county within each state, create further mess, which then also goes bye bye.

Obviously, for local offices, local representation makes sense.  For a national office, I'd scrap all that.


If you eliminated states with their particular interests, and the lower levels of government, wouldn't you create a whole new set of boundary lines, some of them virtual, based on special interests?

Instead of high-populace states like California and New York vs small-populace states like Montana and Maine, you'd have constituencies like ethnic minorities, laborers, public employees, single mothers, feminists, gays, even perhaps gamers. 

Political parties might become irrelevant, as they almost appear to be this time, with Republican a Democratic constituencies having some interests in common, like outsourcing and getting rid of PACs.

That sounds like a great scenario.

No parties allowed.


It didn't seem too bad...until someone started holding debates a year before the primary.

I think you're asking the wrong question.

The fundamental issue is that a system that can dispense goodies and favors will fall prey to lobbyists who are trying to get those favors directed in a way that favors them.  Even someone who'd really rather not play that game finds himself with no choice but to do so, in self defense if nothing else, e.g., to kill a regulation that his competitors are lobbying for, because it will put him out of business.  Notice how governments are coming down on Uber like a ton of bricks?  That's the ONLY way cab companies can compete...by buying the people who have the power to just arbitrarily shut businesses down.

You can make all the electoral reforms you want...but if the power is being wielded, there will be a powerful incentive to influence the power wielders, and a way will be found.  In the Soviet Union, everything was determined by people who had "pull," and many of them could then turn around and gain more power by creating a clientele who owed them favors.  None of this had anything to do with producing actual value that could sustain people's lives, it was just predation.  And we're headed that way ourselves.

What has simply blown me away about the modern American left, is they want to hand MORE power to the government than it already has...yet they imagine the same big corporations and influential people already using the system to fuck people over, won't continue to wield that influence through other channels...with even MORE power at their disposal.  Again, not to produce wealth that can sustain lives, but to stop others from doing so, or to steal it.

The short answer is, this is a huge deal because we've made it one, by handing huge amounts of power over to the government, or rather, governments.  They now dictate the details of our health care, retirement and education, plus a myriad of things under the surface that become apparent to anyone who tries to run a business.  Tax law has huge effects on economic behavior, too.  With that much at stake, OF COURSE people will try to influence it, and OF COURSE unscrupulous people will find ways to exploit it.

That's why I said you elect a candidate and a platform.

IE: Platform says free health care and free education and mandatory military service, and organ donation cards....that's what the people voted for.

No more electing someone to fulfill campaign promises, and then them being stymied by partisan politics.

We vote for the policies.


LMAO You are so funny

I think anyone no matter their class should be able to run. I think they should all be given a mandarory psych eval and lie detector test which will go on public record for the public. IF they are proved competent (similar to military standards) and their physical shows they are phsically and emotionally "fit to run" then they can run.

I think there should be only ONE voting day and I think that there should be no campaigning. Just the debates and news surrounding their beliefs, but all should have equal access (perhaps paid for by the American people) but equally divided among them. So that there is no difference between the poor genious and the maniac billionaire.

I don't know. But it needs to change


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service