While probably not feasible, I envision something like a simple polling website you register for with your voter’s registration. It e-mails you opportunities to poll on issues that are relevant to your district and state. The polls are stored independently and the ratings tabulated by how often the representative votes along with the will of the majority assuming a certain level of response against the number of registered voters. +1 for voting with, -1 for against, 0 awarded for issues too close to call, or sending it back for development. It would have to be fleshed out a lot, but it would be a simple, public accessible form of record and accountability.
So for example: Senator doodah has a bill on the table that would extend protection of a certain species of commercially valuable fish for another five years. The fishing lobby REALLY wants this revoked, and the environmental lobby REALLY wants it to be extended. He goes to his poll and sees that 65% of his constituents took the time to poll on the issue, and from that poll, most of them want the protection extended. He finds that even with the against voters, more than 55 % of are in favor of protection. It can be assumed that the rest of the people didn’t care about the issue enough to poll. He votes with the majority and gains a +1 on his record for doing so. This would effectively mean that lobbyists will have to influence the public now rather than just one representative.
Promises can be scored the same way: +1 for keeping, -1 for breaking, 0 for issues that cannot be resolved because of unforseen circumstances etc…
Term limits have not changed “the system” in states where it’s been applied.
I’d say ban television advertising by candidates or interest groups. The influence of big money would be largely removed in one fell swoop. Plus voters might be compelled to seek out better information.
The center is where the country should be ruled. If those outside the center want to push the nation in a particular direction, the burden needs to be on them to convince the center, rather than using electoral exploits to leverage a narrow victory.
And don’t ignore the effect that approval voting has a third parties. Third parties will gain substantially more votes compared to under the one-vote-per-office system. For single-focus parties, this is very effective, if the issues are more important than the party, since the major parties will not be able to ignore parties that get substantial numbers of votes.
For all of those who favor single subject bills: do you realize how much this would shift the balance of power away from Congress and toward the President?
For example, the minimum wage was increased by a bill signed about 18 months ago. Only, the bill wasn’t a minimum wage bill, it was a bill to fund the war in Iraq. Why did the minimum wage end up on that bill? Because Bush opposed the increase and would veto a stand-alone bill to raise it. So Congress said, “Fine, you get the money for your war, and we get an increase of the minimum wage. Deal?” And it was so.
Now, if Congress didn’t have the ability to bring together issues to create a deal like that, there most likely wouldn’t have been a minimum wage increase. If you prohibit Congress from passing bills that deal with multiple subjects, you give the President a huge advantage in being able to stop Congress’ agenda.
But back to the OP, I think it is long past time for publicly funded campaigns for electoral office. Too much time is spent by lawmakers raising money. It taints the whole system and ought to end.
That is based on a lot of unproven (and frankly wrong) assumptions. It assumes, for a start, that people can be neatly categorized along a single continuum, which they can’t. A person who is in the center on one issue may well be an extremist on others. It also assumes makes inherent a tendency towards inaction - better to avoid screwing up and making people upset with you than make attempts to actually do something.
I don’t ignore it. It’s another reason I don’t like it. Like many other proposed electoral reforms, it over over-prioritizes the importance of third (and fourth and fifth) parties. And it isn’t like the US doesn’t have a multiparty system already - it just a system where there are two main coalitions, made up of what are, in effect, multi internal “parties.”
So the Coca Cola company should be allowed to use the airwaves to tell us how much better their brand of carbonated sugar water is over Pepsi, but Lamda Legal should not be allowed to use it to tell people that gays have an equal right to marriage. That’s a pretty topsy-turvy view of free speech.
I think term limits are a double edged sword that cuts deeply on both sides, rather I would like to see ALL private monies removed from federal and state elections that are linked directly to the candidates. Rather, there would be a fund set up state by state and then for all federal offices that cut a check to the party sponsoring the candidate for a set amount. That candidates’ campaign cannot spend one cent more than that. Sure, PAC’s and 527’s can buy airtime like the do now, but the campaign takes away from the actual job of the pol. Or, on preview, what ravenman said.
Of course it was, buttonjockey, but (HUGE) First Amendment problems aside, it is very hard to craft legislation that would exclude the swift boaters but not “good” speech.
People justifying censorship of the right of others to free speech always concentrate on the bad speech and hope people won’t notice that they inevitably limit good speech as well.
A limit on the number of officeholders with law degrees.
This is not an “I hate lawyers” post. Great legists gave out country a lot.
The problem is that lawyers have taken things over. The early Congress was made of farmers, crasftsmen, landowners, preachers, merchants, and yes, lawyers. The legal understanding was able to thrive i an environment where its talents could be made use of, without requiring that they act independantly. There were huge disparities in origin and points of view of the men in Congress. They could, and did, do many different things.
Today, that doesn’t happen nearly so much. If you want to be in politics, you join a party early, go to law school, and help out with campaigns, hopefully making friends to get you into a lower office. From there you work step by step up the ladder, althoug it’s possible to vault past whole rungs.
Having people with a deep understanding of the law (and frankly, I seriously doubt many of today’s Congresspeople do, or for that matter, all that many judges when something political comes a’knockin) is good. But we need businessmen, philosophers and priests, economists, sociologist, and more. lawyers tend to see the world in very legalistic terms, and they don’t always understand what’s possible, and even if they do, they may not understand the consequences of their decisions.
You’re reversed. My assumption is that people are not on a continuum. Our current “vote for one party” assumes that. Approval voting gives voters more choices, all while being simple to explain and implement. Compare to our current system, where people have little influence over the major parties–you either vote for them or effectively no one.
This is a feature, not a bug. The government should only act when there is a true consensus to do so. If the majority does not consent, it should not be done. That’s the point of democracy and approval voting does it better than our current system.
Approval voting doesn’t over-prioritize third parties; it gives them equal voting with the majors by allowing non-exclusive voting. Approval voting simply allows the population to directly express its support for each party, separately. The major parties, to the extent that they truly represent their voters’ interests, will not lose votes under approval voting. (As for the “internal” parties, that just makes the argument for using approval voting in primary elections.)
But my top three proposals do have the side effect of reducing the power of political parties, by making the candidates more responsible to all of their constituents. I consider this a good thing.
Tax the President and members of Congress based on their budget surplus or shortfalls. If they manage to run things with a surplus, they pay zero taxes. If they pass a budget with a large deficit, they are taxed heavily on earnings and also taxed on their existing assets.
Implement a publicly-readable Revision Control System for all legislation.
It amazes me how many times I’ve heard about “riders” that get attached, or amendments that get added on, or changes to the wording of pending legislation that is then passed, and no one knows who changed it! How is this accepted in this day and age?
There should not be a single line of new law introduced that can’t be held accountable. I should be able to pull up the history of the law, including who originally introduced the text, who made any subsequent changes (and they couldn’t without proper permissions), how the vote went on every subsequent change (with linked commentary records), and how the final vote went.
This would do wonders for accountability and clarity, is not Constitutionally questionable, and would be relatively cheap and easy to implement.
As citizens, we should be able to run “svn blame PATRIOT ACT” on our government.
Unlimited Campaign Donations. No cap at all. Allow Bill Gates to support John Doe, instead of forcing John Doe to be a millionaire himself if he does not have the party’s support.
Donations ONLY by registered voters. No corps, no PACs. Bundling is fine.
ALL donations public record.
Donations cease 2 weeks prior to the election date.
No lending to campaigns - cash business only.
ALL money left-over on election day is given the Treasury and put towards debt reduction.
You are right, you didn’t - but presumably calling for the banning of paid for political speech on television would leave commercial speech untouched. I guess the solution is simply to be rich enough to buy one’s own television network, and put it in the programming rather than in between.
While broadcasters (over the air) are restricted under, IIRC, Red Lion, they still receive First Amendment protection. As do the individuals/organizations who would be purchasing the time to put out core political speech. And Red Lion doesn’t apply to cable.
Your idea of government by “the middle” presumes this continuum. Unless you are talking of moving away from the concept of a representative democracy and having government by referenda, that is.
What approval voting does is empowers the inoffensive and reduces the electability of candidates with strong positions. That is what some people think is good. I personally would rather a political party win with the active support of 40% of the voting electorate, rather than the party that is least disliked by 60% of the electorate.
It’s only a feature if you want centrist government. I also believe in a government that does fewer things - though I want them to do fewer because we make it harder for them to do things; your system results in them doing fewer things so they don’t risk offending anyone.
If you take a stylized version of the UK system - a left party, a right party, and a centrist party. If the left and right parties each have typically 40% support, and the centrists 20% support, an approval voting system will, most likely, lead to the centrist party winning every election. Despite the fact that 80% of the country wanted someone else there. That is over prioritizing third parties.
I really don’t understand the internal party side of your comment. Personally, I think parties should be free to use whatever system of selecting candidates they and their members deem fit, so I don’t really worry about approval voting for internal elections like that.
It reduces the power of all non-centrist parties. But it also reduces the influence of activists over policy, as they are likely to be further away from the shining middle of the road that approval voting forces parties to seek. And removing the role from individual, active party members doesn’t strike me as a good thing at all. Nor does a series of 2, 3, 4, 5 or 20 bland, tepid, middle of the road parties who live their lives in fear of saying anything that might offend anyone.
The principle is still there, so this doesn’t really change anything. There is nothing we can do to make the Electoral College truly more democratic and still not change its fundamental structure.
Exactly. That’s part of the reason it was done in the first place. Quite a few candidates bribed enough members of the legislature to be appointed. The more layers we have between the people and the government, the worse off we are: Senators are elected directly by the voters, and so should the President.
We must be misunderstanding each other. Under approval voting (and 1000 voters for simplicity), your example would give counts: 400 votes for the left, 400 votes for the right, and 200 votes for the center. The winner be either the left or the right party, depending on the exact count (401 or 400 or 399, etc).
Your division of voters along strict party lines is faulty. Especially when voters are not required choose only one candidate. A more reasonable breakdown might be: 20% support only the left party, 20% only the right; 20% support the left and center, 20% the right and center; and the final 20% support only the center. The vote count would be (with 1000 voters): 400 votes for the left, 400 for the right, and 600 votes for the center. So the center would win. I fail to see why this would be bad–the most voters expressed approval for that party.
Governing shouldn’t be about two parties, neither of who have majority support, taking turns ruling depending which way the nonpartisan voters go. In a democracy, governing should be about what the majority of people want. Approval voting makes it clear which candidate truly has the most support, because voters are not forced to choose only one.
I was referring to your comment about having effectively a multiparty system because of the factions within the major parties. While I agree parties should be able to choose candidates however they wish, approval voting is an excellent way for a large, diverse group to choose a consensus candidate.
Why should the party (or government) act on something only few members (or voters) support? Policy should be decided on the number of supporters, not their loudness.
Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. Making the presidential election a simple popular vote cannot be changed without a Constitutional amendment. This is unlikely. My suggestions require only federal legislation, but still make the process more democratic.