this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
166 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19107 readers
2672 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 41 points 7 months ago (5 children)

I have mixed feelings on the electoral college, but imo "winner-takes-all" voting should be unconstitutional. That particular implementation of the electoral college carries the potential to nullify 49% of the votes in our current two-party system, and it gets even worse when you have more than 2 parties. If there were 3 major parties, "winner-takes-all" has the potential to nullify 66% of the vote if it's split 33%-33%-34%, and becomes more egregious as the number of major parties increases.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

The solution to this is, obviously, ranked choice voting, and ditch the EC.

Citizens can cast multiple votes across parties, votes don’t get nullified, and it actually gives a chance to more than 2 parties while still accurately representing the popular vote.

The problem is, unfortunately, educating the entire electorate on how the hell it actually works and works for them. The first time that I participated in it, we ended up with mayor Eric Adams, because people didn’t know that they could choose more than one option at a time During the primaries. We could have had Mayor Kathryn Garcia instead if anyone had bothered to explain how ranked choice voting worked.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago

Gerrymandering would make the president like the House. 55% of voters select Democrats but then 52% of selected representatives are Republicans 🤔

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Absolutely. Its taking an already flawed undemocratic system and making it even worse.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

My ideal election laws would have an electoral college type setup, but based on congressional district rather than by state. Now, here are the changes that make it workable.

First, the number of congressional districts needs to increase. Massively. There needs to be a fixed ratio of Representatives to state population. At least 1 rep per X people. Then that number needs to be set in stone.

Congress got into a pissing match 100 years ago over how to do apportionment, so now we're stuck with 435 Representatives when the population of the US has more than tripled and two new states have been added.

The next thing that needs to be set in stone is a way to draw districts. Shortest split-line is the method of choice here. Now, it can favor conservatives and rural areas a bit, but only if your number of districts is too low. With enough districts, the output starts to look a lot like actual population maps. If you squint.

I'd ditch the Senate. Or roll it into the House. Maybe say that each state gets an equal number of representatives who serve more than 2 years. So that there's a group of people who have institutional knowledge when the next congress forms.

This would be important for the next change I'd make. Term limits, or rather, consecutive term limits. You'd be able to serve two terms, but then to serve a third you'd have to take one full term off, actually living in your district. You must spend 25 of every 30 days living in the district for at least 2 years to qualify to represent that district.

The final, and most impactful, change would be the voting system itself. We desperately need to ditch FPtP, and Ordinal voting systems in general. Cardinal voting systems are the only way to have viable third parties, with actual, separate identities.

My current favorite system is STAR. It's the absolute best single winner election system out there. There may be better systems in the future, but for now, this is it.

So let's talk practicality of these fixes.

Increasing the size of Congress is a single law. That's it. If you want to push things a bit further, there's James Madison's Congressional Apportionment Amendment, which despite being introduced in the late 1700s, is still a viable amendment, and could theoretically finish the ratification process.

Fun fact, the 27th amendment, which was ratified within my lifetime, was introduced along with the congressional apportionment amendment.

Drawing districts is a State level thing, but Congress does have the power to set requirements on federal elections. They could require that federal districts be drawn via a certain way.

But still, an amendment is likely the only way that it would be implemented.

Term limits flat out need an amendment, same with ditching the senate.

And the final note, the voting system needs to either be done state by state, or via the ability to control federal elections. Possibly needs an amendment to actually apply to everyone,

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Why do all this stuff and chunk at the district level rather than just using the popular vote?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Honestly? Because a national popular vote (for president) would take an amendment, or every state joining the national interstate voting compact, but wouldn't actually fix the deeper issue of the dysfunction of Congress.

Also, the compact might be of questionable constitutionality.

But fixing congress... This link spells out the problem as well as a one time fix for a problem that's always going to exist.

A one time fix might be enough to fix things for a while...

But to truly fix things...

Set up something akin to Lemmy mixed with Wikipedia. Now, the only people who can post to this social media would be members of congress. Every single bill would have to be posted in its entirety to this platform for at least 30 days before a vote could be called. And then, members of congress could post in the comments, debating the bill. This would also give them ways to post links and research and shit,

Now, the important thing here, this platform would be open to anyone to view.

Hell, add in the ability to post video comments. Let these people play their popularity contests, but out in the open.

Oh yeah, if the bill is amended, then the 30-day timer restarts. Also, no more breaks. Congress is always officially in session. Then allow voting via the platform. Allow votes to be cast beforehand, but they finalize on the 30th day. If the bill does not get enough votes to pass, it's dead, but can be resubmitted, or kicked back to committee. (a sub-lemmy for particular topics)

Maybe add in hired transcribers whose only job is to post transcribed text of any meeting or such.

Then make the software open, and get states to use it, and city councils. Basically all government should be done in text and in the open. With time for those making the laws to actually read them, and for the public to be able to know exactly what's going on in government.

The benefit of my idea here is that it can support quite a bit of expansion, while still allowing a fairly local feeling representation. Because congress could easily work from home most of the time.