Necessary electoral reforms for the USA

The U.S. needs the following electoral reforms:

Unicameral legislatures (abolish the senates) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicameralism

Party-list proportional representation for legislative elections - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party-list_proportional_representation

Instant runoff voting for executive elections (mayor, governor, president) -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Election of the president solely by the popular vote (abolish the Electoral College).


That is all.

>>40
Explicitly, yes; implicitly, this was intended to be the basis of all aspects of US politics: that the many couldn't bully the few, and the few couldn't bully the many, and that what was made law applied equivalently for everyone.  Moreover, when a good portion of the judiciary vocally or quietly would wish to "legislate from the bench," I think all bets on classical definitions being accurate are off (rather, we should restore the classical definition first).

By "legislate from the bench," in this case, I borrow a definition of judicial activism from Simon Dodd: "if it uses the judicial power to strike down a law that is not unconstitutional, or to uphold a law which is unconstitutional ... [T]he conflation of 'action' with 'activism' is false; the court cannot be activist simply by adhering to the constitution.  By contrast, it cannot be anything other than activist if it defers to the legislature by creating legislative authority where none existed.  One can be activist not only by taking action where none is required, but by refusing to take action when it IS required."

_{Dodd, Simon, simon@simondodd.org.  "Less nebulous than you'd think."  22 August 2005.  http://simondodd.org/noise2signal/useruploads/docs/sjd0802.pdf}

>Instant runoff voting for executive elections (mayor, governor, president)

What about senate elections? Are you saying party-list proportional representation is going to work for every senate election? I don't think so. Senate elections need IRV too.

I'd vote for it.

>>38
Very much agreed.

>>39
http://boards.4chan.org/b/

>>40
Thanks for the link, I'll check that out.

>>44
Whoops, meant >>41 not >>40

Bumping an interesting thread

the real problem isn't the electoral format, but the fact that the media is the number one influence in who people vote for. We need to create a system that does away with charismatic influence and one dimensional bullshit that is beyond just "Democrat" and "Republican". We need a voting populace that isn't retarded and brainwashed and can do some critical thinking as to what the nation needs and how it would help the citizens as a whole rather than individually.

>>47
Electoral reform is a big issue. No other country has such a dominant two party system.

>>47

so maybe a multiparty system?  3 is better than 2, and 10-12 would break up the monopoly.  And as I said earlier, repeal the 17th amendment.  And a good balanced budget amendment.  Then maybe America won't be so fail.

>>49
Repealing the Sixteen would also be a good idea. Also, abolishing the IRS too. Especially when they hound individuals over four measly cents! http://www.sacbee.com/2010/03/13/2604016/irs-suits-pay-visit-to-car-wash.html I definitely agree with the balanced budget amendment, some individual states have one within their constitutions (mine included), it should only be right that the Federal government has one as well.

http://i49.tinypic.com/1f73ox.jpg I'll let this image express how I think of these so-called proposed "reforms".

>>51
Problem being that we're already on the foreground tree (read some of the "apples" and ask what way we're being directed by a really vocal minority).  Having said that though, I am not interested in having a go at monarchy (it'd be silly at this point); I do like Law and Religion, though, and Justice, when it's warranted.

I like "Liberty," too, and don't think it belongs on the foreground tree.  Also, a number of things on the foreground tree should be allowed to exist but should be no more artifically dominant or pushy than their antitheses.

This is the Irish Rebellion of 1798 the cartoon is referring to?

These reforms would be the right thing to do. That's why they're never going to happen. Keep dreaming OP.

>>52
This is the Irish Rebellion of 1798 the cartoon is referring to?
I believe so, yes. Though I posted it since these so-called "reforms" are in reality rotten apples that sound good on paper, but once eaten is going to hurt later.

>>53
These "reforms" would finally destory what little checks and balances this shit US government has left. NO THANK YOU
That's why they're never going to happen.
Thank goodness!

>>54
Could you elaborate on the deterioration of checks and balances that currently exist were these reforms (whichever ones you were looking at) enacted?

>>55
He's a fucking troll. These reforms would only strengthen our system.

>>55
Could you elaborate on the deterioration of checks and balances that currently exist were these reforms (whichever ones you were looking at) enacted?
Certainly. If a Unicameral legislature were enacted, it would cater to the whims of the majority, and whatever crazy public scare was going on at the time. For example, let's say some nutcase went on a shooting rampage, the public (through things like the National initiative, even though I respect Mike Gravel, it's a bad idea) could push to have the Second Amendment repealed, a blow to the freedoms and rights those law abiding individuals who responsibly and properly take care of their firearms.
No form of government is safe from insidious forces; institutions, corporations, tax-exempt foundations, corrupt universities, etc. I fear these so-called "reforms" would make it easier for those to push through legislation that could have the potential to really cause a lot of damage to the already fragile economy, and whatever individual personal freedoms the people have left.

Proportional representation sounds like a good idea, but I would have to really give it a good read to understand it all, so I cannot give a real opinion on that at this time.

I like the idea of instant-runoff voting, and it would be a great thing, and we have plenty of third parties, though the laws and biases against them would have to be eliminated, and the propaganda machine--*ahem*, I mean mass media would also have to give them equal time along with the "major" candidates.

Abolishing the Electoral College is not a new idea. Andrew Jackson wanted to abolish it himself, and I'm sure he had some good reasons, though it was probably more because he was still pissed off from the aftermath of the 1824 election.

>>56
He's a fucking troll.
Hurr durr, calling people who disagree with you a troll. Grow up, or head back to /b/, please.
These reforms would only strengthen our system.
I've explained my position, now explain yours.

>>57
>I fear these so-called "reforms" would make it easier for those to push through legislation that could have the potential to really cause a lot of damage to the already fragile economy, and whatever individual personal freedoms the people have left.

The only possible negative reform here is a unicameral FEDERAL legislature. Unicameral state legislatures wouldn't really even change anything because the US Supreme Court already ruled in 1964 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims) that state legislature districts (House of Reps AND Senates) had to be roughly equal in population because "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests."

Aside from that IRV, proportional representation, and abolishing the EC are ELECTORAL reforms, not LEGISLATIVE reforms. Even if we didn't get a unicameral federal legislature, the other 3 reforms would be a fuck ton better than the shit we have now.

Never going to happen.

>>59
y u so mad though?

>>59
Not with that attitude.

>>61
How would you go about getting it implemented then?

>>62
The first thing is implementing these reforms in the 50 states. There's no way the federal government is going to implement something before the states. Just look at renewable portfolio standards (RPS). By the end of 2010, over 35 states will have an RPS and the federal government is STILL considering it.

Getting these reforms done in the states first is the first step. The Democrats and Republicans will probably be against these reforms on the state level too, but many states have citizen initiatives and referendums: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives_and_referendums_in_the_United_States#Types_of_initiatives_and_referendums

I imagine it will take decades for these reforms to happen at the federal level, but slow progress is still progress.

>>63
Are there any federal initiatives/referendums?

>>64
There's the National initiative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_initiative

>>11
>>65
EU trumps the US once again. You mad yankies?

>>66
Eurofaggot detected

>>66
Actually China trumps both the US and EU nations, being that they manufacture all the cheap crap we consume. But I see an eventual breakup of all three. If the US Federal government actually had these "reforms" implemented, it would probably hasten its downfall. Heh, maybe that would actually be a good thing now that I think about it. Then the individual states can secede and begin anew.

>>68
>Then the individual states can secede and begin anew.

FREE CASCADIA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_%28independence_movement%29

>>68
FREE NEW ENGLAND

>>70

Prefer Cascadia.

England is shit at the moment, wussy shits compared to a couple of centuries ago dominating the world and shit.

>>71
What makes you think we'd have to choose between Cascadia or New England? We can do both.

>>69
Also don't forget:

Second Vermont Republic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vermont_Republic

The various Texas nationalist movements

http://texas.freecountries.org/
http://www.texassecede.com/
http://texasnationalist.com/

And league of the South

http://dixienet.org/New%20Site/index.shtml

New Hampshire also has a secessionist movement as well, plus the Free State Project.

>>73
>And league of the South

We can finally be rid of them! FUCK YEAH

>>74
wwwwwww

>>74
I fap to this

>>74
I endorse this message as a Canadian.

>>77
You have Americans confederates all the way up in Canada? lol wtf.

>>78
has never been to rural Alberta or Yukon.

>>78
Canadians are Americans too!