Voting Reform

• analogkid

  NNN wrote: How about this?
  
  If you collect taxpayer-funded handouts outside of Social Security, you can't vote.

  I think that you are going to have to be careful with what is considered a handout, especially within the tax system itself. If you take the tax write off for home interest, is that a handout. How about the child tax credit?
• analogkid

  not my name wrote: Darkon wrote:
  With regards to paying federal/state income taxes as a requirement to vote, I offer you my own situation:
  I honorably served eight years in the United States Marine Corps. I am currently finishing up my undergraduate degree (in three years, btw) and have been accepted to a graduate program. My GI Bill is tax free, my income as the veterans assistant (federal work study) at my university is also tax free. I pay no federal or state taxes. You can kiss my ass if you think that I will allow someone to repeal my right to vote.

  Not to mention that military personnel in a war zone are often granted a tax free status, if I am not mistaken.
• Darkon

  

  not my name wrote:
  Just because one does not have a child in a school system or does not themselves pay a property tax does not mean that they do not have an interest in the school. Schools that perform well typically produce students who contribute to the economic well being of the community, which creates employment, which serves all (not just those that own property or have children).
  
  Furthermore, say a young married couple who do not currently have children move into a community and rent their living quarters. As of right now they do not, in your opinion, have an investment in the school. However they plan on having children. They do have an interest, their future children, in how a school funded.
  
  With regards to paying federal/state income taxes as a requirement to vote, I offer you my own situation:
  I honorably served eight years in the United States Marine Corps. I am currently finishing up my undergraduate degree (in three years, btw) and have been accepted to a graduate program. My GI Bill is tax free, my income as the veterans assistant (federal work study) at my university is also tax free. I pay no federal or state taxes. You can kiss my ass if you think that I will allow someone to repeal my right to vote.

  I have "interest" in alot of things. But if I have nothing invested why should I have a say?
  
  Someone earlier suggested a 5 year window on Federal/State income tax. Something like this would cover someone like you who is trying to improve them self and be highly productive in your community.
  
  Thanks for your service! I also served 6 years in the US navy.
  
  You know the only good Marine is a Submarine. HAHAHAHA Just kidding.
• not my name

  By using interest, I am not speaking in terms of my interest in Ohio State football or NY Yankees baseball.
  
  The interest that I speak of is the interest in the school performing well to better suit the needs of the community (once again better performing schools typically produce students that contribute economically), which if one thinks beyond step one is an investment. The investment is simply living in the community, if my community performs well economically my chances of economic enhancement are greater than if my community performs poorly. Just because one does not own property or have children does not mean they are not invested in the schooling of the community's children.
• majorspark

  

  Devils Advocate wrote: If you want true voting reform, I would suggest repealing the 14th amendment and do away with the electoral college.
  
  With technology we have today, there is no reason that the POTUS should not be elected by popular vote.
  
  I would even take it as far as the the VP is the one that comes in 2nd place.
  
  The way thing stand today, It is possible for the presidency to be won by carrying only 14 states.

  The electoral college had nothing to do with the lack of technology of the day. It was part of the ingenious great compromise that brought all the states together to form the union.
  
  The great compromise brought together diverging state interests. The large states and the small state having representaton by means of a national legislature, with one house based on population and the second House based on state sovereignty. The electoral college is a reflection of this compromise. It allows all states, regardless of size, to be have a similar role as the national legislature in the process of electing the President. Two votes for their representation in the senate plus their representation in the house.
  
  A national popular vote process would drive presidential candidates to make big promises to large population centers NYC, LA, Chicago, etc. where big city political machines could generate millions of votes. Urban voters interest will greatly diverge from those of rural citizens scattered all over the nation.
  
  If the electoral college is outdated and no longer a good way of electing the nations president, than our current form of legislature (house/senate) is outdated and no longer a good way of passing the nations laws.
• Devils Advocate

  

  Spark.. Our our house operates under the guise of proportional representation. The senate is unproportional, because of the one state 2 votes thing.
  
  This has nothing to do with electing the POTUS by popular vote.
• bigkahuna

  DA, I'm glad you said PR.
  
  Maybe we should move towards that. Each state keeps the number of Reps and Senators that they have.
  
  In Ohio for example, we vote for the 20 seats. The top 20 people get the seats. Same thing with the Senate, the top 2 get the Senate Seat.
  
  For POTUS, do like Nebraska does (I believe it's Nebraska) and give the person the % of EC voted they earned.
  
  If Obama had 60% of the vote in Ohio for example, give him 60% of the 20 EC votes.
  
  I always thought this was a decent idea (maybe not for House seats) because it gives a more accurate representation of what the people want.
• majorspark

  

  Devils Advocate wrote: Spark.. Our our house operates under the guise of proportional representation. The senate is unproportional, because of the one state 2 votes thing.

  
  
  Correct, the great compromise. Each state is equally soveriegn = 2 votes. Populations in states differ and proportional representation is added to that number. We are a union of sovereign states, not a single sovereign state. The electoral college and the great compromise were based on this concept.
  
  Should we disband the Senate because a citizen of Wyoming has disproportinatly more influence on the federal legislature than a citizen of California? That is many times the argument against the EC, diproportionate representation in presidential elections.
  

  Devils Advocate wrote: This has nothing to do with electing the POTUS by popular vote.

  If I understand you correctly, you are right it does not have anything to do with electing the POTUS by popular vote. We don't elect the president by popular vote and shouldn't. The states elect the POTUS.
• majorspark

  

  bigkahuna wrote: DA, I'm glad you said PR.
  
  Maybe we should move towards that. Each state keeps the number of Reps and Senators that they have.
  
  In Ohio for example, we vote for the 20 seats. The top 20 people get the seats. Same thing with the Senate, the top 2 get the Senate Seat.
  
  For POTUS, do like Nebraska does (I believe it's Nebraska) and give the person the % of EC voted they earned.
  
  If Obama had 60% of the vote in Ohio for example, give him 60% of the 20 EC votes.
  
  I always thought this was a decent idea (maybe not for House seats) because it gives a more accurate representation of what the people want.

  I have no problem with this as long as it is left up to the individual states to decide.
• WebFire

  Devils Advocate wrote: If you want true voting reform, I would suggest repealing the 14th amendment and do away with the electoral college.
  
  With technology we have today, there is no reason that the POTUS should not be elected by popular vote.
  
  I would even take it as far as the the VP is the one that comes in 2nd place.
  
  The way thing stand today, It is possible for the presidency to be won by carrying only 14 states.

  So you think California and Wyoming should carry the same weight?
• Devils Advocate

  

  YES...If the same amount of people voted in each state.
• bigkahuna

  majorspark wrote:

  bigkahuna wrote: DA, I'm glad you said PR.
  
  Maybe we should move towards that. Each state keeps the number of Reps and Senators that they have.
  
  In Ohio for example, we vote for the 20 seats. The top 20 people get the seats. Same thing with the Senate, the top 2 get the Senate Seat.
  
  For POTUS, do like Nebraska does (I believe it's Nebraska) and give the person the % of EC voted they earned.
  
  If Obama had 60% of the vote in Ohio for example, give him 60% of the 20 EC votes.
  
  I always thought this was a decent idea (maybe not for House seats) because it gives a more accurate representation of what the people want.

  I have no problem with this as long as it is left up to the individual states to decide.

  I'm just curious, why do you feel that the State's should decide this?
  Is it because you wouldn't want the feds to have that much control over voting?
  Again, just simply asking.
• majorspark

  

  bigkahuna wrote: I'm just curious, why do you feel that the State's should decide this?
  Is it because you wouldn't want the feds to have that much control over voting?
  Again, just simply asking.

  I believe as well as many of the founders believed that the concentration of power over many is dangerous. They instituted a federal government with balanced power between the three branches. Federal power was also balanced with the powers of the sovereign states. The more power is diversified and balanced the less likely those that seek totalitarian type power are able to attain it over the masses.
  
  The constitution was simply a contract between the sovereign states and the newly formed federal government. Basically it is a contract that the sovereign states relinquished some of their powers as sovereign states in exchange for the mutual benefit of the states as a whole that the federal union would provide. The powers that the states relinquished are enumerated in the constitution as federal powers. Under the 10th amendment the powers not given to the the federal government or prohibited of the states by the constitution are left to the sovereign will of the states or the people (local government).
  
  The constitution gives the federal government no say in the election of its members. Elections to federal office are state events. States elect their representatives in the federal government. Under the constitution the states also elect the chief executive that will govern within the sovereign power they relinquished under the constitution. The national population elects no one to office. We are the United States of America, not the United People of America.
  
  For instance take the disputed 2000 presidential election, even though I disagreed with the Florida Supreme Court's decision and definitely did not want to see Al Gore as POTUS, I disagree with the interference of the federal government via the SCOTUS absent of some sort of major fraudulent activity.
• WebFire

  Devils Advocate wrote: YES...If the same amount of people voted in each state.

  Well duh! But that won't happen. Are you being serious?
• bigkahuna

  majorspark wrote:

  bigkahuna wrote: I'm just curious, why do you feel that the State's should decide this?
  Is it because you wouldn't want the feds to have that much control over voting?
  Again, just simply asking.

  I believe as well as many of the founders believed that the concentration of power over many is dangerous. They instituted a federal government with balanced power between the three branches. Federal power was also balanced with the powers of the sovereign states. The more power is diversified and balanced the less likely those that seek totalitarian type power are able to attain it over the masses.
  
  The constitution was simply a contract between the sovereign states and the newly formed federal government. Basically it is a contract that the sovereign states relinquished some of their powers as sovereign states in exchange for the mutual benefit of the states as a whole that the federal union would provide. The powers that the states relinquished are enumerated in the constitution as federal powers. Under the 10th amendment the powers not given to the the federal government or prohibited of the states by the constitution are left to the sovereign will of the states or the people (local government).
  
  The constitution gives the federal government no say in the election of its members. Elections to federal office are state events. States elect their representatives in the federal government. Under the constitution the states also elect the chief executive that will govern within the sovereign power they relinquished under the constitution. The national population elects no one to office. We are the United States of America, not the United People of America.
  
  For instance take the disputed 2000 presidential election, even though I disagreed with the Florida Supreme Court's decision and definitely did not want to see Al Gore as POTUS, I disagree with the interference of the federal government via the SCOTUS absent of some sort of major fraudulent activity.

  I'm a Social Studies teacher, so I know what you mean. I think when you talk reform, it would have to be universal reform or at least a standard for everyone to start from. I don't think you could have RADICALLY different voting systems from state to state. Although, we see it now with the Primary Caucuses vs. Elections.
• majorspark

  

  bigkahuna wrote: I'm a Social Studies teacher, so I know what you mean. I think when you talk reform, it would have to be universal reform or at least a standard for everyone to start from. I don't think you could have RADICALLY different voting systems from state to state. Although, we see it now with the Primary Caucuses vs. Elections.

  You can't take the word universal lightly. Implementing universal control requires universal or central power to implement it. Universal power can be used for good as well as evil. The balance of power between the sovereign states and the federal government prevents those with ill motives from solidifying power over us all. I am a firm believer in this balance or power.
  
  The constitution governs where that central control is permitted. It does not permit the federal government to control the means or rules states use to elect their representatives to the federal government. I don't agree with every state's electoral policy. I would not trade that disagreement for federal control. What if you disagree with the feds policy?
  
  I marvel at those that desire to increase the power of the federal government to force their will on all 300 million citizens of the USA when it suits their political ideology. Not saying you personally, conservatives as well as progressives fall prey to this lust for central power. The balance of power is our only assurance against tyranny.
• bigkahuna

  I'm just saying that if we would have voting reform, there would have to be some kind of parameters. You couldn't have PR elections for the 54 House seats in California and then our traditional Plurality elections in a state like Montana. It would be much easier to win in California. Or allow one state to do STV for their elections. I just think it would be chaos because politicians would be going all over the place to find out where they can be elected the "easiest"
  
  I'm a Democrat, but I agree that I don't want Congress telling me how I can/can't vote, but again there needs to be some kind of standard and allow the states to work within that standard.
  
  As far as previous posts go with deciding who shouldn't be allowed to vote. This would cause 1 of 2 things to happen.
  
  1.) People will try to find some kind of job or something, so they can actually vote.
  2.) People won't do a damn thing because they don't care enough about voting and we are back to where we started in 1789 with
  white male property owners being the only ones allowed to vote (Extreme I know)
• majorspark

  

  bigkahuna wrote: I'm just saying that if we would have voting reform, there would have to be some kind of parameters. You couldn't have PR elections for the 54 House seats in California and then our traditional Plurality elections in a state like Montana. It would be much easier to win in California. Or allow one state to do STV for their elections. I just think it would be chaos because politicians would be going all over the place to find out where they can be elected the "easiest"
  
  I'm a Democrat, but I agree that I don't want Congress telling me how I can/can't vote, but again there needs to be some kind of standard and allow the states to work within that standard.

  The only way to legally accomplish this is to do it constitutionally through the amendment process. 3/4 of the states would have to agree to relinquish their individual sovereignty over the elections of their reps in the federal government in exchange for setting up some type of standards nationally. Don't see this happening right now though.
• bigkahuna

  Neither do I.
  
  Voting reform of any kind would have to be a long process. This isn't like the stimulus package or health care that Congress can vote in in a matter of days.
  
  I know it would be hard/impossible to do, but I think what needs to be done is people need to be educated more on topics. I know that amendments to state constitutions and issues are somewhat written out on ballots, but most people can't get passed the political jargon.
  
  If people were informed in ways they could understand as far candidate's stances or issues, that might help the situation out a lot.