What To Do To Reduce Partisan Dysfunction In Politics

I want to sound helpful, not rain on the parade.

I knew it was premature of me to ask, but Belch had a strong point of view and I wondered if you were leaning pro Belch or anti Belch.

 

This.
If something is a good idea, or is seen to be sucesful in outcome, people will adopt it.
You don't have to persuade or force.
Further than this, someone trying to persuade or force you to do something acts as an admission that it is not in your clear interests to do so. It encourages distrust by default.

For models of all the other voting systems. Consider European countries.
France and Germany for example.

 

It goes back to any change has to include the electoral college. You're not going to get 2/3rds of the House, 2/3rds of the Senate and 3/4th of the states to amend the constitution to do away with it. Now the states can decide how to award their electoral votes. Maine and Nebraska today award their electoral votes via the congressional district route. Other states could do the same if their state legislature agrees and the governor signs it into law.

Georgia has a runoff law. If any candidate fails to receive 50% plus one vote, then the top two finishers are pitted against each other in a runoff election. That does away with plurality winners. If a state wants to go to ranked or any other type of voting, they are free to do so. A state could go back to having their state legislature decides whom gets their electoral votes with no popular vote at all. All of this revolves around the electoral college.

Pennsylvania thought about going to the congressional district route a few years back, but then decided not to. Pennsylvania decided it had more clout with awarding all 20 of its electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. Majority, plurality doesn't matter. That going to congressional districts would dilute Pennsylvania strength when it comes to the presidential election and electoral votes. As it turned out Pennsylvania was the key state to the 2016 election.

Even if all states awarded their electoral votes via the congressional district method, Trump still would have won. Instead of a 304-227 win, he would have had a 288-250 win. The biggest drawback with the congressional district method is that it would make gerrymandering all that more important.

 

A huge number of we conservatives did all we could do to eliminate the 17th amendment to the constitution. This is the amendment about Senators. I have tried to persuade voters to eliminate the 16th amendment as well. It is a mountain to climb. On the 17th, we rallied the support of many in the congress only to slip back down one more time. Getting rid of the 16th ought to be a no brainer yet when it comes to democrats, they fight to keep that amendment as were it their salvation. Maybe you can change the vote. I am not in the camp that says it will happen.

 

Get back to?
You mean there was ever such a time as people weren't voting for the lesser evil?

I am of the opinion that elections are not won but lost.
People aren't voted in so much as they are voted out.

And that the guy who is voted in is just a tool to get rid of his rival who is being voted out.

Both sides have a core vote, if one core vote does not turn out, the opposition gets in.

 

I think the question should be: when we vote for a person to do something, what do we actually want them to do. Do we want them to be dictators who can make us obey any of their commands, or do we want them to be adjudicators of disputes between parties. The former, which amounts to voting for a dictator, places a great emphasis on the vote, because the result of the vote can affect all of society.

 

Instant Runoff is by far the best way to go.

 

I don't want the minority choosing for all. That's what you'll have with this system.

Solutions? Run candidates that have a chance of winning.

If a candidate still runs after losing the primary and you lose elections because of that, maybe the remaining candidate didn't send the right message, or maybe the voters don't understand what their votes will do?

I dislike multiple choice voting. That's really all it is.

 

In reality, since academia and business have so much influence over government today, in law making and tax assessment, why even bother having political candidates? Isn't this just another way of fooling the masses into believing they had a choice?

 

This talks about a majority of votes. I don't like that idea because it disenfranchises too large a segment of the population. What we have today is a small percentage win, even if there was no electoral college. That means there is an entire segment of the population that is not represented.

How do you allow a majority of the population to be represented, when you can't get folks out to vote, nor do they have a clue what is going on in government today.

 

I'm against both. . . . Are 3 mediocre candidates better than 2 good ones?

. . . . Then focus your efforts on convincing voters that what is best for our country is best for EACH ONE OF US. Our unity is the strength of the nation standing behind us that defines and increases our value as individuals.

And the influence of money in campaigns is responsible for the nomination and election of mediocre candidates.

But let's not make a game of this, thinking we can change the outcome by modifying the rules. Voters have mandated a change; they just need to realize that unification is necessary to make it happen.

We need articulate, sincerely motivated speakers and writers such as yourself to PUBLICLY advocate the need for change and how it may be accomplished. . . . Good luck with your research.

 

The issue is, they want to rule and change this nation from a republic to a communist style state. It's evident in all they post. They even went so far as to tell folks not to post, if they had different views. You can see from that they don't believe average folks can vote properly, ever. If you aren't an academic, you don't have a voice. They don't want to deal with you. You aren't intelligent or learned enough to bother with.

This is what we want to run our nation? There is no freedom in that. They run it now, they just can't seem to get all the votes they need from those who aren't intelligent to vote for their candidates.

Don't question it, though. They'll threaten you. One has me, already.

 

I hear you. The problem with voting them out is you replace one who for example has a far right agenda who loves the status quo and keeping any third party from arising with one who has a far left agenda who loves the status quo and keeping any third party from arising. This is our two party system. You'll have a bunch of minor parties which usually can only get a small faction of one percent of the vote at the presidential level. Sometime the Libertarian candidate for senate can garner 6-8 percent. A lot of house races will have third party candidates, but again they will receive one or two percent. So we're caught in this cycle of voting in a Republican, replacing him with a democrat, then replacing the democrat with a republican and so on. Nothing changes as long as we're dealing with the two major parties. Voting them out and replacing them with the other accomplishes nothing.

Not taking the current election laws which favor the two major parties along with the financial aspect that also favors the two major parties into consideration, voters are like sports fans. They want to vote for a winner or at least someone they think that can win like a lot of sport fans root for winning teams. Most end up voting for whom they consider the lesser of two evils or the candidates and party they want the least to lose.

You're right, there is absolutely no incentive for Republicans and Democrats to change the status quo. Neither is willing to give up their monopoly in our two party system.

Now perhaps the best place to start is at the state level. If you don't like these winner take all electoral vote states, all but two by the way even with a plurality. Then fight at the state legislature level for the type of system you want for awarding of its electoral votes. Also at the state level, county commissioners, mayors, city council along with the state legislature, third party candidates stand a better chance of winning there and it is a lot less expensive to run candidates. Win some state legislature seats and soon you'll have some power to change things. At least in your state.

Here's how we do it in Georgia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Georgia_(U.S._state)

 

No, the judge should adjudicate the dispute between the disputants and settle their dispute.

 

Based on whether the defendant violated the person or property of the plaintiff.

 

WHO is THEY???

 

Yes, I think so too.