Campaign reform—What would you do?

[NUance]

The biggest thing we need to change, IMO, is to get rid of awarding electoral votes by state. Electoral votes should be awarded by Congressional district. You win the district, you get the vote. That would dramatically reduce the odds of an election being won by the candidate with a minority of popular votes.

 

Any other ideas?

[Count 'Bility]

i talked about this in another thread. Id' be for it. There has to be a middle ground here cuz i dont think you can let a demographic like urban california change an outcome as it is in a pure popular vote such as this one. But i do think it could be better. Like what Nebraska and maine do. But also redraw district lines to even out rep/citizen ratios? Base it on population and throw out every state's 2 Senate votes which have nothing to do with representing a certain population in terms of numbers?

[knapplc]

SHORTEN THE CAMPAIGNS.

 

This nonsense started in the summer of 2015. That means we'll be hearing about campaigns firing up in a little more than 2.5 years. Then it's another 16-18 months of dog-and-pony show nonsense.

[Count 'Bility]

SHORTEN THE CAMPAIGNS.

 

This nonsense started in the summer of 2015. That means we'll be hearing about campaigns firing up in a little more than 2.5 years. Then it's another 16-18 months of dog-and-pony show nonsense.

 

Start in April. campaign two weeks for nomination. have a couple debates. have the primaries. No caucuses. No town halls. Everyone has primary same night. Select the winner. Campaign. Have debates. dun.

[84HuskerLaw]

If you change the electoral college method, the best alternative would be to simply have the President chosen by a vote of the 50 governors of the States. Eliminate the popular vote and elections altogether and have the Governors select and vote for a new President every 5 years with the President subject to a recall vote every 2.5 years.

 

This will keep the President beholden to the several states and will restore some of the federal power back to the states who would certainly need to be responded to by any President who would be subject to the on going approval of the 50 state governors. It would also keep the federal government from attempting to force unwanted federal laws and regulations back on to the States and local subs.

 

you could even add the option of a 'recall' or vote of approval election of the people on that 2.5 year date as well by a majority vote of the public 'at large' and any President not so approved would then be replaced by another choice made by the Governors. .

[RedSavage]

Get rid of the electoral college and do it solely on the popular vote

[TGHusker]

Get rid of the electoral college and do it solely on the popular vote

That won't happen. It would take a constitutional amendment. Besides you may not like the results of the EC today, but the next election it may help you. I think the EC is a good thing. It forces the candidates to take notice of 'fly over' states and our needs. Wtout the EC, the candidates would just spend time in the major cities and address those needs. Power would be restricted to those select locations. We in the smaller states would have no voice. Think of it, the candidates were concerned wt the EC results in NH, Iowa, Ne, Maine, Nevada,and many other states wt under 10 EC votes. It empowered those states to influence the election and gave voice to people in these smaller states.

 

As I have mentioned several times, I think we need reform of the election cycle:

1. Restrict donations to individual givers, remove unions, corporations and other advocacy groups from donating. Or have the party fund candidates evenly who poll over 10%.

2. Restrict the election cycle including fund raising to a 6 - 8 month process.

3. Primaries : 6 Regions - with a state from each region voting together on 6 specific dates ( the last date would have more states). That way one region won't unduly favor one candidate ( Like Super Tuesday helping a southern candidate)

4. After each primary, those candidates with less than 10% of the vote will be removed from the next primary ballot. Thus we wouldn't end up wt a diluted 17 person field wt candidates just trying to sell books or get on the winner's short list for administration jobs.

5. Reducing the fund raising period & sources will help to level the playing field. If the candidate hasn't by experience developed name recognition yet, well maybe he hasn't proven himself yet prior to the campaign.

6. Closed primaries for party members only. Sorry, independents, I don't see why non-party members or cross over voters should be able to determine a private parties candidate or determine the parties values. Let the party start on its own & live wt its choice. It was the cross-over voters and independents that empowered Trump in the early primaries.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Get rid of the electoral college and do it solely on the popular vote

That won't happen. It would take a constitutional amendment. Besides you may not like the results of the EC today, but the next election it may help you. I think the EC is a good thing. It forces the candidates to take notice of 'fly over' states and our needs. Wtout the EC, the candidates would just spend time in the major cities and address those needs. Power would be restricted to those select locations. We in the smaller states would have no voice. Think of it, the candidates were concerned wt the EC results in NH, Iowa, Ne, Maine, Nevada,and many other states wt under 10 EC votes. It empowered those states to influence the election and gave voice to people in these smaller states.

 

As I have mentioned several times, I think we need reform of the election cycle:

1. Restrict donations to individual givers, remove unions, corporations and other advocacy groups from donating. Or have the party fund candidates evenly who poll over 10%.

2. Restrict the election cycle including fund raising to a 6 - 8 month process.

3. Primaries : 6 Regions - with a state from each region voting together on 6 specific dates ( the last date would have more states). That way one region won't unduly favor one candidate ( Like Super Tuesday helping a southern candidate)

4. After each primary, those candidates with less than 10% of the vote will be removed from the next primary ballot. Thus we wouldn't end up wt a diluted 17 person field wt candidates just trying to sell books or get on the winner's short list for administration jobs.

5. Reducing the fund raising period & sources will help to level the playing field. If the candidate hasn't by experience developed name recognition yet, well maybe he hasn't proven himself yet prior to the campaign.

6. Closed primaries for party members only. Sorry, independents, I don't see why non-party members or cross over voters should be able to determine a private parties candidate or determine the parties values. Let the party start on its own & live wt its choice. It was the cross-over voters and independents that empowered Trump in the early primaries.

 

Can't argue with that.

 

The biggest problems are in the primary process. Yes....I know the parties are private entities that can do it however they so choose. But, something has got to change. Either through the parties or being forced on them by the federal government.

 

Another one is completely getting rid of caucuses.

 

If you fix the primaries, I believe most people would have a very different attitude towards the general election.

[TGHusker]

 

 

Get rid of the electoral college and do it solely on the popular vote

That won't happen. It would take a constitutional amendment. Besides you may not like the results of the EC today, but the next election it may help you. I think the EC is a good thing. It forces the candidates to take notice of 'fly over' states and our needs. Wtout the EC, the candidates would just spend time in the major cities and address those needs. Power would be restricted to those select locations. We in the smaller states would have no voice. Think of it, the candidates were concerned wt the EC results in NH, Iowa, Ne, Maine, Nevada,and many other states wt under 10 EC votes. It empowered those states to influence the election and gave voice to people in these smaller states.

 

As I have mentioned several times, I think we need reform of the election cycle:

1. Restrict donations to individual givers, remove unions, corporations and other advocacy groups from donating. Or have the party fund candidates evenly who poll over 10%.

2. Restrict the election cycle including fund raising to a 6 - 8 month process.

3. Primaries : 6 Regions - with a state from each region voting together on 6 specific dates ( the last date would have more states). That way one region won't unduly favor one candidate ( Like Super Tuesday helping a southern candidate)

4. After each primary, those candidates with less than 10% of the vote will be removed from the next primary ballot. Thus we wouldn't end up wt a diluted 17 person field wt candidates just trying to sell books or get on the winner's short list for administration jobs.

5. Reducing the fund raising period & sources will help to level the playing field. If the candidate hasn't by experience developed name recognition yet, well maybe he hasn't proven himself yet prior to the campaign.

6. Closed primaries for party members only. Sorry, independents, I don't see why non-party members or cross over voters should be able to determine a private parties candidate or determine the parties values. Let the party start on its own & live wt its choice. It was the cross-over voters and independents that empowered Trump in the early primaries.

 

Can't argue with that.

 

The biggest problems are in the primary process. Yes....I know the parties are private entities that can do it however they so choose. But, something has got to change. Either through the parties or being forced on them by the federal government.

 

Another one is completely getting rid of caucuses.

 

If you fix the primaries, I believe most people would have a very different attitude towards the general election.

 

yes, get rid of the caucuses - an old tradition from the days of smoked filled, deal making party politics.

[Landlord]

The Electoral College is a good idea, but states being all or nothing makes no sense.

 

In what world does the response, "Give them the entire pie" make sense when one candidate beats another candidate by something like 47.4% to 47.2%?

The way Nebraska and Maine do it is the way it should be done everywhere, imo.

[admo]

I don't know but I kind of like the idea of one term for POTUS which goes six years and done. Like Mexico.

[RedSavage]

 

 

 

Get rid of the electoral college and do it solely on the popular vote

That won't happen. It would take a constitutional amendment. Besides you may not like the results of the EC today, but the next election it may help you. I think the EC is a good thing. It forces the candidates to take notice of 'fly over' states and our needs. Wtout the EC, the candidates would just spend time in the major cities and address those needs. Power would be restricted to those select locations. We in the smaller states would have no voice. Think of it, the candidates were concerned wt the EC results in NH, Iowa, Ne, Maine, Nevada,and many other states wt under 10 EC votes. It empowered those states to influence the election and gave voice to people in these smaller states.

 

As I have mentioned several times, I think we need reform of the election cycle:

1. Restrict donations to individual givers, remove unions, corporations and other advocacy groups from donating. Or have the party fund candidates evenly who poll over 10%.

2. Restrict the election cycle including fund raising to a 6 - 8 month process.

3. Primaries : 6 Regions - with a state from each region voting together on 6 specific dates ( the last date would have more states). That way one region won't unduly favor one candidate ( Like Super Tuesday helping a southern candidate)

4. After each primary, those candidates with less than 10% of the vote will be removed from the next primary ballot. Thus we wouldn't end up wt a diluted 17 person field wt candidates just trying to sell books or get on the winner's short list for administration jobs.

5. Reducing the fund raising period & sources will help to level the playing field. If the candidate hasn't by experience developed name recognition yet, well maybe he hasn't proven himself yet prior to the campaign.

6. Closed primaries for party members only. Sorry, independents, I don't see why non-party members or cross over voters should be able to determine a private parties candidate or determine the parties values. Let the party start on its own & live wt its choice. It was the cross-over voters and independents that empowered Trump in the early primaries.

 

Can't argue with that.

 

The biggest problems are in the primary process. Yes....I know the parties are private entities that can do it however they so choose. But, something has got to change. Either through the parties or being forced on them by the federal government.

 

Another one is completely getting rid of caucuses.

 

If you fix the primaries, I believe most people would have a very different attitude towards the general election.

 

yes, get rid of the caucuses - an old tradition from the days of smoked filled, deal making party politics.

 

I know it's more of a pipe dream than a reality. I don't see why the process has to be so complicated though. Whoever has the most votes in the country, wins. There's a huge problem when 2 out of the last 5 elections, the candidate who won the popular vote, was not our president-elect. That should supersede a bunch of delegates who I think vote more in their own best interests than the public's.

 

Who cares if they don't campaign in your state? I don't need a candidate to come here to make an informed decision on who I want to vote for. A lot of government decisions that more directly effect your daily life are made on a state level anyways. Do you think it would that drastically effect federal support in a "smaller state" like Nebraska once the candidate was in office?

 

I don't disagree with your idea either. I do think that would be an improvement, and we definitely need to get rid of the caucuses.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

Get rid of the electoral college and do it solely on the popular vote

That won't happen. It would take a constitutional amendment. Besides you may not like the results of the EC today, but the next election it may help you. I think the EC is a good thing. It forces the candidates to take notice of 'fly over' states and our needs. Wtout the EC, the candidates would just spend time in the major cities and address those needs. Power would be restricted to those select locations. We in the smaller states would have no voice. Think of it, the candidates were concerned wt the EC results in NH, Iowa, Ne, Maine, Nevada,and many other states wt under 10 EC votes. It empowered those states to influence the election and gave voice to people in these smaller states.

 

As I have mentioned several times, I think we need reform of the election cycle:

1. Restrict donations to individual givers, remove unions, corporations and other advocacy groups from donating. Or have the party fund candidates evenly who poll over 10%.

2. Restrict the election cycle including fund raising to a 6 - 8 month process.

3. Primaries : 6 Regions - with a state from each region voting together on 6 specific dates ( the last date would have more states). That way one region won't unduly favor one candidate ( Like Super Tuesday helping a southern candidate)

4. After each primary, those candidates with less than 10% of the vote will be removed from the next primary ballot. Thus we wouldn't end up wt a diluted 17 person field wt candidates just trying to sell books or get on the winner's short list for administration jobs.

5. Reducing the fund raising period & sources will help to level the playing field. If the candidate hasn't by experience developed name recognition yet, well maybe he hasn't proven himself yet prior to the campaign.

6. Closed primaries for party members only. Sorry, independents, I don't see why non-party members or cross over voters should be able to determine a private parties candidate or determine the parties values. Let the party start on its own & live wt its choice. It was the cross-over voters and independents that empowered Trump in the early primaries.

 

Can't argue with that.

 

The biggest problems are in the primary process. Yes....I know the parties are private entities that can do it however they so choose. But, something has got to change. Either through the parties or being forced on them by the federal government.

 

Another one is completely getting rid of caucuses.

 

If you fix the primaries, I believe most people would have a very different attitude towards the general election.

 

yes, get rid of the caucuses - an old tradition from the days of smoked filled, deal making party politics.

 

I know it's more of a pipe dream than a reality. I don't see why the process has to be so complicated though. Whoever has the most votes in the country, wins. There's a huge problem when 2 out of the last 5 elections, the candidate who won the popular vote, was not our president-elect. That should supersede a bunch of delegates who I think vote more in their own best interests than the public's.

 

Who cares if they don't campaign in your state? I don't need a candidate to come here to make an informed decision on who I want to vote for. A lot of government decisions that more directly effect your daily life are made on a state level anyways. Do you think it would that drastically effect federal support in a "smaller state" like Nebraska once the candidate was in office?

 

I don't disagree with your idea either. I do think that would be an improvement, and we definitely need to get rid of the caucuses.

 

It's not that they don't come and campaign here. Heck, I lived in Iowa for 15 years. I really have no desire to life through that crap again.

 

However, it also has to do with what policies they pay attention to.

[RedSavage]

 

 

 

 

 

Get rid of the electoral college and do it solely on the popular vote

 

That won't happen. It would take a constitutional amendment. Besides you may not like the results of the EC today, but the next election it may help you. I think the EC is a good thing. It forces the candidates to take notice of 'fly over' states and our needs. Wtout the EC, the candidates would just spend time in the major cities and address those needs. Power would be restricted to those select locations. We in the smaller states would have no voice. Think of it, the candidates were concerned wt the EC results in NH, Iowa, Ne, Maine, Nevada,and many other states wt under 10 EC votes. It empowered those states to influence the election and gave voice to people in these smaller states.

 

As I have mentioned several times, I think we need reform of the election cycle:

1. Restrict donations to individual givers, remove unions, corporations and other advocacy groups from donating. Or have the party fund candidates evenly who poll over 10%.

2. Restrict the election cycle including fund raising to a 6 - 8 month process.

3. Primaries : 6 Regions - with a state from each region voting together on 6 specific dates ( the last date would have more states). That way one region won't unduly favor one candidate ( Like Super Tuesday helping a southern candidate)

4. After each primary, those candidates with less than 10% of the vote will be removed from the next primary ballot. Thus we wouldn't end up wt a diluted 17 person field wt candidates just trying to sell books or get on the winner's short list for administration jobs.

5. Reducing the fund raising period & sources will help to level the playing field. If the candidate hasn't by experience developed name recognition yet, well maybe he hasn't proven himself yet prior to the campaign.

6. Closed primaries for party members only. Sorry, independents, I don't see why non-party members or cross over voters should be able to determine a private parties candidate or determine the parties values. Let the party start on its own & live wt its choice. It was the cross-over voters and independents that empowered Trump in the early primaries.

Can't argue with that.

 

The biggest problems are in the primary process. Yes....I know the parties are private entities that can do it however they so choose. But, something has got to change. Either through the parties or being forced on them by the federal government.

 

Another one is completely getting rid of caucuses.

If you fix the primaries, I believe most people would have a very different attitude towards the general election.

yes, get rid of the caucuses - an old tradition from the days of smoked filled, deal making party politics.

I know it's more of a pipe dream than a reality. I don't see why the process has to be so complicated though. Whoever has the most votes in the country, wins. There's a huge problem when 2 out of the last 5 elections, the candidate who won the popular vote, was not our president-elect. That should supersede a bunch of delegates who I think vote more in their own best interests than the public's.

 

Who cares if they don't campaign in your state? I don't need a candidate to come here to make an informed decision on who I want to vote for. A lot of government decisions that more directly effect your daily life are made on a state level anyways. Do you think it would that drastically effect federal support in a "smaller state" like Nebraska once the candidate was in office?

 

I don't disagree with your idea either. I do think that would be an improvement, and we definitely need to get rid of the caucuses.

It's not that they don't come and campaign here. Heck, I lived in Iowa for 15 years. I really have no desire to life through that crap again.

 

However, it also has to do with what policies they pay attention to.

I don't disagree it would have an impact on some policies and some states would benefit more than others. However my point is aren't most of those policies that affect your and my daily lives made more at the state level than the federal level? So it really wouldn't have that big of an impact?

 

I also believe states should be more self-governing but that's another discussion

[mrandyk]

SHORTEN THE CAMPAIGNS.

 

This nonsense started in the summer of 2015. That means we'll be hearing about campaigns firing up in a little more than 2.5 years. Then it's another 16-18 months of dog-and-pony show nonsense.

I don't think there is any way that the campaigns ever get shortened. It would be so nice but how do we even bring about that change?