Govt & Election Reform Mega Thread

[Archy1221]

With the recent conversion of major companies pausing political donations to some R’s or to any political party for a period of time, this may present a golden opportunity to get big corporate money, union money, and PAC/Super/PAC money out of politics for good.  
 

I don’t know the campaign laws very well cause I don’t donate to anyone.  If I have my facts wrong, I apologize but you will understand my overall point.  
I would support some sort of reform that limits the amount of money a company/union/ can donate to a candidate to equal the amount of money a person can donate, no more.  I would also love to figure out a way to lessen the financial impact Super Pacs can have on an election.  
I would love to have some sort of advertising reform that says one candidate can not reference their opponent and only speak to what he/she is going to run on.  Lastly, I wish we could get to a point where candidates had to take government funding for a campaign instead of raising outside money or using their own personnel money.  
 

Lastly on election reform, we should have term limits across the board.  I can’t think of anything else that would have more impact on governing than that.  Politicians would not be beholden to getting elected, instead towards governing 

 

I know this is mostly fantasy wish list, but I think it would make for a better system. 

[Moiraine]

50 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

With the recent conversion of major companies pausing political donations to some R’s or to any political party for a period of time, this may present a golden opportunity to get big corporate money, union money, and PAC/Super/PAC money out of politics for good.  
 

I don’t know the campaign laws very well cause I don’t donate to anyone.  If I have my facts wrong, I apologize but you will understand my overall point.  
I would support some sort of reform that limits the amount of money a company/union/ can donate to a candidate to equal the amount of money a person can donate, no more.  I would also love to figure out a way to lessen the financial impact Super Pacs can have on an election.  
I would love to have some sort of advertising reform that says one candidate can not reference their opponent and only speak to what he/she is going to run on.  Lastly, I wish we could get to a point where candidates had to take government funding for a campaign instead of raising outside money or using their own personnel money.  
 

Lastly on election reform, we should have term limits across the board.  I can’t think of anything else that would have more impact on governing than that.  Politicians would not be beholden to getting elected, instead towards governing 

 

I know this is mostly fantasy wish list, but I think it would make for a better system. 

 

 

I agree. But am curious, are you aware of how we got to where we are with campaign finance?

[Archy1221]

23 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I agree. But am curious, are you aware of how we got to where we are with campaign finance?

I am.  Why?

[Moiraine]

18 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I am.  Why?

 

 

Because you're a Republican. Was just making sure you were aware.

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

With the recent conversion of major companies pausing political donations to some R’s or to any political party for a period of time, this may present a golden opportunity to get big corporate money, union money, and PAC/Super/PAC money out of politics for good.  
 

I don’t know the campaign laws very well cause I don’t donate to anyone.  If I have my facts wrong, I apologize but you will understand my overall point.  
I would support some sort of reform that limits the amount of money a company/union/ can donate to a candidate to equal the amount of money a person can donate, no more.  I would also love to figure out a way to lessen the financial impact Super Pacs can have on an election.  
I would love to have some sort of advertising reform that says one candidate can not reference their opponent and only speak to what he/she is going to run on.  Lastly, I wish we could get to a point where candidates had to take government funding for a campaign instead of raising outside money or using their own personnel money.  
 

Lastly on election reform, we should have term limits across the board.  I can’t think of anything else that would have more impact on governing than that.  Politicians would not be beholden to getting elected, instead towards governing 

 

I know this is mostly fantasy wish list, but I think it would make for a better system. 

I agree.  Are you saying that Republicans should support this now that they have lost their gravy trains and hope to make sure that gravy money doesn't go to Dems?

[Archy1221]

36 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Because you're a Republican. Was just making sure you were aware.

Why does that matter?  

[Archy1221]

23 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I agree.  Are you saying that Republicans should support this now that they have lost their gravy trains and hope to make sure that gravy money doesn't go to Dems?

I’m saying this because it’s what I think.  

[BigRedBuster]

On 4/23/2018 at 2:35 PM, BigRedBuster said:

1)  End Gerrymandering.

2)  Get money out of elections....if that means reversing Citizen United....great.

3)  Nationalize the organization of the election including Primaries.

4)  Reorganize primaries so that several states go together in a regional primary.

5)  Cycle the election schedule so the same state/region isn't the first Primary every election.

6)  Require ID to vote.  Make ID free and as easy to get as possible.

7)  Shorten election cycle.  Make first primary in June...last one in July.  General election runs from July to November.

8)  Move elections to weekend.  Open Polls on Friday afternoon, close them at 8PM on Sunday.

9)  Include in our Government, the ability for a Vote of No Confidence similar to the British Parliament.  

 

 

 

 

@Archy1221 How many of these would you agree to?

[Archy1221]

21 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

@Archy1221 How many of these would you agree to?

1) yes but would need to see who decides the future of the districts borders.  That’s the hard part.   

2) yes but only if it meant all money including union donations and abolish super pacs.  Something like $2,000 limit for any entity in US . Person, Corp, union etc...only donate to the candidate you are eligible to vote for.  

3) every election or just Presidential?  Money in politics sucks as the senate and swing state House elections.  
4) fine with that.  Don’t see why Iowa and NH and SC get to choose for us 

5). Seems fine to me.  
6) Hard yes on voter ID. 
7) April to June but I get your point. 
8). I’m fine with how it is.  Each state election can decide for themselves (with one exception)  Make the Presidential Election a National Holiday 

9). No 

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

2) yes but only if it meant all money including union donations and abolish super pacs.  Something like $2,000 limit for any entity in US . Person, Corp, union etc...only donate to the candidate you are eligible to vote for.  

Yes, if corporate and Super Pac money is eliminated, groups like Unions would be included in the elimination.

 

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

3) every election or just Presidential?  Money in politics sucks as the senate and swing state House elections.

When I wrote this, I was mainly keying on the Presidential election.  That is the one election that everyone in the country votes on the same candidates.  I'm not talking about money.  I'm talking about how they are ran.  It would need to be nationalized if we are going to require the remainder on my list.

 

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

6) Hard yes on voter ID.

Understand that you will not be able to require something like birth certificates to get the ID.  It must be FREE and it must be extremely easy to get.  Meaning, someone can't be required to travel to get the ID.  Maybe offer them at the local post office.

 

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

8). I’m fine with how it is.  Each state election can decide for themselves (with one exception)  Make the Presidential Election a National Holiday 

I'm not.  It's stupid that it's in the middle of the week when people work.  If it's moved to be Friday through Sunday, there would be no need for the National Holiday.  If it's going to be kept on a Tuesday, then the National Holiday is needed.

 

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

9). No

Why? 

[Archy1221]

55 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Why? 

Because I don’t know much about what the vote of no confidence means and the ramifications of it, so I say no.  I can’t justify supporting something I don’t know about. 
 

On Voter ID’s...it should be as easy as possible, free, while showing proof of voting eligibility. 
 

On Election Day, most every state has early voting so this doesn’t even matter.  One thing I would mention is that I would have a pretty strict 2 week early voting window. People voting 6-8 weeks before the election is stupid. 

[BigRedBuster]

12 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Because I don’t know much about what the vote of no confidence means and the ramifications of it, so I say no.  I can’t justify supporting something I don’t know about. 

So, it's more of an "I don't know" than a hard "NO".

 

12 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

On Voter ID’s...it should be as easy as possible, free, while showing proof of voting eligibility. 

I would be interested in seeing what you suggest that "proof of voting eligibility" be.

 

14 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

On Election Day, most every state has early voting so this doesn’t even matter.  One thing I would mention is that I would have a pretty strict 2 week early voting window. People voting 6-8 weeks before the election is stupid. 

I"m fine with the 2 week before voting limitation.  I still don't understand why it can't be over a weekend.  What's so magical about Tuesday?  Over a weekend would disrupt the least amount of commerce to have people off work to be able to vote.

[knapplc]

Limiting early voting to a period two weeks before the election will adversely impact Americans overseas, including the troops and their families. 

[Moiraine]

6 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Why does that matter?  

 

 

It matters because a lot of what you're listing here was in place before conservatives dismantled it, and a lot of members of political parties have trouble admitting anything their party did was wrong. 

[Archy1221]

24 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

It matters because a lot of what you're listing here was in place before conservatives dismantled it, and a lot of members of political parties have trouble admitting anything their party did was wrong. 

Lucky for me I’m a free thinker.