In a dream world, I’d love it if the playing field was more level, too, when it comes to campaign funds. Maybe a cap on how much can be raised. Each candidate would then have the same war chest and thus be on equal financial footing. Once the funds are gone, they are gone. They’d have to use that money very wisely.
And while I’m dreaming, how about they are only allowed a set amount of commercials, too? Better be smart on what you want to say.
Side note to Sharon: Couldn’t Biden just say that under the new SC ruling, giving Harris that money is an act he’s allowed as President?
I currently live in Scotland and was blown away by how low-key the recent election season was. The election date was set only weeks before, no nasty televised attack ads that I saw, more than two parties to choose from, voting not for Prime Minister but only for MPs (like Congressmen) which pulls the focus back locally... Every system has its flaws and Brits are just as quick to complain about their government. But as an expat, I found it WILDLY refreshing. I'd love a more similar model to American elections - less of a spectacle or ongoing sport, and more of a "thing we do for two months every 4 years then get back to everyday life".
Automatic voter registration, mandatory voting, non-partisan, non-racial drawing of congressional districts, way more compact campaign durations, return to strict limits on campaign finance, put the teeth back in the Voting Rights Act, more ranked choice voting, get rid of the ridiculous, discriminatory and overly burdensome “election integrity” laws that were passed the last few years to combat non-existent voter fraud, outlaw televised campaign ads as cruel and unusual punishment (kind of joking on that one but not really) and, I didn’t even know this was a problem until I read The Preamble today, completely overhaul the FEC so that it doesn’t take years to decide on matters as important as our elections.
There are many countries with mandatory or compulsory voting, such as Australia and Belgium and the penalties range from nothing to modest fines. They all have substantially increased voter turnout and less powerful extremist factions because it’s not enough, under these systems, for a candidate to just gin up his or her base. They have to appeal to a broader range of voters. And I believe voters also have the right to turn in a blank ballot in most of these systems.
I’d love it if everyone voted and it always surprises me how few actually do.. especially for local elections.. anyway.. just wondered how mandatory voting could be enforced.. specifically if there were no fine? Let’s hope people choose to vote.. I think there’s a lot I’d frustration in states where it seems it won’t make a difference though.
Others commenting here have more eloquently stated a myriad of reforms that I think would be great.
In direct response to the topic of this post, and something I mentioned in a response to someone else, is that it sounds as though the transfer of funds to Harris is completely appropriate. What rankles me are the endless lawsuits from the Trump campaign and the Republicans that seem frivolous and without merit. What a middle finger to the American people, what a waste of money on trials, what a waste of time, and what a mockery of our (imperfect) democracy.
I was talking to someone yesterday and they said “well at least we aren’t Venezuela.” Ummm sure, yes, but guess what: Venezuela’s elections and our elections aren’t the only options on the table!! My wishlist is too long to recount here but one of my top reforms is publicly-funded campaigns. I truly believe getting money out of politics would fundamentally change not only how people campaign but how people vote and ultimately how people govern.
As to the electoral college, would the easy way to get around it be to change things so that each candidate in each state, got the same percentage of the electoral college vote that they received for the popular vote in each state? Essentially reflecting the popular vote, but not eliminating the electoral college.
I hadn’t thought of that! I’ve always just thought we should eliminate it completely! Nothing has denied us “representation” more than the electoral college, because it overrides the popular/majority vote. It has certainly changed the course of American history! Gore vs. GW Bush! Trump vs. Hillary Clinton! What a difference it’s made! Would it be easier to change it than to eliminate it, or do we still have to go through the same amendment process?
Sure, that would be better than the status quo. However, if we are trying to model the electoral college after the popular vote, then naturally one would wonder: why aren't we just using the popular vote?
Opponents of the popular vote would argue not to do away with the electoral college because they understand that the electoral college will never be a perfect reflection of the popular vote. By design, the electoral college gives more voting power to less populated states and reduces voting power of more populated states.
A vote in Wyoming is as if a single voter voted 3x for a candidate relative to the average voter. If you are concerned with one person, one vote, this is a clear violation of that principle.
There is actually a pact among some states that if they can get a coalition of enough states that make up 270 electoral votes, then they would cast all their electoral votes for the National Popular Vote winner. This is another way of effectively doing away with the electoral college. BUT, you gotta get enough states to agree to it.
No problem, Sharon was the one that introduced me to the state coalition. It stuck with me, because it seemed like it would be an easier route than actually getting a constitutional amendment through. 😅
I totally agree with you on all the things feeling possible right now. 💖
Well, Sharon's article primarily focused on 'campaign finance', however she ended with a request to hear views that reside under the 'electoral reform' umbrella. I will beg forgiveness if I interpret this to imply that I may stray from campaign finance specifically...and comment rather on the Electoral College. I recently retired from a 21-year stint as a high school American Government teacher. For most of those years, I taught a passionless lesson with regard to the Electoral College. Just the facts. No editorializing good-vs-bad. However, I did teach 'gerrymandering' with passion. (btw, it's bad--technically illegal). During my later years of teaching, the evidence that the Electoral College--as a method of choosing our President--was heavily influenced by gerrymandering led me to become a passionate opponent of that process. I realize that the founding fathers--in their infinite wisdom--devised the Electoral College as a way to circumvent larger states from 'bullying' smaller states. Also, they didn't really trust the less-than-fully-informed (trying to avoid the word 'ignorant') citizenry to have absolute control over the decision. Because the 'wisdom' of the Electoral College is outlined in the Constitution, most strict constructionists will defend it. However, I would argue that the true wisdom of the founders is demonstrated in Article VII of the Constitution which outlines the Amendment process. The understanding that Articles I through VI can/must be subject to deliberate change as future generations deem necessary. Until the election of 2000, a presidential candidate who would lose the popular vote, and still claim victory (due to the Electoral College) was, in a word, rare. So rare that debate about abolishing the Electoral College was futile. However, it has now occurred twice since 2000. And, gerrymandering is the ingenious tool that Republicans have successfully used to aid this phenomenon in favor of their candidate(s). Today, a Republican candidate for POTUS need only secure 50% of the popular vote to all but guarantee victory. A Democratic candidate can only reach this level of certainty with 55-57%. Many of us were recently appalled by J.D. Vance's comments that espoused the idea that childless peoples' votes should count less than those cast by people with children. This notion seems absurd. However, is it really that absurd? The Electoral College provides that votes cast by people who reside in large states count less than those cast by people who reside in small states.
IMPORTANT ‼️ "The Electoral College provides that votes cast by people who reside in large states count less than those cast by people who reside in small states." And to reiterate, that was the intention behind the creation of the Electoral College.
Arguably, we are in a broken democracy when any one person's vote counts less than any other's. Your vote shouldn't count less due to race, gender, parental status, or the size of your state. Anyone can choose to abstain from voting, but if you choose to participate, your vote must count the same as anyone else's.
This election is so bizarre on so many levels.. Biden dropping out after the primary certainly put a fly in the ointment.. would have been nice if others could have run in the primary but were discouraged in so many way.. maybe make it easier to get on the ballot? I’m feeling very uneasy about this election.. I also don’t like how social media is impacting how people get their information on candidates.. just wrote about this in my substack. We are being spoon fed memes and sound bites instead of doing our homework and getting to know the candidates and their platforms on a deeper level.. and it’s only gonna get worse…
This primary though wasn't different than past primaries where an incumbent was running. We can argue about it being different than those due to his age. But when Trump was an incumbent and chose to run again no one primaried him either. Again we can argue that we should always have primaries and people should be encouraged to run. But incumbency is a factor in elections.
Well of course! But the reasons people didn't run in the primary were mostly because it's typical when there is an incumbent for there not to be a primary. They are always discouraged to run when there is an incumbent president from the same party.
Get rid of the electoral college, and let the national popular vote determine the winner. The electoral college feels like a violation of one person, one vote, because votes in smaller population states actually count for 3x the average American's vote.
Institute Approval Voting method for all elected officials. Approval voting allows voters to vote for any candidates they approve of for the position. This eliminates vote splitting and spoiled votes, and it accurately reflects the support of any/all candidates. It would focus voters on what candidates they approve of and not who their neighbors are voting for. It would focus candidates on winning over the voters with policies rather than tearing down their opponent, because no candidate would have to "steal votes" from other candidates, just win over voters.
Eliminate all corporate funding. Create a public elections fund and continue to allow voters to support to a limit, as we do now. Each candidate would have an equal baseline of funding plus anything they can earn from supporters that are energized around them.
Reduce campaign period to let's say 4 months ‼️ It seems to be working just fine now, let's cap it there and revise down as we please. 😜 Most elections are won in the last months leading up to the election anyway.
Automatic voter registration and automatic voter ballots sent out. Early voting via mail or in person for all.
Reinforce the Voting Rights Act.
Make all gerrymandering illegal, including political gerrymandering. I like Sharon's idea of a citizen committee that determines the districts, or explore other methods that allow for more competitive outcomes.
I didn't realize that Clinton had gotten herself into so much debt during that election cycle. Ensuring that non-millionaires can run would be amazing.
By the way, how do lifelong politicians make so much money? I mean, they are decently compensated, but they don't make enough to, say, loan themselves $13 million.
Harris just proved you do not need 2 years to put a campaign together! I know she inherited a lot from Biden, but a shorter campaign cycle would be the best thing for everyone!! And, especially my psyche 😁
Kathy you are spot on with a shorter campaign cycle. Our U.S. election cycles are too long. The ad agencies, marketing and media firms love the revenue!
Question. What happens if the FEC rules against the Harris campaign on this issue years from now? Would she then be liable for repaying $96MILLION?!? If so - that feels like a huge risk!
Taking out the hidden money that gets donated. Shorten the election cycle. All candidates should have some government competency to be considered for a position. End gerrymandering. Term limits. Just to name a few.
Lots of great comments here! My main wish is to get rid of the electoral college. It is not serving the interests of the people. Twice now a Republican has been elected President when the Democrat won the popular vote. We could have had Al Gore and Hillary Clinton as presidents. Wouldn't that have been amazing?
Oooooooh yes they did, didn’t they? 🤪. I’m honestly not sure how I feel about the electoral college, but I can tell you if I lived in a smaller state I absolutely would not want those in NY and CA voting for me. With that in mind, I think it’s fair. But just my opinion🩵
"One Man, One Vote" is fair with regard to a national election. It can be argued that the Electoral College should have been a casualty of the 14th Amendment which, in layman's terms forbids government-imposed favoritism. The Electoral College overtly favors voters in less-populated states.
I think there should be a limit on the number of times any candidate’s campaign - including PACS - can email or text an individual. I know this would be difficult (if not impossible) to monitor, and I am mostly making this suggestion tongue in cheek, but it is absolutely ridiculous how many emails and texts I get. ENOUGH ALREADY!
Taking corporate money out of our elections and shortening the campaign cycle is what I would like to see most.
I agree!
In a dream world, I’d love it if the playing field was more level, too, when it comes to campaign funds. Maybe a cap on how much can be raised. Each candidate would then have the same war chest and thus be on equal financial footing. Once the funds are gone, they are gone. They’d have to use that money very wisely.
And while I’m dreaming, how about they are only allowed a set amount of commercials, too? Better be smart on what you want to say.
Side note to Sharon: Couldn’t Biden just say that under the new SC ruling, giving Harris that money is an act he’s allowed as President?
I currently live in Scotland and was blown away by how low-key the recent election season was. The election date was set only weeks before, no nasty televised attack ads that I saw, more than two parties to choose from, voting not for Prime Minister but only for MPs (like Congressmen) which pulls the focus back locally... Every system has its flaws and Brits are just as quick to complain about their government. But as an expat, I found it WILDLY refreshing. I'd love a more similar model to American elections - less of a spectacle or ongoing sport, and more of a "thing we do for two months every 4 years then get back to everyday life".
That would be amazing.
Automatic voter registration, mandatory voting, non-partisan, non-racial drawing of congressional districts, way more compact campaign durations, return to strict limits on campaign finance, put the teeth back in the Voting Rights Act, more ranked choice voting, get rid of the ridiculous, discriminatory and overly burdensome “election integrity” laws that were passed the last few years to combat non-existent voter fraud, outlaw televised campaign ads as cruel and unusual punishment (kind of joking on that one but not really) and, I didn’t even know this was a problem until I read The Preamble today, completely overhaul the FEC so that it doesn’t take years to decide on matters as important as our elections.
How would “mandatory voting” be enforced? Kinda think that should be a choice…
There are many countries with mandatory or compulsory voting, such as Australia and Belgium and the penalties range from nothing to modest fines. They all have substantially increased voter turnout and less powerful extremist factions because it’s not enough, under these systems, for a candidate to just gin up his or her base. They have to appeal to a broader range of voters. And I believe voters also have the right to turn in a blank ballot in most of these systems.
I’d love it if everyone voted and it always surprises me how few actually do.. especially for local elections.. anyway.. just wondered how mandatory voting could be enforced.. specifically if there were no fine? Let’s hope people choose to vote.. I think there’s a lot I’d frustration in states where it seems it won’t make a difference though.
❤️❤️❤️
Well, overturning Citizens United would be a start.
Shorter election cycles
Term limits for everybody.
Tighter restrictions around lobbying.
End gerrrymandering.
End the electoral college.
Others commenting here have more eloquently stated a myriad of reforms that I think would be great.
In direct response to the topic of this post, and something I mentioned in a response to someone else, is that it sounds as though the transfer of funds to Harris is completely appropriate. What rankles me are the endless lawsuits from the Trump campaign and the Republicans that seem frivolous and without merit. What a middle finger to the American people, what a waste of money on trials, what a waste of time, and what a mockery of our (imperfect) democracy.
I was talking to someone yesterday and they said “well at least we aren’t Venezuela.” Ummm sure, yes, but guess what: Venezuela’s elections and our elections aren’t the only options on the table!! My wishlist is too long to recount here but one of my top reforms is publicly-funded campaigns. I truly believe getting money out of politics would fundamentally change not only how people campaign but how people vote and ultimately how people govern.
As to the electoral college, would the easy way to get around it be to change things so that each candidate in each state, got the same percentage of the electoral college vote that they received for the popular vote in each state? Essentially reflecting the popular vote, but not eliminating the electoral college.
I hadn’t thought of that! I’ve always just thought we should eliminate it completely! Nothing has denied us “representation” more than the electoral college, because it overrides the popular/majority vote. It has certainly changed the course of American history! Gore vs. GW Bush! Trump vs. Hillary Clinton! What a difference it’s made! Would it be easier to change it than to eliminate it, or do we still have to go through the same amendment process?
Sure, that would be better than the status quo. However, if we are trying to model the electoral college after the popular vote, then naturally one would wonder: why aren't we just using the popular vote?
Opponents of the popular vote would argue not to do away with the electoral college because they understand that the electoral college will never be a perfect reflection of the popular vote. By design, the electoral college gives more voting power to less populated states and reduces voting power of more populated states.
A vote in Wyoming is as if a single voter voted 3x for a candidate relative to the average voter. If you are concerned with one person, one vote, this is a clear violation of that principle.
There is actually a pact among some states that if they can get a coalition of enough states that make up 270 electoral votes, then they would cast all their electoral votes for the National Popular Vote winner. This is another way of effectively doing away with the electoral college. BUT, you gotta get enough states to agree to it.
I have not heard of that. Thank you for sharing. Right now, I feel like all things are possible!
No problem, Sharon was the one that introduced me to the state coalition. It stuck with me, because it seemed like it would be an easier route than actually getting a constitutional amendment through. 😅
I totally agree with you on all the things feeling possible right now. 💖
Well, Sharon's article primarily focused on 'campaign finance', however she ended with a request to hear views that reside under the 'electoral reform' umbrella. I will beg forgiveness if I interpret this to imply that I may stray from campaign finance specifically...and comment rather on the Electoral College. I recently retired from a 21-year stint as a high school American Government teacher. For most of those years, I taught a passionless lesson with regard to the Electoral College. Just the facts. No editorializing good-vs-bad. However, I did teach 'gerrymandering' with passion. (btw, it's bad--technically illegal). During my later years of teaching, the evidence that the Electoral College--as a method of choosing our President--was heavily influenced by gerrymandering led me to become a passionate opponent of that process. I realize that the founding fathers--in their infinite wisdom--devised the Electoral College as a way to circumvent larger states from 'bullying' smaller states. Also, they didn't really trust the less-than-fully-informed (trying to avoid the word 'ignorant') citizenry to have absolute control over the decision. Because the 'wisdom' of the Electoral College is outlined in the Constitution, most strict constructionists will defend it. However, I would argue that the true wisdom of the founders is demonstrated in Article VII of the Constitution which outlines the Amendment process. The understanding that Articles I through VI can/must be subject to deliberate change as future generations deem necessary. Until the election of 2000, a presidential candidate who would lose the popular vote, and still claim victory (due to the Electoral College) was, in a word, rare. So rare that debate about abolishing the Electoral College was futile. However, it has now occurred twice since 2000. And, gerrymandering is the ingenious tool that Republicans have successfully used to aid this phenomenon in favor of their candidate(s). Today, a Republican candidate for POTUS need only secure 50% of the popular vote to all but guarantee victory. A Democratic candidate can only reach this level of certainty with 55-57%. Many of us were recently appalled by J.D. Vance's comments that espoused the idea that childless peoples' votes should count less than those cast by people with children. This notion seems absurd. However, is it really that absurd? The Electoral College provides that votes cast by people who reside in large states count less than those cast by people who reside in small states.
IMPORTANT ‼️ "The Electoral College provides that votes cast by people who reside in large states count less than those cast by people who reside in small states." And to reiterate, that was the intention behind the creation of the Electoral College.
Arguably, we are in a broken democracy when any one person's vote counts less than any other's. Your vote shouldn't count less due to race, gender, parental status, or the size of your state. Anyone can choose to abstain from voting, but if you choose to participate, your vote must count the same as anyone else's.
This election is so bizarre on so many levels.. Biden dropping out after the primary certainly put a fly in the ointment.. would have been nice if others could have run in the primary but were discouraged in so many way.. maybe make it easier to get on the ballot? I’m feeling very uneasy about this election.. I also don’t like how social media is impacting how people get their information on candidates.. just wrote about this in my substack. We are being spoon fed memes and sound bites instead of doing our homework and getting to know the candidates and their platforms on a deeper level.. and it’s only gonna get worse…
I agree about social media! It made me sick how they piled on Biden but gave Trump a free ride.
I think it depends on your algorithm. I saw a lot for both of them.. and seeing a lot for Kamala and JD Vance now.. too many!
I’m sure you’re right, but also on mainstream news. I was really disappointed in abc and nbc. I didn’t see cbs.
What?!!
This primary though wasn't different than past primaries where an incumbent was running. We can argue about it being different than those due to his age. But when Trump was an incumbent and chose to run again no one primaried him either. Again we can argue that we should always have primaries and people should be encouraged to run. But incumbency is a factor in elections.
It was different because he dropped out after the primary and then it really wasn’t feasible for anyone but Kamala to run.
Well of course! But the reasons people didn't run in the primary were mostly because it's typical when there is an incumbent for there not to be a primary. They are always discouraged to run when there is an incumbent president from the same party.
Get rid of the electoral college, and let the national popular vote determine the winner. The electoral college feels like a violation of one person, one vote, because votes in smaller population states actually count for 3x the average American's vote.
Institute Approval Voting method for all elected officials. Approval voting allows voters to vote for any candidates they approve of for the position. This eliminates vote splitting and spoiled votes, and it accurately reflects the support of any/all candidates. It would focus voters on what candidates they approve of and not who their neighbors are voting for. It would focus candidates on winning over the voters with policies rather than tearing down their opponent, because no candidate would have to "steal votes" from other candidates, just win over voters.
Eliminate all corporate funding. Create a public elections fund and continue to allow voters to support to a limit, as we do now. Each candidate would have an equal baseline of funding plus anything they can earn from supporters that are energized around them.
Reduce campaign period to let's say 4 months ‼️ It seems to be working just fine now, let's cap it there and revise down as we please. 😜 Most elections are won in the last months leading up to the election anyway.
Automatic voter registration and automatic voter ballots sent out. Early voting via mail or in person for all.
Reinforce the Voting Rights Act.
Make all gerrymandering illegal, including political gerrymandering. I like Sharon's idea of a citizen committee that determines the districts, or explore other methods that allow for more competitive outcomes.
I didn't realize that Clinton had gotten herself into so much debt during that election cycle. Ensuring that non-millionaires can run would be amazing.
By the way, how do lifelong politicians make so much money? I mean, they are decently compensated, but they don't make enough to, say, loan themselves $13 million.
Book deals and speaking engagements.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Harris just proved you do not need 2 years to put a campaign together! I know she inherited a lot from Biden, but a shorter campaign cycle would be the best thing for everyone!! And, especially my psyche 😁
Kathy you are spot on with a shorter campaign cycle. Our U.S. election cycles are too long. The ad agencies, marketing and media firms love the revenue!
Question. What happens if the FEC rules against the Harris campaign on this issue years from now? Would she then be liable for repaying $96MILLION?!? If so - that feels like a huge risk!
This was my question too!
Taking out the hidden money that gets donated. Shorten the election cycle. All candidates should have some government competency to be considered for a position. End gerrymandering. Term limits. Just to name a few.
Lots of great comments here! My main wish is to get rid of the electoral college. It is not serving the interests of the people. Twice now a Republican has been elected President when the Democrat won the popular vote. We could have had Al Gore and Hillary Clinton as presidents. Wouldn't that have been amazing?
But what about Obama and Biden? Are you still thinking the electoral college doesn’t work, or isn’t fair?
They won the popular vote as well as the electoral votes. The electoral college doesn't work and isn't fair.
Oooooooh yes they did, didn’t they? 🤪. I’m honestly not sure how I feel about the electoral college, but I can tell you if I lived in a smaller state I absolutely would not want those in NY and CA voting for me. With that in mind, I think it’s fair. But just my opinion🩵
"One Man, One Vote" is fair with regard to a national election. It can be argued that the Electoral College should have been a casualty of the 14th Amendment which, in layman's terms forbids government-imposed favoritism. The Electoral College overtly favors voters in less-populated states.
I think there should be a limit on the number of times any candidate’s campaign - including PACS - can email or text an individual. I know this would be difficult (if not impossible) to monitor, and I am mostly making this suggestion tongue in cheek, but it is absolutely ridiculous how many emails and texts I get. ENOUGH ALREADY!