Elections can’t be improved without diving deep into reforming the “who” and the “how”. Who’s allowed to run in this country and how do they get elected? So I’m more intrigued by what you left out vs what you included here (which all makes sense!). Like the crazy electoral college system? Or true “no loop-hole” caps on campaign spending …
Elections can’t be improved without diving deep into reforming the “who” and the “how”. Who’s allowed to run in this country and how do they get elected? So I’m more intrigued by what you left out vs what you included here (which all makes sense!). Like the crazy electoral college system? Or true “no loop-hole” caps on campaign spending (goodbye PACS)? Or requirements that cap a candidate’s age? Or mandatory release of tax returns? Or mandatory clean criminal history (felonies)?
Here’s how I’m feeling: how in the heck did France and the UK just manage to change their governments so quickly and so cleanly? We continue to look like a slow and messy democracy while they look like a nimble and responsive one. Are parliamentary systems really that much better?
I spoke to a professor who has been studying this issue for decades, and he says that yes, America should adopt a hybrid parliamentary system. Here’s the link if you want to listen: https://sharonmcmahon.com/podcast/reimagining-democracy-with-max-stearns (or just google “Sharon McMahon Mac Stearns” and you’ll get to the page.
Excited to listen to this interview. I am already captured by the intro blurb: "Many voters are familiar with this scene: You walk into a voting booth, review the options, and feel as though you’re voting between 'the lesser of two evils.' You might worry that voting third-party is wasting a vote, but you don’t feel represented by the main candidates. Sound familiar? If you’re like the majority of Americans, you probably find yourself frustrated with the two-party system and a historically unproductive Congress. What if it didn’t have to be that way?"
I would encourage our group to also learn more about Approval Voting. Because then a voter never has to feel like they are throwing their vote away. Approval Voting let's voters select all candidates they *approve of* for the position, and which ever candidate gets the most approval votes, wins!
So if you like a third-party candidate, you can vote third-party AND for a major candidate (to hedge your bets). Approval Voting makes it possible for voters to ALWAYS vote their favorite candidate(s). Also, consider a Primary election where there are 6+ candidates, Approval Voting means you no longer are "splitting votes" because if you like 3 (or more) of the 6+ candidates, you can vote for all three.
This method of voting actually *encourages competition* through *more choice*. Whereas, if you think about today's Primary landscape, candidates tend to drop out because they worry about splitting votes and having the least favored candidate win their party's nomination.
Also, because every voter could vote for ANY candidate, candidates would be encouraged to truly win over ANY voter, because it's no longer about *stealing votes* from another candidate, it becomes about simply appealing to voters. Voters don't have to be concerned with the tradeoffs of voting for one candidate and sacrificing a "winning" vote, they can just focus on whether they would approve of any candidate winning or not.
I am feeling SO grateful for this link. I’ve been wondering about this question for awhile and of course you’re on it and have been for a long time! You have so much great content - thank you for that!
Approval Voting actually *encourages competition* through *more choice*. Whereas, if you think about today's Primary landscape, candidates tend to drop out because they worry about splitting votes and having the least favored candidate win their party's nomination.
Also, because every voter could vote for ANY candidate, candidates would be encouraged to truly win over ANY voter, because it's no longer about *stealing votes* from another candidate, it becomes about simply appealing to voters. Voters don't have to be concerned with the tradeoffs of voting for one candidate and sacrificing a "winning" vote, they can just focus on whether they would approve of any candidate winning or not.
Yes, I expected electoral college to be number one, also. You suggest citizens’ councils as solutions to several problems. I love that idea, but how would the citizens be selected to serve, and ensured not to be self-serving?
This was my follow up question as well: how are the citizen groups formed so that they stay non-partisan and avoid making decisions based on self-interest?
Multipartisan make-up, but functionally non-partisan?
Similar to how separation of church and state is supposed to work. We are all free to practice our own religions privately, but are not allowed to favor one over the other in a public office.
Yes. All participants working to make things better for everyone. Folks would be there from all parties to ensure all views are represented but the goal being what is best for whole.
But how would they be chosen? Would that require an election process of some kind? Or would it be something like jury duty where part of people’s civic duties is to participate in a session of this group?
What if citizens apply and are required to pass a civics exam (similar to the one the candidates would have to pass)? These citizen groups could be chosen at random from this pool of applicants. It would be similar to jury duty but the application process would ensure these are people with basic knowledge and interest in the democratic process.
I like that they are qualified, but would still like to ensure there’s a balance of multi-partisanship. We don’t want another unbalanced SCOTUS situation as a result of “the luck of the draw.”
I think a selection system from a pool of candidates that have passed some sort of basic knowledge exam would still need to have a rotating group of members. Initially some people would need to be assigned longer terms so not everyone is leaving at the same time but then say after 5 years everyone’s term is only 3 years long or 12 months or however long seems the best method to prevent corruption but maintain continuity.
Elections can’t be improved without diving deep into reforming the “who” and the “how”. Who’s allowed to run in this country and how do they get elected? So I’m more intrigued by what you left out vs what you included here (which all makes sense!). Like the crazy electoral college system? Or true “no loop-hole” caps on campaign spending (goodbye PACS)? Or requirements that cap a candidate’s age? Or mandatory release of tax returns? Or mandatory clean criminal history (felonies)?
Here’s how I’m feeling: how in the heck did France and the UK just manage to change their governments so quickly and so cleanly? We continue to look like a slow and messy democracy while they look like a nimble and responsive one. Are parliamentary systems really that much better?
I spoke to a professor who has been studying this issue for decades, and he says that yes, America should adopt a hybrid parliamentary system. Here’s the link if you want to listen: https://sharonmcmahon.com/podcast/reimagining-democracy-with-max-stearns (or just google “Sharon McMahon Mac Stearns” and you’ll get to the page.
MAX Stearns 😊
Excited to listen to this interview. I am already captured by the intro blurb: "Many voters are familiar with this scene: You walk into a voting booth, review the options, and feel as though you’re voting between 'the lesser of two evils.' You might worry that voting third-party is wasting a vote, but you don’t feel represented by the main candidates. Sound familiar? If you’re like the majority of Americans, you probably find yourself frustrated with the two-party system and a historically unproductive Congress. What if it didn’t have to be that way?"
I would encourage our group to also learn more about Approval Voting. Because then a voter never has to feel like they are throwing their vote away. Approval Voting let's voters select all candidates they *approve of* for the position, and which ever candidate gets the most approval votes, wins!
So if you like a third-party candidate, you can vote third-party AND for a major candidate (to hedge your bets). Approval Voting makes it possible for voters to ALWAYS vote their favorite candidate(s). Also, consider a Primary election where there are 6+ candidates, Approval Voting means you no longer are "splitting votes" because if you like 3 (or more) of the 6+ candidates, you can vote for all three.
This method of voting actually *encourages competition* through *more choice*. Whereas, if you think about today's Primary landscape, candidates tend to drop out because they worry about splitting votes and having the least favored candidate win their party's nomination.
Also, because every voter could vote for ANY candidate, candidates would be encouraged to truly win over ANY voter, because it's no longer about *stealing votes* from another candidate, it becomes about simply appealing to voters. Voters don't have to be concerned with the tradeoffs of voting for one candidate and sacrificing a "winning" vote, they can just focus on whether they would approve of any candidate winning or not.
I am feeling SO grateful for this link. I’ve been wondering about this question for awhile and of course you’re on it and have been for a long time! You have so much great content - thank you for that!
Approval Voting actually *encourages competition* through *more choice*. Whereas, if you think about today's Primary landscape, candidates tend to drop out because they worry about splitting votes and having the least favored candidate win their party's nomination.
Also, because every voter could vote for ANY candidate, candidates would be encouraged to truly win over ANY voter, because it's no longer about *stealing votes* from another candidate, it becomes about simply appealing to voters. Voters don't have to be concerned with the tradeoffs of voting for one candidate and sacrificing a "winning" vote, they can just focus on whether they would approve of any candidate winning or not.
Thank you. I’ve never heard of this.
Yes, I expected electoral college to be number one, also. You suggest citizens’ councils as solutions to several problems. I love that idea, but how would the citizens be selected to serve, and ensured not to be self-serving?
This was my follow up question as well: how are the citizen groups formed so that they stay non-partisan and avoid making decisions based on self-interest?
They wouldn’t need to be non partisan, they would be a mix of people from all parties.
Multipartisan make-up, but functionally non-partisan?
Similar to how separation of church and state is supposed to work. We are all free to practice our own religions privately, but are not allowed to favor one over the other in a public office.
Yes. All participants working to make things better for everyone. Folks would be there from all parties to ensure all views are represented but the goal being what is best for whole.
That’s always my goal:
Find/Build Common Ground
Use Common Sense
Serve the Common Good
But how would they be chosen? Would that require an election process of some kind? Or would it be something like jury duty where part of people’s civic duties is to participate in a session of this group?
What if citizens apply and are required to pass a civics exam (similar to the one the candidates would have to pass)? These citizen groups could be chosen at random from this pool of applicants. It would be similar to jury duty but the application process would ensure these are people with basic knowledge and interest in the democratic process.
I like that they are qualified, but would still like to ensure there’s a balance of multi-partisanship. We don’t want another unbalanced SCOTUS situation as a result of “the luck of the draw.”
I think a selection system from a pool of candidates that have passed some sort of basic knowledge exam would still need to have a rotating group of members. Initially some people would need to be assigned longer terms so not everyone is leaving at the same time but then say after 5 years everyone’s term is only 3 years long or 12 months or however long seems the best method to prevent corruption but maintain continuity.