If you could change one about the Election...

[Sefarst]

...what would it be? Mine would be that anecdotes about random people you met on the campaign trail would be banned. If I have to listen to one more candidate tell another story about a "struggling mother in Nebraska" or "a little boy with hope in his eyes" when they are questioned about their specific policies, I think I'll tear my hair out. Why give statistics and facts when a [probably] imagined story about an unverifiable person and event can tug at the heartstrings of the electorate?

[Chaos]

I´d outlaw candidates commenting on other candidates. It´s all a pack of lies, anyway. Sure, pretty much all they say about themselves is a pack of lies, as well, but lying about yourself is marketing, lying about others is slander.

[latent aaaack]

If I could change one thing it would be that all elections won by 5% or less should be deemed a tie and settled by a game of chess.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The voters. Politicians wouldn't spout so much crap if it didn't work.

[Dr Adequate]

...what would it be? Mine would be that anecdotes about random people you met on the campaign trail would be banned. If I have to listen to one more candidate tell another story about a "struggling mother in Nebraska" or "a little boy with hope in his eyes" when they are questioned about their specific policies, I think I'll tear my hair out. Why give statistics and facts when a [probably] imagined story about an unverifiable person and event can tug at the heartstrings of the electorate? I think that they should just take this method to its logical conclusion and start making stump speeches that end with the words: "... or the bunny gets it".

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I think that they should just take this method to its logical conclusion and start making stump speeches that end with the words: "... or the bunny gets it".

So the Microsoft strategy then?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1170647b8d412d461b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10859)
:D

[Puppycow]

The voters. Politicians wouldn't spout so much crap if it didn't work.

Heck, if we could perfect human nature, all world problems would quickly be solved.

[Puppycow]

I guess one thing I would like would be if the voter could list their choices in order and then
it worked by process of elimination: first the least-popular candidate is eliminated, then the next, and so on, until you have just 2 candidates and even if you had them ranked last and second-to-last your vote would go to your second-to-last choice.

That way people don't have to bother thinking about "electability" and other periferal issues and merely political calculations and can rank candidates according to who they actually consider would be the best person for the job.

[sirtuin]

If I could change one thing, it would be having some sort of policy of informed voting. I know this is completely unfeasable and against the very essence of what a democracy is, but uninformed voters make it impossible to change the system.

McCain won south carolina and the majority of people who voted him said they were against the Iraq war.

Sad :(

[Brainster]

The one thing I would change is the ridiculous pushing forward of the primaries by idiots convinced that New Hampshire gets some sort of advantage by having their primary early.

[quixotecoyote]

The one thing I would change is the ridiculous pushing forward of the primaries by idiots convinced that New Hampshire gets some sort of advantage by having their primary early.

Not to derail, but usually states like Alabama and New Jersey don't even matter in the primaries. As the last states to go, usually the leading candidate is ahead by enough margin that they could lose all the June primaries and it wouldn't matter. So those states are definitely second-tier campaign stops.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The one thing I would change is the ridiculous pushing forward of the primaries by idiots convinced that New Hampshire gets some sort of advantage by having their primary early.

Yes, the people in every other State get to meet each of the candidates personally at least three times just like New Hampshire.

And it wouldn't have made a difference to Giuliani or McCain which States went early.

[Brainster]

Not to derail, but usually states like Alabama and New Jersey don't even matter in the primaries. As the last states to go, usually the leading candidate is ahead by enough margin that they could lose all the June primaries and it wouldn't matter. So those states are definitely second-tier campaign stops.

But does New Hampshire matter? Paul Tsongas won in 1992, Pat Buchanan in 1996, John McCain in 2000. Yeah, the attention is nice, but NJ, particularly, is a state where it is impossible to do the "retail" style of campaigning, and they don't necessarily get the benefit of the advertising revenue (since the major TV stations in NJ are from either NYC or Philly). And with NJ being in the Feb 5 monster primary I'm not sure how much attention they got from the candidates anyway.

[Brainster]

Yes, the people in every other State get to meet each of the candidates personally at least three times just like New Hampshire.

And it wouldn't have made a difference to Giuliani or McCain which States went early.

If New Jersey or Michigan were first, would everybody get the chance to meet each of the candidates personally three times? Of course not. In that case it would boil down to money. But by having a small state like New Hampshire early in the calendar, we make it possible for a candidate like McCain who is outspent by a great deal to break through with a win.

The problem for the other states is that by moving their primaries so close to New Hampshire they have inadvertently made New Hampshire more important than it was. In the old days candidates losing in NH had a fairly long time (a month at one point) to recover and for world/national events to test the candidates. Bobby Kennedy could enter the race in 1968, for example, after seeing Gene McCarthy show LBJ's weakness.

[HereticHulk]

If I could change one thing, it would be having some sort of policy of informed voting. I know this is completely unfeasable and against the very essence of what a democracy is, but uninformed voters make it impossible to change the system.

McCain won south carolina and the majority of people who voted him said they were against the Iraq war.

Sad :(

Maybe the problem is the South Carolinians?

How did McCain possibly dupe them!?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcdLO3jKkPo&feature=related

[quixotecoyote]

But does New Hampshire matter? Paul Tsongas won in 1992, Pat Buchanan in 1996, John McCain in 2000. Yeah, the attention is nice, but NJ, particularly, is a state where it is impossible to do the "retail" style of campaigning, and they don't necessarily get the benefit of the advertising revenue (since the major TV stations in NJ are from either NYC or Philly). And with NJ being in the Feb 5 monster primary I'm not sure how much attention they got from the candidates anyway.

It's not just an issue of attention. I failed to find the information, but it would be interesting to find out if/when in those elections the primaries stopped to matter. In how many cases was a candidate far enough ahead that attendance at the primaries failed to even theoretically affect who the winner would be.

[Damien Evans]

I guess one thing I would like would be if the voter could list their choices in order and then
it worked by process of elimination: first the least-popular candidate is eliminated, then the next, and so on, until you have just 2 candidates and even if you had them ranked last and second-to-last your vote would go to your second-to-last choice.

That way people don't have to bother thinking about "electability" and other periferal issues and merely political calculations and can rank candidates according to who they actually consider would be the best person for the job.

You want the Australian voting system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

[Puppycow]

You want the Australian voting system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Minus the part about voting being mandatory.

[dudalb]

Try to shorten the damn campaign. Have an informal agreement not to have debates until the November of the year before the election year..two months before the first Caucus/Primary. A year is more then enough for a campaign. This campaign has been going on since March of last year..less then 4 months after the Midterm elections..and that is too damn soon,and produces nothing but burn out.
I know I am burned out,and am hoping for a break between the last primary and the conventions.

[Madalch]

I'd change the outcome. That way, the least objectionable person gets elected.

Least objectionable to me, at least. I don't care what the rest of you think.

[oddball]

I'd have 100% hand-counted paper ballots.

[New Ager]

The one thing I would change is the ridiculous pushing forward of the primaries by idiots convinced that New Hampshire gets some sort of advantage by having their primary early.

It's funny you would say this because your man McCain did benefit from it. And while there is no big delegate votes from NH, the media touts it like it's a big deal and so the winner does get a big push.

A better way to do it...

5 days of primaries. 10 states each day. Spaced out over 10 weeks with a day of voting every two weeks.

[Undesired Walrus]

The debates take place on Charlie Rose, not in a big hall.

[kallsop]

If I could change one thing, it would have to be the choice of candidates.

[DDWW]

I would like to see "None of the above" on every ballot as a choice.

[Upchurch]

Three simple words: Instant Runoff Voting (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88853)

[BenBurch]

I'd outlaw the GOP.

No, seriously, we would have convinced Al Gore to run. He won once, and would certainly have won again.

[Trakar]

I guess one thing I would like would be if the voter could list their choices in order and then
it worked by process of elimination: first the least-popular candidate is eliminated, then the next, and so on, until you have just 2 candidates and even if you had them ranked last and second-to-last your vote would go to your second-to-last choice.

That way people don't have to bother thinking about "electability" and other periferal issues and merely political calculations and can rank candidates according to who they actually consider would be the best person for the job.

I always thought it would be better to draft cadidates rather than elect them. Popular votes determine main issues and perspectives for each representative office in a coming election, Vetting is done according to intelligence and skillset to best meet those issues, and then the best office-holder for the job is selected from the pool of entire, eligible, vetted population. The selected person serves one term in that office then becomes ineligible to hold public office again. Campaigns would be totally about the issues, no re-election hub-bub.

[Damien Evans]

Three simple words: Instant Runoff Voting (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88853)

I already mentioned that.:)

[Oliver]

Oh God ... where to begin? :confused: :D

1. I would get rid of Delegates and Superdelegates - distorting the peoples vote

2. Politicians would be held accountable for promises they don't fulfil afterwards

3. Elections would be held once within 48 hours - nationwide, so everyone would be able to go out and vote - either on the first or the second day.

4. There wouldn't be any campaign trails anymore - just weekly debates over a period of 6 Months with all the Candidates that are running.

For example:
Friday: 1. The Republican Debates
Saturday: 2. The Democratic Debates
Sunday: 3. The Third Party Debates

The following week:
Friday: 2. The Democratic Debates
Saturday: 3 The Third Party Debates
Sunday: 1. The Republican Debates..

And so on...

Plus: Not every Clown could seek the presidency anymore. Candidates would be required to have some credibillity/political experience at hand

5. Polling by the Party wouldn't be allowed. Instead the Polls must be held by neutral or tri-partisan sources asking random people

6. There would be the same election rules for every state and every party.
And every vote would count in a percental way. No "winner takes it all "anymore

7. Electronic Voting would be banned if the voting mashines don't provide additional analog records for verification. Plus it would be required to recount ten percent of those analog records to confirm the digital results.:)

8. The Parties itself would have to pay for advertising for their candidates, there wouldn't be any individual fundraising and state-campaigning anymore.

9. The Media would be obligated to air the same amount of political advertising for every candidate and for a non-commercial prices in the interest of the tax-payers. Plus there wouldn't be any exclusive debates anymore. The debates wouldn't be limited to one channel or sponsor - they would be financed by the parties and available for every media outlet that wants to report about the event

10. Instead of vocal mud throwing, there would be real mud-wrestling between those candidates who love to whine about each other, yeah! :popcorn2

[WildCat]

Oh God ... where to begin? :confused: :D

1. I would get rid of Delegates and Superdelegates - distorting the peoples vote

2. Politicians would be held accountable for promises they don't fulfil afterwards

3. Elections would be held once within 48 hours - nationwide, so everyone would be able to go out and vote - either on the first or the second day.

4. There wouldn't be any campaign trails anymore - just weekly debates over a period of 6 Months with all the Candidates that are running.

For example:
Friday: 1. The Republican Debates
Saturday: 2. The Democratic Debates
Sunday: 3. The Third Party Debates

The following week:
Friday: 2. The Democratic Debates
Saturday: 3 The Third Party Debates
Sunday: 1. The Republican Debates..

And so on...

Plus: Not every Clown could seek the presidency anymore. Candidates would be required to have some credibillity/political experience at hand

5. Polling by the Party wouldn't be allowed. Instead the Polls must be held by neutral or tri-partisan sources asking random people

6. There would be the same election rules for every state and every party.
And every vote would count in a percental way. No "winner takes it all "anymore

7. Electronic Voting would be banned if the voting mashines don't provide additional analog records for verification. Plus it would be required to recount ten percent of those analog records to confirm the digital results.:)

8. The Parties itself would have to pay for advertising for their candidates, there wouldn't be any individual fundraising and state-campaigning anymore.

9. The Media would be obligated to air the same amount of political advertising for every candidate and for a non-commercial prices in the interest of the tax-payers. Plus there wouldn't be any exclusive debates anymore. The debates wouldn't be limited to one channel or sponsor - they would be financed by the parties and available for every media outlet that wants to report about the event

10. Instead of vocal mud throwing, there would be real mud-wrestling between those candidates who love to whine about each other, yeah! :popcorn2
Of course, all of that is unconstitutional.

But kidos for finally formatting your posts properly.

[Sefarst]

Of course, all of that is unconstitutional.

But kidos for finally formatting your posts properly.
In Oliver's defense, most of the ideas in this thread are unconstitutional. My idea in the OP violate free speech.

[Oliver]

Of course, all of that is unconstitutional.

But kidos for finally formatting your posts properly.


Pah, who cares about the constitution anyway? Reading in here for quite a while, it's almost considered as being nutty to even mention it. ;)

And my ENTER-key finally capitulated ... and broke off... :p

[varwoche]

Not every Clown could seek the presidency anymore. Preserved for posterity. :D :boxedin:

[Oliver]

Of course, all of that is unconstitutional.

But kidos for finally formatting your posts properly.


It would be a major improvement if the elections would address third party opinions as well - which is also a Media-related issue. And since the Government is licensor anyway, why should a regulation based on the Communications Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission#Communications_A ct_of_1934) regarding a fair&balanced election coverage be unconstitutional in any way? :confused: (Besides the fact that the Bi-Partisan stranglehold is naturally opposed to this issue as well)

Also a presidential election is an election for a federal office - therefore the election-process should be uniform and federally standardized as well - out of transparency purposes for the electorate - the common voter.

And I cannot imagine that digital voting mashines that don't provide any analog data for verification are in any way more consitutional than mashines that provide those records.

[WildCat]

It would be a major improvement if the elections would address third party opinions as well - which is also a Media-related issue. And since the Government is licensor anyway, why should a regulation based on the Communications Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission#Communications_A ct_of_1934) regarding a fair&balanced election coverage be unconstitutional in any way? :confused: (Besides the fact that the Bi-Partisan stranglehold is naturally opposed to this issue as well)
Completely impractical. You, for example, think anyone not fawning over Ron Paul isn't "fair and balanced".

Also a presidential election is an election for a federal office - therefore the election-process should be uniform and federally standardized as well - out of transparency purposes for the electorate - the common voter.
Doesn't matter, elections (even for Federal office) are the province of the states per the Constitution.

But true, many others here have also offered up unconstitutional ideas.

[Iamme]

If I could change one thing it would be that all elections won by 5% or less should be deemed a tie and settled by a game of chess.

Ha. Ya. I prefer golf. But I would not allow Mulligans.

The thing I would seriously change is to have primaries on the same night. I would have it so candidates would stump all over the country, for months. Then all the caucuses and primaries would be held on the same day without being able to have media coverage of the exit polls and incoming returns.

Too many people jump on the bandwagon, as time goes on, of who they think (hear by the press) the winner will be. Rather, I want candidates elected on their merit. Obviously the way candidates would recieve campaign money, or the need for it, would have to be revised.

One obvious reason why they have the system they currently do is it allows candiates that will never realistically (so they say...and thereby their fate becomes sealed)) become front runners, to drop out, without needlessly having to spend any more money. We would have to have an entire different financial arrangement that would allow each legitimate candiate to stump all over the US without going broke. It might require mandatory television coverage, perhaps. All I know is the current way of doing it is not right.

[steverino]

The debates take place on Charlie Rose, not in a big hall.

Ouch. That would hurt!

[Darth Rotor]

...what would it be?
They have to count all of the votes. I don't care if it takes an extra week, there is no need for "instant gratification" in a matter this important to the public interest.

Count them all, every one of them.

DR

[BenBurch]

They have to count all of the votes. I don't care if it takes an extra week, there is no need for "instant gratification" in a matter this important to the public interest.

Count them all, every one of them.

DR

AMEN, brother!

[kosai]

Standardization of voting machines across the country that would use an electronic voting method then eject a card and receipt with which you can verify your vote. Afterwards you can submit your card and keep the receipt.

[dudalb]

Pah, who cares about the constitution anyway? Reading in here for quite a while, it's almost considered as being nutty to even mention it. ;)

And my ENTER-key finally capitulated ... and broke off... :p

Nope, we consider it bizarre that you equate the US Constitution and Ron Paul's bizarre intrepertation of it.
BTW you have displayed a immense ignorance of the US Constituion and the way the US political system in general.