Note: The issues listed below are in alphabetical order and not by importance. Also, if you click on an issue and do not see the page change, scroll down.
We need to change the method Americans use to elect their leaders, which is outdated and broken. This is the heart of Modern Whig methodology. We believe all citizens have equal rights and duties to participate and be represented in the democratic process and oppose all attempts to limit participation or distort representation. Our political system as it is today contains certain unrepresentative and, frankly undemocratic, features that restrict political competition and undermine citizens’ ability to properly exercise their political rights and duties. These problems include, but are not limited to:
- A plurality-based electoral system where a candidate can win with a minority of the vote and ballots cast for other candidates end up being wasted; Whig Solution:encourage the use alternative voting methods such as Instant Run Off Voting(IRV)and Approval Voting (AV) in which voters can vote for one or multiple candidates based on preference. These would open up the political process to new voices and eliminate the “wasted vote syndrome” or “spoiler role” of alternative party candidates. For more information on these systems you can visit www.nationalrenewal.org and www.instantrunoff.com.
- The overwhelming influence of money in political campaigns; Whig Solution: campaign finance reform in the direction of public financing, along with free and equal access to the airwaves. Public financing of elections may seem expensive at first, in the long run it can ensure that citizen representation is not undermined by large pools of money. Public financing will also reduce the amount of time that incumbents must campaign allowing them to focus on representing their fellow citizens.
- Lobbying, as in back door deals off of the public record. Rules against this must be enforced.
Whig Solution: no “special access” to legislators for lobbyists, and a ban on politicians working as lobbyists for five years after leaving office.
- The Electoral College, which only serves to thwart the will of the people in presidential elections.
Whig Solution: either make the allocation of electors proportional to the popular vote in each state, or abolish it altogether.
- Gerrymandering, the cynical practice in which partisan insiders redraw boundaries after every census in order to create “safe” electoral districts for the benefit of their own party.
Whig Solution: place redistricting in the hands of non-partisan citizens committees.
-Term limits for U.S. Congress, two consecutive terms for U.S. Senate (12 years consecutive total). Five consecutive terms for U.S. House (10 consecutive year’s total.)
- Tuesday only elections make it hard for voters to get the polls;
Whig solution: hold elections on weekends or all week, and expand early voting.
My main disagreement is with doing away with the electoral college.
I like it just like it is. It was meant to keep concentrated population centers from running rough-shod over the thinly populated states. It may not be perfect, but that function is still a valid point in my opinion.
As it stands today, California, Texas, and New York (in that order) have almost 25% of the nation's population, I think. That would represent a huge amount of leverage in a popular vote. Granted, Texas isn't very likely to vote the same as California and New York (which combined have about 16% or so) but the point remains.
This was one of the most intriguing arrangements our Founding Fathers put in place. I say leave it.
That said, I'm all for campaign finance reform. There are a number of ways to do this. But so long as SCOTUS says money is speech not much can be done. We need to revisit the concept of "corporate personhood."
I should point out that the beauty of being a Whig is that I can disagree with a policy and speak out publicly in the hope of getting enough consenous to have it changed and not be kicked out. :)
I think there should be more transparency as to the influence of lobbyists and groups who spend money campaigning. If a law is advocated and/or written by lobbyists then the groups advocating for/against should be identified. Additionally, when the law is being debated, the bill should also state how much money/time/etc those lobby groups gave to each congressman/senator over the last two years.
I actually agree with removing the electoral college. There is no incentive to vote for anyone who lives in a non-competitive state and doesn't vote the way the majority of that states citizens vote. I live in conservative Ga and when I like the liberal candidate more than the conservative one for president, I don't bother to vote. In Ga, it's a waste of my time because all of Ga's electoral vote are going to the conservative candidate. I imagine conservative voters in liberal states feel the same.
I would think that as originally conceived the federal government was never meant to be heavily involved with individuals so much as general legislation regarding how states behaved themselves. Viewed in that light, it makes perfect sense that the electoral college was put in place to prevent the large populous states from running roughshod over the smaller ones.
Today, Congress involves itself in the least little detail of our lives including who we can marry.
Bearing that in mind, I think what remains of the electoral college system is more important than ever to prevent a few large cities from exerting even more enormous influence on who is elected than they do already.
To be honest, I would like to see electors assigned by Congressional district, with the winner of the state getting both electoral votes represented by the members of the Senate. That is whoever wins a Congressional district gets one electoral vote represented by that district. No more winner take all for a state.
I like the idea of districts assigning their electoral votes - especially if it's paired with gerrymandering reform. I can understand the concerns around large states dictating policy discussions if the presidential election was based on popular votes. Different regions of the country have different concerns.
I agree with everything except that elections should be publicly financed. Instead, put a limit on WHAT they can spend campaign funds on, WHEN they can spend it (ie 1 year from election day), and NO ACCUMULATION (donate remaining funds to nonpolitical nonprofit). Would need a US Amendment to make it stick!
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections, and included in the national count that determines the candidate with the most popular votes, who then is guaranteed the majority of electoral votes needed to win the presidency. It gives a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that, only 7-14 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Candidates will not care about at least 72% of the voters-- voters in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and in 16 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. In 2008, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
Now, policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing, too.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO - 68%, FL - 78%, IA 75%, MI - 73%, MO - 70%, NH - 69%, NV - 72%, NM-- 76%, NC - 74%, OH - 70%, PA - 78%, VA - 74%, and WI - 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK - 70%, DC - 76%, DE - 75%, ID - 77%, ME - 77%, MT - 72%, NE 74%, NH - 69%, NV - 72%, NM - 76%, OK - 81%, RI - 74%, SD - 71%, UT - 70%, VT - 75%, WV - 81%, and WY - 69%; in Southern and border states: AR - 80%,, KY- 80%, MS - 77%, MO - 70%, NC - 74%, OK - 81%, SC - 71%, TN - 83%, VA - 74%, and WV - 81%; and in other states polled: CA - 70%, CT - 74%, MA - 73%, MN - 75%, NY - 79%, OR - 76%, and WA - 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should get elected.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), VT (3), and WA (13). These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes -- 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in a handful of big states.
Under National Popular Vote, when every vote counts equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. It would no longer matter who won a state.
Now political clout comes from being a battleground state.
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine -- 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Oklahoma – 81%, Rhode Island -- 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah - 70%, Vermont -- 75%, and West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%.
Nine state legislative chambers in the lowest population states have passed the National Popular Vote bill. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
Under the current system, the 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States, and a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.
With National Popular Vote, big states that are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country, would not get all of the candidates' attention. In recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have been split -- five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). Among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. A “big city” only campaign would not win.
Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
Evidence as to how a nationwide presidential campaign would be run can be found by examining the way presidential candidates currently campaign inside battleground states. Inside Ohio or Florida, the big cities do not receive all the attention. And, the cities of Ohio and Florida certainly do not control the outcome in those states. Because every vote is equal inside Ohio or Florida, presidential candidates avidly seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns. The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate in Ohio and Florida already knows–namely that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the state.
Dividing a state's electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system. What the country needs is a national popular vote to make every person's vote equally important to presidential campaigns.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts.
The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. Under the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws(whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts (the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. In California, the presidential race is competitive in only 3 of the state's 53 districts. Nationwide, there are only 55 "battleground" districts that are competitive in presidential elections. Under the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, two-thirds of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, seven-eighths of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.
Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President.
No behind-the-scenes voting, no proxy votes.
Just a popular vote by the people. One registered voter equals one vote, period.
While campaign contributions may be analogous to speech, I think they're even more analogous to voting. Therefore, you should only be able to contribute to candidates that you can vote for.
Corporations and unions can't vote, so they shouldn't be able to make contributions.
That will probably take a Constitutional amendment.
I am against the Electoral College. For example, if the populous of the State of Indiana votes 51% Jones to 49% Smith... usually Jones gets all the electorial votes, and the voice of half the population is squashed. The vote is not on who will be President of Indiana... but for The United States of America. Popular vote is the only way to ensure all votes are equal. If I lived in Kentucky, it would be pointless to vote Democrat or Whig next election, because the Republicans will take Kentucky.
Enough said.
I believe in one-person-one-vote.
I fail to see how the electoral college adds anything of value to the system. However, I CAN see where it provides opportunities to skew the system. Correct me if I'm wrong but, it seems like electing electors to cast your vote for you is an added step and, as such, is subject to being corrupted.
Until we have GENUINE campaign finance reform, not much is going to change. Until we get rid of a couple of supreme court judges, THAT isn't going to happen.
It's a sad state of affairs when judges become politically 'active'. Seems to me that that is contrary to the purpose of their job which is to be even-handed, fair, non-partisan.....
Great discussion on issues critical to changing the nature of political participation in America; keep it rolling!
Public finance of campaigns seems to make logical sense to the end above. Yet, I havent ratiocinated it thouroughly. It would seem that mitigation of the effect of large pools of money is critical to proper representation.
I would encourage the use of "public service" ads only during campaigns, running the risk of 1st Amendment overstep. Yet, MWP will do this VOUNTARILY. No negative campaigns or personal attacks, simply unflappable logic.
In deference to toto taking the "long wind-ed" award from me in this thread, I acknowledge the potential of the National Popular Vote he or she alludes to:
I might encourage all to visit their website and make their own judgements.
I agree with toto on a National Popular Vote. However, I don't see the need for an Electoral College if a National Popular Vote is the way we election our representatives.
Under our current system, we are voting to tell the Electoral College our preference, and they are honor bound to respect that. However, they are free to make a contrary choice. I also don't like how they are selected. So, I agree it should be abolished and a National Popular Vote put in place.
Lobbyists should not be writing bills. This would put more of a burden on Congress, but it also might cut out some of the abuses in bills.
The rest I agree with.
I agree completely Peacelily. Of course I could see how "equal time" could be problematic and this would require amending the constitution, but overall it's pretty obvious this is what we need. That and maybe a "Read The Bills" requirement for Congress.
one thing i would do is change the format of ballots. if you can be voted in, you can be voted out, even without a challenger. the way it is now, an incumbent is only retired if a challenger beats him. and no straight tickets. my new format would say this:
Name, position, yes, no.
U.S. Senate district 1
Eddie Clothesline (R) Yes No
Ronnie Popcorn (D) Yes No
Thurman Murman (L) Yes No
i think this would accomplish 2 tasks. A-anyone considering a run would know that there is a chance that this will not be a career as we currently see, and B-voters are made to think a little more about who they vote for. if youre not happy with your official you vote against him/her at the end of each term.
i say no straight tickets because they make it too easy to be thoughtless and complacent. i have in the past voted straight ticket libertarian, but it would not bother me to see the option removed.
How can we try to get IRV implemented in our city/county/districts?
My strongest agreement is as to Term Limits. It, in my opinion, is going to be the basis for any kind of substantive reform to have any measure of hope. As well, our current Campaign Finance laws need to be overturned and radically simplified. I am not for public financing, nor do I believe non-voting entities such as corporations should be contributing to campaigns at any level. Only voting eligible persons (not necessarily registered, but eligible by age and other legal good-standing) should have any legal voice in influencing elections through donations of hard or soft money. Limits as to how much an individual can contribute would also need to be instilled. A limit which wouldn't make a mockery out of the concept of 'one man, one vote' as the current system does. Similarly, as someone above noted, these will certainly need Constitutional Amendments to stick.
I do believe the Electoral College has served a useful purpose in it's intent to keep populous states from dictating the winner of all Presidential elections. If any reform were to occur, I believe it should be in awarding electoral votes, not by statewide total, but perhaps by results per Congressional district. This, I believe, is already being done in Nebraska and Maine.
Another far-reaching reform would be repealing the 17th amendment: direct election of senators. By returning appointment powers to the state legislatures I believe it would, perhaps counter-intuitively, bring accountability closer to the electorate. It seems that direct elections and the money involved in these statewide campaigns actually tends to insulate the candidate from accountability which appointment may actually restore through the pressures applied to the representatives closer to home and the electorate. Some may say this could lead to buying of of senate seats...and that differs how from the current system?
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer
