NationStates Jolt Archive

My thread on "none of the above" has me thinking about the ways I'd like to see the US electoral system reformed. I think everyone has some dissatisfaction or complaint with their nation's electoral system. What electoral reforms would you like to see in your country?

Here's some of my short list:
House of Representatives should be a mix of at-large, proportional, and single-seat.

The Electoral College should be kept, but proportional instead of winner takes all.

There should be a binding "none of the above". In the case of congress, this would restart the election. In the case of the presidency, there would be a snap election in late December. In both cases, the entire slate would be disallowed from the particular election.

There's more, but I'm off to work.

House of Representatives should be a mix of at-large, proportional, and single-seat.
I agree. I think we're thinking the same way. Make it about 500 seats with proportional representation. If they're worried about small parties, make a 5% threshold.

The Electoral College should be kept, but proportional instead of winner takes all.
Why? That just keeps corrupting the results. The EC is an anachronism. It was made with good intentions, but the way it is applied now and would be applied under your system just don't even serve the original purpose. It's supposed to elect people that elect the president. Not elect the party. Parties were not intended. The election should be a national popular vote with a runoff between the top two.

There should be a binding "none of the above". In the case of congress, this would restart the election. In the case of the presidency, there would be a snap election in late December. In both cases, the entire slate would be disallowed from the particular election.
Good in theory, but just too much of a waste.


The main thing we need is proportional representation. That will get things that need to be done done. More issues will come to the table and we won't be stuck in the past like we are. Other than that, I'd dump the EC and work to dissolve the states rights to just a subsection of the national gov't.

An amendment allowing T. Pete Crabbe to have his vote counted as 10 million would be cool. :)

Really though, I've voted by different method each of the last four or five times I've voted: first punchcard, then optical, then electronic, then back to optical, then electronic again. Just pick a method, I say, and stick with it. Vote on it at the state level so we all use it. Worse than the odd case of vote tampering is the incessant whining and fraud-mythmaking that the losers (read: Democrats) engage in immediately after each election, until it becomes an article of faith among them that the election was 'stolen' by some means. Fix the quirks and give us a uniform voting method, so that we can avoid some of this, I say.

I would like to see something like the Estates-General before the centralization of kingly power, where one has to beg for subsidies from each particular interest and have their individual approval before you can have their individual money, instead of being able to legislate a law that lets you take what you want.

mixed direct democracy, switzerland style.

paper ballots. I like the primary system but I think the national parties should work out a schedule with the states to spread the primaries out a little more. It's not really fair to candidates, particularly those with less name recognition, to front load the primaries. This year 22 states have primaries on the same day. Candidates can't visit all those states at the same time so many states won't get a visit which might give an advantage to the candidates who have been on television more.

That said, I think the order of primaries should be rotated so it's not always the same states who go first (and last).

The problem is that people expect that their countries are actually 'democracies', in reality of course they are bourgeois dictatorship that use such things as veils for their rule.

Best to attack the disease, not the symptoms, revolution not reform.

plurality voting on candidates and direct plebiscite voting on all issues.

=^^=
.../\...

plurality voting on candidates and direct plebiscite voting on all issues.

=^^=
.../\...
You seem to fail to realize that democracy and capitalism are incompatible. Thus with modern 'democracies' power does not rest with the common people but with an elected oligarchy of bourgeois representatives, and true power is the economic and media power of the bourgeois, political power (ie popular power) is limited by 'liberal' concepts institutionalized. Liberalism is of course elitism, by preserving the power of the one over the whole you inevitably empower an oligarchy.

You can't have have democracy with capitalism, as capitalism eats away and corrodes it as they gain more economic power.

Approval Voting, 'nuff said... but also, don't turn this into an argument about capitalism. Now, 'nuff said.

I'd prefer more direct democracy, if at all possible. As Rousseau noted, "The people of England thinks itself free; but it is free only during the parliamentary elections. As soon as they are over, slavery overtakes them, and they are nothing."

That said, recall elections would be a helpful leveling factor. Along with the abolition of the Senate, the expansion of the House of Representatives to at least a 1000 representatives, and more if possible, using a proportional representation system.

hmm... just off the top of my head...

I like Daistallia 2104's "None of the Above" clause.

Primaries should be like the General. Everyone votes on ONE day. That way all those running stand a chance and none of this dropping out in the middle.

All contributions will go to ONE megafund. then it will be split evenly among all candidates in a quarterly schedule. How the candidates maintain their funds will show how they will control our country's economy. Companies, special interest groups and public celebrities/figures can still announce who they will vote for, but the only funds they can use will be from this mega fund. that way EVERYONE gets a fair shake, including independant runners. Violators will have be removed from running and donators will be fined (the money going into the Federal Goverment coffers.

During the Primaries and General elections, no results will be announced UNTIL the next day or until they are all finalized, (which ever comes first). that way every state's votes needs to be counted and every state will be important in the process. sure the news can still make predictions and projections, but no exit polls, and no announcing of winners. violators will be heavily fined and the finds going to Federal Government coffers.

The elections will be moved up. Primary before June, General no earlier than August, but no later than October. that gives time for recounts and any special elections with the "None of the Above" clause.

all I can think up at this point and time.

You seem to fail to realize that democracy and capitalism are incompatible.

where did i say anything about capitolism, or any other economic or otherwise idiology being neccessary?

no, i'm not unawaire of the appearant incompatability or at least mutual hostility between them, i just don't favor the arbitraryness of policy every idiology motivates. capitolism, marxism, or any damd thing else ism, being none of them the slightest exception.

=^^=
.../\...

where did i say anything about capitolism, or any other economic or otherwise idiology being neccessary?

no, i'm not unawaire of the appearant incompatability or at least mutual hostility between them, i just don't favor the arbitraryness of policy every idiology motivates. capitolism, marxism, or any damd thing else ism, being none of them the slightest exception.

=^^=
.../\...

Andaras' problem is that he has no tact when it comes to matters of politics. Now, Andaras' and I, in this case, have a very similar point of view on the issue of representative democracy, and both of us would prefer something vastly different.

By trying to frame everything in terms of capitalism, he ends of up missing the more fundamental question. Andaras is perfectly correct that politician's duty to the public is in conflict with centers of private economic power. But he misses the simple fact that will cannot be represented, and that a representative democracy will yield subpar results whether it presides over a socialist economy or a capitalist economy.

Andaras' problem is that he has no tact when it comes to matters of politics. Now, Andaras' and I, in this case, have a very similar point of view on the issue of representative democracy, and both of us would prefer something vastly different.

By trying to frame everything in terms of capitalism, he ends of up missing the more fundamental question. Andaras is perfectly correct that politician's duty to the public is in conflict with centers of private economic power. But he misses the simple fact that will cannot be represented, and that a representative democracy will yield subpar results whether it presides over a socialist economy or a capitalist economy.

I disagree, your 'direct democracy' obviously comes from a ultra-leftist naive idealistic perspective, not one based on objective fact and Marxist analysis.
It's a matter of control, do you deny that the bourgeois control states such as America? If you do then you reject your own principle that true control comes only from 'direct' control, rather than indirect. If the bourgeois needed a direct democracy (in which themselves only had a franchise) then they would have certainly done this before, but in reality they don't need a 'bourgeois direct democracy', these days they can control the apparatus of the state by controlling the economic power. So if the bourgeois class dictatorship can exist without direct political manipulation, in line with Marxism so can the proletarian class dictatorship exist without direct access to political power. This analysis comes from the fact that economic power automatically means political power.

This is the Marxist analysis, from economic power comes political, any class automatically becomes a political party. Thus the bourgeois control the state by controlling the economy, media etc, but in terms of direct executive control they don't control it, it is controlled by a nominal oligarchy of 'elected' individuals whose power is limited by 'liberalism', so that they can be kept in power.

Your stance fundamentally rejects the Marxist analysis because it puts highly reactionary stances like 'direct democracy' above the class struggle, and like all revisionists you downplay class and up play other concepts such as nationalism, 'democracy' and 'freedom'.

In Germany:

I wouldn't mind voting for the President. S/He has no real power anyway, so I don't see how much more harm the general populace could do.

In the United States:

Scrap the electoral college and have the House of Representatives elect the president. Likewise, instead of Presidential elections, have HoR elections. Likewise, don't vote for the representatives directly, but have the party receive seats according to the amount of votes they get, which they then fill. Put a 5% hurdle in place to avoid having too many parties in Congress (meaning, the seats are divided according to percentages among all parties that receive more than 5%).

* Dump the electoral college. -- all elections are direct (popular vote) elections.

* Voters will mark all candidates will be marked with a number -- their favorite is 1, their dsecond favorite is 2, and so on. If nobody has a majority, the last place candidate (in terms of #1 votes) is eliminated, and results are checked again (with those who prefered the eliminated guy having their votes counted for their second chocie). Eventually, someone will have a majority.

* To combat gerrymandering, house of representative voting will have people vote for clumps of blocks of candidates. So if a state has ten representatives, half the state votes for slots 1-5 ("Pick five", of coruse!) and the other half votes for slots 6-10. Noite that for states with only one or two representatives, the entire state will vote on the one or two slots.

* As Daistallia said, "None of the above" must be on the ballot, and if that entry "wins" the eleciton, a special election must be held without any of the defeated candidates.

* Primaries should all be on the same day.

* Full recounts are necessary if a change of <1% would change the winner.

* No elections may be called by news shows (and other media programs) until voting is closed.

...And for those of you who want to expand the House of Representatives, keep in mind that they limited the size of it because *ANYONE* in it can chatter on about bills being discussed there. Do you really want to double the number of people capable of filibustering it?

As for Italy, here's my ideas - most of them would need also a reform of the Constitution, not just of the electoral law.

1.Camera dei Deputati (lower house): reduced from current 630 to 400 seats. Election via popular vote (pure proportional) between nationwide lists (each of 400 candidates), one preference allowed. Candidates must be older than 21 (currently 25).
2.Senato della Repubblica (upper house): reduced from current 315 (+senators for life) to 200. 1 senator per province (currently 109). Provinces of more than 500k can get more than one senator - so to reach 180. 20 seats reserved to senators-for-life (former Presidents of the Republic and senators-for-life appointed by the President of the Republic). Senators elected via majority vote between single candidates (in provinces who elect more than 1 senator, provincewide popular vote, lists and single preference). Same age minimum limits as for the Camera dei Deputati (currently it's 25 for electors and 40 for candidates).
3.Direct election of the Consiglio dei Ministri (cabinet), via double-turn election (à la française) between nationwide lists of candidate cabinets (that is, vote for the whole cabinet, not just its president); number of voting ministers fixed by the Constitution (12 ministers+1 president). The Parliament can impeach members of the executive if they violate the law or the Constitution; the President of the Republic can appoint a substitute of impeached (and sentenced) minister, this time with a positive confidence vote of the Parliament.
4.No parliamentary confidence vote (except to substitute impeached ministers); no legislative decrees by the cabinet (except natural disasters, national emergency and war). Laws proposed by the cabinet can go directly to the Parliament for final vote, without going through parliamentary commissions.
5.Minimum parliamentary votes to modify the Constitution: 75%+1 in both houses, plus popular referendum (no quorum, 66%+1 of valid votes needed).
6.No more quorum in abrogative referenda.
7.MPs and ministers who are being tried by a court get a suspension: in case they're sentenced (even in first degree), they lose their place. Also, candidates (to MP, minister, presidency of republic) must have a clear record.
8.MP cannot be ministers (if elected in the executive, they must leave their seat in the parliament). Ministers must leave their place to run for MP.
9.Limit of two consecutive mandates for MPs and ministers.

Also, I think that we need a minimum number of inhabitants for a place to be a comune (municipality). Let's say no less than 15k. Here in Lombardy we're about 9M and we have 1500 comuni (average, 6k per comune... and that's not counting that the City of Milan has about 1,3M inhabitants). The comuni are too small, and too many!

The Presidency of the U.S.A. should be decided on the "one man, one vote" idea. Also, the one man that gets to cast the one vote that determines everything should be me. I don't want the job, I just want to choose the person least likely to screw me over.

Britain

1. abolish the House of Lords and the monarchy, establish an elected head of state, with the power to put any government measure to a referendum. Also take away the power of the Prime Minister to choose the time of election- fixed Parliament length of 5 years.

2. Replace the First-Past-The-Post election system with AV+ [Voters list their preferences, and the least popular candidate is eliminated after each round, and their votes redistributed until a candidate has over 50%, and the "+" bit has a relatively small number of top up seats on a PR basis so that parties who have a substantial level of support across the country, but struggle to win constituency seats (such as the Liberal Democrats) get some compensation]. This also avoids the dangers of pure PR as the likely outcome will be that exective power remains in the hands of a single party, or is shared between two, rather than the farcical system in some parts of Europe where leaders cannot govern effectively as they have to balance the demands of a many-party coalition, including some who have tiny electoral support, but can bring down the government if they leave. Also, as the extra seats are distributed according to the vote on a national level, parties such as the BNP will be kept out, as they tend to perform well only in a limited number of seats where racial tensions are high.

3. I would also abolish local government, as so few people vote in these elections that it is illegitimate. Local government is pointless and expensive, and can have policies running contrary to the national interest. It is more efficient if there are fewer levels of government. Lastly, full independence for Wales and Scotland, they will not vote in English elections, and will thus have no role in deciding affairs that only affect England, just like we won't in their affairs.

Personally, I have always wondered what sense there is to invent new and even more complex ways to fight gerrymandering and to evenly distribute seats, when we still maintain the archaic notions that 1. one congressman, one vote, 2. congressmen must be elected from small districts.

Just replace it so that there are no voting districts, anyone can get votes from anywhere, the ~500 with the most votes get to be the congress, the unelected who still got some votes can vote with all the votes that were given to them (but they can only vote those who got in already), and in the congress every congressman votes with all the votes that were cast for him/her.

So, if I get 20000 votes, my friend got 8000 votes and the cutoff limit is at 17000, I got in, and in the losers round my friend votes me, giving me a total of 28000. When voting for resolutions, my vote is worth that 28000.

This system is relatively easy to understand, everyone can think of giving their vote to their congressman and him using it until the next election. It almost completely eliminates groups of people with no representation, while keeping neo-nazis and the like small enough not to matter.

Elimination of First Past the Post voting system, and a restructuring of congress to be more like a parliament with multi-member districts and Single Transferable Vote system.

In the UK:

Sort out the House of Lords, in some way, so that its membership doesn't just consist of political appointees.
(I personally think that it worked well enough before the hereditaries were expelled by Blair, but I realise that other people may prefer a more democratic option... Maybe add an elected element, but keep it different from the Commons -- which would remain the more important of the two Houses -- by having this chosen through some form of proportionate representation whereas the Commons -- to reduce the risk of coalitions becoming necessary -- would still be chosen by first-past-the-post.)

Reduce the number of MPs by somewhere between 33% & 50%, with constituencies containing roughly the same number of electors regardless of where in the UK they're located (instead of with Welsh or Scottish ones having significantly lower average populations than English ones do as is currently the case), and with boundaries drawn to make as many seats as possible 'marginal' rather than 'safe'.

Set an upper limit on the number of government Ministers allowed.

Ban government Ministers, and probably members of the Shadow Cabinet too, from voting in the election for Speaker of the House of Commons.

Make any laws that would only affect England the responsibility of an 'English Grand Committee' (consisting of all the MPs for constituencies in England) rather than of Parliament as a whole.

Reclaim as many powers as possible from Brussels, even if doing so requires leaving the EU.

Give local government more financial autonomy.

Make it illegal for a government to pass measures that directly contradict its last election manifesto.

Legislate so that MPs' salaries can only be increased (and their allowed expenses can only be increased by more than the rate of inflation) just after general elections, with the parties required to specify in their manifestos what they'd do in this respect.

Set strictly-enforced (and relatively low) limits on parties' central expenditure during election campaigns.

Establish a written constitution, changeable only by referendum (with a supermajority needed), that enshrines the combination of these new rules (and perhaps some other changes, too) with what would be left out of the current system.

The current system in the UK is good, but there is room for a degree of improvement, mainly with Lords reform.

The House of Lords should be appointed as a polishing chamber for Bills, full on expertise than can improve legislation. The standard of debate in the Lords is already higher than in the Commons; this valuable function would be lost if it was another elected chamber than would mirror the Commons and create possibilities for legislative logjam if two democratic houses differ.

Postal voting should not be introduced until security is vastly improved, as currently it is too easy for over eager party members to engage in disgraceful undemocratic behaviour. If people physically cannot get to the ballot box, they should vote by proxy. If they are too lazy, it is their own fault if they get a government they dislike.

However, the voting age should be reduced to 16 (at least). There is no reason why individuals should not be allowed to vote until they are 18, especially when they can pay tax from 16. That said, this would need to be coupled with compulsory GCSE education in government and politics to improve awareness about how the system works and what the main parties represent.

Additionally, the UK has the issue of devolution and the West Lothian question to consider. However, that goes beyond electoral reform. Suffice to say, English votes on English laws would create a legislative nightmare, with clauses being voted on by different MPs and cross-border issues becoming impossible.

I would get rid of politicians and make parliament a massive multi-player online game where voters would have to get together to fight giant dragons in order to pass legislation.

The House of Lords should be appointed as a polishing chamber for Bills, full on expertise than can improve legislation. The standard of debate in the Lords is already higher than in the Commons; this valuable function would be lost if it was another elected chamber than would mirror the Commons and create possibilities for legislative logjam if two democratic houses differ.Agreed.

Postal voting should not be introduced until security is vastly improved, as currently it is too easy for over eager party members to engage in disgraceful undemocratic behaviour. If people physically cannot get to the ballot box, they should vote by proxy. If they are too lazy, it is their own fault if they get a government they dislike.Agreed.

However, the voting age should be reduced to 16 (at least). There is no reason why individuals should not be allowed to vote until they are 18, especially when they can pay tax from 16.Maybe, if they're already paying tax, they could get the vote that early... but I'm not really happy about the idea.
That said, this would need to be coupled with compulsory GCSE education in government and politics to improve awareness about how the system works and what the main parties represent.And great care would have to be taken to prevent that education being biased towards a particular viewpoint...

Additionally, the UK has the issue of devolution and the West Lothian question to consider. However, that goes beyond electoral reform. Suffice to say, English votes on English laws would create a legislative nightmare, with clauses being voted on by different MPs and cross-border issues becoming impossible.My most favoured solution to this problem would actually be to scrap devolution altogether, but I doubt whether that would be possible. How is 'English votes on English laws' any worse than 'Scottish votes on Scottish laws' (which I seem to recall actually applied even before devolution, in fact, because there was a 'Scottish Grand Committee' in the Commons in those days) as a policy?

(I've made a few amendments & other additions to my previous post.)

I agree. I think we're thinking the same way. Make it about 500 seats with proportional representation. If they're worried about small parties, make a 5% threshold.


Why? That just keeps corrupting the results. The EC is an anachronism. It was made with good intentions, but the way it is applied now and would be applied under your system just don't even serve the original purpose. It's supposed to elect people that elect the president. Not elect the party. Parties were not intended. The election should be a national popular vote with a runoff between the top two.


The EC needs to stay to prevent a direct popular vote. It's the only thing keeping us a Republic and from devolving into a democratic tyranny.

And great care would have to be taken to prevent that education being biased towards a particular viewpoint...
Of course. However, I doubt this would be a major issue. Government and politics are taught at AS level and above, without any discernible bias and with comprehensive curricula that encompass the political spectrum. Moreover, political bias could creep into history and RE as easily as politics yet we already have these subjects as GCSE without any problems of indoctrination.

My most favoured solution to this problem would actually be to scrap devolution altogether, but I doubt whether that would be possible. How is 'English votes on English laws' any worse than 'Scottish votes on Scottish laws' (which I seem to recall actually applied even before devolution, in fact, because there was a 'Scottish Grand Committee' in the Commons in those days) as a policy?
The issue of Scotland was simpler than England. Since the Act of Union, Scotland retained its own legal system. This meant Parliament would pass a law for England and Wales and a law for Scotland, thus debating Scottish laws is simple.
With England however, the legal system applies to both England and Wales. Therefore, Bills will have clauses relating to the two nations. Any debate would require Bills to be split up and separate clauses debated in separate chambers. The whole system would be expensive and time consuming, especially when clauses apply ambiguously to England or Wales.
Moreover, the problem would be complicated further with the provision of services along the borders. Many people in Wales access English hospitals, for example. Since they use it, they should be able to lobby their MP is something is wrong. However, if only English MPs vote on the English NHS, that MP would be unable to represent his constituent because of the location of the border.
I agree however that devolution should never have occurred, especially not in such a piecemeal, asymmetric manner. However, to scrap devolution would be electorally disastrous and stir up even more Celtic nationalism. It could even, paradoxically, increase the chances of the dissolution of the Union. It is an impossible conundrum.

There is an initiative in Germany to change voting on state level so one can directly select the candidates instead of voting for one party (or it would be possible to vote for one party but exclude certain candidates). I'd love to see that implemented. Or they should implement kalesic elections as in Rejistania.

The issue of Scotland was simpler than England. Since the Act of Union, Scotland retained its own legal system. This meant Parliament would pass a law for England and Wales and a law for Scotland, thus debating Scottish laws is simple.
With England however, the legal system applies to both England and Wales. Therefore, Bills will have clauses relating to the two nations. Any debate would require Bills to be split up and separate clauses debated in separate chambers. The whole system would be expensive and time consuming, especially when clauses apply ambiguously to England or Wales.
Moreover, the problem would be complicated further with the provision of services along the borders. Many people in Wales access English hospitals, for example. Since they use it, they should be able to lobby their MP is something is wrong. However, if only English MPs vote on the English NHS, that MP would be unable to represent his constituent because of the location of the border.
I must admit, I was thinking of the England-Scotland situation more than the England-Wales one. I suppose we'd either have to upgrade the Welsh Assembly to full parliamentary status (so that it could pass its own, separate laws on those matters) or persuade the Welsh to vote for its abolition which -- considering how the votes went when it was set up -- might be a bit easier than persuading the Scots to renounce devolution... As regards the people using hospitals across the borders, I admit that there'd be a 'democratic deficit' involved but suggest that the number of people treated unfairly overall would be a lot lower than the current situation -- with Welsh and Scottish MPs voting on English matters when English MPs can't vote on the equivalent legislation for Wales and Scotland -- involves.

I disagree, your 'direct democracy' obviously comes from a ultra-leftist naive idealistic perspective, not one based on objective fact and Marxist analysis.

How so? And why should I care about not having all my opinions come from Marxist (read: Leninist) analysis. Might I remind you that Marx himself argued in the Critique of the Gotha Programme that a socialist society constitutes "transforming the state from an organ superimposed on the people to one wholly subordinated to it." As Marx's support for the Paris Commune shows, in his analysis this meant making democracy as direct as possible, both in political and economic decision making.

It's a matter of control, do you deny that the bourgeois control states such as America? If you do then you reject your own principle that true control comes only from 'direct' control, rather than indirect. If the bourgeois needed a direct democracy (in which themselves only had a franchise) then they would have certainly done this before, but in reality they don't need a 'bourgeois direct democracy', these days they can control the apparatus of the state by controlling the economic power.

I do not deny that the bourgeoisie dominate politics in nearly all states around the world. But one must remember that the state is not merely a puppet dancing on a string; it is a powerful force in its own right, and those who sit at its commanding heights often have interests and agendas in conflict with the bourgeoisie. Elites of both the bourgeoisie and the State have always been keen on preventing the spread of democracy, for it constitutes a threat to the power of both.

So if the bourgeois class dictatorship can exist without direct political manipulation, in line with Marxism so can the proletarian class dictatorship exist without direct access to political power. This analysis comes from the fact that economic power automatically means political power.

This is the Marxist analysis, from economic power comes political, any class automatically becomes a political party. Thus the bourgeois control the state by controlling the economy, media etc, but in terms of direct executive control they don't control it, it is controlled by a nominal oligarchy of 'elected' individuals whose power is limited by 'liberalism', so that they can be kept in power.

You don't honestly think these powerful Alpha males that constitute the State's leadership are just content to do what they're told by their bourgeois masters, do you? They have their own interests, conflicting sometimes with the interests of the bourgeoisie. Above all, they exist by concentrating political power into the hands of their party. Quite often, they have their own ideology which they wish to impose. Nothing about social conservatism really gels with capitalism, yet it is the reigning force of the day. The oppression of women by men, of blacks by whites, and of gays by straights more often than not has no economic component. Oppression occurs because it makes the oppressors powerful.

Your stance fundamentally rejects the Marxist analysis because it puts highly reactionary stances like 'direct democracy' above the class struggle, and like all revisionists you downplay class and up play other concepts such as nationalism, 'democracy' and 'freedom'.

Why must it always be an "either-or" with you Leninists? As an anarcho-syndicalist, direct action is the means of class struggle, and direct democracy is nothing more than direct action institutionalized. I fail to see how I'm a revisionist, nor how I'm being a nationalist. But yes, socialism will be democratic and free, or it will not happen, end of story. Without liberty and democracy, socialism has no meaning, and can only result in vile oppression.

hmm... just off the top of my head...

I like Daistallia 2104's "None of the Above" clause.

Primaries should be like the General. Everyone votes on ONE day. That way all those running stand a chance and none of this dropping out in the middle.

All contributions will go to ONE megafund. then it will be split evenly among all candidates in a quarterly schedule. How the candidates maintain their funds will show how they will control our country's economy. Companies, special interest groups and public celebrities/figures can still announce who they will vote for, but the only funds they can use will be from this mega fund. that way EVERYONE gets a fair shake, including independant runners. Violators will have be removed from running and donators will be fined (the money going into the Federal Goverment coffers.

During the Primaries and General elections, no results will be announced UNTIL the next day or until they are all finalized, (which ever comes first). that way every state's votes needs to be counted and every state will be important in the process. sure the news can still make predictions and projections, but no exit polls, and no announcing of winners. violators will be heavily fined and the finds going to Federal Government coffers.

The elections will be moved up. Primary before June, General no earlier than August, but no later than October. that gives time for recounts and any special elections with the "None of the Above" clause.

all I can think up at this point and time.

I that, especially the finance reform. Tightening up the primary schedules was one of the things I didn't put in at first for time.

As for the electoral college, going to a direct presidential vote bothers me due to the Federal level. It was put in for a reason. And reforming it with proportional electors rather than winner take all kwwps the best points and discards the worst, IMHO.

Another big one in my books it absolutely abolishing gerrymandering. Districts should be more or less random, respect geographic realities, and not obviuously partisan.

You seem to fail to realize that democracy and capitalism are incompatible. Thus with modern 'democracies' power does not rest with the common people but with an elected oligarchy of bourgeois representatives, and true power is the economic and media power of the bourgeois, political power (ie popular power) is limited by 'liberal' concepts institutionalized. Liberalism is of course elitism, by preserving the power of the one over the whole you inevitably empower an oligarchy.

You can't have have democracy with capitalism, as capitalism eats away and corrodes it as they gain more economic power.

Um, I'm going to point to Switzerland again. Most democratic nation on earth, by far. Michael Bakunin actually played a part in it's founding.

It's also one of the more capitalist countries in Europe, what with the world's banks centered there. The federalist distributed power structure that made such democracy possible also encouraged competition and wealth creation. Whodathunkit?

Some form of proportional representation for Westminster, devolution for the regions of England and Wales on par with Scotland and Northern Ireland, and greater use of direct democracy, within limits.

I'd like to see the US become a parliamentary democracy.

You seem to fail to realize that democracy and capitalism are incompatible. Thus with modern 'democracies' power does not rest with the common people but with an elected oligarchy of bourgeois representatives, and true power is the economic and media power of the bourgeois, political power (ie popular power) is limited by 'liberal' concepts institutionalized. Liberalism is of course elitism, by preserving the power of the one over the whole you inevitably empower an oligarchy.

You can't have have democracy with capitalism, as capitalism eats away and corrodes it as they gain more economic power.

Have you ever posted anything with actual substance in it. I mean, have you ever posted something which isn't full of completely meaningless rhetoric, not backed by anything approaching any way near an argument?

I'd like to redesign the electoral college to function more like the Democrat's primary system, in which we would have electors meted out by Congressional district, but retaining the two at large electors to be doled out on a state level.

That's about it, maybe a national digital voter ID system, to make it so that we can vote anywhere on election day, without the need for paper absentee ballots, but, whatever.

I disagree, your 'direct democracy' obviously comes from a ultra-leftist naive idealistic perspective, not one based on objective fact...

Whenever anyone tries to bring the terms "objective fact" into a social science discussion I feel that I am forced to call...

...Bull Shit.

I think these are more ideas than reforms but i'll list them and see how they go.
1) Make all education public and get rid of all influences of private education. (that's not to say private education is poorer or better, but in a country that offers two different types of such important socialising factors, it can only lead to inequality in cultural bias, and a failing of democracy.)

2) Destroy all tenement housing and replace it with better more detachted housing ( i know this is probably not feasible but i like the idea), tenements were always a bad idea, i suggest adapting them into research facilities (not strict ones just a few people who's jobs is to go around and ask how people are doing with a clipboard) thus you gain an insight into the psychology of a number of individuals, and perhaps a better understanding of what makes people tick.

3) Get rid of the House of Lords (it's not democratic if you have two different houses with different standards on who's allowed in).

4) Monarchy can stay because they don't really have any power anyway ( i mean seriously who would go to war if the Queen said we should? Not many i imagine).

5) Demand that all artwork in those royal houses is sold off to other countries so we can use the money to develop other reforms in the welfare state.

6) Reduce numbers of labels on clothing (as in adverts for say nike, or addidas etc) just pointless having them really.

7) By law everyone should be taught First Aid every 3 years so people know what to do in bad situations.

8) Reduce amount of red-tape in government by reducing the numbers of laws passed so it must at least be shown to all members of public in a message on TV and over the Radio once every year (a major revision of all laws must be undertaken to ensure that they are as practical and morally upstanding as possible).

9) A limit on the numbers of lawyers is allowed to be admitted to any party limit of say 5 (regardless of the size of the party) to ensure the party is more representative of the people and not of the law.

10) All forms of Guns are allowed to be used in set firing ranges (and availabe to all people to use them in the firing range and no where else) this is to leave some freedom and ability to bear arms, should a despot take control the people will have some means to stop him/her.

11) All forms of armed combat and martial arts can only be learned providing the person offers money for training and insurence, and they are of sound mind (so must have criminal background check carried out by police).

12) Markets can follow the rules they have normally in the UK with a few adaptations, all managers must rotate with a member of their company in the lowest paid position to ensure the manager is aware of what it's like to work in all areas of their company, for 3 months every year, (a backup manager takes over during that period).

13) Failure to accept these changes, must have a petition signed by the people (of sound mind, again background check of criminal violence, to deter potential despots rising).

14) An alternative to traditional education must be met, further training from a young age in different types of schools from Art schools (this is only at secondary levels person must be over 16 to apply) ranging to various topics discussed.

15) War can only be persued if intelligence given is reliable, from neutral sources not government funded bodies (but they are free to give advice on what can happen ultimately it's down to the tourists to decide).

16) The death penalty is banned from all situations.

17) All relgions are welcome, provided they do not preach that violence can solve any situation, if they do they must be debated in universities to decide if they are allowed in the country.
A few ideas.

I believe that the popular vote in the US needs to count for something.

Basically, keep the college, but you should also get "points" for winning the national popular vote.

I believe that the popular vote in the US needs to count for something.

Basically, keep the college, but you should also get "points" for winning the national popular vote.

Fantastic idea. How about every person's vote counts just as much as one of the electors' votes? Then the damn neo-federalists will shut up cause the college will still be there, technically.

I'd like to see proportional representation. In our last federal election the Greens got 10% of the vote, but no seats in the lower house & only a few in the upper house.

My thread on "none of the above" has me thinking about the ways I'd like to see the US electoral system reformed. I think everyone has some dissatisfaction or complaint with their nation's electoral system. What electoral reforms would you like to see in your country?

Here's some of my short list:
House of Representatives should be a mix of at-large, proportional, and single-seat.

The Electoral College should be kept, but proportional instead of winner takes all.

There should be a binding "none of the above". In the case of congress, this would restart the election. In the case of the presidency, there would be a snap election in late December. In both cases, the entire slate would be disallowed from the particular election.

There's more, but I'm off to work.

I would like to see all candidates for any office, from local through national, pass a comprehensive exam on the Constitution. If they get less than 95%, they can't run for office.

Anyone who makes a prediction with a sense of inevitability or certainty, especially on shaky or nebulous grounds about what people are going to do or how a vote goes or the like and has that prediction turn out to be even marginally wrong will receive a bitch slap. The more arbitrary their prediction and the more wrong they are, the harder the bitch slap.

Maybe then people will think twice.

Or, more likely, there'll be a whole lot of bitch slapping. (Understanding that I just opened myself up for a potential bitch slap there...)

A proportionally elected upper house. A two party system where the candidates are more than slightly different from one another... better yet, a system wherein there's more than two parties and there's some actual choice when you're voting...

A fully proportional system. Unless your riding elects an independent, your riding doesn't really get much local presence from your representative. They are obligated to vote with the party line (otherwise they will get booted from the party). It really seems our system is well setup for proportional, but doesn't use it.

to be honest the main reform i'm looking for is for the people i vote for to be elected.

What electoral reforms would you like to see in your country?

I would diminish the BCS and institute a limited playoff system, using the BCS only to determine the top 8 seeds.