How do we change US voting?

[Rhea]

I'm wondering what's the necessary mechanism for change. I know there are several better voting methods, but what are the mechanics for implementing one of them in USA? How exactly is the change made?

 

[dx713]

If I understand your system correctly, the change must be made at a federal level.
(Federal constitution change? Good luck with that)

Otherwise, the states who change the system and send a mixed representation to the federal institutions are losing influence, compared to the ones who take a winner-take-all approach and thus bring the full weight of the state to their majority opinion to the federal institutions. Most extreme exemple: electoral college. A state doing a proportionnal appointment of electors would simply end being ignored during the campaign.
Maybe a progressive state could try to implement one on a purely internal local level (state congress? How does that work?), just to show how it can be done?

 

[Rhea]

The important part is (IMHO) the congressional and state gov't seats. The presidential would be good, but kind of moot until the Congress is completed.

This site seems to have some actionable info...

http://www.fairvote.org/research-an...rican-democracy/states-using-considering-irv/

 

[Terrell]

I agree with DX, I think that the best possible outcome on that type of thing, is to do it in a few state assemblies and see how it works. For the President, I don't think there will be a viable 3rd party option since it's one seat. In addition the electoral college presents a problem, in that if no candidate gets to 270 Electors, the election is decided in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The thing with state assemblies would have to be across red, blue, and purple states for anyone to really pay attention in my opinion. If states on one side of the political divide are the only states to do so, I don't know that it will work. Would probably have to be Dems & Greens in bluer states, while being Republicans & Constitution Party, in the redder states. I picked the Greens because they're left of the Democrats, and the Constitution because they're to the right of the Republicans. One can pick other 3rd parties, if you like.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think the flippant answer is "Pray", with all of the attendant sarcasm inherent therein .

The proper approach to use has been outlined already: through state assemblies, and then through congress at the federal level. The larger question, in my opinion, is whether it is likely to ever occur. The two parties currently in power both have a vested interest in retaining a first-past-the-poll system, as it virtually guarantees that their two parties will continue to retain power indefinitely. There is a small chance that one of them might be supplanted at some point, as happened in the past with the Whig party, but it's rare. Even when it does happen, it still leaves the other party in place. The net result of this is that FPTP essentially guarantees power for the current two parties. It behooves neither of them to support a system that would open the floor to more competitors and weaken their own party's control of the system.

Since the decision to change the voting structure ultimately rests with those two parties, I believe the likelihood of that change occurring is vanishingly small.

 

[lpetrich]

My recent polls on possible systems:
What voting system(s) do you like? Poll for single-seat elections
What voting system(s) do you like? Poll for multiseat elections

It's instructive to review the US Constitution to see what it does and does not specify (Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text).

I.2: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." The Constitution also states that each states' number of Representatives will be in proportion to its population. So that's a form of proportional representation right there.

It continues with "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen." This seems most consistent with state-by-state elections. However, the Constitution does not mandate single-member districts.

So states could use proportional representation to elect their Representatives if they chose to.

Article I Section 3 discusses Senators. Each state has two of them, and they are usually elected in separate years.

Article I Section 4 states "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators." -- so it's state-by-state in for both the House and the Senate.

Article II starts off with the election of the President, changed to the present system by Amendment XII. Whoever gets a majority of electoral votes becomes President, and if no candidate gets a majority, then it's the House that decides.

It would take a lot of effort to survey the states, to see what legal or constitutional problems they might have with alternatives to single-member-district first-past-the-post. But state constitutions are usually much easier to amend than the national one, so it may be easier there.

 

[Tigers!]

Regardless of what system you have a politician will always be elected.

Just my cynical side breaking out.

If you have good candidates then the voting system doesn't matter. If you have poor candidates then no voting system will protect you (with apologies to Sir Harry Gibbs, former Chief Justice of the Australian High Court).

 

[NobleSavage]

We could tinker with the pluming, but in the end I don't think it would make a damn bit of difference. We will still have regulatory capture. Apathetic voters. Big money's influence. Corruption. Pork barrel projects. The military industrial complex. Bureaucracy's from hell. Rogue agencies. Even if you take the money out of campaigns it would just turn into backscratching and favor for favor. Power is power and it's gonna do what power does. We have a federal republic, with separation of powers, bicameral legislators, a common law tradition, a civilian commander in chief, and a Bill of Rights. That's pretty good. Now we just need to make better people.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

If I understand your system correctly, the change must be made at a federal level.
(Federal constitution change? Good luck with that)

Yes, we have made the Constitution our god and there will be "Old Believers" who will fight for it if we ever make a big overhaul.

 

[Blahface]

I think the first thing we need to do is get it done state by state in the states that allow for ballot initiatives. If you get it done in a single state, that state can also use that voting method to elect federal representatives and senators. After it becomes more common place, we should try to get it passed through regular legislation in states that don't allow for ballot initiates. Maybe you need a united third party to actually get this done.

You can also change the way Presidential elections work state by state. You could have legislation that allowed for approval voting to select the winner of the state and allow the winner to decide who the electors have to vote for.

Another thing we need though is for asshole progressives who have a voice like Cenk Uygur to acknowledge this is a serious problem. Unfortunately, he has his head in the sand and thinks that talking about anything other than money in politics is a distraction.

 

[ksen]

 National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

 

[lpetrich]

That effort's home page: National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President States agreeing to give their electoral votes to the popular-vote winner. It would be triggered by enough states agreeing, enough to give them a majority of electoral votes. So far, 11 states have agreed, with 61% of the electoral votes needed to win. Strictly speaking, 10 states and 1 pseudo-state (DC). I've tried to estimate the prospects of it passing. It's gotten the farthest in blue states, but to go into action, it will also need some purple and red states. Given the recent political polarization, that will likely be very difficult.

 

[lpetrich]

We will still have regulatory capture. Apathetic voters. Big money's influence. Corruption. Pork barrel projects. The military industrial complex. Bureaucracy's from hell. Rogue agencies.

What do you propose to do about it?

We have a federal republic, with separation of powers, bicameral legislators, a common law tradition, a civilian commander in chief, and a Bill of Rights. That's pretty good.

That's Panglossian nonsense. It can and has been improved on. Does anyone want to return to how the President was originally elected? Seriously. As in an Obama-Romney Presidency.

Now we just need to make better people.

You've got your work cut out for you, don't you think?

 

[Jayjay]

That effort's home page: National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President States agreeing to give their electoral votes to the popular-vote winner. It would be triggered by enough states agreeing, enough to give them a majority of electoral votes. So far, 11 states have agreed, with 61% of the electoral votes needed to win. Strictly speaking, 10 states and 1 pseudo-state (DC). I've tried to estimate the prospects of it passing. It's gotten the farthest in blue states, but to go into action, it will also need some purple and red states. Given the recent political polarization, that will likely be very difficult.

I think that in order to pass in red and blue states, there would have to be at least a couple of elections where the Republican candidate wins a popular vote but loses the electoral college. In recent years it's always been the other way around.

 

[fromderinside]

In recent years it's always been the other way around.

There have only been two times from the time of Washington when the candidate winning the most popular votes didn't also win the presidency.

Electoral vote adjustment is a non-starter.

Long term problem requires long term solution.

My thought: Adjust civics education requirements in public and private schools for graduation. Improve it so that every student, to graduate, must know all his elected officials well enough to write papers on them. Ensure that every student knows governmental form, operation, and status, of every department, function, and office, and that she can demonstrate such on a citizen certification test prior to graduation. Teach that voting is a responsibility and duty just like, and as honorable as, serving in the military, that failure to carry out her responsibility is as bad as disrespecting her mother, deserving of being disowned.

Pay everyone who vote a sum equal to her time worked, and, at the same time fine everyone who doesn't vote a percentage of the cost for running the election, or alternatively keep elections open until everyone has voted including having them on weekends or being declared holidays except with the requirement, subject to loss of wage for the election period, to vote

 

[Rhea]

I think the first thing we need to do is get it done state by state in the states that allow for ballot initiatives. If you get it done in a single state, that state can also use that voting method to elect federal representatives and senators. After it becomes more common place, we should try to get it passed through regular legislation in states that don't allow for ballot initiates. Maybe you need a united third party to actually get this done.

You can also change the way Presidential elections work state by state. You could have legislation that allowed for approval voting to select the winner of the state and allow the winner to decide who the electors have to vote for.

Another thing we need though is for asshole progressives who have a voice like Cenk Uygur to acknowledge this is a serious problem. Unfortunately, he has his head in the sand and thinks that talking about anything other than money in politics is a distraction.

I think yes, it needs to be done state by state.

I guess I still wonder, how does that happen. (maybe it was linked above and I didn't read far enough (which would be ironic, huh?)) Do we start with a petition? require a state rep to sponsor? How can we pressure them to vote for it? Hmmm.

In recent years it's always been the other way around.

There have only been two times from the time of Washington when the candidate winning the most popular votes didn't also win the presidency.

Electoral vote adjustment is a non-starter.

Long term problem requires long term solution.

My thought: Adjust civics education requirements in public and private schools for graduation. Improve it so that every student, to graduate, must know all his elected officials well enough to write papers on them. Ensure that every student knows governmental form, operation, and status, of every department, function, and office, and that she can demonstrate such on a citizen certification test prior to graduation. Teach that voting is a responsibility and duty just like, and as honorable as, serving in the military, that failure to carry out her responsibility is as bad as disrespecting her mother, deserving of being disowned.

Pay everyone who vote a sum equal to her time worked, and, at the same time fine everyone who doesn't vote a percentage of the cost for running the election, or alternatively keep elections open until everyone has voted including having them on weekends or being declared holidays except with the requirement, subject to loss of wage for the election period, to vote

I like the education angle very much. More important than WWII, frankly.

And yeah, the progressive voices to shout it from the rooftops.


I do think apathy can be fought with a voting system that does not punish for non-mainstream choices. I think if that were so, we might be very surprised how many votes the non-2-party candidates get, if the voters knew they had a backup of the next least bad.

 

[lpetrich]

I think yes, it needs to be done state by state.

I guess I still wonder, how does that happen. (maybe it was linked above and I didn't read far enough (which would be ironic, huh?)) Do we start with a petition? require a state rep to sponsor? How can we pressure them to vote for it? Hmmm.

Ballot initiative - Ballotpedia

The ballot initiative is a means by which a petition signed by a certain minimum number of registered voters can bring about a public vote on a proposed statute or constitutional amendment. Ballot initiatives are also called, depending on the state, "popular initiative," "voter initiative," "citizen initiative" or just "initiative."

Twenty-four states allow ballot initiatives, which are a form of direct democracy.

So you have to organize a campaign to get it on the ballot, if your state allows it.

I do think apathy can be fought with a voting system that does not punish for non-mainstream choices. I think if that were so, we might be very surprised how many votes the non-2-party candidates get, if the voters knew they had a backup of the next least bad.

Rhea, have you ever examined  Duverger's law? That's a big reason for lack of friendliness to additional parties.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It'd take a Constitutional Amendment, likely at each state level because it'd take time for the momentum to grow in favor of it.

I think more would be accomplished by doing other things:

1) Limit campaigning for primaries between September and October
2) Limit campaigning for general elections between October and November
3) No more ridiculously stupid primary seasons!

This can help reduce the money that possibly be involved in elections which would go much further to helping than changing voting options. If you don't kill the money, you can't kill the two-party system. But the primary system is run by the Parties themselves. How fucked up is that?

 

[bilby]

It'd take a Constitutional Amendment, likely at each state level because it'd take time for the momentum to grow in favor of it.

I think more would be accomplished by doing other things:

1) Limit campaigning for primaries between September and October
2) Limit campaigning for general elections between October and November
3) No more ridiculously stupid primary seasons!

This can help reduce the money that possibly be involved in elections which would go much further to helping than changing voting options. If you don't kill the money, you can't kill the two-party system. But the primary system is run by the Parties themselves. How fucked up is that?

I don't understand the US party system; it seems to be completely different from anything in the developed world.

In my world, a political party has members, who go to party meetings, stand for and/or vote in internal elections to positions within the party, and stand for and/or vote in internal elections of candidates for public office. These party members usually pay a small subscription to join, and are often involved in fundraising and other candidate support activities.

Then there is the wider electorate, who are not party members. These people need not ever declare any kind of affiliation whatsoever with anyone; they vote (in a secret ballot) at the public elections for candidates who may be selected and supported by a political party, or may be independent. These people have no say whatsoever in party policy or candidate selection; if they wanted to do so, they could join a party, but they haven't, so they don't.

The US system seems to include voter registration that includes party affiliation; and the 'primary' as I understand it allows people who are not paid-up members of a political party to vote to select party candidates. Is this correct? If so, what the fuck was the person who came up with this idea smoking, and where can I score some? If this is not how it works, how does it actually work?

 

[NobleSavage]

What do you propose to do about it?

We have a federal republic, with separation of powers, bicameral legislators, a common law tradition, a civilian commander in chief, and a Bill of Rights. That's pretty good.

That's Panglossian nonsense. It can and has been improved on. Does anyone want to return to how the President was originally elected? Seriously. As in an Obama-Romney Presidency.

Now we just need to make better people.

You've got your work cut out for you, don't you think?

Were the Presidents under the old system worse than the ones we have today? England has proportional representation and they still got Thatcher and Blair. I don't think I'm Panglossian (nice word) just pragmatic. Instead of wasting a TON of effort trying to changing the electoral system I do things like volunteer on local campaigns.