How do we change US voting?

[NobleSavage]

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?

It's still this way in the US - just really pathetic. The direct primary neutered the parties. However, if you want to run for office it's still a good idea to kiss the ring of the various party leaders. The Partys were used for funneling soft money to candidates, but after Citizen's United I don't even know it that makes sense anymore.

 

[J842P]

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?

It actually depends on the state. In Virginia, you do not register any party affiliation when you register to vote, that is, Virginia does not track the party affiliation of citizens when they register to vote. I believe that is the case for a dozen or so other states, but I'm not sure on the exact number. In no state are you obligated to register, but whether or not you register may affect if you can vote in party primaries. You cannot vote in party primaries if the state is a "closed primary" state, wheres other states have "open primaries" where you can vote in either primary regardless of registration. Some states like West Virginia have a de facto mixed system (Democratic primaries are closed and Republican primaries are open).

I've only ever voted in Virginia, so I've never registered my party affiliation.

ETA: Here's a good link summarizing some facts regarding the party registration and affiliation system in the United States in the context of a paper that looks at ways in which voter registration could be made automatic.

http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/VRM Party Affiliation.pdf

 

[bilby]

What do you propose to do about it?


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.

England (or more accurately, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) elected both Thatcher and Blair (or more accurately, the parties of which they were leaders) using First-Past-The-Post single vote ballots. No proportional representation was involved whatsoever.

In England, voters vote in a FPTP ballot for one representative in their 'constituency' to be their MP in the House of Commons - similar to the way the US house of representatives is elected. The Prime Minister is then appointed by HM the Q, and by tradition and convention, she is required to appoint the leader of the party with the largest support in the commons - either the party with a majority of seats, or the leader of a coalition of parties who between them command a majority. There is no direct election of Prime Ministers; and no proportional representation, either.

 

[NobleSavage]

What do you propose to do about it?


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.

England (or more accurately, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) elected both Thatcher and Blair (or more accurately, the parties of which they were leaders) using First-Past-The-Post single vote ballots. No proportional representation was involved whatsoever.

In England, voters vote in a FPTP ballot for one representative in their 'constituency' to be their MP in the House of Commons - similar to the way the US house of representatives is elected. The Prime Minister is then appointed by HM the Q, and by tradition and convention, she is required to appoint the leader of the party with the largest support in the commons - either the party with a majority of seats, or the leader of a coalition of parties who between them command a majority. There is no direct election of Prime Ministers; and no proportional representation, either.

Yeah, you are right. I plead temporary stupidity. Maybe I was thinking of the way they elect members of the European Parliament.