How can the US improve the election process for 2022 and 2024? Can it be done bi-partisanly?

[Rock4ever]

My take on the election- Biden may have received 80+ million votes, but there’s no way in hell 80+ million people cast a ballot for him. There was no evidence of widespread voter fraud the people in charge of overseeing their state’s election lacked the will to take a serious look into what went down. Many of these state governors and Secs of state within mere hours of the media publishing results declared that their election was fair and results were legit, essentially going with the flow and giving themselves a pat on the back for a job well done. Only an idiot interferes with an election and leaves an easily found paper/data trail of breadcrumbs saying “Yup, I done it!”

Fixing the matter is going to be extremely difficult. A huge step in dealing with it is illegalizing ballot harvesting. This practice is a huge benefit to Dems/Progressives as voting results show a densely populated urban areas. However, There is no national election, hence it is up to each state legislature to make the rules. The PA executive really did something incredibly stupid by overriding mail in voting laws within their state, setting up a precedent which I would not be surprised exploited by other state executives in the future.

Voter ID needs to be a thing also. Canada has it, why doesn’t the US?

 

[Rock4ever]

The problem with the election process is several issues:

1. There is a reason why the Founding Fathers thought the Constitution needed editing through the years. Things like the Electoral College have become outmoded and outdated. How can you have a 3M popular vote lead but lose the election?

Do you think one state should be able to decide who is president? 2?

 

[groverj3]

Do you think one state should be able to decide who is president? 2?

The person who wins the most votes should be president.

 

[Rock4ever]

The person who wins the most votes should be president.

That's your opinion. There is no national election. If there were as things stand today, the popular vote would Ca and NY to lord over the other 48. That is why winner is not determined by popular vote.

 

[groverj3]

That's your opinion. There is no national election. If there were as things stand today, the popular vote would Ca and NY to lord over the other 48. That is why winner is not determined by popular vote.

People vote, not empty land. Everyone's vote should count exactly the same, as opposed to the electoral college diluting it. Conservatives in CA and NY should support this as well, because right now their votes don't count.

 

[Rock4ever]

Having an electoral college does not dilute the national vote. A state's electoral votes reflect their % of the national population, not their land percentage which I'm sure you already knew.

In 2016 HRC had a 4.2Million surplus in the CA popular vote, so it's really silly to say a national popular vote will allow CA conservatives, or ANY conservative nationally to be heard, and I have to wonder if that's how you'd like it. Her surplus nationally was 2.8mil. In a 50/50 nation Ca would be enough to take a national popular vote, especially when the corporate press is essentially a propaganda arm of one of the parties. Had HRC not stepped on her own foot along the way, and had she visited a few places in rural WI she might be president today and 2 or three of her nominees on the SCOTUS. Her folly.

 

[groverj3]

Having an electoral college does not dilute the national vote. A state's electoral votes reflect their % of the national population, not their land percentage which I'm sure you already knew.

In 2016 HRC had a 4.2Million surplus in the CA popular vote, so it's really silly to say a national popular vote will allow CA conservatives, or ANY conservative nationally to be heard, and I have to wonder if that's how you'd like it.

I guess if conservatives want to win elections they should focus on having policies that more people actually support.

Her surplus nationally was 2.8mil. In a 50/50 nation Ca would be enough to take a national popular vote, especially when the corporate press is essentially a propaganda arm of one of the parties. Had HRC not stepped on her own foot along the way, and had she visited a few places in rural WI she might be president today and 2 or three of her nominees on the SCOTUS. Her folly.

I don't disagree that HRC and the Dems didn't try to get the vote in places like WI and MI, and just assumed they'd win there. This is a problem, too.

 

[StevenC]

That's your opinion. There is no national election. If there were as things stand today, the popular vote would Ca and NY to lord over the other 48. That is why winner is not determined by popular vote.

That most democratic of American phrases:

"They the people"

 

[groverj3]

... That is why winner is not determined by popular vote.

No, the popular vote isn't used because old people who owned slaves 200+ years ago didn't think that the people would know who the candidates were since communication back then was difficult over large distances. It was thought that you'd know the local politicians, but not necessary someone in DC and you'd instead vote for someone else who would then vote for president.

Also, at the time only white men who owned land could vote. Maybe they didn't have the greatest ideas all the time and this is an outdated concept. Just a thought.

 

[Jonathan20022]

Do they? It seems like they had no problem supporting trampling the rights of people they didn't like.

Religious people are fucking morons. They believe the same hocus pocus fairy tale horse shit that trump spews. Only theirs was written down thousands of years ago. The world will be a much better place when religion finally dies.

By "economically conservative", I assume you mean rich assholes that fuck everyone around them over to make an extra buck and then sit on their surplus wealth while everyone around them starves. Fuck those assholes.

Single issue voters are fucking morons. We don't live in a single issue world. I voted for Bush in 2004 because I was ammosexual and only cared about him letting the Clinton-era firearms bans expire. I was a fucking moron.

Everyone that voted republican and supported trump knew he was a shitbag and either supported it or turned a blind eye. Either way, fuck them.

Religion aside, people vote with their self interests first on instinct. No one votes to help their neighbor but fuck themselves, no amount of virtue signaling will convince me people do that unless they are in a privileged enough position to not have to worry about the effects of their vote.

I'm not accusing you of this, but I've seen it enough in my peer group to feel like a good number of people do this. People hate rich people until they realize how low the bar to be considered "rich" is, and subsequently hit that tax bracket over the course of a decade. Those same people realize their altruistic bullshit held zero worth, then they begin to grift and hold Democratic beliefs while sitting on their wealth (And probably still vote red).

 

[thraxil]

Electronic voting machines need to be removed or there need to be significant improvements to their certification and oversight. I'm an engineer and old enough to remember that there were major concerns and conflicts back in the early 00's when it was Diebold Election Systems (which rebranded to Premier Election Systems and was then bought up by Dominion Voting Systems). They were hostile to security researchers who were demonstrating flaws and the CEO had shady connections to various right-wing groups. At the time it was mostly groups on the left objecting to them, but now the right wing is convinced that Dominion stole the election from them, so maybe we can finally get some bipartisan agreement here.

 

[spudmunkey]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember many of the earlier objections coming from a lack of paper trail, which most machines have now. And when manual audits/recounds take place, I haven't heard of any outside-margin-of-error discrepancies.

 

[Mathemagician]

Religion aside, people vote with their self interests first on instinct. No one votes to help their neighbor but fuck themselves, no amount of virtue signaling will convince me people do that unless they are in a privileged enough position to not have to worry about the effects of their vote.

I'm not accusing you of this, but I've seen it enough in my peer group to feel like a good number of people do this. People hate rich people until they realize how low the bar to be considered "rich" is, and subsequently hit that tax bracket over the course of a decade. Those same people realize their altruistic bullshit held zero worth, then they begin to grift and hold Democratic beliefs while sitting on their wealth (And probably still vote red).

This point EXCATLY is why I always qualify what wealth bracket I am talking about. Not income bracket, wealth bracket. Because apologies to any hard working doctors/attorneys but $400k/yr isn’t “rich” in the sense of discussing wealth taxes.

It’s a whole different conversation/topic for another day but I agree with you on this in general.

If someone tried creating the public library system today they’d be crucified.

Certain things can be “forced” and then people will realize they prefer, but it would go over more smoothly and have less pushback from interest groups once society “catches up” and decides they want it/are more open to the idea of voting for something they’d have to pay a bit for.

 

[Rock4ever]

I guess if conservatives want to win elections they should focus on having policies that more people actually support.

Abortion and immigration and maybe 2A aside, GOP and DEM priorities are aligned in many and possibly most other instances. Democrats really can no longer claim to be a pro labor focused party. I see the 2 parties like this- Both Dem and GOP largely want the same things and their driving two different vehicles to get at the same destination. I characterize the dems, especially the progressives as teens at the wheel of the car going down the highway and they've cut the brakes. The conservatives in contrast are the older couple on the highway riding the brakes, so they get there later. By then progressives are tired of waiting and the other crowd are labelled nazis/racist or some other form of faux REEEEE! outrage. I see incremental change as better than fast wholesale change because it's a hell of a lot harder to get a bad law off the books than it is to get them on. A caution for those who feel their moral convictions trump any lack of factual basis for the assumptions they've made to form them.

Small gov't vs big govt. This past year has exposed problems with big goverments and bureacracies. Smaller governments tend to be less over-leveraged hence more agile. Governments found in larger cities/blue states are much more over-leveraged, less agile. To make matters worse they treat government as an enterprise to be expanded. But government doesn't produce a fucking thing so they have to float a bond or put their tax payers on the hook for their service initiatives that in many cases only serve to grow the problem it seeks to remedy, projects which often face cost over runs. Don't be surprised if there are massive tax increases in many of these locations due to budget shortfalls caused by their lockdowns. Pols, our so called leaders are skilled in gauging which way the wind blows but would in the private sector would be largely incompetent people. Another issue is there's an increasing number of people in this country who believe it is goverment's obligation to take care of them and ensure their comfort. This is bullshit. A lot of these people believe a system of infinite resources is nigh and they want their's too. These people are exploited every 4 years, and to them I say may they enjoy the crumbs thrown their way.

Also, at the time only white men who owned land could vote. Maybe they didn't have the greatest ideas all the time and this is an outdated concept. Just a thought.[\QUOTE]

This would be a valid point if property and sex restrictions, and other items like the 3/5ths compromise were still in force

 

[USMarine75]

Do you think one state should be able to decide who is president? 2?

Do you think North Dakota and South Dakota should have twice the say of California?

 

[Rock4ever]

Do you think North Dakota and South Dakota should have twice the say of California?

Everyone agrees that ND/SD do not have twice the power of CA in determining who is elected president.

I've heard this on RT w/ Bill Maher so much I've lost count. What about IL, NY? After all their state populations are a fraction of CA.... To the point-what is your arbitrary threshold of acceptable on this? It's a crap argument.

Fine merge the Dakotas, but then merge Vermont with NH and possibly Maine, Delaware with MD....though I doubt you'd find those latter items palatable.

 

[diagrammatiks]

I've heard this on RT w/ Bill Maher so much I've lost count. What about IL, NY? After all their state populations are a fraction of CA.... To the point-what is your arbitrary threshold of acceptable on this?

Fine merge the Dakotas, but then merge Vermont with NH and possibly Maine, Delaware with MD....though I doubt you'd find those latter items palatable.

sure why not. The most people should have the say.

 

[StevenC]

Everyone agrees that ND/SD do not have twice the power of CA in determining who is elected president.

I've heard this on RT w/ Bill Maher so much I've lost count. What about IL, NY? After all their state populations are a fraction of CA.... To the point-what is your arbitrary threshold of acceptable on this? It's a crap argument.

Fine merge the Dakotas, but then merge Vermont with NH and possibly Maine, Delaware with MD....though I doubt you'd find those latter items palatable.

Electoral College votes should be approximately the same as population. That would fix the issue.

So if California has 40 million people, they should get 40 million electoral college votes. And if Wyoming has 600,000 people they should get 600,000 electoral college votes.

Ot take of the millions and call it 40 and 0.

 

[Rock4ever]

Electoral College votes should be approximately the same as population. That would fix the issue.

So if California has 40 million people, they should get 40 million electoral college votes. And if Wyoming has 600,000 people they should get 600,000 electoral college votes.

Ot take of the millions and call it 40 and 0.

Smh.... that’s a recipe for revolution.

 

[StevenC]

Smh.... that’s a recipe for revolution.

If you're in the minority, maybe.

Just admit you don't like democracy.