Electoral Reform Befitting a Republican Nation

[TastyWheat]

Before you jump down my throat, I meant Republican as in "this is a Republic."

Also, before you read my proposal you may want to read this article from Von Mises (http://mises.org/story/545). It's a very good read so if you don't want to now you should read it later.

(You can skip this introduction/rant)
I believe greatly that a Republican form of government is highly superior to a Democracy and that the people's desire for greater power will likely have adverse effects as the majority is neither well informed of government dealings nor particularly interested in participation that may change the direction of government. The people do not vote for ideas or ideologies or theories or philosophies. They vote for names and faces and parties and promises and handouts and favors and popularity. As the government and media continue to misinform the people and/or keep them ill-informed the people will continue to make misinformed and ill-informed decisions. Party and faction subverted the original system of election [of the President] by consolidating votes and marginalizing candidates. Returning to the original system of election would result in the same without certain modifications.

So, to my proposal. The electoral college should be maintained and it should be a necessary step in the election of the President. Electors should not be legally or morally bound to any single candidate or party. Electors should only be morally bound to their own convictions and principles. How then, should we choose these electors, so that they may decide without bias for a candidate or political party? Electors should be chosen by "lottery" and not by parties or politicians. Voters should not vote for parties or candidates [for President]. Voters should submit a ballot indicating their position on several important issues (which issues and what positions is up for discussion). Think of it more as a general survey than a vote. Electors shall then be chosen randomly but proportionally based on the responses of the citizens. A state with a majority of pro-life, pro-traditional marriage citizens should select a majority of electors that feel the same way. Again, once these electors are randomly chosen they are expected to cast their ballot [for President] in line with their survey answers, but it should not be unexpected for an elector representing the minority to vote in line with the majority. All citizens participating in this "survey" are eligible to be an elector provided they also fill out proper registration to be entered in the lottery.

Now, if you read the article above you would probably realize this system would be unlikely to elect a President based on the electoral college votes alone. This would then pass the decision on to the House of Representatives. Party and faction may still be had at this level, but they shall be limited to voting for one of the top five candidates only. A pre-determined nominee may not make it to this point, therefore a fair amount of compromise and discussion will be in order.

I know many of you would prefer the current system and you see the corruption and hypocrisy of the major parties as the biggest roadblock to a government more dedicated to the general welfare rather than a lust for power. However, the majority/people are all too easily swayed and I would gladly give up my well-informed vote so that 20 ill-informed votes are never cast.

[Truth Warrior]

Keep it simple!

"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."

[demolama]

The federal convention never wanted the people to elect the president directly... even if he/she was democratically elected through the states. They also rejected selection via the federal Congress and selection via the state legislatures. This was because they were afraid the president would be indebted to certain states or to the federal congress and not do what he feels was best for the country.

So the elector system was created. The problem was the electors went from being well informed citizens to protect against tyranny of the majority to becoming fixed to the popular vote of the state and to the parties.

There is no protection from majority rule because majority rule is embraced.

The proposition mentioned above sounds good on paper but doesn't change the fact that you have an uninformed populace. To take the electors and have a lottery only amounts to the same outcome with fewer people.

Only by reverting the federal government to the roll prescribed by the federal constitution that did not interfere with the internal going-ons of the states can the electoral college work. This means the president can not bride the electorate via wealth redistribution or any other means because normally the one that offers the most handouts usually gets the votes. With that eliminated you have people voting on mainly foreign policy

[TastyWheat]

Keep it simple!

"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."
I will decide all elections. Better?

[Truth Warrior]

I will decide all elections. Better? Nope! Simpler! :D

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

[Elwar]

Any survey would make the survey creator/creators king.

Are you in favor of Social Security reform?

Are you against the income tax in its current form?

Would you like a change in gun control regulation?

You could answer yes to all of these and get a communist who wants more of everything.

And you hardly see any polls taken on issues where the question asks whether or not we should get rid of any federal programs, just on how we should change it.

[TastyWheat]

The proposition mentioned above sounds good on paper but doesn't change the fact that you have an uninformed populace. To take the electors and have a lottery only amounts to the same outcome with fewer people.

Only by reverting the federal government to the roll prescribed by the federal constitution that did not interfere with the internal going-ons of the states can the electoral college work. This means the president can not bride the electorate via wealth redistribution or any other means because normally the one that offers the most handouts usually gets the votes. With that eliminated you have people voting on mainly foreign policy
I did leave out one thing, that electors will be mailed or have access to any and all materials the candidates provide for review. The objective of the proposal is to have the electors unbound to specific parties or candidates, legally, formally, and morally, and provide them with the necessary materials to make an informed choice (whether or not they review the materials cannot be guaranteed). It could be reasonably assumed that, since entrance to the lottery is voluntary, the chosen electors would be willing to "do some homework."

I would also make the stipulation that no elected official (possibly no government employee) could be an elector.

No idea, reform is perfect, but I think many things about the current system are flawed.

[Elwar]

I would like to have a non-profit organization pay voters to go sit in a booth for a half hour (or however long) before they vote and watch a series of videos submitted by each candidate.

Give people insentives to go into the booth, keep their place in line if there's a line.

I just find it so hard to believe that people vote for a candidate based on signs that they see as they're driving.

[Truth Warrior]

I would like to have a non-profit organization pay voters to go sit in a booth for a half hour (or however long) before they vote and watch a series of videos submitted by each candidate.

Give people insentives to go into the booth, keep their place in line if there's a line.

I just find it so hard to believe that people vote for a candidate based on signs that they see as they're driving.

"We shall get nowhere until we start by recognizing that political behavior is largely non-rational, that the world is suffering from some kind of mental disease which must be diagnosed before it can be cured. " -- George Orwell

[TastyWheat]

"We shall get nowhere until we start by recognizing that political behavior is largely non-rational, that the world is suffering from some kind of mental disease which must be diagnosed before it can be cured. " -- George Orwell
It's called ignorance and complacency. The problem I'm trying to address, and the problem originally addressed by our electoral system, is that the majority are ill-informed and misinformed. You can only resolve that problem by educating the public, the majority will not educate themselves voluntarily, or by putting decision making in the hands of those who are more likely to be informed (as per my proposal).

"The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit." -- W. Somerset Maugham

[american.swan]

"We shall get nowhere until we start by recognizing that political behavior is largely non-rational, that the world is suffering from some kind of mental disease which must be diagnosed before it can be cured. " -- George Orwell

True, 98% of all choice is emotional, not rational. Even "rational" people emotionally choose to be rational. It's all emotion.

[demolama]

It's called ignorance and complacency. The problem I'm trying to address, and the problem originally addressed by our electoral system, is that the majority are ill-informed and misinformed. You can only resolve that problem by educating the public, the majority will not educate themselves voluntarily, or by putting decision making in the hands of those who are more likely to be informed (as per my proposal).


That's why voting in this country was limited to white male men age 21 or older who owned land. They had money because they owned land and therefore could afford the education. They understood that taking away others property was unethical because they didn't want it to happen to them.

You think someone who doesn't own anything cares about others property? No, they'll be more likely to vote for those offering to rob Peter to pay Paul.


There are lots of writing around about why they limited voting to certain criteria

[TastyWheat]

That's why voting in this country was limited to white male men age 21 or older who owned land. They had money because they owned land and therefore could afford the education. They understood that taking away others property was unethical because they didn't want it to happen to them.

You think someone who doesn't own anything cares about others property? No, they'll be more likely to vote for those offering to rob Peter to pay Paul.


There are lots of writing around about why they limited voting to certain criteria
Exactly my point. We've gone from a system where the people did not vote for President at all to a system where even the homeless can register and vote.