Jump to content
270soft Forum

House Democrats have introduced a resolution to abolish the electoral college


Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, PoliticalPundit said:

Destroying the country. It gets worse and worse every day. 

 

 

Yay! This would be the greatest political reform in the US in the 21st century. Happy Days Could Be Here Again! Imagine a US with no GW Bush and no Trump. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/ResearchContent/theantifederalistpapers.pdf (pg. 211)

The first-past-the-post system whether electoral college or popular vote is undemocratic though.

Also, Congress might as well be elected by proportional representation. An anti-Trump conservative party may be able to win seats and people like me (anti-Trump conservatives) might have a choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My ideal reform would be an end to the electoral college, establishment of instant-runoff for all Senate and Presidential Elections, with the House constituted of a proportional representation of each state's vote.

 

That'd probably be the fairest you could make the entire system, as that's the most devolution of electoral power away from the parties and to the people, and the less power the two political parties have, the better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2021 at 1:22 AM, IndependentPerson said:

https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/ResearchContent/theantifederalistpapers.pdf (pg. 211)

The first-past-the-post system whether electoral college or popular vote is undemocratic though.

Also, Congress might as well be elected by proportional representation. An anti-Trump conservative party may be able to win seats and people like me (anti-Trump conservatives) might have a choice.

Goes both ways (I say this as a pro-Trump liberal).

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Anthony_270 said:

Enlightened monarchy is def the way to go.

I don't know if this is a joke or not. Depends if the monarch is truly enlightened. The downside is that the successor might not be. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I don't know if this is a joke or not. Depends if the monarch is truly enlightened. The downside is that the successor might not be. 

Yep, that's the problem with enlightened monarchies. 😉

I would judge political systems by outcomes. How well is system A doing compared to system B? Problem is that political systems work differently for different peoples.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Anthony_270 said:

I would judge political systems by outcomes. How well is system A doing compared to system B? Problem is that political systems work differently for different peoples.

This is my philosophy too, which is why I'm often okay with deviating from stereotypical progressive politics. I'm not trying to follow a template or cram in a philosophy, I'm trying to resolve an issue. It's just that most of what I think will work, generally falls in the progressive category, and most of the politicians that I think at least overtly give a shit about these issues happen to be Democrats. So I'm in that sphere by default but not by any inspiration or loyalty for Democrats. 

I'll accept private sphere or privatization if it resolves the issue without causing more problems. I'll accept States Rights and limited government if it resolves the issue without causing more problems. I'll name every social policy program after a Republican if that's what needs to be done to get the issue resolved. 

I think my best idea for decreasing tension is my idea of an exception clause and opt-out clause on legislation. It would deflate so many causes of tension. I've had this idea since about 2012.  Just to recap:

  • There are two ways a state is forced to comply to a Federal law under my system:
    • The state does not apply the "exception clause" or "opt-out clause," thereby embracing the law. 
    • The bill has been marked "essential" and the "essential" tag has passed Senate and US House by 60% of the vote. If passed as "essential," then the state is forced to accept the law. 
  • There are two ways a state is allowed to "nullify" the law in their state: 
    • A bill is not marked "essential," and the state has a state alternative to the law that is considered a reasonable alternative and so they can enact the "exception clause". The state legislature would vote to enact the "exception clause," and a US Senate Committee would confirm if the alternative is "reasonable" or not. The reasons for it not being "reasonable" would be given, and recommendations to make it "reasonable" would be given. The state makes the adjustments, or accepts the federal alternative, or applies the "opt-out clause". 
    • A bill is not marked "essential," the state can't apply the "exception clause," so the state applies the "opt-out clause." The state can be free of this federal legislation but at the expense of a "reasonable" deduction of their state federal aid. The state legislature would first propose how much of a financial penalty they should receive. A US Senate Committee will confirm the state suggested penalty or not. If not, they'll recommend a different penalty amount. Once determined, this goes back to the state. They can accept the deduction of federal aid to their state as determined by the committee or they can accept the federal law, or they can attempt to apply the "exception clause." 

My idea is that most Blue States would join in on a lot of the non-essential legislation. It's generally good to get more states involved, so in order to do so, it's puts more urgency in creating a Federal policy that is efficient, so that voters in the Red and Purple states want to join in with the Blue States. Likewise, the State alternatives might inspire better upgrades to the Federal alternative as it tries to complete with the states. At the same time, Red States and Purple states won't have the same cause of anger when dealing with a Democrat majority Congress or President. Likewise, Blue states won't have to fear legislation form a GOP Congress or President. In short, the federal government would work partially as a pace car, allow states agency to create similar or better alternatives that aim to resolve issues without creating more problems. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...