Last week, we had to wait in hours-long lines and attend a two-hour presentation on Republican values before we were allowed to vote in the US primaries. I scribbled my vote for Utah’s presidential candidate on a piece of scrap paper and put it in an ice cream bucket.
The ice cream bucket where we put our votes.
The result? Only 85,797 people in Utah voted in the Republican primary. Donald Trump beat Nicki Haley by only 11,729 votes.
Compare that to 2020 when we were allowed to vote by mail: 344,852 people voted.
The reason so few people voted? This year the Republican party decided that they were going to caucus instead of vote.
There can be no doubt in my mind that caucusing should be illegal. It’s a tool used by parties to weed out some voters.
But this is The Elysian where the goal is not to talk about the problems but to come up with the solutions. So I’m putting it to you for a creative worldbuilding exercise:
How should we vote in the future?
Give me every crazy idea you can come up for the future of voting—let’s discuss them together in the comments!
I think the idea of Tuesday elections is an obscenity. I would favor weekends, and I feel that mail-in and "early voting" options should be open as well. These would increase participation.
Only slightly off-topic but relevant nonetheless: Many have lauded the notion of "ranked choice," but the bigger problem here is that the USA is a duopoly. I favor a system in which multiple parties participate: the parliamentarian ideal, with representation proportional to ideology. Notwithstanding its inherent drawbacks, it is far more "democratic," for what that might be worth. New parties can be formed and -- as we have witnessed in France and Greece -- rise to power within a few years. Such enhanced choice would bring many of the disgruntled (e.g., those who identify with the GOP but hate Trump; those who are progressive and despise Biden) to the polls, necessitating various improvements with access.
Finally, the Electoral College is an abomination. We would have FAR more people vote if we went to a direct election. Why vote for president in a deep-red state (e.g., Texas) or deep-blue state (e.g., Massachusetts), when the outcome is a fordrawn conclusion. However, if the popular vote mattered, we would have greater participation, which in turn might prompt our "shakers-and-movers" to find better ways to facilitate the process.
I can't resist starting with: we shouldn't! Representation is a lie! Every vote is an abdication! Voting is the biggest curtain they've pulled over our eyes yet!
Said with a little more nuance: we should vote on decisions, not for people. Politicians are parasitical by nature. When it's necessary for a community to send a delegation to coordinate major decisions btwn big groups (knowing these would be fewer in a freer society than we have now), they should only be compensated for travel costs (transport, lodging, food, etc), and they should return to their communities once the decisions are made. (Or they could be made remotely.)
In the meantime, local decisions that cant be made through consensus should be voted on directly by the people involved, with avenues for dissenting opinions to be heard.
By which I meant not all-party, but all-people voting locally in Swiss-style town meetings not divided by party. And with raise your hand ballotting so we can see what's happening, or at the least, this kind of write your candidate on literally a scrap of paper thirty to fifty person local party-style, with seven of your neighbors looking over the shoulder while the count is being done: it's transparent.
I didn't say, and it's off point to this one, but it's a problem that candidates self-select, and only then we choose from among them. Instead: (in my new proposed system) we gather (all party) locally by block: fifty to a hundred people, and divide up into tables of five people, closed ballot, scrap of paper, select one of the five. So we've selected out of a hundred, twenty people with the goal of selecting twenty who don't want to be in Congress or who don't want to be President, but who we do trust. Of course, out of 300 million people, we've selected sixty million presidential candidates (or a set of local selection comittees totalling that number), but if we follow a similar process, we'll have our candidates for the final series of all-party runnoffs.
In the current system, we first find out who wants to run, but if our selection process is a gradual potential candidate (or even selection comittee) list building process, the people on the list don't have to commit to four years of hell in office, but only to either serve on a selection comittee or to hazaard the tiny risk they might get the horrible and increasingly dangerous job of President. If anything, it would involve self deselection, snd not self selection. We do away with running for public office as find your spiritual gift and replace it with: duty, honor, country.
I vote for telepathy lol. No, really, I'm not joking.
I come from a country with the Westminister system, so it's very different from America's. I am watching the elections in US with a bit trepidation. BTW the Westminster system is no better for my country. Malaysia actually had a political coup during the pandemic and we got saddled with a government we didn't elect due to some stupid technicality. WE managed to turn it around but I think the next election will be as fraught. Frankly, I am just waiting for our own Donald Trump moment.
Frankly, I have fallen out of love with democracy, at least, the democracy we have now. It's far too easy to manipulate people so that the popular person gets into power.
I don't want popular people to get into power. I want capable people with a string of achievements, who has walked the talk and really made real change to get into the hot seat of a country.
I don't want people who can spin, give good speeches to win.
How do we create a system that enables that? That's the question.
Until there is a system where the BEST and most capable candidates are given the spotlight and chance to rule, voting is rather useless IMHO.
I feel this. My best friend is Mayalsian and he vents about the same stuff too. More universally, I think you're right that voting, and democracy itself, is set up to make sure the rich and powerful stay that way.
As to what kind of system would enable the best people to make decisions, I think that's no system at all. As in, not that everything is chaos, but that why do we assume someone has to make decisions for us? Aren't we the ones who know what's best for our own lives?
What that looks like in practice will depend on context and culture, but it will probably not look like representative democracy.
My opinion is a bit controversial because ... I don't think all people are educated enough to vote. For example, during Malaysia's last election 18-year-olds were allowed to vote. Many people thought this was a victory. But it turned out they voted en masse for an extremist Islamic group because they had been really active on Tik Tok.
Of course, since I've not done in-depth study on what really happened I may be wrong, but this was the general perception of what happened. Some people also "rage vote" to "show the government", not realising that the govt the inadvertently elect could do terrible damage to the government eventually.
I wish there was a solution, but personally I'm starting to lean towards "democracy is an utter mess" right now lol. I even think of China's system of governance as superior now, and I knooooow many people will attack me for that. But since Elle's place is a safer space that Notes, I'll dare to say this haha.
I do not like their authoritarian ways of doing things, but since I *also* come from a relatively authoritarian govt, I'm kinda "used" to it or more accepting? What I admire about their system is that they only the most capable politicians rise to the top. For an official to end where Xi Jin Ping is, he'd have to have a successful track record of managing towns, cities, states, government agencies and then eventually the country. It is by no means 100% meritocratic. I'm sure there's some wheelin' and dealin' going on, but it apalls me to know how unqualified some people in charge of ministries are in my country. Like, they place people who have zilch experience in healthcare in charge of healthcare for example.
Now, a system like that would make me comfortable to cast my vote... and if we can cast our votes based on performance rather than a person's personality and beliefs, it could be better.
From a country that often enjoys over 100% voter participation, more votes is not always a good thing. Those votes should represent legal voters, and real people. Please try again without the unspoken assumptions.
The former is straightforward. Voting day is a holiday. Registration is automatic. Mail ballots for anyone who wants one. I don’t favor compulsory voting, but making it as easy as possible ensures that anyone who wants to, can.
As for making it representative, I’d make elections use ranked choice voting. On the ballot, you select your first choice, but also your second, third…
Both parties nominate candidates that nobody wants (whether because they’re too old—or say—a convicted rapist)? That’s fine, you can vote third party without fear that you’ll be handing the election to the worst option. Naturally, the number of parties expands, and they actually get seats in government. Even when they don’t, the mainstream candidates can clearly see what factions are pulling votes and adjust their positions and attitudes for next time. The ideological diversity of the US is increased and our representatives are more representative of what we actually think and want.
All of this creates a positive loop where people feel their vote is meaningful, they engage more, and we have an even more robust democracy.
Now that is a lovely short-term goal! I don't think government of any kind is ultimately good, but I would get behind these reforms you've suggested all the way.
I've heard of this new invention called the computer. Some people even have their own portable computer which fits in their pocket! Each person's computer can talk to each other person's computer. Maybe there is a way to identify each person by their computer and let them cast a vote from home? It sounds a bit crazy, but I hear some people even send in their taxes from their computers, so it must be pretty secure.
I think ice cream bucket is for sure the future of voting..only after watching a video about why we should vote for the person who is going to change everything that is broken
I kinda like the idea of doing away with "voting" all together. How? Lots of small opinion polls throughout our digital lives. Then we just put all the opinion polls together into a consensus "view of the will of the people" and use that as what we act on. It's a rough thought, but it's in-line with how I'd see a post democracy world too. I.e. in the US there is overwhelming public support for reasonable gun control. With this new system we could actually enable reasonable gun control. Need more nuance on what's reasonable? Just do more opion polls. Essentially we crowdsource legislation bit by bit.
Voting isn’t the right process for humans to solve problems. It leaves our weakest link, leaders, subject to corruption. Our epistemology should start with a problem, then try to solve it as a group. In this way a direct democracy on blockchain would work.
Well, obviously, they should let just me nominate and vote instead of everyone else. One vote to rule them all! 🤣
Seriously, voter turnout would improve dramatically if the two entrenched political parties gave us someone worth voting for. Independents like me really have no voice in government. Neither party represents me. Voting is an exercise in futility for me. Almost anything would be an improvement.
By the way, here in North Carolina, when I voted in the primary, since I am unaffiliated, I just had to choose a party to vote in their primary. It took about five minutes total. Plus the two-minute walk from my house. Not that it really mattered. It was basically already decided. But it made my conscience feel slightly better.
Ha! I feel you about not having either party represent me. I wonder if that's most of the US actually? And we have to do the same thing here: pick a party so we can vote in the primary, and since there is only one primary that counts (Utah is always red), everyone is registered as as a republican whether they are or not, just so they can vote for our candidates.
I read recently that 40% of Americans consider themselves independent. And the rest are split fairly evenly at roughly 30% Republican and 30% Democrat. So every election 30% of the population controls government and 70% have to endure it. That's how broken the two-party system is. Neither party truly represents the majority.
Wow!!!! Yeah that is not representation! I read that Switzerland has four parties and the head of each is part of the council that governs. That makes a lot more sense to me.
If they can cooperate, that seems ideal. Here it has become a winner take all mentality. Compromise has gone out of fashion.
Before the 12th amendment in 1804, the Vice President was awarded to the runner up in votes. So we had a President and Vice President from different parties in the case of John Adams (President - Federalists) and Thomas Jeffersin (Vice President - Democratic-Republican Party.)
Although John Adams opposed political parties in theory and considered them a detriment to good government (as did George Washington, who refused to declare a party.), he realized they were already necessary to get elected.
For legislative seats where representation is most important (especially the lower house of a bicameral legislature, where experience may be less important), candidates should have to convince at least 50 people to vote for them, then the representatives be randomly selected from among those who receive at least 50 votes. This would mean that ordinary people who are respected within their communities enough to receive 50 votes could have an equal chance of governing. It would break the monopoly of parties and eliminate the corrupting influence of money in elections. The average politician who runs competitively for major elected office today almost has to be an insane psychopath, whereas the average person who could get 50 friends to vote for them on the off chance that they get selected is probably an unusually intelligent, sensible person worthy of that confidence.
If voting could change anything (in the elite's preferred and chosen status-quo), it would have been made illegal a long time ago.
As long as revolving doors, lobbyists, FED, cronyism, corporatism, insider-business, deep mingling by ADL & AIPAC, appalling federal debt, utterly sick health-system, heavy corruption in all echelons of administration, manipulation of ballot-machines, etc., etc. are rampant, the basics for a democratic voting with solid, positive results for the citizens are not given.
The only kind of vote under those conditions and in case you still want to stay in the US territory, is not to play the "game", opt out of the system by decentralization, building small, self-sustained and -responsible communities, even by secession of entire states from the sick juggernaut.
Good luck with that !! You ALREADY are being considered a domestic terrorist controlled by Putin or the CCP ...🤣🤣🤣
More fruitful would even be a final bye bye and a move to some other, more moral, sustainable and safe kind of jurisdiction.
The fans are whirring, the s*it is being piled-up, mountain ranges of it. Brace for what is to come !!
oss the country. Here in Oregon when you turn 18 and you're a citizen, you are automatically registered to vote. Ballots are mailed to your legal address. You vote, put a stamp on it, and toss it in the mail. It's virtually error-free and tamper proof. Weigh that against poor souls staniing in line to vote in machines or buckets, who can be barred by voting based on how they look or where they live. Here in Oregon you can also update your info easily online, including your party affiliation, and change it back any time. So if you want to vote for Biden in the Republican primary you can do that.
2. Get rid of the Electoral College and just tally the popular vote. The E College was created to keep populist autocrats from gaining office, and it completely failed.
3. I'm not sure if we can change or improve our current bicameral, two-party system, but perhaps ranked choices would work in some cases. And certainly if a major party endorses a treasonous felon con artist as President, and has no other platform except for theocracy, we should be able to shred that party and move on to the next viable choice.
Here’s a good starting point. A single binary vote for a particular candidate doesn’t communicate anything more than “I like him better than the other candidates.” It doesn’t communicate a voter’s passion regarding specific issues. How can we communicate passion for specific issues with votes?
Glad you like. The best analogy that I’ve heard about our current method of voting is that it resembles grocery shopping if the contents of shopping carts have been pre-selected for you. Your job is then to look over the different contents of each cart and decide which you like best.
Ranked choice voting online for a set period of time.
Seems doable!
Ranked-choice vote would at the very least lessen the "lesser of two evils" dilemma that bad leaders weaponize against their own voters
I think the idea of Tuesday elections is an obscenity. I would favor weekends, and I feel that mail-in and "early voting" options should be open as well. These would increase participation.
Only slightly off-topic but relevant nonetheless: Many have lauded the notion of "ranked choice," but the bigger problem here is that the USA is a duopoly. I favor a system in which multiple parties participate: the parliamentarian ideal, with representation proportional to ideology. Notwithstanding its inherent drawbacks, it is far more "democratic," for what that might be worth. New parties can be formed and -- as we have witnessed in France and Greece -- rise to power within a few years. Such enhanced choice would bring many of the disgruntled (e.g., those who identify with the GOP but hate Trump; those who are progressive and despise Biden) to the polls, necessitating various improvements with access.
Finally, the Electoral College is an abomination. We would have FAR more people vote if we went to a direct election. Why vote for president in a deep-red state (e.g., Texas) or deep-blue state (e.g., Massachusetts), when the outcome is a fordrawn conclusion. However, if the popular vote mattered, we would have greater participation, which in turn might prompt our "shakers-and-movers" to find better ways to facilitate the process.
Agree with you about the parties. Switzerland has four that all get a seat at the table. It makes sense, we are not represented by two belief systems!
I can't resist starting with: we shouldn't! Representation is a lie! Every vote is an abdication! Voting is the biggest curtain they've pulled over our eyes yet!
Said with a little more nuance: we should vote on decisions, not for people. Politicians are parasitical by nature. When it's necessary for a community to send a delegation to coordinate major decisions btwn big groups (knowing these would be fewer in a freer society than we have now), they should only be compensated for travel costs (transport, lodging, food, etc), and they should return to their communities once the decisions are made. (Or they could be made remotely.)
In the meantime, local decisions that cant be made through consensus should be voted on directly by the people involved, with avenues for dissenting opinions to be heard.
That's off the top of my head!
Haha! Love your hot take/nuanced take. I agree with voting directly on what we want. Rather than people!
All party caucuses.
By which I meant not all-party, but all-people voting locally in Swiss-style town meetings not divided by party. And with raise your hand ballotting so we can see what's happening, or at the least, this kind of write your candidate on literally a scrap of paper thirty to fifty person local party-style, with seven of your neighbors looking over the shoulder while the count is being done: it's transparent.
I didn't say, and it's off point to this one, but it's a problem that candidates self-select, and only then we choose from among them. Instead: (in my new proposed system) we gather (all party) locally by block: fifty to a hundred people, and divide up into tables of five people, closed ballot, scrap of paper, select one of the five. So we've selected out of a hundred, twenty people with the goal of selecting twenty who don't want to be in Congress or who don't want to be President, but who we do trust. Of course, out of 300 million people, we've selected sixty million presidential candidates (or a set of local selection comittees totalling that number), but if we follow a similar process, we'll have our candidates for the final series of all-party runnoffs.
In the current system, we first find out who wants to run, but if our selection process is a gradual potential candidate (or even selection comittee) list building process, the people on the list don't have to commit to four years of hell in office, but only to either serve on a selection comittee or to hazaard the tiny risk they might get the horrible and increasingly dangerous job of President. If anything, it would involve self deselection, snd not self selection. We do away with running for public office as find your spiritual gift and replace it with: duty, honor, country.
I vote for telepathy lol. No, really, I'm not joking.
I come from a country with the Westminister system, so it's very different from America's. I am watching the elections in US with a bit trepidation. BTW the Westminster system is no better for my country. Malaysia actually had a political coup during the pandemic and we got saddled with a government we didn't elect due to some stupid technicality. WE managed to turn it around but I think the next election will be as fraught. Frankly, I am just waiting for our own Donald Trump moment.
Frankly, I have fallen out of love with democracy, at least, the democracy we have now. It's far too easy to manipulate people so that the popular person gets into power.
I don't want popular people to get into power. I want capable people with a string of achievements, who has walked the talk and really made real change to get into the hot seat of a country.
I don't want people who can spin, give good speeches to win.
How do we create a system that enables that? That's the question.
Until there is a system where the BEST and most capable candidates are given the spotlight and chance to rule, voting is rather useless IMHO.
I feel this. My best friend is Mayalsian and he vents about the same stuff too. More universally, I think you're right that voting, and democracy itself, is set up to make sure the rich and powerful stay that way.
As to what kind of system would enable the best people to make decisions, I think that's no system at all. As in, not that everything is chaos, but that why do we assume someone has to make decisions for us? Aren't we the ones who know what's best for our own lives?
What that looks like in practice will depend on context and culture, but it will probably not look like representative democracy.
My opinion is a bit controversial because ... I don't think all people are educated enough to vote. For example, during Malaysia's last election 18-year-olds were allowed to vote. Many people thought this was a victory. But it turned out they voted en masse for an extremist Islamic group because they had been really active on Tik Tok.
Of course, since I've not done in-depth study on what really happened I may be wrong, but this was the general perception of what happened. Some people also "rage vote" to "show the government", not realising that the govt the inadvertently elect could do terrible damage to the government eventually.
I wish there was a solution, but personally I'm starting to lean towards "democracy is an utter mess" right now lol. I even think of China's system of governance as superior now, and I knooooow many people will attack me for that. But since Elle's place is a safer space that Notes, I'll dare to say this haha.
I do not like their authoritarian ways of doing things, but since I *also* come from a relatively authoritarian govt, I'm kinda "used" to it or more accepting? What I admire about their system is that they only the most capable politicians rise to the top. For an official to end where Xi Jin Ping is, he'd have to have a successful track record of managing towns, cities, states, government agencies and then eventually the country. It is by no means 100% meritocratic. I'm sure there's some wheelin' and dealin' going on, but it apalls me to know how unqualified some people in charge of ministries are in my country. Like, they place people who have zilch experience in healthcare in charge of healthcare for example.
Now, a system like that would make me comfortable to cast my vote... and if we can cast our votes based on performance rather than a person's personality and beliefs, it could be better.
From a country that often enjoys over 100% voter participation, more votes is not always a good thing. Those votes should represent legal voters, and real people. Please try again without the unspoken assumptions.
Mail in ballots should also be illegal.
Vote in person with an ID. Simples. If you can’t due to disability that can be proven then you can get someone to vote on your behalf.
1. Make voting easy.
2. Make voting representative.
The former is straightforward. Voting day is a holiday. Registration is automatic. Mail ballots for anyone who wants one. I don’t favor compulsory voting, but making it as easy as possible ensures that anyone who wants to, can.
As for making it representative, I’d make elections use ranked choice voting. On the ballot, you select your first choice, but also your second, third…
Both parties nominate candidates that nobody wants (whether because they’re too old—or say—a convicted rapist)? That’s fine, you can vote third party without fear that you’ll be handing the election to the worst option. Naturally, the number of parties expands, and they actually get seats in government. Even when they don’t, the mainstream candidates can clearly see what factions are pulling votes and adjust their positions and attitudes for next time. The ideological diversity of the US is increased and our representatives are more representative of what we actually think and want.
All of this creates a positive loop where people feel their vote is meaningful, they engage more, and we have an even more robust democracy.
Now that is a lovely short-term goal! I don't think government of any kind is ultimately good, but I would get behind these reforms you've suggested all the way.
I've heard of this new invention called the computer. Some people even have their own portable computer which fits in their pocket! Each person's computer can talk to each other person's computer. Maybe there is a way to identify each person by their computer and let them cast a vote from home? It sounds a bit crazy, but I hear some people even send in their taxes from their computers, so it must be pretty secure.
Online voting for the win......
I think ice cream bucket is for sure the future of voting..only after watching a video about why we should vote for the person who is going to change everything that is broken
HA! Then we're doing it right!
Quadratic voting could be used by representatives or by voters in a direct democracy fashion
I kinda like the idea of doing away with "voting" all together. How? Lots of small opinion polls throughout our digital lives. Then we just put all the opinion polls together into a consensus "view of the will of the people" and use that as what we act on. It's a rough thought, but it's in-line with how I'd see a post democracy world too. I.e. in the US there is overwhelming public support for reasonable gun control. With this new system we could actually enable reasonable gun control. Need more nuance on what's reasonable? Just do more opion polls. Essentially we crowdsource legislation bit by bit.
YES! Direct democracy!!!!!!
Voting isn’t the right process for humans to solve problems. It leaves our weakest link, leaders, subject to corruption. Our epistemology should start with a problem, then try to solve it as a group. In this way a direct democracy on blockchain would work.
Using a collective intelligence system like this
https://open.substack.com/pub/joshketry/p/direct-democracy-is-the-answer-lets?r=7oa9d&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Well, obviously, they should let just me nominate and vote instead of everyone else. One vote to rule them all! 🤣
Seriously, voter turnout would improve dramatically if the two entrenched political parties gave us someone worth voting for. Independents like me really have no voice in government. Neither party represents me. Voting is an exercise in futility for me. Almost anything would be an improvement.
By the way, here in North Carolina, when I voted in the primary, since I am unaffiliated, I just had to choose a party to vote in their primary. It took about five minutes total. Plus the two-minute walk from my house. Not that it really mattered. It was basically already decided. But it made my conscience feel slightly better.
Ha! I feel you about not having either party represent me. I wonder if that's most of the US actually? And we have to do the same thing here: pick a party so we can vote in the primary, and since there is only one primary that counts (Utah is always red), everyone is registered as as a republican whether they are or not, just so they can vote for our candidates.
I read recently that 40% of Americans consider themselves independent. And the rest are split fairly evenly at roughly 30% Republican and 30% Democrat. So every election 30% of the population controls government and 70% have to endure it. That's how broken the two-party system is. Neither party truly represents the majority.
Wow!!!! Yeah that is not representation! I read that Switzerland has four parties and the head of each is part of the council that governs. That makes a lot more sense to me.
If they can cooperate, that seems ideal. Here it has become a winner take all mentality. Compromise has gone out of fashion.
Before the 12th amendment in 1804, the Vice President was awarded to the runner up in votes. So we had a President and Vice President from different parties in the case of John Adams (President - Federalists) and Thomas Jeffersin (Vice President - Democratic-Republican Party.)
Although John Adams opposed political parties in theory and considered them a detriment to good government (as did George Washington, who refused to declare a party.), he realized they were already necessary to get elected.
Good points.....
For legislative seats where representation is most important (especially the lower house of a bicameral legislature, where experience may be less important), candidates should have to convince at least 50 people to vote for them, then the representatives be randomly selected from among those who receive at least 50 votes. This would mean that ordinary people who are respected within their communities enough to receive 50 votes could have an equal chance of governing. It would break the monopoly of parties and eliminate the corrupting influence of money in elections. The average politician who runs competitively for major elected office today almost has to be an insane psychopath, whereas the average person who could get 50 friends to vote for them on the off chance that they get selected is probably an unusually intelligent, sensible person worthy of that confidence.
{...How should we vote in the future?...}🤔🤔🤔
If voting could change anything (in the elite's preferred and chosen status-quo), it would have been made illegal a long time ago.
As long as revolving doors, lobbyists, FED, cronyism, corporatism, insider-business, deep mingling by ADL & AIPAC, appalling federal debt, utterly sick health-system, heavy corruption in all echelons of administration, manipulation of ballot-machines, etc., etc. are rampant, the basics for a democratic voting with solid, positive results for the citizens are not given.
The only kind of vote under those conditions and in case you still want to stay in the US territory, is not to play the "game", opt out of the system by decentralization, building small, self-sustained and -responsible communities, even by secession of entire states from the sick juggernaut.
Good luck with that !! You ALREADY are being considered a domestic terrorist controlled by Putin or the CCP ...🤣🤣🤣
More fruitful would even be a final bye bye and a move to some other, more moral, sustainable and safe kind of jurisdiction.
The fans are whirring, the s*it is being piled-up, mountain ranges of it. Brace for what is to come !!
We could build new systems and migrate to them then plug them into the current voting system and take things over.
Like this
https://open.substack.com/pub/joshketry/p/how-to-fix-corrupt-government-in?r=7oa9d&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
They should make it even harder to vote. More votes = more people who don’t care and don’t anything deciding our leaders
1. Vote by mail should be mandatory acr
oss the country. Here in Oregon when you turn 18 and you're a citizen, you are automatically registered to vote. Ballots are mailed to your legal address. You vote, put a stamp on it, and toss it in the mail. It's virtually error-free and tamper proof. Weigh that against poor souls staniing in line to vote in machines or buckets, who can be barred by voting based on how they look or where they live. Here in Oregon you can also update your info easily online, including your party affiliation, and change it back any time. So if you want to vote for Biden in the Republican primary you can do that.
2. Get rid of the Electoral College and just tally the popular vote. The E College was created to keep populist autocrats from gaining office, and it completely failed.
3. I'm not sure if we can change or improve our current bicameral, two-party system, but perhaps ranked choices would work in some cases. And certainly if a major party endorses a treasonous felon con artist as President, and has no other platform except for theocracy, we should be able to shred that party and move on to the next viable choice.
We usually have vote by mail here too and it is truly the best! Agreed that the electoral college doesn't work and that we need a better party system.
Here’s a good starting point. A single binary vote for a particular candidate doesn’t communicate anything more than “I like him better than the other candidates.” It doesn’t communicate a voter’s passion regarding specific issues. How can we communicate passion for specific issues with votes?
One way would be to give each voter 100 votes which they can then allocate to issues and candidates in any way they want.
I love this idea!!!!!!
Glad you like. The best analogy that I’ve heard about our current method of voting is that it resembles grocery shopping if the contents of shopping carts have been pre-selected for you. Your job is then to look over the different contents of each cart and decide which you like best.
Sure doesn't seem ideal. I'd rather pick and choose all the items in my cart! 😊
Yes. Me too. How about we write a short story about this?