Govt & Election Reform Mega Thread

I brought up the Alaska voting change in another thread that will surely get lost there and I wanted to look into it a bit more.

https://thefulcrum.us/big-picture/alaska-ballot-measure

As a result, starting in two years Alaska will replace traditional partisan primaries with single contests open to all candidates for governor and other state executive offices, each seat in the Legislature and the three spots in Congress. The top four finishers, regardless of party affiliation, will advance to the general election, at which point voters will rank their options to decide the winner. And all legislative and local races will face strict new disclosure requirements about the sources of campaign spending.

While a handful of states have adopted open top-two primary systems, Alaska will be the first with primaries that advance even more candidates to the November ballot — increasing the likelihood that people who are not Republicans or Democrats will be able to compete in many races.
Click to expand...


I am a fan of ranked choice voting, but I think the real big change here is the open primary. Apparently in Alaska over 60% of eligible voters aren't registered with either Rs or Ds so less than half of the population was determining the choices with closed primaries. This will hopefully allow politicians to avoid having to move to the far end of the left or right if they don't really belong there just to win their primary. 

My one worry with this is that I could potentially see 3rd party candidates being boxed out of the final election. For instance if Murkowski, Palin and two respected Ds in the state all run there is a very real chance a Libertarian and Green Party candidate could be boxed out of the final ballot. Will need to look deeper to see just how the open primary is going to work exactly.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in their next election cycle. Could be a model for reform nationwide that goes even further than Maine's recent changes.

 
With the recent conversion of major companies pausing political donations to some R’s or to any political party for a period of time, this may present a golden opportunity to get big corporate money, union money, and PAC/Super/PAC money out of politics for good.  
 

I don’t know the campaign laws very well cause I don’t donate to anyone.  If I have my facts wrong, I apologize but you will understand my overall point.  
I would support some sort of reform that limits the amount of money a company/union/ can donate to a candidate to equal the amount of money a person can donate, no more.  I would also love to figure out a way to lessen the financial impact Super Pacs can have on an election.  
I would love to have some sort of advertising reform that says one candidate can not reference their opponent and only speak to what he/she is going to run on.  Lastly, I wish we could get to a point where candidates had to take government funding for a campaign instead of raising outside money or using their own personnel money.  
 

Lastly on election reform, we should have term limits across the board.  I can’t think of anything else that would have more impact on governing than that.  Politicians would not be beholden to getting elected, instead towards governing 

I know this is mostly fantasy wish list, but I think it would make for a better system. 

 
Archy1221 said:
With the recent conversion of major companies pausing political donations to some R’s or to any political party for a period of time, this may present a golden opportunity to get big corporate money, union money, and PAC/Super/PAC money out of politics for good.  
 

I don’t know the campaign laws very well cause I don’t donate to anyone.  If I have my facts wrong, I apologize but you will understand my overall point.  
I would support some sort of reform that limits the amount of money a company/union/ can donate to a candidate to equal the amount of money a person can donate, no more.  I would also love to figure out a way to lessen the financial impact Super Pacs can have on an election.  
I would love to have some sort of advertising reform that says one candidate can not reference their opponent and only speak to what he/she is going to run on.  Lastly, I wish we could get to a point where candidates had to take government funding for a campaign instead of raising outside money or using their own personnel money.  
 

Lastly on election reform, we should have term limits across the board.  I can’t think of anything else that would have more impact on governing than that.  Politicians would not be beholden to getting elected, instead towards governing 

I know this is mostly fantasy wish list, but I think it would make for a better system. 
Click to expand...




I agree. But am curious, are you aware of how we got to where we are with campaign finance?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Archy1221 said:
With the recent conversion of major companies pausing political donations to some R’s or to any political party for a period of time, this may present a golden opportunity to get big corporate money, union money, and PAC/Super/PAC money out of politics for good.  
 

I don’t know the campaign laws very well cause I don’t donate to anyone.  If I have my facts wrong, I apologize but you will understand my overall point.  
I would support some sort of reform that limits the amount of money a company/union/ can donate to a candidate to equal the amount of money a person can donate, no more.  I would also love to figure out a way to lessen the financial impact Super Pacs can have on an election.  
I would love to have some sort of advertising reform that says one candidate can not reference their opponent and only speak to what he/she is going to run on.  Lastly, I wish we could get to a point where candidates had to take government funding for a campaign instead of raising outside money or using their own personnel money.  
 

Lastly on election reform, we should have term limits across the board.  I can’t think of anything else that would have more impact on governing than that.  Politicians would not be beholden to getting elected, instead towards governing 

I know this is mostly fantasy wish list, but I think it would make for a better system. 
Click to expand...
I agree.  Are you saying that Republicans should support this now that they have lost their gravy trains and hope to make sure that gravy money doesn't go to Dems?

 
BigRedBuster said:
1)  End Gerrymandering.

2)  Get money out of elections....if that means reversing Citizen United....great.

3)  Nationalize the organization of the election including Primaries.

4)  Reorganize primaries so that several states go together in a regional primary.

5)  Cycle the election schedule so the same state/region isn't the first Primary every election.

6)  Require ID to vote.  Make ID free and as easy to get as possible.

7)  Shorten election cycle.  Make first primary in June...last one in July.  General election runs from July to November.

8)  Move elections to weekend.  Open Polls on Friday afternoon, close them at 8PM on Sunday.

9)  Include in our Government, the ability for a Vote of No Confidence similar to the British Parliament.  
Click to expand...
@Archy1221 How many of these would you agree to?

 
BigRedBuster said:
@Archy1221 How many of these would you agree to?
Click to expand...
1) yes but would need to see who decides the future of the districts borders.  That’s the hard part.   

2) yes but only if it meant all money including union donations and abolish super pacs.  Something like $2,000 limit for any entity in US . Person, Corp, union etc...only donate to the candidate you are eligible to vote for.  

3) every election or just Presidential?  Money in politics sucks as the senate and swing state House elections.  
4) fine with that.  Don’t see why Iowa and NH and SC get to choose for us 

5). Seems fine to me.  
6) Hard yes on voter ID. 
7) April to June but I get your point. 
8). I’m fine with how it is.  Each state election can decide for themselves (with one exception)  Make the Presidential Election a National Holiday 

9). No 

 
Archy1221 said:
2) yes but only if it meant all money including union donations and abolish super pacs.  Something like $2,000 limit for any entity in US . Person, Corp, union etc...only donate to the candidate you are eligible to vote for.  
Click to expand...
Yes, if corporate and Super Pac money is eliminated, groups like Unions would be included in the elimination.

Archy1221 said:
3) every election or just Presidential?  Money in politics sucks as the senate and swing state House elections.
Click to expand...
When I wrote this, I was mainly keying on the Presidential election.  That is the one election that everyone in the country votes on the same candidates.  I'm not talking about money.  I'm talking about how they are ran.  It would need to be nationalized if we are going to require the remainder on my list.

Archy1221 said:
6) Hard yes on voter ID.
Click to expand...
Understand that you will not be able to require something like birth certificates to get the ID.  It must be FREE and it must be extremely easy to get.  Meaning, someone can't be required to travel to get the ID.  Maybe offer them at the local post office.

Archy1221 said:
8). I’m fine with how it is.  Each state election can decide for themselves (with one exception)  Make the Presidential Election a National Holiday 
Click to expand...
I'm not.  It's stupid that it's in the middle of the week when people work.  If it's moved to be Friday through Sunday, there would be no need for the National Holiday.  If it's going to be kept on a Tuesday, then the National Holiday is needed.

Archy1221 said:
9). No
Click to expand...
Why? 

 
BigRedBuster said:
Why? 
Click to expand...
Because I don’t know much about what the vote of no confidence means and the ramifications of it, so I say no.  I can’t justify supporting something I don’t know about. 
 

On Voter ID’s...it should be as easy as possible, free, while showing proof of voting eligibility. 
 

On Election Day, most every state has early voting so this doesn’t even matter.  One thing I would mention is that I would have a pretty strict 2 week early voting window. People voting 6-8 weeks before the election is stupid. 

 
Archy1221 said:
Because I don’t know much about what the vote of no confidence means and the ramifications of it, so I say no.  I can’t justify supporting something I don’t know about. 
Click to expand...
So, it's more of an "I don't know" than a hard "NO".

Archy1221 said:
On Voter ID’s...it should be as easy as possible, free, while showing proof of voting eligibility. 
Click to expand...
I would be interested in seeing what you suggest that "proof of voting eligibility" be.

Archy1221 said:
On Election Day, most every state has early voting so this doesn’t even matter.  One thing I would mention is that I would have a pretty strict 2 week early voting window. People voting 6-8 weeks before the election is stupid. 
Click to expand...
I"m fine with the 2 week before voting limitation.  I still don't understand why it can't be over a weekend.  What's so magical about Tuesday?  Over a weekend would disrupt the least amount of commerce to have people off work to be able to vote.

 
Back
Top