Political discourse regarding idealistic legislation

Dathouen

I am new, and many of the threads here happen to be several dozen pages long already, making it impossible to insert myself with any degree of accuracy into these discussions. As a result, I've decided to begin a new thread.

Additionally, from what I've seen, many threads have a tendency to discuss politicians, media, and other topics which focus more on the nature of people than the real issues at hand, or they focus in on minutia that has little influence on the overall political mechanism.

Personally, I would like to discuss how the overall political structure can be changed, or how it should be. Allow me to begin.

Voting and the Electoral System
With modern technology, voting should not be as difficult as it is now, and the electoral system currently used for presidential elections is horrifically outdated. The original electoral system was designed in the late 18th century due to the fact that it would take days, and even weeks to bring votes from the more remote states to the place where they were collated. As a result, they would have mini-elections in each state and simply have each state be worth a certain number of votes, and then combine those votes and, as with the Senate and Congress, require a majority to rightly be elected. Unfortunately, with wildly varying population growth and concentration in certain urban regions, as well as varying percentages of voter turnout, makes acquiring the actual opinion of those who are actually of legal voting age very unlikely.

Additionally, given the current voting system, registering and actually going through the process of voting on any matter is an incredible pain in the posterior. As a result, the bulk of the population who are busy, well adjusted and/or have better things to do end up eschewing the process entirely, not voting because it is genuinely difficult. This leads to only the people who have too much time on their hands, or are excessively obsessive about a certain matter, are the ones who speak out and vote consistently.

Simultaneously, this also applies to the current voting system when it comes to legislation. For the most part, Senators and Congresspersons tend to vote based on the opinions of their constituency (those who actually voted for that person). Unfortunately, the most vocal constituents tend to be the most extreme, either liberal or conservative. As a result, Representatives tend to operate under the assumption that their constituents have extreme views. Polling and Voting are two very different things, and while Polling can tell you a great deal about what the population feels is the appropriate response to a bill, these are far to broad to have any functional application with regards to the opinions of a given constituency, but rather refer to specific groups or subgroups, like college students, the elderly, business professionals and the like. The responsibility of a representative is to find the opinion of the people within a specific geographic region, not of a specific background.

This inherently flawed system leads to the election of individuals and approval of bills that have a tendency to appeal to the most vocal and extreme sectors of the population.

With regards to presidential elections, I can't outline a perfect system, however it is clear that we need a more accessible and accurate voting system. The fact that it is even remotely possible that a president can be elected without the popular vote (the numerical majority of individual votes) should be appalling to every single american citizen, but most sadly do not care enough about this, and are instead fixated on less influential portions of the political process, such as campaigning, debates and other public media. Simply put, people are focused on the silliest things, such as what a candidate is like, how their beliefs are likely to influence their voting on certain issues, but for the most part, they rarely make any decisions on their own. Instead, people should be focusing the flaws in the system itself.

Originally, the system of Lobbyism was designed to prevent corruption, bribery and the like, a sort of "if you can't beat them, join and regulate them" policy. Unfortunately this has become a form of corruption in and of itself. I'm not sure if everyone is aware of this, but if one were to donate to a candidate, and they fail to spend that money during their campaigning, they do not give that money back, or to anyone else, it instead stays in a "war chest", that, by default, goes to the candidate when they leave the position for which they originally received the donations to campaign for. If, for example, Senator John Smith receives $100,000,000 in donations over the course of 4 terms to pay for his campaign, but only spends $20,000,000 while campaigning for his seat in the Senate, then retires, the remaining $80,000,000 defaults to Ex-Senator John Smith to function as a sort of retirement fund. In the olden days, that was both its intention and function; however, today it has the potential to serve as a form of delayed effect bribery.

There are far to many issues with the basic structure of the Government, and I would like to hear about your opinions within this vein and your critiques of or compliance with my assessment.

Yogo

It would be ideal if you could include a small summary at the end with a question, so it may be easier to jump into the discussion. Furthermore, perhaps you should include the country's politics which you wish to discuss in the thread title. Such as [America] Political discourse regarding idealistic legislation.

spool32

Dathouen wrote: »

I am new, and many of the threads here happen to be several dozen pages long already, making it impossible to insert myself with any degree of accuracy into these discussions. As a result, I've decided to begin a new thread.

Additionally, from what I've seen, many threads have a tendency to discuss politicians, media, and other topics which focus more on the nature of people than the real issues at hand, or they focus in on minutia that has little influence on the overall political mechanism.

Personally, I would like to discuss how the overall political structure can be changed, or how it should be. Allow me to begin.

Voting and the Electoral System
With modern technology, voting should not be as difficult as it is now, and the electoral system currently used for presidential elections is horrifically outdated. The original electoral system was designed in the late 18th century due to the fact that it would take days, and even weeks to bring votes from the more remote states to the place where they were collated. As a result, they would have mini-elections in each state and simply have each state be worth a certain number of votes, and then combine those votes and, as with the Senate and Congress, require a majority to rightly be elected. Unfortunately, with wildly varying population growth and concentration in certain urban regions, as well as varying percentages of voter turnout, makes acquiring the actual opinion of those who are actually of legal voting age very unlikely.

This is entirely inaccurate. The Electoral College system has nothing to do with the time it takes to tabulate and communicate election results - it's intended to reflect the fact that in our republic the States also have political importance as entities separate from the federal government. Moreover, I don't think it's "horrifically" outdated. You feel horror when you think about the electoral college, do you?

Additionally, given the current voting system, registering and actually going through the process of voting on any matter is an incredible pain in the posterior. As a result, the bulk of the population who are busy, well adjusted and/or have better things to do end up eschewing the process entirely, not voting because it is genuinely difficult. This leads to only the people who have too much time on their hands, or are excessively obsessive about a certain matter, are the ones who speak out and vote consistently.

It's an incredible pain? This whole paragraph is entirely speculative and a bit insulting as well. It's also inaccurate - registering to vote is trivial and voting itself is pretty painless, especially with early voting periods.

Simultaneously, this also applies to the current voting system when it comes to legislation. For the most part, Senators and Congresspersons tend to vote based on the opinions of their constituency (those who actually voted for that person). Unfortunately, the most vocal constituents tend to be the most extreme, either liberal or conservative. As a result, Representatives tend to operate under the assumption that their constituents have extreme views.

Assuming it was true that only the extreme partisans vote, don't you think that members of Congress would be aware of what was happening?

Polling and Voting are two very different things, and while Polling can tell you a great deal about what the population feels is the appropriate response to a bill, these are far to broad to have any functional application with regards to the opinions of a given constituency, but rather refer to specific groups or subgroups, like college students, the elderly, business professionals and the like. The responsibility of a representative is to find the opinion of the people within a specific geographic region, not of a specific background.

This inherently flawed system leads to the election of individuals and approval of bills that have a tendency to appeal to the most vocal and extreme sectors of the population.

You haven't really identified any flaws in the system, much less ones that might lead me to consider it 'inherently flawed'!

With regards to presidential elections, I can't outline a perfect system, however it is clear that we need a more accessible and accurate voting system. The fact that it is even remotely possible that a president can be elected without the popular vote (the numerical majority of individual votes) should be appalling to every single american citizen...

Why? I don't find it appalling in the slightest. I like the Electoral College and don't believe a switch to a nationwide popular vote would be good for the country at all.

...but most sadly do not care enough about this, and are instead fixated on less influential portions of the political process, such as campaigning, debates and other public media. Simply put, people are focused on the silliest things, such as what a candidate is like, how their beliefs are likely to influence their voting on certain issues, but for the most part, they rarely make any decisions on their own. Instead, people should be focusing the flaws in the system itself.

Are you suggesting that rather than considering whether a candidate is good, we should be thinking about... what, exactly? I don't understand why you think considering the positions or character of a candidate is a bad thing to be doing when voting.

Originally, the system of Lobbyism was designed to prevent corruption, bribery and the like, a sort of "if you can't beat them, join and regulate them" policy. Unfortunately this has become a form of corruption in and of itself. I'm not sure if everyone is aware of this, but if one were to donate to a candidate, and they fail to spend that money during their campaigning, they do not give that money back, or to anyone else, it instead stays in a "war chest", that, by default, goes to the candidate when they leave the position for which they originally received the donations to campaign for. If, for example, Senator John Smith receives $100,000,000 in donations over the course of 4 terms to pay for his campaign, but only spends $20,000,000 while campaigning for his seat in the Senate, then retires, the remaining $80,000,000 defaults to Ex-Senator John Smith to function as a sort of retirement fund. In the olden days, that was both its intention and function; however, today it has the potential to serve as a form of delayed effect bribery.

Can you cite a source for this? I'm curious to know where you read it.