Ever heard of the Constitution...

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[duack 14]

Here's another reason voting should be compulsory-

Electoral campaigns in places were voting is compulsory aren't as rudicolous. When a government tries to get votes, it has to do two things, get the people on their side and then actually get them to bother voting. If voting was compolsury, then campaigns wouldn't be so overated. In Australia, campaigns normally only run for about 8 months before the election at the most.

[ilikehotdogsalot 311]

If people don't want to vote themselves, then they don't care about voting, if they're forced to, they'll make an unwise decision, so I have to disagree with you.

[D2629 3]

I don't think the "masses" are as stupid as people make out. I don't think it's a case of intellegence, more a case of not thinking things through. It is also a very human quality to pick a side and stick to it. I think more people should drop prejudice of another party's views. It becomes less about policies and more like a football team's fan-base. But people don't think like that.

Maybe it would be better if there were more parties and more mixed views.

[fukuda 351]

Electoral campaigns in places were voting is compulsory aren't as rudicolous. When a government tries to get votes, it has to do two things, get the people on their side and then actually get them to bother voting. If voting was compolsury, then campaigns wouldn't be so overated. In Australia, campaigns normally only run for about 8 months before the election at the most.quote>

Well, here campaigns run only for a month and voting is not compulsory

[Duke87 1,070]

Yeah, but you guys don't have that whole culture of apathy thing going. Voting may not be compulsory, but your turnout is still decent, I'm sure.

Another side to things:

There are a not insignificant number of people in this country who make the claim that they'd like to vote but can't because they can't find the time to. See, particularly with presidential elections, you could reasonably find yourself having to wait on line for a couple of hours to vote. And, well, election day is not a national holiday, and therefore is not a day off from work. So there are people who are unable to vote since they simply cannot set aside a block of time that large during the hours the polls are open for it.

An interesting solution I've heard proposed to this is to move election day back to veterans day, so it is a day off. Problem is, election day is defined in the constitution, so it can't be moved without an amendment.

Personally, I'd say the better thing to do would be to simply work on increasing the capacity of polling places to shorten those lines.

Aside from that, employers need to be more forgiving in allowing people to leave work early to go vote or whatnot. Though, it would be tricky to try and make a law around that.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: D2629 Maybe it would be better if there were more parties and more mixed views.quote>

 

Many of us have wanted at least a viable 3rd party for years, but the two we have have truly cemented their monopoly; with help from a treacherous media that has its own agenda.

Originally posted by: Duke87

An interesting solution I've heard proposed to this is to move election day back to veterans day, so it is a day off. Problem is, election day is defined in the constitution, so it can't be moved without an amendment.

quote>

 

I really like the idea of making it April 16th, the day after tax day. Let people vote with their tax bill fresh in their minds.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: D2629 Maybe it would be better if there were more parties and more mixed views.quote>

 

Many of us have wanted at least a viable 3rd party for years, but the two we have have truly cemented their monopoly; with help from a treacherous media that has its own agenda.quote>

I think alot of their monopoly would go away if the campaigns didn't last so long.

give the other minor party's a chance to stay in the  public eye before the overwhelming

media blitzes get them lost before they start.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

I think alot of their monopoly would go away if the campaigns didn't last so long.

give the other minor party's a chance to stay in the  public eye before the overwhelming

media blitzes get them lost before they start.

quote>

 

I would like to see all of the states hold their primary / caucus on the same day.   Let everyone in the country have a choice to vote for all candidates.

That could be a problem in other ways, though.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

I think alot of their monopoly would go away if the campaigns didn't last so long.

give the other minor party's a chance to stay in the  public eye before the overwhelming

media blitzes get them lost before they start.

quote>

 

I would like to see all of the states hold their primary / caucus on the same day.   Let everyone in the country have a choice to vote for all candidates.

That could be a problem in other ways, though.quote>

 

Thats a good idea too. They used to have the runner up as the Vice president, mabey we could go back to that again.

 I see no need for the conventions either. Its usually decided long before they take place.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Easy BakesThats a good idea too. They used to have the runner up as the Vice president, mabey we could go back to that again.quote>

That would be a great idea, IMO.  Making VP a 'silver medal' in the general elections would guarantee a badly-needed shakeup once in a while.

 I see no need for the conventions either. Its usually decided long before they take place.

quote>

 

It's supposed to provide a forum for dissenting opinions and candidates within the party, but has degenerated into a dog-and-pony show for certain favorites who then pander to their perceived base. The way Ron Paul was treated by the Republican Party at their last convention is a prime example. The Democratic Party was livened up by Hillary, was a rare instance of a fight after the Convention.

[blade2k5 1,523]

Originally posted by: Duke87An interesting solution I've heard proposed to this is to move election day back to veterans day, so it is a day off. Problem is, election day is defined in the constitution, so it can't be moved without an amendment.quote>

Actually, it would be better just make Election day a holiday.  One day every four years where everything is shut down is not going to hurt anything in my opinion.  Then no-one wouldn't have an excuse not to vote.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: blade2k5

Actually, it would be better just make Election day a holiday.  One day every four years where everything is shut down is not going to hurt anything in my opinion.  Then no-one wouldn't have an excuse not to vote.quote>

Um... we may only vote for president once every four years but there's an election day every year.

Originally posted by: manticorefan That would be a great idea, IMO.  Making VP a 'silver medal' in the general elections would guarantee a badly-needed shakeup once in a while.quote>

In the primaries, maybe. Though that's up to the party to decide.

But in the general election? No, we got rid of that for a good reason. Jefferson and Burr.

And, really, expecting two people from different parties to work together in an office like that... not gonna work too well. I mean, could you imagine having had George Bush as president with Al Gore or John Kerry as vice president? That'd have been pure insanity.

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes I see no need for the conventions either. Its usually decided long before they take place.quote>

Well, in theory, the convention is when the party names its nominee. Due to the primaries, however, this really isn't true for the Democrats or the Republicans. It is still true for other parties, though. The Libertarian party, for instance, chooses its candidates for president and vice president by ring choice voting at its convention. No primaries. It actually is decided then and there.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: blade2k5

Originally posted by: Duke87An interesting solution I've heard proposed to this is to move election day back to veterans day, so it is a day off. Problem is, election day is defined in the constitution, so it can't be moved without an amendment.quote>

Actually, it would be better just make Election day a holiday.  One day every four years where everything is shut down is not going to hurt anything in my opinion.  Then no-one wouldn't have an excuse not to vote.quote>

Shutting everything down for a day would be a lot more detrimental than most people realize.  A single day where the US didn't produce anything would result in billions in lost income and supply shortages.  Also, you couldn't shut everything down if you wanted to; criminals, fires, and life-threatening accidents don't take holidays off.

Additionally, the only people that would actually get the day off are probably the ones working for companies that couldn't afford to pay them to keep working.  Everyone else would probably be told to show up to work.

[duack 14]

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: blade2k5

Originally posted by: Duke87An interesting solution I've heard proposed to this is to move election day back to veterans day, so it is a day off. Problem is, election day is defined in the constitution, so it can't be moved without an amendment.quote>

Actually, it would be better just make Election day a holiday.  One day every four years where everything is shut down is not going to hurt anything in my opinion.  Then no-one wouldn't have an excuse not to vote.quote>

Shutting everything down for a day would be a lot more detrimental than most people realize.  A single day where the US didn't produce anything would result in billions in lost income and supply shortages.  Also, you couldn't shut everything down if you wanted to; criminals, fires, and life-threatening accidents don't take holidays off.

Additionally, the only people that would actually get the day off are probably the ones working for companies that couldn't afford to pay them to keep working.  Everyone else would probably be told to show up to work.quote>

 

Yeah if you think about it, thats another day everything is closed, another day people wont get paid, or get paid to do nothing which just increases inflation, another day where people will rush to the shops the next working day, as if they havn't gone shopping in years. It would just be a better idea to run elecetion on the weekend, at least then more people will get a chance to vote.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[confused04 14]

My idea for primaries is simple and I think a fair compromise to the "long primary" v "short primary" argument.

4 Weeks (say the month of May or June). 1/4 of all the states vote every Tuesday of that month. These sets of states will ALWAYS be grouped together (and not by region). Every primary season, they rotate so that the set that went first in 2000, would go last in 2004, and 3rd in 2008. Seems fair to me. I mean, I don't think Iowa should decide who the front runners are by itself. This way the primary season is done in one month with the conventions starting in August (or the first week in September).

The US political system actually does need a somewhat longer primary season (our parties are FAR more fluid than Parliamentary democracies would like to think). The parties mold their platform throughout the primary season and set up alliances (i.e. a coalition, though that term is used just ornamentally here). Remember the debate over PUMAs and how initial polling in July and August was looking VERY scary for Obama? Its because there was a potential realigning (which the DOW helped reverse). Throughout the primaries, Obama was trying to sap factions of the Democrat party that fell in the Clinton camp (rural, blue collar, hispanics). The primaries had to be the place to reconcile party differences. If we did this in one day... Obama would never have the chance to change the platform...

Which btw is the ENTIRE point to the primary season leading up to the Convention. Can you imagine an electoral cycle that, according to my plans would have just started by March (when, in my opinion is the earliest you may file) and end in November. It allows breathing room for our unique primary system but shortens it for our sanity?

[rubberduck 3]

In regards to making Election Day a holiday: I don't know about the rest of the country but in California, employers are required by law to give their employees enough time off to vote (usually an hour or two). Couldn't this be implemented in every state?

[Patricius Maximus 236]

(not to mention that 2 yrs is not a lot of time for a leader to make an impression).quote>

That's the point. Risk is reduced as a leader has less time to ruin his country, and his time doesn't have to be divided between governing and stumping. He would be judged in the campaign by his governing.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[N106 10]

The thing that the US needs are as following:

1) Instead of election day, make it election week. The first week in November. That would be a good idea.

2) Make terms shorter, but also repeal term limits. 1 year terms sounds good. The shorter the terms, the less likely anything like 2008 happens where one party gets a huge majority over the other party due to the fact that everybody was so sick of the last 4 years of the other party. Also, 1 year terms will force shorter campaigns due to the shortness of the terms.

3) Regulate the media. They are usually biased, and are against change to the point of poking fun at anybody who does not conform to the two base political parties.

4) Get some 3rd parties into government. Lets face it: The two party system isn't working. I'm not sure whether it was when one president went to the Supreme Court saying that he didn't want to hand over tapes that won him an election or when it was when we elected a former actor suffering from Alzhiemer's disease a few years later- but there is clearly something wrong with our political system with only 2 parties. One party will jump on the opportunity to impeach another party when the president cheats on his masculine wife for a white house worker then lies about it. Once the Patriot Act begins to suck away freedoms, and the 2009 Stimulus Bill increases our 9.8 trillion dollar deficit by nearly a trillion dollars, it's time for change. Vote libertarian, green, or any other third party in 2012!!!

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: N106 The thing that the US needs are as following:

2) Make terms shorter, but also repeal term limits. 1 year terms sounds good. The shorter the terms, the less likely anything like 2008 happens where one party gets a huge majority over the other party due to the fact that everybody was so sick of the last 4 years of the other party. Also, 1 year terms will force shorter campaigns due to the shortness of the terms.quote>

Then you bump into a problem that California has had to face; people have so little time in their office that they are unable to truly learn the workings of their office.  This causes a great level of government inefficiency and waste as the people in the offices don't know everything they should know about their respective office.

3) Regulate the media. They are usually biased, and are against change to the point of poking fun at anybody who does not conform to the two base political parties.quote>

Freedom of the press is kind of important in America.  Yes, the media is full of idiots, but giving the government more control over what we are exposed to is a bad decision.  The government has already shown it'll lie when it wants to hide embarrassing information.  It's dangerous to make it even easier for the government to hide it's nasty side from the citizens that it's supposed to be accountable to.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: N106

 Instead of election day, make it election week. The first week in November. That would be a good idea.quote>

A lovely idea, but that would require a constitutional amendment, so it ain't happening.

Make terms shorter, but also repeal term limits. 1 year terms sounds good. The shorter the terms, the less likely anything like 2008 happens where one party gets a huge majority over the other party due to the fact that everybody was so sick of the last 4 years of the other party. Also, 1 year terms will force shorter campaigns due to the shortness of the terms.quote>

hym already explained why that's a bad idea. You can't have a crazy huge election every year. Besides, the term lengths of various offices vary for good reasons.

As for term limits... well, George Washington set the precedent of no more than two terms, which everyone followed until FDR. Then, now that tradition had been broken, concern was that running until you die or lose would become the norm, and nobody wanted that, so the two term thing was made an actual rule as opposed to just a guideline.

As for getting rid of them... well, the president is the only federal office that has them. And eight years under one president is enough. In an office of such high power, things get stale if you don't change them out often enough.

Regulate the media. They are usually biased, and are against change to the point of poking fun at anybody who does not conform to the two base political parties. quote>

Hym gave his respone to this, but I'll do you one better. Here's my response:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No further comment necessary.

Get some 3rd parties into government. Lets face it: The two party system isn't working. I'm not sure whether it was when one president went to the Supreme Court saying that he didn't want to hand over tapes that won him an election or when it was when we elected a former actor suffering from Alzhiemer's disease a few years later- but there is clearly something wrong with our political system with only 2 parties. One party will jump on the opportunity to impeach another party when the president cheats on his masculine wife for a white house worker then lies about it. Once the Patriot Act begins to suck away freedoms, and the 2009 Stimulus Bill increases our 9.8 trillion dollar deficit by nearly a trillion dollars, it's time for change. Vote libertarian, green, or any other third party in 2012!!!quote>

Completely with you here. We need more than two parties. Problem is, the two-party system is very self-preserving. They're powerful enough to stomp out any competition, and it's been the case for so long that now it's ingrained in our culture and our society that there's Republican, Democrat, and then other little minority parties that nobody cares about.

And yes, it's quite frustrating. For my English class this semester, I had to read Barack Obama's older book, Dreams from My Father. In casual conversation, this led to the following exchange with another guy in the dorms:

"Obama, huh? You vote for him?"

"No."

"You voted for McCain?"

"No."

"You didn't vote?"

"No, I voted for Bob Barr"

"Who?"

"The Libertarian candidate."

"Libertarian... is that some sort of third party or something?"

"Yeah."

"Dude, If you're going to vote like that, you might as well just not vote..."

And at that point I wanted to strangle him. The all too common attitude of "voting for a third party is throwing your vote away" really. effing. pisses me off.

The other part that's just sad is that after establishing that I did not vote for Obama or McCain, the next step is to ask if I didn't vote - and considiering that there are in fact far more people who don't vote than who vote for third parties, it actually was the next logical step.

[N106 10]

Wow. Very good arguments. But, the root of the problem is: 2 parties are controlling government. We need a libertarian! Or, at least a green! The real problem is not that people are stupid, its just that they're stuck with long elections in which wealthy main parties can spend so much money on advertisement. However, due to a conformist media, third party candidates get so little exposure that voting for them would actually be throwing a vote away. I supported Obama during the campaign because I thought McCain was a sellout and DIDN'T KNOW about any of the third party candidates. Now that is the problem with America.

[nthooze 13]

The system is rigged, geared to keep the power elite in power. Everything from the parties to the media have been usurped by secretive organizations like the trilateral commission, the counsel on foreign relations and the bilderbergs. These groups decide very early on who their guy is going to be and do everything they can to sell these candidates to the public. The sad thing is the people eat it up. Real candidates who come to actually serve the people rather than the establishment stand little chance of overcoming this juggernaut system of power.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: N106 Wow. Very good arguments. But, the root of the problem is: 2 parties are controlling government. We need a libertarian! Or, at least a green! The real problem is not that people are stupid, its just that they're stuck with long elections in which wealthy main parties can spend so much money on advertisement. However, due to a conformist media, third party candidates get so little exposure that voting for them would actually be throwing a vote away. I supported Obama during the campaign because I thought McCain was a sellout and DIDN'T KNOW about any of the third party candidates. Now that is the problem with America.quote>

McCain isn't very much of a Republican, and no friend to those who hold conservative or libertarian ideals. Rep. Ron Paul was a 3rd party candidate who ran as a Republican, but got royally shafted by the party and the media. Obama? People are starting to realize what a liar and fraud he really is. His hopium is wearing off, and a few people are getting lucid again.

Originally posted by: nthooze The system is rigged, geared to keep the power elite in power. Everything from the parties to the media have been usurped by secretive organizations like the trilateral commission, the counsel on foreign relations and the bilderbergs. These groups decide very early on who their guy is going to be and do everything they can to sell these candidates to the public. The sad thing is the people eat it up. Real candidates who come to actually serve the people rather than the establishment stand little chance of overcoming this juggernaut system of power.quote>

Trilaterals: Zbigniew Brzezinski has a complete Obasm during the campaign, and Carter is suddenly everywhere again. Coincidence? That's 2 out of 3 of the original founders on their knees for Barack. It's believed that 3rd man Nelson Rockefeller was cheering BO from his 'lower deck' seat, in the smoking section.

Unabashed Bilderberger Hillary Clinton gets Sec'y of State as a silver medal, a prime position for globalists historically, going all the way back to the Woodrow Wilson administration.

CFR: The one thing everyone in gov't and most of the media have in common. They don't even hide it anymore, their own literature admits they are all about the One World Gov't. Oh wait, the new term is 'Global Governance'. Brit PM Gordon Brown made the phrasing change public just weeks ago.

[nthooze 13]

Bravo manticorefan! You're a breath of fresh air. I find it frustrating posting matters of truth on this forum at times as the subject matter can be uncomfortable for those that haven't been properly exposed to the reality of the system we all live under.

[Duke87 1,070]

*cough*

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Zelgadis 638]

Originally posted by: Duke87

And at that point I wanted to strangle him. The all too common attitude of "voting for a third party is throwing your vote away" really. effing. pisses me off.

quote>

Believe me, I wish I could be right there with you.  I'd give anything for a viable third party, particularly a left-wing party, since the US doesn't have one anymore.  (Democrats: center.  Republicans: right-wing) 

The problem?  I've mentioned this to people before.  Some have said to me, "Oh, you must've voted for Ralph Nader!"  Hell no I didn't!  Lefty?  Yes he is.  Qualified to be President?  Absolutely not! 

The smaller parties in the US have two problems.  The first, as you said Duke, is the perception of the people that it's throwing your vote away.  But they also have another major problem and that is themselves.  I will happily vote for a third party candidate that fits three categories:

1)  I agree with him/her

2)  He/she is qualified

3)  He/she isn't a raving lunatic

Too many third party candidates fail on the third point.

And then sometimes third parties heave all their beliefs out the window to run a candidate with name recognition.  I still don't see how, by any stretch of the imagination, that Bob Barr is a Libertarian.  I don't know much about his economic ideas, but his social philosophy seems straight out of the 1950's...

So yes, voting for a third party is throwing your vote away and it's their own fault things are this way.  The best thing they can do for themselves now is start nominating viable candidates and turn that perception into a fantasy. 

ISF