Does our election process subvert democracy?

2018-04-04T11:52:37-04:00

I posted an article earlier about polarization in America, and it brought up an interesting topic.

Our election process.

Now, I am of the opinion that our election process in it's current form subverts democracy. When only certain people can vote in certain elections we get a Presidential Election like we had in 2016, where neither candidate was qualified for the position. When the electoral votes in one state all go to a candidate who only won that state by a few thousand votes, it ignores a large number of people. When district lines can be redrawn by those in power to maintain that power, it subverts that electoral process. We may be a Republic, but we elect our officials democratically. The election process in it's current state subverts that democracy.

So, how to we go about fixing it? Well, I am sure everyone has a slightly different opinion, but here is mine.

First: We sign into law that all primaries and caucuses are open, meaning anyone can vote for a party primary regardless of political affiliation. Republicans can vote in Democrat primaries and Democrats can vote in Republican primaries and Independents can vote in both. Each person has 1 vote per primary, meaning you can vote in multiple primaries.
UPON FURTHER REVIEW! I have changed my mind, thank you fellow RPers for showing me the possible consequences of this change, you have made your points and I agree. I do however believe that Independents like me should be able to vote in primaries, whichever state you may be in.

Second: The electoral college needs to be reworked, so that a candidate gets a % of electoral college votes based on the % of popular votes they get in any given state. For example, say Trump won California by only 2% of the vote. California has 55 EC votes. Trump would receive 30 EC votes and Hillary would receive 25. The number of EC required to win the election stays the same. That way every individual vote counts instead of all EC votes going to one person in any state.

Third: Completely and totally outlaw gerrymandering. Make it so that even trying to redraw district lines to suit your own needs is a Federal offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

As I said, this is only my opinion. I am sure you have your own. I am open to suggestions and would really like to hear your opinions on this matter. Our country was built on the idea that everyone matters, and that you have a say in how you are governed. I think our current political landscape subverts that idea.

Response by SPC David Willis made Apr 4 at 2018 11:55 AM

2018-04-04T11:55:36-04:00

Gerrymandering is the worst thing to ever happen to politics ever IMO.

Response by SPC Erich Guenther made Apr 4 at 2018 11:59 AM

2018-04-04T11:59:40-04:00

Nothing wrong with the election process, it is candidate selection that is screwed up. Candidates should be chosen from a pool entirely by the voters and they are not. The Party intervenes or puts it's thumb on the scale in each case. Additionally, it should be against the rules that a Socialist or Communist can run as a Democrat. Democrat Primary should be for Democrats only, Republican Primary for Republicans only no exceptions. Had we run under those rules we would not have had Hillary Clinton nor would we have had Bernie Sanders AND Trump would not be in Office right now. If you want to blame anyone for this fiasco the blame goes to Debbie Wasserman-Shultz.........100%. She made sure the Democratic side was F'd up from the beginning and it spilled over to the Republican side because Hillary was such an atrocious candidate .

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2018 12:03 PM

2018-04-04T12:03:58-04:00

The electoral college was instituted for the exact purpose of not letting the popular vote determine the next president. Everyone, in essence, does not matter. But if we go with what you're suggesting, why have the EC at all? Why not just go to a popular vote and be done with it?

And if we let Republicans vote in Democrat primaries and vice versa, you're going to skew all kinds of elections. Each party will simply vote for the candidate that their respective candidate has the best chance of beating. That doesn't help get the most qualified candidate elected.

I wish we could do away with parties altogether and just vote for the person with the best ideas. But that seems impossible.

Response by SFC Jim Ruether made Apr 4 at 2018 12:25 PM

2018-04-04T12:25:20-04:00

You are leaving out perhaps the most important item and that is legal citizens are the ONLY ones allowed to vote. No ID, no voting privileges. No more vouching, or picture less ID's. No electric bill from your home. ID's only and they will be checked for proper address, citizenship and those lacking either of these two items will be deported at our immigration services earliest opportunity. Then and only then will we elect representatives who truly represent us and not an ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION POPULATION as it currently does now.

Response by PFC Jim Wheeler made Apr 4 at 2018 12:37 PM

2018-04-04T12:37:45-04:00

Not a fan of the open primary idea. I am a registered independent, so I get where you are coming from as some states don't allow independents to vote in the primary, but the reason they use closed primaries is so that the opposing party can't vote a lame duck candidate as the opposing party's nominee. It would certainly not lead to a better election process if each party always fielded the absolute worst candidates because of that.

As to your original question though, that was sort of the whole point. The founders didn't want open democracy (and neither do I, honestly). Are there things that could change to make our nation better? Probably. In fact, things have changed drastically since our founding with direct election of Senators and laws that require the EC to cast their votes certain ways.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2018 12:52 PM

2018-04-04T12:52:55-04:00

I would argue that is the point. I want fewer direct elections at the national level. We should have a Republican from of government where our local representatives have some power to represent us at the state and national level. Direct elections subvert our local leaders power with their ability to tax and distribute wealth without reguard to state and local governments.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Apr 4 at 2018 12:57 PM

2018-04-04T12:57:57-04:00

Sorry, I had a hard time getting past that point in your question where you mention "democracy". We are not a democracy and I don't want any part of a democracy. The you mention that "neither candidate was qualified for the position [President]". How so? Both were natural born citizens. The irony is that both were "democratically" selected by their respective parties. Then, the ultimate irony comes when you suggest that we have open primaries. Now, if you truly want to subvert the democratic processes of electing government officials, that's the way to do it. Outlaw gerrymandering? Good luck with that.

Response by 1SG Dennis Hicks made Apr 4 at 2018 1:00 PM

2018-04-04T13:00:11-04:00

Well considering we live in a Constitutional Republic as our founding fathers interned not in a Democracy like many would love for a short time, the current process works to say the least. Its nice how there were no issues with it before 2016 then wham, there is a problem from the Butt Hurt Legions. We have Trump in office because other previous mistakes and the business as usual mind set with politicians. He is by no means the perfect President but he is a breath of fresh air in the open sewer pit that is DC. As for the Electoral College, it did what it was supposed to do, prevent this popular vote BS from taking over as it would in a DEMOCRACY. What really needs to happen is a house cleaning in both parties, get rid of the entrenched cradle to grave office squatters that become Millionaires while in office. If this ever happens then GOOD Politicians won't be infected by the selfish power hungry around them.

Response by SPC David S. made Apr 4 at 2018 1:33 PM

2018-04-04T13:33:27-04:00

You have to step back a little as much of the subversion comes from infighting within parties. Look at DNC - I'd bet if Sanders didn't have the DNC's "support" as a democrat candidate he would have beating Trump. Electorial college or not - your own party shouldn't be the one you have to look out for. I'd say the same goes for Trump as the dossier started out as a Republican effort. With friends like that who needs enemies.

Response by MAJ James Woods made Apr 4 at 2018 1:38 PM

2018-04-04T13:38:50-04:00

Very interesting question and I do respect your opinion on the subject. This topic tends to get folks very defensive.
1. I believe primaries and caucuses should be eliminated. Let the members of the political party committees conduct their internal election of their candidates and select the one that will represent their party. Keep it simple and it helps eliminate the 18 months to two years of pointless advertising.
2. Treat the General Election as what it should be; every party candidate is represented on the debate stage. Eliminate the two party controlled debate committees. Let the public, the citizens, the registered voters decide whom to vote for by hearing all sides express themselves (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green Party, Independent, etc.).
3. Get rid of the Electoral College. If all elections were popular vote, a candidate would have to visit locations they would previously ignore. I.E. I don't need the 500K vote in that state; it's only worth 1 EC is how our current politicians and strategist think these days.
4. Districts should be geographical and geometrical. They should only change when there is a dramatic shift in population size. It shouldn't matter what type of people live there other than knowing how many are US citizens eligible to vote, how many are legal permanent residents and how many are eligible for local, state, and federal funding programs.
Oh one more thing, move elections to weekends or make them state/federal holidays so employees don't have to choose between voting and a paycheck. Just an idea.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2018 1:39 PM

2018-04-04T13:39:16-04:00

I have no problem with the electoral college, I have no problem with not being able to vote in a primary(I am registered independent, not much for me to vote on) but I do have a problem when a party knowingly stacks the deck against a candidate in a primary in favor of another. That is why parties have primaries is to find out who the candidate should be. Now I agree on the gerrymandering but both sides continue to do this, not sure how you can stop them.

Response by CW3 Dick McManus made Apr 4 at 2018 1:56 PM

2018-04-04T13:56:52-04:00

9/11: The seismic wave data corroborates the eyewitness, video, and forensic evidence of controlled demolitions.

This is just one more piece of irrefutable scientific evidence that demands a new public Congressional investigation of 9/11.

Andre Rousseau, an expert in applied geophysics in 2012 wrote an article explaining his interpretations of the seismic waves on 9/11 and concludes that the waves clearly point to pre-airplane impact explosions and pre-collapse explosions as the causes of the seismic signals. He reaches a similar conclusion for WTC 7.

The seismic events, therefore, must have resulted from causes of a different type. The best (and probably only plausible) candidate for these causes would seemingly be explosions in the basements of the Twin Towers, for which there is abundant physical and testimonial evidence.

Rousseau concluded that the frequencies of the waves are much too low to have been caused by plane impacts and building collapses (although they match those of underground explosions,

It concluded that the seismic signals associated with the time of each airplane impact and the time of the collapse of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7, respectively, must have been produced by the airplane impacts and by the falling of debris during the three collapses.

In 2006, researchers Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross published an article, "Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)," in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Furlong and Ross determined that there was indeed proof of explosions both before the tower collapses and before the airplane impacts.

But the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) contracted with Columbia University to adjust by three seconds its own timeline of events, apparently so it could justify its false theory.

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/faqs/443-faq-4-do-the-seismic-data-from-the-events-at-the-world-trade-center-corroborate-the-eyewitness-video-and-forensic-evidence-of-controlled-demolition

2,975 architects and engineers, http://www.ae911truth.org some 600 PhD scientists and some 350 skilled commercial airplane pilots want a new Congressional investigation.
Irrefutable Evidence - The 9/11 Official Story is Total BS
about 100 pages
you can send me an email at [login to see] and I will send you a book and/or a shorter paper 25 pages for free
send me an email at [login to see] and I will reply with it attach.

or For sale at Amazon Kindle books
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=Some%20Unpopular%20History%20of%20the%20United%20States%20
Will you support my resolution?
-Resolution for a New Public Congressional Investigation of the Mass Murder on 9/11

WHEREAS some 2,965 architects and engineers of AE911truth.org, some 320 pilots of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, some 600 PhD scientist of Scholars for 9/11 for Truth and Justice, and some 58 elected public officials of Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth are saying the scientific irrefutably evidence proves that the collapse of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center buildings seven were destroyed in a controlled demolition by explosives,

WHEREAS the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) committed criminal negligence in doing their investigation of collapse of these buildings and made NO substantial additions or changes to the federal law about safety standards for steel high rise buildings,

WHEREAS David Ray Griffin, PhD lists over 100 lies included in the official 9/11 Commission report in his book, The 9/11Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions,

WHEREAS 911 Commissioners Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton said that the FAA and NORAD did not tell the truth to the Commission and that the Commission did not investigate this false testimony, and 9/11Commission former US Senators Bob Kerrey and Max Cleland called the Commission’s investigation a cover up,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED we call for a new Congressional investigation of event before, during, and after the mass murder on 9/11

9/11 Truth Seattle
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ [login to see] 2870/

FAQ #4: Do the seismic data from the events at the World Trade Center corroborate the eyewitness,...

We have reviewed several technical articles on the World Trade Center seismic evidence in an attempt to pull together the array of voluminous, technically overwhelming, and often contradictory information and conclusions on this subject, so that we can present the most accurate answer to this important question.

Response by Cpl Tom Surdi made Apr 4 at 2018 2:48 PM

2018-04-04T14:48:58-04:00

Well, at least we all agree that there are issues. We may not agree on what those issues are or how to fix them. But we can find some common ground.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2018 2:59 PM

2018-04-04T14:59:28-04:00

First we are not a democracy we are a republic. Look at it from that point of view and then what do you find?

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Apr 4 at 2018 3:27 PM

2018-04-04T15:27:33-04:00

Cpl Tom Surdi, I'll give you my thoughts on your proposals.
Open primaries: No. The purpose of the primary is to select the candidate to represent the party in the General Election. Open primaries would allow ambitious party officials to pack the opposition slate with people they thought they could beat in the General. For example, an open primary system might have encouraged lots of Republicans to vote in the Democrat primary for "Crazy Bernie" because they believed any Republican could beat a Socialist in the General. I suppose the Democrats could then have voted for Bush so the Republicans would have a candidate on their ticket equal to Hillary in energy, ambition, and position on most issues. Not the mess I would want. If independents think they are being disenfranchised, they should pick a party!

I like your idea on the Electoral College.

Gerrymandering is in the eye of the beholder. Both parties do it. The Democrats are feeling the sting of losing a lot of State Legislature seats in the last 10 years. As a President said, "Elections have consequences." Possibly a panel of judges in each state could draw the election districts more fairly, but the State legislature would still have to vote for them. I don't see an easy way out of this one except to win elections at the State level.

Response by SSgt Ray Stone made Apr 4 at 2018 5:01 PM

2018-04-04T17:01:08-04:00

All I have to add is the Blue Wave is coming and November couldn't get here any sooner. This past Pres Election has awakened a lot of those who say " my vote doesn't matter" . And Congress is filled with a bunch of do nothings,we voted them in to present our interests. The people need to demand that they get off their asses and pass laws that benefits