vcczar Posted November 22, 2021 Share Posted November 22, 2021 If I had the final decision on election laws, this is what I’d probably change them too: 1. All elections, federal or state must take place during midterms or presidential general election. This may require shifting terms for some offices. No off year elections. 2. For federal elections, politicians are allowed one consecutive reelection bid. They may run non-consecutively as much as they’d like, aside from the presidency, which will be maxed out at two terms. The leading Senate and House leader for each party will not be bound to term limits while holding the office. SC Justice will serve 10 years terms, but the Chief Justice will continue to serve on good behavior. The one exception to this is age. 3. All federal officers must retire from office at age 80, with one exception. 3. A new body called the council of elders is available for all politicians aged 80+ who have served as Pres, VP, US Senate, SC Justice. This body has no power but is largely ceremonial. It can be requested into session by any branch of government to deliberate and cast a non-binding vote on conflicting matters of National importance. It’s hoped that it will encourage decision making for those with real power. It will be presided by their own chairman or president. 4. In regards to primaries, every voter should have the same options as every state. All candidates will appear on every state ballot (excluding very minor 3rd party and citizen perennial candidates, etc.). No candidate on the official ballot can drop out or endorse. Every candidate on the ballot will be in a randomized debate, which will be a mix of parties too. Any other debates can be up to committees. Primaries will be ranked choice at the ballot for use at the convention in the event it is deadlocked. Primary is popular vote rather than via delegates. Parties will set % required for nomination. 5. The EC is abolished. General election is ranked choice. If no candidate hits 50.1% then drop the least popular parties until the ranking gets someone over the line. 6. Midterms and general elections are holidays. However, the holiday is roaming. This means that an employee can take any weekday off to early vote if they wish, but then they’ll have to work on Election Day if they do that. This will allow employers to stay open on Election Day and schedule their employees vote days so that business can stay open. 7. The election will be certified within a month of the election. The new elected officials will take office Jan 1st. 8. Elections will be transparent as possible. 9. All candidates will present records on mental health, physical health, police background check, academic records, financial records, etc. These will not prevent a candidate from running but the transparency will allow a more informed decision for the voters. 10. Any 3rd party that received at least 5% of the vote in the previous election, will get equal airtime. Coverage of debate, convention. Any 3rd party polling 10% post convention in at least one major poll will be at the Pres debate. 11. All Pres noms in GE must release their prospective cabinet officers and future SC nominees before Election Day. This will help in voter decisions. gotta go to work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dobs Posted November 22, 2021 Share Posted November 22, 2021 24 minutes ago, vcczar said: The leading Senate and House leader for each party will not be bound to term limits while holding the office. S The absolute bloodbath for leadership that this would cause…. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dobs Posted November 22, 2021 Share Posted November 22, 2021 26 minutes ago, vcczar said: . Midterms and general elections are holidays. However, the holiday is roaming. This means that an employee can take any weekday off to early vote if they wish, but then they’ll have to work on Election Day if they do that. This will allow employers to stay open on Election Day and schedule their employees vote days so that business can stay open. I really like this idea 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPotatoTed Posted November 22, 2021 Share Posted November 22, 2021 I'm not sure I understand the purpose or value in a Council of Elders. With a requirement that they're 80+, they'll surely be out of touch with what's going on at minimum -- and may suffer from serious cognitive disabilities (especially with no maximum age requirement). Does serving a single term in the Senate in the 1960's and then being voted out of office for being terrible at your job put you in a position to be on the Council of Elders in 2021? Won't it be as politically soured as any legislative body? It will still be dominated by either Republicans or Democrats at any given time, depending on who manages to stay alive. I just don't see what value that would bring to the table, in the real world. No legislative or executive body would call the council in for a vote unless they felt assured the council was politically aligned with advancing the agenda of that legislative or executive body. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvikings1 Posted November 22, 2021 Share Posted November 22, 2021 2 hours ago, vcczar said: 1. All elections, federal or state must take place during midterms or presidential general election. This may require shifting terms for some offices. No off year elections. What's your reasoning for this? The money factor is the biggest one I have heard (which is a convincing one). But supporters of having off year elections claim it helps remove federal influence from state elections, which has merits. Youngkin probably does not win in Virginia during a federal election year. In Kentucky, Beshear does not win in a federal election year. And why wouldn't states have the ability to chose when they hold their state elections? 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DakotaHale Posted November 22, 2021 Share Posted November 22, 2021 Suggestion: Deep state chooses the President oh wait 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pringles Posted November 22, 2021 Share Posted November 22, 2021 39 minutes ago, DakotaHale said: Suggestion: Deep state chooses the President oh wait 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timur Posted November 23, 2021 Share Posted November 23, 2021 Is there a way to reduce the time for election campaigning. That would reduce the cost of campaigning. To be honest, politicians might like it too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DakotaHale Posted November 23, 2021 Share Posted November 23, 2021 1 hour ago, Timur said: Is there a way to reduce the time for election campaigning. That would reduce the cost of campaigning. To be honest, politicians might like it too. What if we moved inauguration to Jan. 1 instead of Jan. 20? I might support that. Unfortunately that would remove the convenience of the 20th amendment dictating Jan. 20 as the inauguration date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPotatoTed Posted November 23, 2021 Share Posted November 23, 2021 10 hours ago, DakotaHale said: What if we moved inauguration to Jan. 1 instead of Jan. 20? I might support that. Unfortunately that would remove the convenience of the 20th amendment dictating Jan. 20 as the inauguration date. We’re way too hung over to do anything on Jan 1. ;c) 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPotatoTed Posted November 23, 2021 Share Posted November 23, 2021 11 hours ago, Timur said: Is there a way to reduce the time for election campaigning. That would reduce the cost of campaigning. To be honest, politicians might like it too. Probably not. Freedom of speech — we’d be dictating when you can and can’t say the words “I am running for President.” Haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dobs Posted November 23, 2021 Share Posted November 23, 2021 3 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said: Probably not. Freedom of speech — we’d be dictating when you can and can’t say the words “I am running for President.” Haha You can say them as much as you want! This would just control whether you're lying or not. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPotatoTed Posted November 23, 2021 Share Posted November 23, 2021 1 hour ago, Dobs said: You can say them as much as you want! This would just control whether you're lying or not. 1 hour ago, Patine said: Indeed, there's more to, "electoral campaigning," than declarations and, "if I were in charge, this-and-this would happen, let me tell you." It's a little more involved than that, in truth. Sure. But what would the rule actually be? Am I not allowed to pay people to tell other people “mr potato Ted is running for President”? First amendment! Am I not allowed to host large gatherings where I tell people I’m running for President? First amendment! Are people not allowed to give me money? Apparently, first amendment! Am I not allowed to air commercials? First amendment! Ha. You could theoretically say “nobody is allowed to really run for president until a certain day”, but I can’t imagine what impact that would actually have on the race, legally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvikings1 Posted November 23, 2021 Share Posted November 23, 2021 2 hours ago, Patine said: Citizens' United is a farce and a miscarriage of the United States Supreme Court of the worst sort that only solidifies corrupt plutocratic power unjustly and against the very intention of why Freedom of Speech even exists and was championed in the first place. Easily one of the 10 worst rulings to come out of that body - even along with Dred Scott - and SHOULD be called out as such and challenged with every resource available by anyone who values the future of the United States. Transfer of money as the payer and payee see fit is NOT Freedom of Speech, as ANYONE with any rational perspective can figure. But the first and fourth - for half of the examples - I'll give you. If the transfer of money to PACs was prohibited, then only people with lots of money would be able to afford political advertising. Rather than hurt the elites, it would actually help them. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dobs Posted November 23, 2021 Share Posted November 23, 2021 4 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said: Sure. But what would the rule actually be? Am I not allowed to pay people to tell other people “mr potato Ted is running for President”? First amendment! Am I not allowed to host large gatherings where I tell people I’m running for President? First amendment! Are people not allowed to give me money? Apparently, first amendment! Am I not allowed to air commercials? First amendment! Ha. You could theoretically say “nobody is allowed to really run for president until a certain day”, but I can’t imagine what impact that would actually have on the race, legally. I agree, there shouldn’t be a restriction. The only restriction that should exist is whether a campaign actually exists to give to legally. That’s where the lying comes in or not. You can say you’re running for President all you want- this will govern if you actually are running for President in the legal sense. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPotatoTed Posted November 23, 2021 Share Posted November 23, 2021 4 hours ago, Patine said: Citizens' United is a farce and a miscarriage of the United States Supreme Court of the worst sort that only solidifies corrupt plutocratic power unjustly and against the very intention of why Freedom of Speech even exists and was championed in the first place. Easily one of the 10 worst rulings to come out of that body - even along with Dred Scott - and SHOULD be called out as such and challenged with every resource available by anyone who values the future of the United States. Transfer of money as the payer and payee see fit is NOT Freedom of Speech, as ANYONE with any rational perspective can figure. But the first and fourth - for half of the examples - I'll give you. I actually agree with you regarding Citizens United. But the fact remains that, for now, it’s the law of the land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPotatoTed Posted November 23, 2021 Share Posted November 23, 2021 13 minutes ago, Dobs said: I agree, there shouldn’t be a restriction. The only restriction that should exist is whether a campaign actually exists to give to legally. That’s where the lying comes in or not. You can say you’re running for President all you want- this will govern if you actually are running for President in the legal sense. People already get around this. “Friends of (politician name)”. Or “The America Cares Fund” which then goes on to be the fundraising arm of whatever politician’s election fund. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dobs Posted November 24, 2021 Share Posted November 24, 2021 55 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said: People already get around this. “Friends of (politician name)”. Or “The America Cares Fund” which then goes on to be the fundraising arm of whatever politician’s election fund. Indeed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.