Who has the best system for voting?

[foszoe]

You don't have to read our Political forums long to find out here are strong opinions about 3rd party candidates. When to rally behind your parties candidate etc.

Mostly these seem to be along static lines.

What are some innovative ways to bridge that gap?

For instance. What laws could we change to address the concerns of all parties?

Alaskan ranked voting? Georgia 50% threshold?

What changes would allow more voices to be heard?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Voters should have to pass a civics test before being allowed to vote.

 

[BugI02]

You don't have to read our Political forums long to find out here are strong opinions about 3rd party candidates. When to rally behind your parties candidate etc.

Mostly these seem to be along static lines.

What are some innovative ways to bridge that gap?

For instance. What laws could we change to address the concerns of all parties?

Alaskan ranked voting? Georgia 50% threshold?

What changes would allow more voices to be heard?

First, are you talking about changing state laws at the state level? No federal control of elections law! Election integrity is safer in the hands of the states

 

[KellyinAvon]

This thread needs a poll! Seriously, @foszoe give it a poll please.

 

[buckwacker]

Voters should have to pass a civics test before being allowed to vote.

If we can "regulate" the Second in direct contravention of "shall not be infringed", why not?

 

[Creedmoor]

Voters should have to pass a civics test before being allowed to vote.

Along with running for an elected office.

 

[foszoe]

First, are you talking about changing state laws at the state level? No federal control of elections law! Election integrity is safer in the hands of the states

Yes State Law.

 

[foszoe]

Voters should have to pass a civics test before being allowed to vote.

While I appreciate the sentiment, I don't see a constitutional basis at the federal level as elections are matter for the states to run and it would probably violate some sort of civil rights protections at the federal level.

Is voting a right or a privilege?

I am not really seeking input on improving the quality of the voter, that would be long and drawn out in the courts, but rather how the election law in, say Indiana, could be changed to allow a 3rd party voice to be heard without the a vote for the L is a vote for the D.

For example, in the Alaskan method, as I understand it, a large 3rd party vote could make its voice heard but in because they pick the top 2, I don't see how an L vote is a vote for the D because if the D and L candidates are at the top there would be a run off.

Same in Georgia, if no one gets 50% there is a run off. Hard to say a vote for the L is a vote for R in that circumstance because at some point the Rs would have to recognize and meet some of the L demands and the burden of proving oneself at some point falls on the candidate.

Not saying either of those are right, or I would just say so. Want to know y'alls ideas.

As to @KellyinAvon maybe once we get a few ideas bouncing around to think about a poll would be nice but right now, just not enough choices. I think I am in the brainstorming phase right now

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

While I appreciate the sentiment, I don't see a constitutional basis at the federal level as elections are matter for the states to run and it would probably violate some sort of civil rights protections at the federal level.

Is voting a right or a privilege?

I am not really seeking input on improving the quality of the voter, that would be long and drawn out in the courts, but rather how the election law in, say Indiana, could be changed to allow a 3rd party voice to be heard without the a vote for the L is a vote for the D.

For example, in the Alaskan method, as I understand it, a large 3rd party vote could make its voice heard but in because they pick the top 2, I don't see how an L vote is a vote for the D because if the D and L candidates are at the top there would be a run off.

Same in Georgia, if no one gets 50% there is a run off. Hard to say a vote for the L is a vote for R in that circumstance because at some point the Rs would have to recognize and meet some of the L demands and the burden of proving oneself at some point falls on the candidate.

Not saying either of those are right, or I would just say so. Want to know y'alls ideas.

As to @KellyinAvon maybe once we get a few ideas bouncing around to think about a poll would be nice but right now, just not enough choices. I think I am in the brainstorming phase right now

I guess I’m not sure now what keeps 3rd party voices from being heard now, in Indiana. The LP has a certain fan status on this board. They’ve been around for decades now. If they were ever really serious about obtaining governing status, looks like they would have done so by now. Dr Pepper, 7-Up, and Fresca of the political world doesn’t appear to be able/willing to knock off Coke and Pepsi.

 

[Shadow01]

Voters should have to pass a civics test before being allowed to vote.

Actually they should have to pass a background check and be fingerprinted along with applying for a voting license.

 

[BugI02]

Republitarian/Libertublican party

Extend the olive branch to the Libertarians, while making clear they won't be in charge but will have more input on running things than they usually do and can see what is required to actually govern. Some mechanism would need to be developed to keep them from just being taken for granted like Dems do minorities. Perhaps give them veto power over actions by requiring unanimity to pursue a policy. They would have to learn give and take because they could not suggest policy initiatives but only reject them. In order to further their concerns, they would need to get others on board and the same would be true of mainstream republicans

Having sensible, useful, well-explained policies should help make inroads into independents where that is possible. I see no real point in outreach to anyone further left/more progressive than that

 

[buckwacker]

While I appreciate the sentiment, I don't see a constitutional basis at the federal level as elections are matter for the states to run and it would probably violate some sort of civil rights protections at the federal level.

Is voting a right or a privilege?

I am not really seeking input on improving the quality of the voter, that would be long and drawn out in the courts, but rather how the election law in, say Indiana, could be changed to allow a 3rd party voice to be heard without the a vote for the L is a vote for the D.

For example, in the Alaskan method, as I understand it, a large 3rd party vote could make its voice heard but in because they pick the top 2, I don't see how an L vote is a vote for the D because if the D and L candidates are at the top there would be a run off.

Same in Georgia, if no one gets 50% there is a run off. Hard to say a vote for the L is a vote for R in that circumstance because at some point the Rs would have to recognize and meet some of the L demands and the burden of proving oneself at some point falls on the candidate.

Not saying either of those are right, or I would just say so. Want to know y'alls ideas.

As to @KellyinAvon maybe once we get a few ideas bouncing around to think about a poll would be nice but right now, just not enough choices. I think I am in the brainstorming phase right now

To reiterate:

If we can "regulate" the Second in direct contravention of "shall not be infringed", why not?

 

[Kurr]

How about we just do away with "Parties" and judge each candidate on their own merit and record?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

To reiterate:

It’s common among many to believe voting is the right that “shall not be infringed” when the fact of the matter is voting has always been subject to regulation.

 

[foszoe]

I guess I’m not sure now what keeps 3rd party voices from being heard now, in Indiana. The LP has a certain fan status on this board. They’ve been around for decades now. If they were ever really serious about obtaining governing status, looks like they would have done so by now. Dr Pepper, 7-Up, and Fresca of the political world doesn’t appear to be able/willing to knock off Coke and Pepsi.

I haven't been phrasing clear enough.

The goal would be to decrease the friction and animosity between Rs and Ls BECAUSE the Rs feel that votes for Ls are votes for Ds.

In other words, how to provide a safe space for @Ingomike

Just using him as an example.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

How about we just do away with "Parties" and judge each candidate on their own merit and record?

Freedom of association.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I haven't been phrasing clear enough.

The goal would be to decrease the friction and animosity between Rs and Ls BECAUSE the Rs feel that votes for Ls are votes for Ds.

In other words, how to provide a safe space for @Ingomike

I guess I don’t believe we can ever achieve that level of kumbiya. There’s always going to be a segment of people that for what ever reason want to be different or don’t want to conform or believes the existing structures are corrupt. And that’s OK. I’m one of those people sometimes.

 

[foszoe]

To reiterate:

but to do that we have to accept infringements of the 2nd as valid to justify regulations on voting.

Besides. Voting is at the state level and the 2nd is at a national level. I don't think we want to elevate voting to the level of the feds regulating it.

 

[foszoe]

I guess I don’t believe we can ever achieve that level of kumbiya. There’s always going to be a segment of people that for what ever reason want to be different or don’t want to conform or believes the existing structures are corrupt. And that’s OK. I’m one of those people sometimes.

Not looking for a hippie love fest more trying to grow a consensus.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Not looking for a hippie love fest more trying to grow a consensus.

Another way to think about it: it seems to me for the Republican Party to attract LP adherents, they’ll have to drive away an even larger group of voters. Lots of republican voters love them some government spending and regulations—just a little out of phase from what democrats do.