Do DUers support the following structural governmental reforms?:

[bigbillhaywood]

1. Elimination of electoral college-- simple majority vote.

2. Congressional term limits

3. Easier recall procedures

4. Lowering threshold for getting on ballots

5. Proportional representation system

6. Streamlining voter registration

Also, since Gore won the popular vote but lost in the electoral college, and because millions of Democratic Black voters down South have their Presidential votes rendered meaningless by the Electoral System, do people think elimination of the Electoral College should be a Democratic Party platform plank?

[sangh0]

1. No, DUers disagree on all of those

Me, for one. I oppose ALL of those.

[bigbillhaywood]

4. For what reasons? nt

[Alerter_]

14. everything except for #1

I want to keep the electoral college, in fact I want to return to indirect election of Senators. It's how our federalist system works. I'd like to see the states retain some powers and individuality.

I would like to see proportional representation in the House and instant runoff voting.

[sangh0]

19. For the same reasons

They accomplish nothing good.

[bigbillhaywood]

24. Well that's a solid argument. nt

[sangh0]

26. At least it's not that stupid argument

of yours, that assumes I need a reason to not support something. FOr the rest of the world, we wait for a reason TO SUPPORT something, and until then, we withold our support.

[bigbillhaywood]

28. Whatever sangh0, I'm done with you. nt

[sangh0]

30. I'm heart-broken

.

[rinsd]

2. #1 will require a Constitutional Amendment.

#3 I assume we are talking Congress and the Prez? Prez will take another Amendment.

Actually, your reforms plank would have to involve a Constitutional Convention.....alot would have to be re-written.

[bigbillhaywood]

6. Oh, I know. They're all big structural reforms that would require

revising the Constitution quite a bit.

[rinsd]

25. Your proposals can use a little more fleshing out....

Electoral College & Term Limits are straightforward. Some of the others are a little ambiguous without more specificity(is that even a word?)

The recall: which offices? What changes to be made etc.

Proportional representation: in the Senate, in general, in reference to parties or populations, in what sense?

Lowering the threshold for the ballot: in what manner?

Streamlining of voter registration: Same day reg? Motervoter? And of course assurance against fraud.

Those things being said, it's difficult to get anyone here to agree to ONE plank let alone 6. But you would probably get more responses if we knew the details of your proposals.

[freetobegay]

3. My answers

1. yes

2. yes

3. NO

4. NO

5. yes

6. need more information.

[Shakespeare]

5. answers

1. Undecided, but leaning towards no. Would like to see some respected constitutional scholars' take on it.

2. NO. The last thing we need is a congress full of neophytes. Not all career politicians are bad; I'd hate to imagine our senate without people like Byrd and Kennedy.

3. ABSOLUTELY not. Recalls should not be easy in the first place (and I speak as a Californian who's just watched the process up close).

4. Need more info--what do you mean by "lowering the threshold?"

5. We already have that--the House of Representatives.

6. Always. Motor-Votor went a long way towards helping with that, but I'm sure more can be done.

[bigbillhaywood]

7. Okay...

1. What does a consitutional scholar's opinion matter? It's a question of how we should structure our democracy-- majority vote or electoral college with "wasted votes"? You don't need a PhD to decide on that.

5. I don't think you know what Proportional Representation means.

[Shakespeare]

12. Okay back at you

1. I'd like to read a cross-section of different learned opinions on the matter because the scholar is precisely that--someone with a great deal of knowledge on the matter. I don't need a PhD to decide that, but I do actively seek out a great deal of research and information before I form an opinion on something, especially something like this. Yeah, it matters.

2. Yes, I know very well what proportional representation means, and that's precisely why I said what I said in my answer to that question. Perhaps you didn't understand me--but thanks for the insult anyway.

[bigbillhaywood]

15. I wasn't trying to insult you, but it seems as if you misunderstood

"proportional representation system". Congress works on a "first past the post" pluralistic system, not a proportional representation system.

[Shakespeare]

27. I understand that--I suppose what I'm trying to say...

...is that it's a matter of what form of representative government you want. I think what we've got is better than proportional representation would be. I was a bit arch in that first response, but assumed you'd get my drift.

You say proportional representation, I say tomato... ;-)

[kiahzero]

8. No, no, no, yes, yes, yes

1) Eliminate the EC, and institute a real voting system; preferrably Condorcet, but Acceptance will work.

2) Term limits are BAD. In no other job would it be suggested that you force experienced workers to retire en masse and bring in new people to train.

3) No... recalls should only happen in the most egregious of cases. Otherwise, you have a tyranny of the majority scenario where politicians have to demagogue to people's worst impulses in order to stay in office, rather than do the right thing even if it's not popular right away.

4) Fine with me.

5) So long as there's 5 or 10% cutoff, fine with me. I like the German system, personally.

6) Fine with me.

[Imperialism Inc.]

9. My answers.

1. yes -- do you mean plurality or majority? if majority then this includes some form of instant runoff which is fine but pairwise counting(Condorcet) is better (but can't be described as "majority" or "plurality" really).

2. No -- I think presidential term limits should be removed or increased to 3 or 4. I don't think "lifers" (life-long bureaucrats) should be essentially be running things

3. No -- You elect , he serves, none of this second guessing, political attack crap that coems with recalls. Make shorter terms if need be.

4. Well I dunno. I don't think thats a bad thing but I don't see it as doing much good. The key is how much exposure someone can get once they get on the ballot. So it is better to focus on "public campaigns" or better debate standards etc.

5. Yes

6. Sure

[MAlibdem]

10. My answers...

1. Elimination of electoral college-- simple majority vote.
Probably


2. Congressional term limits
No, it takes several terms to gain the experience needed to be an effective congressperson


3. Easier recall procedures
No, people have to deal with those who they elected until the end of his or her term unless the official is charged and convicted of some crime.


4. Lowering threshold for getting on ballots
Probably


5. Proportional representation system
Probably not, less accountability and connection between people and who's representing them, also more corruption. And coalition governments rarely work well.


6. Streamlining voter registration
Yes

Edit: Limit President to one, six-year term; less political fallout in first term, easier for President to do his job and not be as politically focused

[yardwork]

11. My vote

1. Elimination of electoral college-- simple majority vote. NO

2. Congressional term limits NO

3. Easier recall procedures NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN

4. Lowering threshold for getting on ballots THEY VARY BY STATE

5. Proportional representation system YES YES YES!

6. Streamlining voter registration YES

Reasons for my opinion:

1. Elimination of Electoral College would make it too easy for all politicians to ignore sparsely populated parts of the country and focus on the large cities. EC is better in the long run. In 2000 if the votes had been tallied correctly in Florida Gore would have won both the popular and EC vote. It's rarely an issue and wasn't one in 2000. Election fraud was the issue in 2000.

2. I'm for more freedom, not less, to elect whomever we want as often as we want.

3. I'm not sure which recalls you mean.

4. States currently control the apparatus for getting on ballots. It would make sense to make those rules more equitable, just as it would make sense to make the primaries more equitable, but I'm not sure that the states would ever allow the feds to interfere in this.

5. Proportional representation - yes! I agree wholeheartedly and I don't expect to see it in my lifetime. The two parties have everything to lose and nothing to gain by giving an inch to other parties.

6. Streamlining voter registration - sure, but also let's enforce the Civil Rights Acts that are supposed to protect voters rights to go to the polls. There is still a lot of intimidation at polls against minority voters in the south. And the issue of electronic voting is huge - if we let that happen we may as well hang it up because our votes will be irrelevant anyway.

[RoyGBiv]

13. Conflicted...

1) I go back and forth. Both direct election and the electoral college system have their flaws and potential pitfals. Imagine, for example, a nationwide recount, which would have been a distinct possibility in the 2000 election given the closeness of the vote total. The election may well have ended in a similar way -- in the Supreme Court.

2) No. I'm not convinced term limits serve any real purpose other than to mandade a person gets thrown out of office who displeases certain others. This can work both ways and end the term of a very effective representative as well. Modification to the system that gives perks to incumbents would be a better solution.

3) Absolutely not. See California.

4) Possibly. Depends on the circumstances.

5) Yes.

6) Streamlining in what way?

[JM]

16. I would change the list

1) No
2) No - leave it to the states to decide
3) Absolutely not. Look at California
4) No - leave it to the states
5) Deoends on what you mean
6) Yes

I would add a single day primary instead of the current system, and I would make the primary and general elections holidays

JM

[JM]

17. I would change the list

1) No
2) No - leave it to the states to decide
3) Absolutely not. Look at California
4) No - leave it to the states
5) Deoends on what you mean
6) Yes

I would add a single day primary instead of the current system, and I would make the primary and general elections holidays

JM

[Imperialism Inc.]

18. While we're proposing amendments, why not amend the 14th

amendment to specifically only include human beings and not corporations like it has been corrupted to include (not through any legislature but through the courts).

[sangh0]

21. Because

it seems we're too busy trying to make the US less democratic.

:-)

[bigbillhaywood]

23. Sounds good to me. nt

[eagler]

20. Yes . This is essentially called

DEMOCRACY

[NoPasaran]

22. My take

1. Elimination of electoral college-- simple majority vote.

I am in favor of this. I'm not sure that a majority should be required, perhaps a plurality would be enough.

2. Congressional term limits

No. I don't think that any good purpose is served by limited the number of times a person can be elected to a given office.

3. Easier recall procedures

No. I think that an officeholder would be inhibited from taking necessary but unpopular stands if he stood to be quickly booted from office through what amounts to mob rule.

4. Lowering threshold for getting on ballots

Not necessarily. In some states, ballot access is very easy. In others it is hard. I don't buy the notion that a plethora of political parties is necessarily a good thing.

5. Proportional representation system

No. In a winner-take-all system, minority views may be marginalized, true. But in proportional representation systems, the majority view can be held hostage by the opinion of a minority whose support is necessary for the composition of coalition.

6. Streamlining voter registration

Not sure what you mean. In my state (Texas) it's already pretty damn easy to register. The fact is that lots of people don't bother to, lots of those who are registered don't vote (even though we have a couple of weeks of "early voting" when you can vote at shopping malls and grocery stores) and many of those who do vote are just plain idiots.

[Cheswick2.0]

29. Yes to 1 and 6, no to the rest

double no to 2 and 3.

[bemildred]

31. Yes, no, no, no, no, yes.

1. The EC is undemocratic, and purposely so, get rid of it.
2. The People should be able to elect whomever they choose as many times
as they choose, period.
3. Once elected, an official should not have to be looking over his shoulder
all the time, unless he has really fucked up.
4. I have no idea what this means, hence "no".
5. I have no idea what this means, hence "no".
6. More voters is democratic, therefore good. While you are at it let's have
elections on a holiday or use some system that make it easier for working
stiffs, parents, and other busy people to do their civic duty and vote.