66 Comments

1. only taxpayers should finance elections with a specific amount per taxpayer. it should not exceed 100.00 per tax payer. limit campaigns to several months only. all primaries occur at the same date throughout the nation. corporations should never be able to donate to elections.
   it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what is wrong wirth our elections. they are too corrupt to save our nation from dying. and it will because of the great corruption in our government, both federal and statewide.
   we need new people in government not politicians. most are or become corrupt. greed is a terrible sickness.

   limit terms to several years only. no re-elections.

   disgusted voter

   Comment by arthur hubbs — November 6, 2007 @ 3:33 pm |     --1

2. 1st: Allow NO PRIVATE MONEY or PRIVATE spending or Contributions. Nothing. Every candidate, EVERY candidate–major or minor party–gets the same campaign money from Congress.

   2nd: All Candidates get EQUAL ACCESS to all media. Maybe a certain number of hours of public exposure within a specific time frame on each channel, station, etc. This free media access should be considered a required contribution that media companies make to the Public in return for being allowed to make use of the public airways.

   3rd: To be considered a candidate, a person has to collect a certain number of signatures. But once a person reaches that threshhold, the door is open to public funding and media access.

   4th: Forget about primaries. Let the populace decide who they think will best represent them. Forget about the 2-party monopoly over candidates. Open up the field and let more people with good ideas have a chance.

   5th: 18 years old seems mature enough to vote.

   Comment by Isabel — November 6, 2007 @ 5:14 pm |     +3

3. Base the percentage of electoral college delegate votes on the state-by-state popular vote. Majority rules.

   Comment by Josh — November 6, 2007 @ 5:19 pm |     +2

4. If I was going to redesign the election process, it would be more like in Britain — you have to hold an election periodically, but the elections don’t go on for years.
   No primaries, but if one candidate didn’t get enough votes, we’d vote again.
   Spending limits.
   Do away with the electoral college.

   I am already so tired of this election and I agree with John that this popularity contest is distorting what democracy really is. It’s about the constitution and the bill of rights for starters.

   Comment by H Kennedy — November 6, 2007 @ 5:32 pm |     +1

5. As Jimmy Carter pointed out, he and Jerry Ford campaigned using public money. Publicly funded campaigns are the way to go. Primaries should be forbidden until the September before the general election and campaigning should be limited to six months at the most. Ideally, two months before the primaries and two months after the primaries should suffice to bring the candidates before the public. I’m already tired of the campaigning. I will ignore most of the campaigning until next year.

   Comment by Tina Dobsevage — November 6, 2007 @ 5:35 pm |     +1

6. What’s the problem with American politics? Money. We have the best democracy money lobbyists and PACs can buy. Do we really think this system is what the Founders had in mind? We can do better than this. My suggestions:
   1. Mandate strict public financing (I don’t think donations are speech, donations are donations); 2. Eliminate political advertising; 3. Restrict the campaign to 6 months; 4. Return control of the debates to a non-partisan independent group with no input from the national party organizations; 5. Eliminate or modify the Electoral College; 6. To encourage higher turn out, move the vote to the 2nd Saturday of November (why not the entire weekend) or make Election Day a holiday; 7. To avoid another Florida or Ohio, national elections should be conducted by the same Federal rules, guidelines in every state; in the interest of fairness and impartiality, political partisans affiliated with either party should be excluded from overseeing or managing the voting process.

   Comment by Eric — November 6, 2007 @ 6:27 pm |     +2

7. One thing that would help is to reduce the power of televised media. TV is terrible at dealing with real issues - attection deficit medium on both sides of the screen.

   Another thing that would help is to make some sort of governmental service mandatory for all college aged students. Study abroad is pretty much a standard these days - how about credits for taking a study local - get those students out there, face to face with real issues. Get people involved.

   Lobbyists and corporations. Politicians need to get out of this terrible cycle of reaching into pockets. They need to know that we are watching. The vote should trump the donation every time.

   As for the process - we need some major reform and oversight. Ideally the voting process should be as transparent as possible. Take advantage of new technologies ideally with open standards. Limit the hoops a voter needs to jump through. Do away with gerrymandering. The primary rat-race is a joke.

   Lastly - do away with this obsession with the 2 main parties. What a bunch of crap. In the real world there are pro choice gun lovers, pro environment fundamentalists, etc. - let’s stop these terrible skewed reductions. Stop treating people like sheep and they’ll return the favor.

   Comment by Kale — November 6, 2007 @ 9:54 pm |     +2

8. Two things could bring our country back to a country by the people, for the people, of the people.

   First take the big money requirement out of the election process. Why does our nation’s leader have to
   mainly be a top fundraiser? As long as big money is the main requirement for running, we will continue to be a country whose priorities are for the small number of wealthy elite.

   How can we take big money out of the election process?
   Billboards, newspapers/magazines, radio, and TV could offer government subsidized advertising spots to candidates who have the required number of signatures to put them on the ballot. Donations to campaigns should be limited to $1,000 per contributor. Pass law(s) to get rid of special interest groups and lobbyists. More televised debates between candidates could take the power out of the sound bite type of negative advertising.

   The other thing is to standardize the election process and voting machinery (with paper backup) across the country (as Canada does). This would get rid of the loop holes in the voting process that allow election fraud to continue.

   Comment by Leah Becker — November 11, 2007 @ 12:23 pm |     +0

9. Finally a forum for my excellent and promising alternative to the present system. First,eliminate the cap on donation to campaigns; remove limitations and restrictions on the source of donations. OK. Then, hand the presidency to whichever candidate receives the most donations. That’s right. Do not hold elections. There will be no change in the product. The winner is beholden to his major campaign contributors, not those who voted for her (or him). And where does the campaign funds go? Of course to air time to raise more money. But there will be tens, if not hundreds, of billions in contributions to the winner, which would be pyhsically impossible to spend on campaigning. All unspent money will go directly into the US treasury.

   What could be more equitable? Where is the flaw? Of course, the devil is in the details.

   Comment by Dave Druss — November 11, 2007 @ 8:19 pm |     +2

10. I might have to listen to the program again for the bias for the host that I though I heard.
    One example is as follows:
    At about 26:00 in, in the Latino section, the host said the if I was the “anti-immigration candidate,…”. Maybe it might be better phased “anti-illegal immigration candidate.”
    If the host meant the statement as expressed, where is the candidate that is against immigration? Pat Buchann (sp) or other “let’s that a time out from immigration” people are not candidates at this time.

    Comment by MG — November 11, 2007 @ 11:10 pm |     +1

11. For all the inconvenience of weekday elections, they cannot be moved to weekends without disenfranchising certain devoutly religious folks. Some Christians will not vote on a Sunday, and some Jews and Muslims will not vote on a Saturday. The best solution is to extend the voting period to more than a single day.

    Also, I yes, the campaign period should be shortened. I’d be happy with a nominating process that starts in March and culminates in July or August, then a November general election. We should set the primary calendar according to region, so we’ll have a Northeast vote, then a Midwest, etc.

    I don’t know how we’ll ever get rid of the outdated electoral college. The states with small populations, thanks to their two Senators each, have the power to block the needed Constitutional amendment. One benefit it does provide is, in close elections we don’t need a full, nationwide recount. What a mess that would be!

    Comment by Carley — November 12, 2007 @ 1:20 am |     +1

12. It should be abundantly clear by now that representative democracy is a failure. It is not representation of the Electorate, but rather, as Mr. Druss points out in post #9, it is representation of the interested money. The formulation of policy in this country is about the interested money. The long-term, tough policies which this country needs, and which many excellent government agencies such as the CBO and the GAO clearly see and articulate, is still-born because such policies usually a)require long-term sacrifice, b)require that short-term interests not be served, and c) is hard to sell to the interested money, unless it happens to be their interest served by long-range policies. The result: policy reversals that come and go with each new administration, self-serving legislation intended to benefit few and an overall whoring of our nations executive and legislative branches of government to the highest legal bidder i.e. campaign contributions and its ilk.

    The solution? Abolish elections for the legislative branch and institute a lottery for public service. Citizens will be chosen from the populace randomly and required to serve a 4-year term. At the end of their term, they go home. No re-election campaigns and no chance to ever serve again.

    Of course, some selection criteria would have to be put into place. For instance, you must be a legal citizen, never convicted of any crime more serious than a misdemeanor, must be paying taxes and perhaps even a requirement to own property. You must be mentally competent, fit to serve, etc. The basic gist is that you must be a good citizen with some kind of stake in the national interest.

    These citizen legislators would have no office to sell, no influence to peddle and no incentive to align themselves with a party or block of votes except as their conscience dictated. They would be served by a permanent technocracy, which is pretty much the case we have today with federal workers holding lifetime careers while administrations come and go. The technocracy would serve to inform the citizen legislators of the issues and provide policy initiatives for consideration by the legislative bodies. The legislators would either pass or reject the initiatives, and it would be incumbent upon the informed agencies to provide new alternatives.

    Salaries for the technocracy would be dramatically increased to attract the best and brightest to service, and pensions and salaries for the legislators would be nil. All persons being selected by lottery would be paid their current salaries at the time they were selected. For small business owners, provisions would be made to keep the business functioning during their time of service.

    Lobbying would still be permitted, but under no circumstances could any legislator leave service and take a position with a company or industry affected by any considered legislation during the time of their service, with the exception of retaining the job that they came into office already holding. The same would hold true for the government agency employees. Receiving of gifts and bribes would be harshly criminalized.

    The main idea is that if the incentive to whore one’s vote is gone, perhaps reasoned, long-range policies to fix important issues this country faces could perhaps be enacted. If one can never be re-elected, that aspect of self interested dealing is lessened. In the final analysis, the goal is to remove the incentive to hold the office, thus creating incentive (hopefully) to form good policy.

    Comment by Eric — November 12, 2007 @ 5:16 pm |     +2

13. Echoes of public funding of elections seems to resound throughout recent elections. I believe there’s enough popular support for this to allow for a referendum on the matter. There’s no need to wait for congress to pass this long sought after measure.

    Why tuesday though? I read above about the religious problems of voting on the weekend. Understandable. Why not make the election a national holiday? Democracy is based on the vote, and I think because of that the vote should be worthy of a holiday; if not for reverence of the vote for the function of the vote.

    Many of the other comments pushed for shortening the campaigns. I think that might be considered but certainly not too drastically. It’s important that there is time to debate and really feel out a candidates positions. With the internet and it’s ability to compile all the candidates say, the longer they’re out there getting their views out the more information there is.

    These reforms all will help but no true change can happen without, at least, a three party system. Too often are the voters marginalized and then equally stereotyped are the candidates of either party. Partisanship is ridiculous; how can a party’s views mirror the electorate that is as varied as their fingerprints. With three parties emphasis would shift from the party affiliation to the candidate allowing them to express true views.

    Comment by Nic — November 13, 2007 @ 1:57 pm |     +0

14. I doubt much will change. The money raised by the candidates are spent on TV, newspaper and other medial venues, all dependent upon high-funding electioneering to support their staff, printing presses and “news” distributing networks.

    Guess who decides what becomes “news” to stir the population for change?

    Comment by Adel Antado — November 14, 2007 @ 2:57 pm |     +1

15. Special interest groups with deep pockets control both parties. What the country needs is a constitutional amendment mandating public financing of all elections.Then our politicians will be more responsive to the needs of their constituents rather than developing legislation that benefits their largest campaign contributors.Unfortunately,it is hard to imagine our current crop of politicians pushing for public financing because they won’t want to bite the hand that feeds them.

    Comment by John Bird — November 15, 2007 @ 5:40 pm |     +1

16. Primaries should be done in a series of ten super tuesdays starting from the five least populated states to the five most populated. this would give campaigns a chance to recover from minor losses, and still give small states a feeling of power in the process. general elections should be held on wednesdays with a ban on state or federal holidays earlier or later in that week. Election day should be a national holiday so that as many people can participate as possible. An election tax of $200 should be enacted for every voter, but then nullified if the voter actually votes, in an effort to encourage voting by charging those who do not vote. I would love for the electoral college to be abolished, but I don’t see that happening any time soon.

    Comment by Matt — November 21, 2007 @ 7:40 am |     +1

17. Why won’t people face the facts,our government is for sale to the highest bidder.Money talks BS walks as the saying goes. No business or Lobbyist gives money without wanting something in return. If it costs a Billion dollars for a person to get elected,then when he gets elected he has a lot of favors to payback and if he wants to run again he had better take care of those favors.To the people throw a few crumbs but take care of your “friends”.
    That’s the American way,God help us before it’s too late.

    Comment by Elliott Butler — November 23, 2007 @ 8:25 am |     +2

18. Ranked choice voting for all elections. More than anything else, our current voting system screws things up by forcing people into two opposing parties. We accept this as if it is some natural law that people always cluster into two opposing groups, but it is simply a mathematical consequence of a stupid way of voting.

    We love the idea of third party candidates running, but in our system, all it does is distort the election. A candidate that can’t win can end up giving the election to a candidate whose main strength is that he is more different from other candidates, so has an advantage because his constituency isn’t split.

    What we need is a system that elects people who are more centrist, so real stuff actually get done, rather than just a bunch of people who’s only agenda is defeating the other side. What a waste.

    This article explains the reasoning behind ranked choice in an easy to understand way: http://karmatics.com/voting/movienite.html

    Comment by rob brown — November 29, 2007 @ 8:20 am |     +2

19. Election of the President should only be by qualified voters. I don’t mean the restrictive property or literacy requirement. I mean voters who are informed on the issues and understand the campaigns of the candidates. I would recommend voter licensing just like automobile licensing. You would have to take an initial test to demonstrate competency and have to renew at proscribed intervals. Ballots should only be cast by secure websites or accredited ATM type recordes. Results should be posted on web or public electronic billboards in central locations (i.e., malls and municipal buildings). An informed electorate is the watch dog of democracy.

    Comment by Clifford Hughes — December 1, 2007 @ 7:29 pm |     --2

20. after reading the comments about ranked voting, I think it is interesting. I like the idea in theory, but there are flaws in how it might be implemented. If you look at how things are done in the Iowa caucus, you can find a good way NOT to use rankings. There are quite a few scenarios where Edwards doing better can help Obama (or vice-versa, but I support Obama so I chose to write it that way). That just doesn’t seem right to me.

    Another famous use of ranked voting is in the selection of Olympic host cities. They eliminate least popular choices in a series of rounds until there is a clear winner. But as the previous comment rightly stated, if everyone is asked for a second choice, then maybe the choice that was eliminated in the first round would be the best balance of preference. It is an interesting idea, and if someone came up with a just equation or system, then I would definitely be for it.

    Comment by Matt — December 3, 2007 @ 2:04 pm |     +0

21. Why not have a election like the British. They just call for a vote of confidence or rather “no confidence”…and in six weeks they choose a new prime minister…six weeks beats the hell out of all the time and money that goes into USA’s process and would probably amount to the same. We could pay off the national debt and fund social security and Medicare with the savings.

    Comment by Mary Ann Penner — December 3, 2007 @ 3:53 pm |     +1

22. 1) Electioneering from March 1 to July 1 during the election year only, with party conventions any time after that. Each state/party could pick primary or caucus format. Third party and independents would be subject to the same time frame.
    2) Free, specified media exposure, same time allotment to each candidate. A total ban on TV or radio commercials less than 60 seconds in length (if it can fit into a sound bite it may be clever, but it’s probably poor policy)
    3) Private contributions allowed, but no more than, say, $100 per person. Public financing preferred.
    4) No donations from unions or corporations. No PAC’s.
    5) The only suggestion I have which may actually make a difference: a vital press. The press is supposed to be independent. They need to get off their duffs and DO JOURNALISM! Quit taking everything a candidate says at face value. Question, question, question. And not just who’s lusting after whom!
    Thanks for the opportunity!

    Comment by Shawn Clements — December 5, 2007 @ 10:26 pm |     +1

23. With all the things on the internet these days, why can’t we vote via the internet? More people would vote and it would be less hassle than standing in line waiting when we need to be somewhere else. If we can file our tax returns on the web…why not vote?

    Comment by Linda — December 10, 2007 @ 3:37 pm |     --1

24. If you want to re-establish a sense of true democracy in this country, as opposed to redefining it to some old-world standard favoring mob rule or some oligarchic structure, (as may actually be your intention), then I believe that we need to silence the infotainment community by dissallowing their profit from the dicsussion and polling process. Why are we even having a conversation about “billion” dollar presidents? Because the infotainment community, yourselves included, has fully recognized and exploited the commercial value of the political race. the media should not be allowed to profit from the democracy. Its establishment and maintainence is tantamount to promtotion of the plutocrasy (and its sycophants) as appropriate and defacto “lords of the land”.

    As for the preceeding comment about internet voting, I view it much in the same light as the recent reduction in security of the voting process by the far left, in which governments were strong-armed, with the witting aid of the infotainment industry, (aka media) into destroying the existing voting methods in favor of electronic voting. This, as we all know, has been a fiasco at best, and a measureable squandering of government revenue.

    Finally, I find it ironic that the “people’s radio” requires an email address in order to allow commentary on this issue. Since most educated poeple realize that “Big Brother”, as defined in George Orwell’s 1984, is much more likely to be born of those who control communications, ie, the media and its partners, it strikes me that any who publicly oppose your aims may eventually find themselves listed by your organizations as heretics to your hegemony.

    Bottom line: You and yours are the single greatest threat to democracy.

    Comment by James — December 12, 2007 @ 10:11 am |     +0

25. I think that when doing the debates the canadates should be hooked to lie decetors.

    Comment by Brandon N — December 12, 2007 @ 4:37 pm |     +0

26. I would change to a system of instant run-off voting so that people could rank order the candidates (rank from most desired to least desired). This more than anything will allow people to vote for who they truly believe in, rather than vote for who they think has the best chance of winning. This would be closer to true democracy.

    Voting systems that yield outcomes that we can trust would also be a welcome addition.

    Comment by Katy Kropf — December 12, 2007 @ 10:01 pm |     +3

27. 1. Eliminate Electoral College - no reason for it.

    2. Eliminate the Presidential Debates Commission - go back to presidential debates sponsored by the League of Women Voters, and other reputable non-profit, non-partisan groups with the real interests of democracy rather than of the 2 major, corrupt parties.

    3. Speaking of those 2 major, corrupt parties, the IRV, or Ranked-Choice Voting idea is one of the most important, for many reasons: People can vote more for whom they believe in rather than this horse-race type of trying to predict who has the best chance. Also, in places where IRV is used, it is found that it lessens negative campaigning, since each candidate has interest in possibly being the 2nd or 3rd choice of other candidates. Most of all, it gives independents and 3rd party candidates a better chance, while allowing people to really express their views.

    4. If we want clean air, clean water and a clean food supply, we’ll probably need clean elections first - some options for public funding are already instituted in Arizona and (either Maine or Massachusetts), where poorly-funded people can have a chance for public funding by establishing a base of support by small ($5?) donations.

    5. I like the idea someone proposed of 10 “Super Tuesdays” on Wednesdays (really - the idea of going from smaller states to bigger ones allows all states to have their say in the primaries).

    6. Public Education must establish a curriculum for Civics, including understanding how different levels of government work, current issues, and also including a public service component.

    7. I worry about the ideas of limiting the timeframe of campaigning too much, since the lesser-known and poorly-funded candidates need more time to get out there.

    Comment by David B — December 12, 2007 @ 10:56 pm |     +2

28. I would like to have 24 hour paper ballot voting for the primaries and the national elections, with the entire country voting during the same hours on the same Saturday, eliminating the electoral college.

    Comment by Lynn Walker — December 13, 2007 @ 3:50 pm |     +0

29. I would not have primaries, but a general election like we see in other countries. There would be a first round of all candidates, then the top 2 would go into a final round.

    Also, I would change how Congress is elected by giving proportions to the parties as they were elected. So if the Jesus of Light party won 2% of the election, they would get 2% representation in Congress.

    This way when there are contentious debate, most minor views would be represented and the effects of a bullying party would be minimized -

    Comment by Terry D — December 18, 2007 @ 2:48 pm |     --1

30. Am 47, lived till 21 in India, and in the US since. Have always been intrigued by how both systems are flawed, yet in very different ways. In the US the 2-party system squeezes out the chance of any genuine new political movement; in India the multiplicity of parties forces coalitions that degenerate often into “mercenary populism.” Both are afflicted by the need for ever-growing amounts of money for candidates to have any chance.

    However, I believe some identical reforms need to be considered both in the US and in India.

    1. Use of “approval voting” under which a voter “approves” or “disapproves” each candidate may give (a) 3rd party candidates a chance (b) induce more consensus and less partisanship and shrillness among candidates seeking votes. (Enormous detail about approval voting is available at http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvote/center.html).

    2. Provide more public contributions in kind, which can help contribute a measure of leveling of the playing field.

    3. One idea the US can borrow from India is the kind of (much lower-tech) electronic voting machines we use in India. As a perceptive Slate writer, Eric Wiener wrote (http://www.slate.com/id/2107388). While they are also not immune to fraud, the fraud if any tends to be very “retail,” never “wholesale” as in Florida 2000.

    Comment by Murgie Krishnan — December 18, 2007 @ 3:05 pm |     +1

31. I think the primaries should take place on the same day for the entire country. That way, no one state influences the nomination any more than any other states, just like the general election. Or, if that is too cumbersome, then the results of the primaries should not be aired until every last state has voted. I would also eliminate the electoral college so each person’s vote would actually have real voting power. Election day should be a national holiday so that work schedules are not an issue.

    Comment by Debby Shadoff — December 18, 2007 @ 3:18 pm |     +0

32. Allow only federal money that is equally distributed to candidates to be spent on the campaign. No donations.

    Comment by Sarah Josephson — December 18, 2007 @ 3:19 pm |     +2

33. Some comments disparage primaries in the US. I agree they are way too long and some reform would be welcome. But let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    In India, where there are no primaries for candidate selection at any level, candidates are chosen by party “high commands,” and democracy WITHIN parties is extremely rare except (yes, this is true, despite the risk of confusion among American readers!!) the various Indian Communist parties. We need something in between no-primaries and the current system of primaries.

    Comment by Murgie Krishnan — December 18, 2007 @ 3:31 pm |     +1

34. 1. Election Day should be a HOLIDAY! That way everyone can find a time to go vote.

    2. There should be a ban on completely electronic voting machines. I respect that the electronic machines will help for quick assessments BUT there needs to be a legitimate, un-hackable hard copy.

    3. Campaign spending limits that are the same for all candidates (as well as investigations to verify). This would make it like a contest to see what the best uses the money have been.

    4. Have every vote count! If we can’t enforce that then we have lost our purpose.

    5. Equal airtime on news networks and during “debates”.

    Comment by Darius D — December 18, 2007 @ 3:36 pm |     +0

35. 1. Voting should be mandatory, punishable by a large fine and/or community service.

    Isn’t voting a small price to pay for our society - if jury duty is mandatory then so should voting.

    You can abstain, but you have to turn up and vote.

    Give people 3 days to vote - I don’t care if networks like the all-in-one-day approach.

    2. Abolish the electoral college and adopt a proper system such as the one used by Ireland (Single transferable vote)

    3. Have government sponsored debates to include all candidates.

    4. Abolish all campaign (private or personal) contributions and fully federally fund all candidates.

    5. Working and accountable voting machines… (see open-source voting systems)

    And thats just the start…

    -Michael - a non-citizen immigrant in the US

    Comment by Michael — December 18, 2007 @ 3:50 pm |     --2

36. I am amazed that you guys are so blase about the notion that there is a 1 percent error in counting votes. You seem to be comparing it to an opinion poll. But an opinion poll takes a sample and its margin of error is a measure of how closely the sample will accurately reflect the whole. A 1 percent error in actually counting the votes on election day is a scandal and we ought to be outraged.

    Comment by Gary McCardell — December 18, 2007 @ 3:56 pm |     +2

37. Why havent any of your guests talked about the fact that the primary process should be held as the general elections are; all states at the same time. Also, one of your guests said the process as yeilded good leaders. This may have been true in the past, but the proliferation of technology regarding the internet and microtargeting is a recent development, say early 1990’s, and since then, we have had two presidents, the latter a complete goof. We are headed down a path that will continue to result in less qualified presidents, who know how to win elections, but do not know how to run a country. They have been able to consolidate the religious right, which will be the down fall of the US. Mike Huckabee is the only person running that admits he doesnt believe in evolution, and he is the one that is going to win the republican nomination.

    Comment by Robert — December 18, 2007 @ 3:56 pm |     +0

38. For an example of ranked-choice/instant runoff voting try choiceranker.com.

    There are two polls running for December 2007.

    For the Democrats:
    http://www.choiceranker.com/election.php?eid=161

    For the Republicans:
    http://www.choiceranker.com/election.php?eid=163

    Comment by Craig Simon — December 18, 2007 @ 3:58 pm |     --1

39. I would eliminate party affiliations altogether. This would not only force a candidate to appeal to all voters, but it would also force the voters to educate themselves on each candidate based on their individual strengths and weaknesses instead of blindly voting along party lines.

    Comment by Annemarie Feldman — December 18, 2007 @ 4:08 pm |     --1

40. Here is my idea as a poll worker, for The county formerly known as Dade County, Florida, USA. Ranked for most important parts of my way of improving the presidental election system.

    Joe Hicks sucks. Only college graduates vote is immature and stupid, even though I agree about Dictator Bush.

    First, I like the runoff idea; except all candidates are available for “if or” voting.

    Second, No Electorial College, at all. The people’s votes determine it period. Only One process (already established) through only predetermined and equal number of elected officials from all parties (even those that created only two-years before the election) to make sure the people’s votes are the only factor determining the results of the vote.

    Third, A printed out or imprinted receipt (like credit cards) that has to be electronically or manually signed and include electronic or scanned picture taken at the moment before voting, by the voter, for every single vote.

    Fourth, National holiday for every election day, state/city holidays for each state’s/city’s elections.

    Fifth, Voters pay for every single candidates’ costs in running for presidency, thus all have exactly equal amount of money.

    Sixth, Limit the presidential campaigning time to two-years, before the presidental election day. Each ad menting a person and the presidental election, earlier than two-years, would cost the candidate a percentage of his or her publically funded campaign money and put anyone connected with the ad in jail, for serious time.

    Seventh, Voters vote on whether they approve of The President, after the election, every time he or she vetos any thing. If he receives less than 50% of approval than than the presidents time is cut short. Just long enough for going through the presidental election system again.

    Eighth, A lot better training, evaluation of poll workers and discarding those who do not care.

    Nineth, Streamline the training process by establishing what the poll workers already know (pre, during and post election days evaluations and the workers’ backgrounds) and eleminate the need for them to go through every single part of the training. I am a former ESE teacher a nd deal with LDs and memory deficits my entire life, I do not need waste time and turning me off watching a video about trying people with disabilities right.

    Tenth, I am also non-religious, in any manner, thus I was pissed off when our counties’ elections training view about appreciating people with disabilities was themed from ‘The Ten Commandments’. If we cannot obey our US Constitution, then we no hope for our elections.

    Comment by Jason 'Great White'- Shark Nall — December 18, 2007 @ 4:22 pm |     +0

41. Here is my idea as a poll worker, for The county formerly known as Dade County, Florida, USA. Ranked for most important parts of my way of improving the presidental election system.

    First, I like the runoff idea; except all candidates are available for “if or” voting.

    Second, No Electorial College, at all. The people’s votes determine it period. Only One process (already established) through only predetermined and equal number of elected officials from all parties (even those that created only two-years before the election) to make sure the people’s votes are the only factor determining the results of the vote.

    Third, A printed out or imprinted receipt (like credit cards) that has to be electronically or manually signed and include electronic or scanned picture taken at the moment before voting, by the voter, for every single vote.

    Fourth, National holiday for every election day, state/city holidays for each state’s/city’s elections.

    Fifth, Voters pay for every single candidates’ costs in running for presidency, thus all have exactly equal amount of money.

    Sixth, Limit the presidential campaigning time to two-years, before the presidental election day. Each ad menting a person and the presidental election, earlier than two-years, would cost the candidate a percentage of his or her publically funded campaign money and put anyone connected with the ad in jail, for serious time.

    Seventh, Voters vote on whether they approve of The President, after the election, every time he or she vetos any thing. If he receives less than 50% of approval than than the presidents time is cut short. Just long enough for going through the presidental election system again.

    Eighth, A lot better training, evaluation of poll workers and discarding those who do not care.

    Nineth, Streamline the training process by establishing what the poll workers already know (pre, during and post election days evaluations and the workers’ backgrounds) and eleminate the need for them to go through every single part of the training. I am a former ESE teacher a nd deal with LDs and memory deficits my entire life, I do not need waste time and turning me off watching a video about trying people with disabilities right.

    Tenth, I am also non-religious, in any manner, thus I was pissed off when our counties’ elections training view about appreciating people with disabilities was themed from ‘The Ten Commandments’. If we cannot obey our US Constitution, then we no hope for our elections.

    Comment by Jason 'Great White'- Shark Nall — December 18, 2007 @ 4:24 pm |     --1

42. I really like Eric’s (#12) sane proposal. Add in a requirement that all legislation be contained on one standard page in 12-point Elite typewriter font and include a one-sentence explanation in plain English of what that legislation is meant to do. Prohibit lawyers from serving on any legislative body at any level. Where applicable, discrete, empirical, peer-duplicated science should rule — not emotion, myths, fallacies (statistics), etc.

    Comment by Roger Pariseau — December 18, 2007 @ 4:36 pm |     +2

43. Most of the discussion misses the forest for the detailed and technical leaves on the trees.

    Jefferson addressed the key issue, but in a idealistic and impractical way. he envisioned a nation of independent yeoman farmers (left out the women and the non whites, but even so). Each independent of the others and so not subject ot pressure from bosses, the food suppliers, energy suppliers, … Hamilton thought a commercial nation would include so many different pressures they would cancel themselves out. Jefferson disagreed; he thought people subject to pressure in anything like Hamilton’s imagined world. Someone would have more money, more power, and more influence than others and would distort a dispassionate judgement on the part of voters. He missed the influence of large companies though he probably shouldn’t have with current and past example of the East India company before all. A major source of the friction between them.

    So how to ensure Jefferson’s ideal of well informed voters, independent of pressures on their views, who are free to vote in such a way as to benefit the public good, whatever that might be in any particular case…?

    I suggest the following is a reasonable approach. It is an attempt to take into account human psychological truth in a situation of uncertain future (ie, every voting situation). Observe first that there are people who do their best to follow the issues, and the candidates and to vote responsibly. And that there are others who don’t bother to pay attention, don’t know who’s running, or what their position is on any particular issue, and don’t know the issues generally. Any voting solution should take into account this dichotomy (among many, but the most general). Age limitations, residency limitations, formerly property limitations, etc are attempts to do so all of which miss the essential point. Some people care and are willing to put effort into making sense of the issue and the candidates, and some don’t. How to distinguish between them for purposes of marking eligibility for the franchise?

    Well, an experiential test seems best. But it must be entirely and absolutely voluntary as forcing someone to demonstrate a commitment to the common weal is an oxymoron in psychological terms. Either way; not volunteering should carry **no** disability at all of any kind, save inability to vote. No economic penalty, no civil rights penalty, nothing, ever…

    The Peace Corps, and similar organizations, provides a clue. The voluntary act should be to officially sign up with such an organization (eg, lousy pay, possibly poor conditions, …) for a limited term of years. Since a sense of, and commitment to, civic responsibility can be found in the fit, the old, the infirm, the female, the male, etc it will not be possible to set a limitation based on any of these. So **anyone** who volunteers must be accepted, no limits at all, save perhaps one must be old enough to make such decisions. The term should be, well long enough to demonstrate a real commitment — say two years, but with no exceptions. If you don’t finish your term, that’s it, you don’t get another chance, and you don’t earn the right to vote. Nothing else happens, and you can drop out merely by saying so at any time.

    What kind of service? Well, it can’t be chosen or even influenced by the volunteer, lest someone earn the franchise by selecting some cushy deal for two years or from among the various cushy deals. Requests perhaps, from a long list… But no guarantees at all; you do what you’re assigned — or drop out, your choice. From testing survival gear in a desert or the newest idea of a meal ready to eat or or the Arctic, to office work in some city somewhere, to actual military service, to working in a sewage plant, or something. Choice is entirely up to the needs of the government (make work if there are, hard to believe it could ever be, no actual work to be done). The CCC might be seen as an example for some o f this; planting trees, building trails, National Park maintenance, firefighting, …

    No choice except to turn it down and back out, get paid to date, and transport back to enlistment site. and never be able to vote. And it should be run by the central government (only it is likely to have enough resources to find enough things for volunteers to do, and only it is responsible for determining who is a citizen (immigration, etc) so it fits best there, not under some more local government entity.

    If more military are needed than are provided by volunteers who get shunted off to the military, a draft might be necessary. But, no draftee earns the franchise as their choice was not voluntary. ONLY voluntary willingness to endure some discomfort and annoyance in the interest of the public good is ever acceptable.

    The result, an electorate every member of which has demonstrated personally, at some cost, that the public welfare is important to them personally. Perhaps something close to Jefferson’s collection of independent yeomen? At least better than the haphazard mess we have now.

    Comment by bw — December 18, 2007 @ 4:59 pm |     --2

44. The president of a country which talks incessantly about democracy should be elected by popular vote. The problem of indecisive votes can be solved by instant runoff voting, in which voters can make several ranked choices for a candidate.

    Comment by Gene Wine — December 18, 2007 @ 5:45 pm |     +0

45. The election for the top elected executive in the United States is one of the least democratic in the world. Not only it is heavily inflenced by two of the smaller states in the union (Iowa and New Hampshire) but it is also designed in a way to render some 40% of the voters irrelevant. I am referring to the outrageous winner-take-all system, which disenfranchises all “red state” Democrats and all “blue state” Republicans.

    Let’s start with the first issue. Why should Iowa be so important? Why should any single state be so important? I totally disagree with the idea of replacing Iowa with Ohio or any other state. Rotation would make a little more sense. The idea of a few super-Tuesdays isn’t bad, but then why not make just one super-Tuesday? Better yet, why not do away with the primaries altogether and save billions of dollars while at the same time making the election more democratic? We can achieve this with a transferable vote system, where voters cast their votes not only for their first preference but continue to vote for as many preferences as they want. The votes of the candidates with low first-preference votes will simply be transferred according to the preferences expressed in the ballots until a winner is declared. In this way voters have a much wider choice and no candidate has to quit the race early over money. It is really a very easy, yet very exciting and very fair system. (If you ask, I’ll be glad to supply a spreadsheet example.)

    The other problem is the winner-take-all method. Personally I would much rather have a nationwide popular vote but, ok, let’s say a case can still be made for the electoral college system. First of all the winner-take-all must be replaced by a percentage-based selection. Second, if we are to retain an electoral college system we must do it without the outdated electoral college and apply a simple ratio instead. Let’s take a state with 20 electoral votes where two parties (or the two winners of the transferable vote method) receive 60% and 40% of the vote respectively. Presently the candidate with the 60% gets all 20 votes and the one with the 40% gets nothing. Doesn’t it make more sense to split the votes 12-8?

    It’s really simple to fix a very undemocratic system if we just use the logical side of our brain.

    Comment by Charles Fiott — December 18, 2007 @ 11:03 pm |     +0

46. One open to all primary. Then the highest 2 vote getters go on to the general election. Also…Vote by mail saves money and really gets out the Vote!
    Portland, Or

    Comment by Alan — December 19, 2007 @ 12:04 am |     +0

47. Strip corporate rights to the point that individuals have more rights than the corporations. Give them a maximum lifetime to live. Then have your primaries and national elections operate by national popular vote, by county using instant runoff elections to promote more than a two (single) party system. Establish a national ballot measure type of system allowing the people to take care of business when the elected representatives are unable to find the testicular fortitude to make something happen. This would include the ability to appoint special prosecutors and investigators to look into politicians law breaking and bring them before a court.

    Comment by Sean — December 19, 2007 @ 1:19 am |     +1

48. We have to change the way we vote!! We should switch to a system of rank or range voting. Year after year elections are affected by voters hedging their vote — abandoning who they actually prefer for who they feel will get enough votes to win.

    Comment by George — December 19, 2007 @ 9:21 am |     +1

49. Public campaign financing, such as they have in Maine and Arizona, should be offered to presidential candidates in both the primary and the general election.

    If you believe in democracy, all votes should have equal power in the selection of a presidential nominee. This can only be done if the vote is held at the same time in all states and each vote counts one, in contrast to the present chaotic process where, in some states, there is no direct voting for nominees, they can file in any number of parties, or states and nominees can be awarded delegates to a national convention on any basis.

    Qualifying for presidential candidates in both the national primary and the general election should be done nationally and by petition, not state by state, which hobbles and impoverishes prospective candidates.

    If I felt that interest in a presidential primary could be maintained throughout the summer, I would recommend a July date for a national presidential primary, so as to shorten the campaign season as much as possible. However, if it is determined that interest cannot be maintained until July, I would recommend late May for the national presidential primary.

    General elections should be scheduled for Veterans Day, November 11, unless it falls on a Saturday or a Sunday, in which case the celebration of Veterans Day and the elections should be scheduled for the following Monday.

    Public campaign financing should eliminate the need for presidential term limits.

    Comment by Gene Wine — December 19, 2007 @ 10:53 am |     +0

50. In Iraq voters got in line all day to vote, some were threatened with being shot. In the UK 16 year olds might get the vote .. yes in the UK!!! Remember those guys>?!?!? Do you think that the question “how to re-design the US election?” is answered by swapping US states to go first? A great show that got me thinking. But I wanted you to think outside the thick line of the Jay Treaty.

    Comment by Patrick O'Connell — December 19, 2007 @ 6:15 pm |     +0

51. Elections should only last seven or eight months and thats it. Everyone should vote during the same three day period, which should include a weekend for those who work odd hours and on Saturdays. Please! This is the 21st century! Candidates should not be able to buy their way into office. Everyone should be required to have a picture I.D., drivers license or whatever, to identify themselves. If you’re too lazy to get an I.D. card, then you can’t vote. I know this will discourage some people from voting but they absolutely have to get an I.D. card. There should be an outreach program to get them registered, and it should be FULLY funded by the government.

    Comment by Linda — December 20, 2007 @ 10:37 am |     +1

52. Further to comment by Katy Kropf (comment #26), Ireland currently has instant runoff. This turns third-party candidates from the pests they are under our system into useful gadflies who force everyone to think about their positions more. We incorrectly blame the third candidates for being “spoilers;” with instant runoff, they would provide a welcome breath of fresh air.

    Comment by Eileen Brockbank — December 20, 2007 @ 5:42 pm |     +1

53. How can we have a government for the people, when we have a people funded by corporations and special interests. So instead of a government for the people, we have a government for corporations. Make sure that there is equal contribution from each citizen that goes into a pool, that funds elections and campaigns.

    Comment by Jacob Cherian — December 23, 2007 @ 12:19 pm |     +0

54. Limit the total length of the election process to 12 weeks PERIOD. Six weeks before the presidential elections hold the national party primaries ALL ON THE SAME DAY. So that no one state or set of states has an advantage over another. If there is no clear winner (at lease 35%) then the party candidates will negotiate just as they used to at real conventions. No candidate will be allowed to announce or campaign for their party’s nomination until six weeks before the party primary.

    All candidates MUST declare their top three picks for each of the cabinet posts and key presidential positions like press secretary, chief of staff, directors of security agencies. This is to ensure the voters that we get a president and staff which we want, not some pig in a polk.

    Comment by Stephen Bernstein — December 23, 2007 @ 1:16 pm |     +0

55. I would change the order of the primaries, so that the states with the smallest margin of victory in the previous presidential election would have the first primaries, with three or four primaries each week until the states with the largest margins of victories had the last primaries. This would tend to favor the small states (as their margins of victory are usually smaller than for large states), but it would noticeably benefit the battleground states whose opinions matter in the general election. States which are decidedly republican or democratic (that will vote for that party regardless of who the candidate is) who have less of a say in who the nominee is. States are then rewarded for being more competitive.

    Other changes include, voting by mail (as in Oregon), public funding of elections, instant run-off ballots, and require TV stations to give equal comparable time for all candidates - even if one candidate pays for air time and another doesn’t.

    Comment by Brian Birgen — December 24, 2007 @ 12:00 pm |     +0

56. We could just sell it ar a national aution, like e-bay. Various interest groups could join forces to pool their funds, sort of like political parties, but corporations, PACs, or lobbiest groups should not be allowed. The money collected could be used for a universal health care system and free education.

    (Only partially joking - isn’t it being sold now anyway?)

    Comment by Emma Jane — December 24, 2007 @ 12:10 pm |     +0

57. my ideas

    1. Make election day a holiday. where everyone gets it off. now we can’t shut the country down so what if we had a week of election mon - fri and the voter picks the day off and goes and votes. The companies they work for have to pay them a full days pay of, no special holiday pay just straight pay. So people don’t cheat the system when you vote we should get a reciept that we turn in for our pay for that day. you dont vote you loose twice, in the pay and having no voice.

    cont…

    Comment by Chemwapuwa — December 24, 2007 @ 2:26 pm |     +0

58. 1a. I am a truck driver and this profession is greatly under valued. I spend months out on the road and I see more of truck stops than my hometown why not have voting at truck stops for driver. make these places for commercial driver licvense holder only, this will help prevent total conjestion at these places. It wouldn’t matter what state you are from you could vote anywhere in the US. Trucking companies would have to pay the driver the days pay as well.

    If companies have a problem with paying the holiday pay then let them get a partial tax write off say 1/8 of what they pay out. something like that.

    Comment by Chemwapuwa — December 24, 2007 @ 2:29 pm |     +0

59. 2 No president should be able have then desiding vote on any policy they has any affect on any corporation beneficial law, ammendment, tax credit or what have you: they or their friends, family or campain contributors may benefit. there need to be some kind of policy of checking where the president or goverment is acting in our behalf. what or how i dont know. oh and no public official or thier families should be able to recieve money from any corporation contributor for the rest of his/her life i dont know but if i was the type to sell myselves or my country’s morals and values down the river i would wait till I wasn’t an public official even if I had to wait 10 years.

    Comment by Chemwapuwa — December 24, 2007 @ 2:34 pm |     +0

60. 3 I think the American public makes the networks enough money. why does a public official have to pay for air time. the network should have to give time, they are suppose to be a public service: right? maybe make each and every major network abc, nbc, cbs, fox, scifi, lifetime and so on, donate time to each canidate for a time period. no more than 6 months and they can only debate the issues no more pointing fingers at each other. we get it humans are all messed up at times then if the canidates wants more time they have to go to the local stations and pay the network that have to beg for money each year. ya know pbs n such.

    Comment by Chemwapuwa — December 24, 2007 @ 2:41 pm |     +0

61. 4. someone said this isnt a democatic thing or republican thing it is an United States of America thing. so why is it this or that why can’t we have both parties in the #1 and #2 position. we vote and the top vote getter is president and the next vote getter is vice. no matter the party. they would have to work together. ya i know you may say they would never get anything done well then maybe we should have a week each month that we would vote on the issues they cant play nice on. this one needs a little tweeqing but i am sick of haveing only an either this or that election. i personlly think you cant have a whole country that way.

    I have more ideas but my phone only lets me post a little at a time and i’m sure you sick of see my little posts. sorry for my miss spell and errors.

    Comment by Chemwapuwa — December 24, 2007 @ 2:53 pm |     +0

62. As the 15th descendant of Mayflower passengers, John and Joan Tilley, and the 14th descendant of Mayflower passengers, Elisabeth and John Howland, let me tell you how disgusted I am with the shambles that has been made of my ancestors life-threatening (and -giving for the Tilleys) voyage to this strange land, where they hoped to worship in peace.

    We are now in the throes of corruption, that Sodom and Gomorrah referred to in the Bible. Am I a fire-breathing Pentecostal, yelling about the redemption by fire, that which will take people away in the midst of daily life? No, I’m an agnostic, fully believing in Nature’s law that “As ye sow, so shall ye also reap”.

    Corporations now own our government, and we are a nigh-illiterate peasantry. Though you laughed at the caller who said, ‘Only those with a college education can vote, and EVERYONE will have the right and ability to obtain a college education”, he spoke the truth. DeTocqueville said, “This delicate experiment called democracy’ is doomed to failure without an educated electorate.” Max Weber in his “Rise of Protestantism and Western Industrialism” indicated that democracy cannot exist without a viable middle-class, a group that can buffer the lies of the greedy wealthy and the gullability of the ignorant peasants.

    Because of a deliberate ‘error’ by a Supreme Court aide, who wrote the abstract to a Supreme court decision that found the OPPOSITE to be true, corporations are now accorded the full protection of the Bill of Rights. All of us who are members of the Alliance for Democracy know that to be true. He was a former president of a railroad, and knew full well what he was doing as he wrote the unquestioned abstract, now accepted as case law.

    The listener who said that the Constitution must be re-written to remove corporations from their catbird seat as our rulers due to that ‘decision’ (untrue), should revise his statement to re-visit that year, that decision, that deliberately misworded abstract that went AGAINST the decision of the Supreme Court but was not questioned. Correct that ‘mistake’ and force the Supreme Court, now seated by those corporate masters who rule our country, and the Constitution is again the Law of the Land, respected and obeyed as it should be.

    Because of your ignorance …deliberate or real…..we are given a media that distorts the truth. As I listened to the airing on WGBH, I heard the awkward, amateurish censoring/editing you did of those tapes. Where a response was ordinarily called for, you substituted a cut away or silence to the speaker. You and your more obvious counter-part Fox ‘News’ is a great example of a bought media, bought by the same corporations that create this oligarchy/oilagarchy that now is ruining our republic.

    Unless we the people take over the electoral process, make those computerized voting machines the wind breaks they are better designed to be out in the waters of Cape Cod, return the voting to the people through elimination of the Electoral College, ride herd on the hacks that cheat and ignore votes every election, we are doomed to a further descent into the dustbin of history.

    What a hideous Orwellian nightmare I am leaving to my grandchildren, where even the word ‘freedom’ has been redefined into a form of mental slavery!!!!

    Alice C Brown
    781-575-0054
    9th grandaughter of John Jencks, owner of the 1st patent in this New World (under King James) of Saugus, Ma.
    6th cousin of President Jimmy Carter of Plains, Ga….. a moral, if not politically savvy, citizen

    15th cousin, through the Howlands, of our Sociopath-in-chief, made assassination proof through his vice-president Cheney

    I have lived through the best of times, as we won WW II, and the worst of times, as our nation has descended into hypocrisy, corruption and imperialism: “Once this nation swaps ‘Empire’ for ‘Democracy’, then it will become a despotism”, to paraphrase John Quincy Adams, and so we have.

    Tax-payer supported elections, and every vote counted is all that will save us.

    Comment by Alice copeland Brown — December 25, 2007 @ 8:59 pm |     +0

63. Why aren’t all the primaries on the same day? Length of campaigns should be limited to no more than 12 months. All campaigns should be funded only by public money.

    Comment by Ann Hancock — December 28, 2007 @ 1:37 pm |     +0

64. To improve the election process I would suggest an additional option on each ballot. It frequently seems we are voting for the least objectionable individual, not the best qualified. Let’s add an option for “none of the above” If none of the above wins, the incumbent retains to office for 6 months while a new campaign is organized. None of the people who ran previously can run again. If none of the above wins twice in a row, the office is closed and the job unfilled as the public feels the job can’t be done properly by anyone interested in having it.

    Comment by Ron Alifano — December 28, 2007 @ 5:02 pm |     +0

65. America claims its President is the leader of the free world. It also claims to be a proponent of democracy. I think America should put its money where its mouth is and open up the vote to everyone in the free world across Europe, Asia, Latin America, Africa and Australia. After all, what the American president does (and does not do) has a direct effect on every corner of the globe. Is this such a crazy idea? No crazier than allowing the American viewing audience to determine who the next American Idol or the next champion on Dancing With the Stars will be. Scrap the electoral college, and let the “foreign voice” count for 50% and see if your average American doesn’t care a little bit more about the right to vote.

    Comment by Tommy — January 9, 2008 @ 8:34 pm |     +0

66. Let’s adopt the presidential selection plan that the Constitution Convention first considered before it made the mistake of inventing the Electoral College — election of the President by Congress! This would make our political system more like the parliamentary systems used by most other modern democracies. It would most likely lead to less gridlock and more coherent political parties — a government that’s more effective and easier to hold accountable.

    Comment by Geoffrey Kurtz — January 25, 2008 @ 11:17 am |     +0

Leave a comment