Tornado Alley (PROG)

[fuagf]

Column: 4 ways to fix our broken election system .. further to DD's and Soxfan's ..

----------------------------------
.. Dale, my off the top first would be get rid of the presidential vote, lol, bit unrealistic and extreme for the United States now though, eh .. this is not to say one IS better than the other, more for 'on the board' info. purposes .. anyway Australia's federal election result takes place on one day .. also "Australia uses various forms of preferential voting for almost all elections .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Australia#Preferential_voting " .. federal House candidates are chosen by party meetings, before the all on one day vote for the final result .. in determining the final composition of the House and the Senate that vote takes place, under compulsory voting, one ONE DAY .. less democracy seems obvious, in some ways anyway, but sure seems, off top, simpler .. end the gerrymander, of course, top priority too, even though seems nationally that's a tough call ..

But if the California bill is any example, politicians aren't going to budge on the measure without a huge amount of popular support behind it - not to mention the efforts of a strong executive to push the bill across the finish line. Voters seem to be stuck in a vicious cycle of cynicism and apathy - they believe nothing will ever change in Congress, so they're disinclined to try to bring about change.

One telling statistic? Voter dissatisfaction with incumbents is at record highs. But so far, only one incumbent has been voted out this primary season.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/06/02/one-easy-way-to-end-gerrymandering-stop-letting-politicians-draw-their-own-districts/
----------------------------------

By Alex Berezow
Updated 11/7/2011 5:39 PM

One thing upon which most Republicans, Democrats and independents seem to agree is that America's political system is dysfunctional. This became crystal clear recently when the world watched, aghast, as the U.S. .. http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/U.S .. bickered over how to pay its bills. Such immaturity from our leaders in Washington is at least partially responsible for the Standard & Poor's downgrade of our credit rating.

With millions of Americans heading to the polls today, and the presidential election just a year away, it is time to consider reforms that could help change two destructive features of American politics: partisan gridlock and the never-ending election cycle, both of which feed upon the other.

This won't be easy, and we'll need to do more than just nibble around the edges. Constitutional amendments will be required, and all 50 states will have to sign on to other structural changes. Yet these four reforms would go a long way toward creating an electoral system worthy of calling our own:

1. National Primary Day. Watching candidates jet back and forth between Iowa and New Hampshire .. http://tiny.cc/0thujx .. is getting old. Forty-eight other states rightfully feel slighted by this pageant. Florida is angry about it, too, which is why it moved its primary .. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/09/florida-moves-primary-to-january-others-likely-to-follow.html .. to Jan. 31, threatening to end the small-state monopoly on picking presidential nominees. Other states might follow suit.

We could put an immediate end to this fiasco by implementing a National Primary Day. Citizens across the country would pick their party's nominee on the same day, putting an end to the disproportionate influence of ethanol-loving Iowa farmers and New Hampshire libertarians. The resistance would be vast at first, but would surely diminish as state after state joined the cause. Think of how different 2008 could have been: The nominees would likely have been Hillary Clinton .. http://tiny.cc/nxhujx .. and Rudy Giuliani .. http://tiny.cc/7yhujx. [lol, i made them both tiny so as to avoid any possible suggestion of sexism. haha]

2. Implement a "top two" primary. Washington state has no GOP .. http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Organizations/Political+Bodies/Republican+Party .. and Democratic primaries for most political offices. Instead, there is just one primary, and all candidates are on a single ballot. After the votes are tallied, the two with the most votes qualify for the general election. There is no fear of a third party or fringe candidate interfering with the general election. Also, the system tends to favor moderates on both sides of the aisle because more extreme candidates have a difficult time winning the primary. Imagine the beauty of this on a national scale.

3. Eliminate the Electoral College. This antiquated system has outlived its usefulness. It is time for a constitutional amendment that provides for the direct election of the president of the United States .. http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Places,+Geography/Countries/United+States — a difficult, but not impossible, task. A popular vote would simplify the process by largely eliminating the complex political calculus that gives disproportionate influence to "swing states." Currently, in our winner-take-all system, votes cast for a candidate in a state where that candidate loses are wasted. However, with a national popular vote, all votes count toward the total. Presidential candidates would be forced to rally supporters in all 50 states, as opposed to just a dozen purple states. Finally, this method would help us avoid tragicomedies such as the 2000 election recount in Florida, and never again could a candidate be elected without receiving the most votes.

4. Eliminate gerrymandering. California gets a lot of things wrong, but on this issue (along with Iowa), it is leading the nation. In 2010, voters approved .. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-redistricting-map-could-make-california-less-golden-on-the-hill/2011/06/20/AGI5gVdH_story.html .. Proposition 20, which wrestled control of congressional districting away from Sacramento and placed it in the hands of an unelected commission. This plan makes elections more competitive by eliminating protection of the incumbent via gerrymandering. Long-serving politicians in California are scared — as they should be.

Analysts commonly claim that in 2006 and 2010, the United States experienced "wave elections" in which one party was thrown out in favor of another. In 2006, the Democrats gained 31 seats in the House, and in 2010, the Republicans gained 63. That represents a mere change of 7.1% and 14.5%, respectively, in the 435-member House of Representatives .. http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Organizations/Government+Bodies/United+States+House+of+Representatives .

Compare that with recent wave elections in the United Kingdom .. http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Places,+Geography/Countries/United+Kingdom . In 1997, when Tony Blair .. http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/People/Politicians,+Government+Officials,+Strategists/World+Leaders/Tony+Blair .. http://tiny.cc/kaiujx .. came to power, Labour and the Liberal Democrats gained 173 seats. When David Cameron was elected in 2010, his Conservative Party .. http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Conservative+Party .. gained 97 seats. In Parliament, these elections represented changes of 26.3% and 14.9%, respectively. Thus, in the U.K., wave elections are much more likely to yield change on a massive scale than in the USA.

With these significant structural changes, we could create a less partisan, more responsive electoral system. And when voters decide change is necessary, change is what they'd get.

Alex B. Berezow is the editor ofRealClearScience, a sister site ofRealClearPolitics.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-11-07/electoral-college-election-reform/51114080/1

===

Comparing The American And Australian Political Systems

There are many similarities between the Australian and American political systems. However, there are also significant differences.

Download these notes as a Powerpoint presentation (PPT)
http://australianpolitics.com/downloads/usa/aust-us-comparison.ppt

Like Australia, the United States has a system of government that enshrines the idea of indirect democracy. Like Australia, the American system is based on principles of political equality, majority rule and the preservation of minority rights. The United States is the oldest continuing democracy in the world today and one of the first to embrace the idea of popular sovereignty. However, it is relatively unique in the world with its emphasis on ideas of personal liberty.

Similarities

* Both are Federal systems (Federal and State governments).
* Both have a parliament (called a congress in the US) composed of two houses – a House of Representatives and a Senate.
* Both have a House that is popularly elected with electorate size determined by voting population.
* Both have a Senate that represents the States equally – 2 senators per state in the US, 12 per state in Australia. Senators in both countries serve 6 year terms.
* All legislation must be passed by both houses of parliament.
* Both have constitutions which delineate the powers of the Federal Government.
* Both have an independent judiciary (Supreme Court in US, High Court in Australia) which interprets the constitution and acts as a final court of appeals.

Differences

* The US is a republic, whereas Australia is a constitutional monarchy. The US president is both head of state and head of government and is directly elected by the people. Australia’s head of state is the British monarch who is represented by a Governor-General chosen by the Prime Minister.
* In Australia, the government (ministry, cabinet, executive) is drawn from the parliament and responsible to it, whereas in the US the Executive branch of government is independent of the congress and no person may be a member of congress and a minister simultaneously.
* The Australian Prime Minister is chosen by the elected members of the party/parties that have won a majority of seats in the House of Representatives, whereas the US President is directly elected by the people and must appoint non-members of the congress to fill ministerial posts.
* Members of the Australian House of Representatives serve a 3 year term whereas US members of the House serve 2 years.
* Elections in the US are on set days for fixed terms, whereas an Australian Prime Minister may dissolve Parliament and call an early election.
* Electoral enrolment and voting is compulsory in Australia, but voluntary in the US.
* Party discipline is not as tight in the US as it is in Australia, leading to a situation where members of both parties will often form changing voting alliances on legislation.
* Legislation in the US requires both legislative approval and the president’s signature, whereas in Australia legislation is automatically ratified by the Governor-General once passed by both houses.

http://australianpolitics.com/united-states-of-america/australia-usa-comparison

.. sorry to give you all the reading as your other activities really are more important .. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/replies.aspx?msg=104819111 .. as they should be .. and for sure i know i could never digest it all fully .. ever .. yet gut feeling (with minimal reading) isn't always the best way forward for all .. as you know it often does not lead to the best solutions even for a time .. one example being the extremism F6 mentioned in his reply to yours there .. to me extremism of most any shade feels sorta a result of gut feeling .. no, not yours in that way, yet the R Paul approach to the Federal Reserve and banking, and other stuff, is you gotta admit rather extreme .. from what i've read it looks clear that in no way would eliminating the Fed and/or drastically up-heaving the banking system lead to a better road toward a healthier economic, or social climate ..