Agree completely. I’m registered as an independent, though I typically caucus with one party over the last several election cycles. I’d happily lend my primary vote to some of the more moderate and reasonable candidates, but I’m not eligible to vote in either primary

Ditch the EC and do RCV with jungle primaries AND limit the election season to 4 months: 2 months for rd1 and 2 months for rd2 for ALL national offices.

Hell yes, doc.

[удалено]

What do you think an open primary is?

[удалено]

I would advocate primaries where anyone can vote in whichever party they choose regardless of their affiliation. What you describe is what I consider a jungle primary, or nonpartisan blanket primary. Still, what Alaska adopted is better than what we have now.

If you don't belong to a political party you shouldn't be able to vote in their primary. Political parties are private entities and not part of the government. The problem in the U.S is the political parties control the media that further pushes a 2 party system. Villinizing people who vote for a 3rd party as letting the other guy win or not even allowing other partie's debates on TV.

We disagree. This is allowed is some states. There is no reason parties should have that much power. We as citizens should have the power, not parties. Why do you want to bow to them?

Political parties are private entities made of citizens with like-minded political beliefs. So citizens have the power through their political party. There isn't a law saying there should only be 2. There should be dozens of parties across the political spectrum. Therefore, people would be able to find a party more aligned with them than this right and left b.s.

Multiple states allow people to vote for either party. All should. They are not a monolith. Voting for party is bullshit. Voting for the candidate is what should be everywhere

You are never voting for the candidate. You are always voting for the party. The party picks who best represents them. If their guy wins, then that guy is gonna put forth his parties platform. The problem on this country isn't political parties. It's the lack of them. And the strangle hold the democrats and Republicans have in the media not letting the few outlier parties we do have get any kind of coverage or place in debates.

But that's my point. If we are forced into a party we don't get to vote for the candidate. It's undemocratic.

The problem is the parties are actually corporations. They aren’t required to do anything for us regarding primaries. They give the illusion of choice.

The whole point of an open primary with RCV is to have a single primary with all candidates on the ballot. This opens the possibility for a compromise candidate with wide popular support to be elected over the usual fringe candidates. Having individual party primaries, open or no, defeats the purpose of RCV.

[удалено]

I don’t think elections should consider parties at all. Elections should be run non-partisan and elected officials should caucus with whoever they want. We should also triple the size of the House and eliminate gerrymandering, while also kneecapping the Senate’s power and returning that to a representation of state governments, but with only advisory powers mainly.

our government is quite happy to incite bickering amongst ourselfs.

Yep

I still think the best way to reduce polarization is to give more power to the individual states. The articles of confederation ironically would probably work pretty well today given how easy it is to travel and communicate over a long distance. Long story short, give voters 50 different laboratories of experimental policy. You can have states that are a mix of fiscal and social conservatism/liberalism to varying degrees on every single issue. We just have to be willing to let people have a government that truly represents them regardless of our own individual belief on iF said government is reprehensible or not, which will vary from person to person. I think this is the issue though. Most people will be spurred on by their own conscious to ensure their ideology is enforced everywhere. We are simply to big with too many cultures to have a powerful, central government represent all of our interests in the way we desire.

Worked great for Jim Crow

Wise words

Ranked choice, definitely. But it's never gonna happen. You know who would lose power under ranked choice? Democrats & Republicans. You know who gets to make the call on enacting ranked choice? Democrats & Republicans. My vote is to abolish the senate and increase the number of representatives, but, you know, that bill would die in the senate.

To abolish the Senate would require a constitutional amendment

[удалено]

No it wouldn't. A minority is vastly overly represented in the Senate.

[удалено]

Land doesn't vote. ffs.

But majority rule would be a nightmare. Large cities collectively are just dumb and only enact policy to make their own lives easier. While typically more rural voters actually are enacting policy that is more for others. I've lived in a county with 11 million people and a county with maybe 80k people and it's vastly different. It's not about the amount of people, it's about what they symbolize that's important to the overall fabric of the country. Areas that are more self involved through necessity have very different goals than those that are more concerned about their neighbor. You really can't have a functioning society that overall goals are decided by LA, New York and Chicago. Your argument does clearly preclude the thought that risk Americans have zero rights to decide what happens in the country. That's exactly what the founding fathers wished to avoid and why they created the country the way they did so a pure democracy never exists as it's historically always changed to a beurocratic nightmare and then to an oligarchy and then failure. That's why the country was setup as a republic to fight that happening. Land doesn't vote but surprise surprise, they're are Americans that live there that have just as much right to decide what happens to the country as those in a city do. Probably more as they are always more community focused than those in larger cities. You'd have to experience both to grasp that concept though and through your response, it's clear you have not.

Rural voters absolutely do not enact "policy that is for others." Land doesn't vote. LA, NYC and Chicago would not decide. People vote. Your argument dismisses vastly overrepresented rural areas dictating extremism. It's disingenuous and in bad faith. Lack of experience indeed. Oof.

Your response clearly lacks awareness to the real world with what an actual democracy is oof You have zero clue the difference between those living in larger metro areas to those living in small rural communities. Just because they say something and repeat it doesn't make it true. Don't worry your response is just typical of those that don't actually know, but act like they do because they enjoy following along with a crowd that knows even less about what actually goes on with most of the areas in the country. My advise is to get out and actually experience the nation and the actual real differences in people. Pro-tip- studies done on what people think only in cities don't take into account any opinions but those in cities.

No, you did that and assumed that I have no experience in a rural area. Get out indeed. You're as juvenile as you are uninformed. Oof. Next.

No it's obvious you have no experience, it's not an assumption if it's this obvious. You've never lived in rural America to see the stereotypes are the actual assumptions. It's sooner of the only places in abdicate where true communities exist. Nothing like that in any way in LA/OC area or Chicago as I've lived for years in both. I assume new York as well from the chefs i know that work there that grew up around where i did. You are truly clueless about anything past your own nose. Next 😉

No it wouldn’t. Expand the House and then remove almost all power from the Senate. Senators represent state governments, not the people.

[удалено]

The original intent was for the senate to represent the state. It should be returned to that, but the Senate’s power mostly limited to advisory roles. The House should be expanded so each member has only 300,000 constiuents and gerrymandering should be banned, with strict requirements on districting for compactness, community and things like that.

Yes it would. There are 2 senators per State. The number of representatives is determined by the State population per the census. The entire State of Wyoming has 7% of the population of the city of New York. Not the state - it has 7% of the population of ONE of the CITIES in the State. Only reason Wyoming or the Dakotas have a vote is because of the Senate. They have a voice in the House, sure. But their vote power is severely limited.

it SHOULD be limited and they have way outsized electoral power. Make representatives have exactly half the number of the smallest state, so it would be just over 250k and everyone would have decent representation and the huge increase in size would force coalition governing. The Senate is a waste of time - cut their power all the way back to advisory role and a vote on trade policies and for treaties and ambassadors and that's it.

Yeah because the US is a collection of states that entered a union so the senate is working as designed

Some states have already started doing it.

The House is the problem, not the Senate. Unless of course you're a Sith Lord.

The House is the problem due to gerrymandering and having so few people represent so many. There are solutions to make it work (3rd party draws the districts; increase the reps). The Senate is inherently undemocratic. Wyoming should not have as strong a voice as California. The Galactic Senate was the only congressional body afaik. It was also easily corrupted.

We have ranked choice in California. If anything it’s made them more extreme.

The issue is there really isn't much of a center. Like it's not that people are extream it's that the center as a political platform is just vaper.

I disagree. The center is bigger than you'd think. They are just quieter than the other two sides.

What does the center want other then being in the center and not being extream?

Compromise, something neither party is truly interested in.

No I mean actual stances actual policy.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the center is because it's not like the right or left with a semi-solidified ideology, it's everyone who doesn't fit into that binary. There is no unified stance for centrists,aside from maybe "this back and forth between you two is accomplishing nothing at best and actively harming us at worst".

I understand. That is the issue though. Politically the center just doesn't exist. There are a few ways people use it. It's I'm not like other girls of politics a way to try and argue your different when your not. Sometimes it's used by non engaged people who just don't want to admit they don't care or are just too uninformed. Worst, and least common, it's the burn half the puppies stance. But without a political idea you can't move to the center as there is nothing to move to. Ranked choice voting would just move people to the Demacrats as their policy is just more widely popular.

No, it would open up the door for people who have left leaning economic policies and right leaning social policies (as one example) instead of an "all or nothing" that we currently have. It would allow significantly more variations and stances than we currently have. I think a large portion of the left has swung the social justice pendulum so far the other way that they have brain rot, and I think a large portion of the right don't view anyone who isn't their exact status as a real/valuable person, both of which are terrible. But yeah, you're right that most "centrists" I know are generally intellectually lazy or nihilistic.

That is more a alt right idea. Ranked choice would help with getting that added as something you can vote on.

I don't think it is an alt right idea at all. Plenty of right leaning folks say things like "I don't hate the gays, but..", "I'm not saying they can't live how they want, but...", "Not all of The Blacks TM are criminals, but..".. And almost all of the right leaning folks look down on the poor's that way, irregardless of sexuality or ethnicity or whatever. "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps with 27% of the earnings potential I had or you're a lazy worthless leech".

You keep saying it does not exist but the cneter is for people who don't fall into the right or left. They can lean conservative or liberal. There is not set policy.

But what do they believe? Like what kind of policy do they vote for?

What they are saying is they don’t have anything they believe in. They have no idea about any policy. They want to do nothing, but still want to feel superior. They claim centrist and call everyone else too ‘extreme.’ Pretty much the definition of ‘We have tried nothing and we are all out of ideas.’

A lot of them agree with liberals on social policy but find their economics to be garbage and vice versa. They do hold policy positions but have to choose which 50% of their platform they think is more important. It's not that mysterious and hard to understand. While I'm probably not center I can say for a fact that I am on board with gay marriage but despise the idea of a wealth tax. So I want a mix of a right wing economic position and a left wing social position. Which does not exist in the current binary. That's a centrist. They don't swing purely left or right but are left or right from issue to issue.

This feels like a ”i'm not like other girls.” No one agrees fully with any party. If you like gay marriage but not welty taxes that's just basic Demacrats. ( I am going to call it most centrists are just Demacrats. )

Okay but what if they're pro wealth tax but anti gay? That also exists.

I disagree completely. There are a lot of people who are in the center. Most of my friends and family are in the middle. We're reasonable people. The problem is that if you have any belief that is right wing, to the left, you're a right wing extremist. If you have any left wing belief, to the right, you're a left wing extremist. Many people are just *too fucking stupid* to understand that you don't have to pick a side.

What do you think the center is politically? Like what policy do you vote for?

Everyone hates libertarians, but not as much as libertarians. Almost makes me think that the internal devision is intentional sometimes.

This is a thing with fringe ideologies. Communists socialist and anarchists say this too. Suppose since theres no mainstream everyone's arguing

Agreed, lots of paranoid people everywhere these days.

Ii think for libertarian it's that their ideas are popular in idea but not in practice. You don't have the same founding the other ideas do so you can just go off everywhere. Though legal pot that is one thing that I think most agree on.

First, you have to identify what exactly is a libertarian idea? There are a few baselines like wanting a gay person to be able to defend their pot with guns. But libertarians are split on fiscal policy, border issues, foreign affairs (although most lean isolationist, they disagree on what that means), and may other issues. At it's most basic, libertarians peel back the definition of libertarianism until no one is left.

Personally I always thought their idea of non-interventionism was fairly clear: tourism, immigration and business 🟰good! Overseas wars 🟰bad! Never figured out how that somehow translates into isolationism like they’re somehow in favor of imitating feudal Japan.

Grab any three libertarians and you'll get three different definitions. But yes, many support non-intervention, which is one of many foreign policy ideas.

Eliminate all income taxes on personal and corporate taxes. Enact FairTax or a consumption tax. Open the borders. Equality will only happen when everyone that is here is contributing to government equally. True equality.

Those are extremely regressive policies that would harm anyone with lower income, forcing a higher percentage of their money to be spent. It's mathematically untenable as well.

Nah, the economic incidence of taxation already falls on the lower income, (even if the accounting incidence doesn't).

Not currently, unless you consider sales tax. Most low income families already pay no income tax. If we enacted a consumption tax and "fair" tax, unless there were exemptions it would burden low income families considerably more than now. Fair tax is a wealthy wet dream.

That isn’t what economic incidence means. Let’s say you create a tax on yachts which results in all the wealthy people just switch to buying their yachts in Europe and not taking them to the US to avoid their tax, so the American yachts companies shut down. (This actually happened) Who is actually suffering for the tax? The workers that would have built the boats in the US, that’s who. That’s what economic incidence means. Not who pays the cash, but who pays the cost.

The center politically is holding views from both sides and being willing to listen to people and change your mind. The dumbest people are the loudest.

How would the rich manipulate the population?

Through the economy like they do now

Nailed it

Actually, we should remove primaries entirely, or rather, the government itself should stay out of the primary 100%. The government should pass a law that no official government document can reference a political party. The primary or caucus is there for the political party to choose the candidate that party wants to get elected. If you do an open primary, then the ballot gets 2 candidates potentially from the same party, which completely disenfranchises every citizen who isn't in that party. The ballot is simply everyone running who gets the petition completed to be on the ballot. No political party included. The party itself will choose a candidate, but if that party wants two candidates, then it puts two candidates on the ballot. This doesn't preclude any other candidate, though.

Why not just outlaw political parties. Everyone run on their own.

I'm proposing a solution that could actually be made law, as it has in a few places.

Why do you think political parties can’t be outlawed. There is nothing in the constitution that protects them.

The deep right and American Left do not want a less polarized America. It would mean they'd lose their powers

The left is actually pushing for nonpartisan redistricting and many efforts that would reduce polarization like ranked choice voting. The right is the "us vs them" crowd, all you need to hear is the rhetoric coming from the white Christians.

Why should primaries be open to people not interested in being a part of the party? It a function of the party.

Because many people don't identify only with one party and want to contribute to the election of more centrist individuals instead of the extremists that are currently elected in closed primaries.

I get that, but it's an internal function. The best way to reduce extremism is to reduce gerrymandering. Also, very few people are truly independent. They know which lane they more identify with. It's just that some people take pride in saying that they're independent.

Well I agree with eliminating gerrymandering. That is what the left pushes towards in the form of nonpartisan redistricting commissions. The right does not want that since they are in the minority. Without biases in voting districts, the left would hold far more offices.

I agree, not controversial enough.

Yeah, ranked choice is a no brainer , literally better in every way and no really downsides.

Or we could just do ranked choice without primaries at all. Just have a big election with a zillion candidates and ranked choice voting to sort it all out. We have computers to do all the hard work of actually tabulating this.

Ranked choice would be badass

Get money out of politics all of it, and term limits as well. Power and money always corrupt.

I'm fine with rank choice by I don't think it'd fix polarization

Honestly. We need more than just ranked choice to fix this shitshow. Not that its a bad idea but like, lets be real. Both sides know our whole system is undemocratic. We probably need major reform for at least the electoral college, the senate (and by extension the house) and the Supreme Court. Not to mention the million other things that are fucked up. Hate to be pessimistic guys but i just dont think its getting better no matter how optimistic we get on the internet. I dont think our government is really listening.

>Ranked choice voting Yeah, no.

Registering for a party takes like damn near zero effort. Hell its less effort than voting is! ​ Open primaries just open the door to cross party spoilers

Why should I be restricted to voting for one party? That's anti-freedom and anti-choice. It is the opposite of democracy

Primaries are not elections. Hell primaries didn’t even used to exist

It's literally called the "primary election" and the "general election" You are right. They were once elected in smoke filled rooms without the will of the people. Do you want to return to that dynamic?

No I do not. But at the end of the day primaries are run by their parties not the government. they don't have an obligation to be democratic. ​ You'd be better off advocating for easier access to get on the ballot of independents and third parties. The parties have gate kept those processes to make it extremely hard to run as a third party.

They are obligated if the law says so, as it ALREADY DOES in some states. Having open primaries and ranked choice would give better access to third parties.

You've gone in the wrong direction. Politics were polarized but less so before the invention of talk radio and social media. Get rid of those two things and things will calm down.

What you suggest is not possible. What I suggest is.

Both of them are politically impossible.

What I suggest is already implemented in some states, so... Best you read up

I disagree with you entirely

Lord Jesus let it be so.