What Pro-Democracy Changes Would You Like to See for America?

Nov 28, 2010
79,028
32,270
113
Maryland
My intention is to add a poll to this thread, but not until I've seen what people are suggesting.

There are lots of things we could do to make our democracy better. Some easy enough, some nearly impossible.

Here are a few suggestions to get the ball rolling....

Tighten campaign contribution rules with particular attention to transparency.

Elect the President by popular vote.

Make sure every eligible voter is registered and has a voter ID - coupled with strengthened anti-fraud measures.

Restore a modernized version of the Fairness Doctrine and update the Equal Time rule as needed.

Term limits.

Mandatory voting.
 

SolarHawk

HR MVP
Jun 27, 2021
1,103
2,308
113
First thing that needs to be done is get rid of the fvcking electoral college. Second thing I would suggest is put an end to gerrymandering. There’s a million things that need to change but I’d start with these two.
 
Nov 28, 2010
79,028
32,270
113
Maryland
Mandatory voting? Lol better known as WWJD dream: socialism
Not everything I put on the list to kick things off is something I agree with.

But mandatory voting does happen to be one I like.

Voting every couple of years is a small price to pay to have a government that really would be chosen by a majority of the people - instead of the 48.2% of the 60.2% of eligible voters who bothered to vote (2016 numbers).

Our current method of choosing presidents routinely puts someone in the White House who received the approval of barely 30% of eligible voters.
 

your_master5

HR All-American
Gold Member
Dec 15, 2002
4,372
1,546
113
Not everything I put on the list to kick things off is something I agree with.

But mandatory voting does happen to be one I like.

Voting every couple of years is a small price to pay to have a government that really would be chosen by a majority of the people - instead of the 48.2% of the 60.2% of eligible voters who bothered to vote (2016 numbers).

Our current method of choosing presidents routinely puts someone in the White House who received the approval of barely 30% of eligible voters.
Authoritarian people such as yourself want to make things mandatory. This is a pretty twisted view. And your 30% doesn't add up.

Just because you and your ilk want to create a hive mind where the 10-20 largest cities essentially control who is president doesn't mean it should work that way.
 

your_master5

HR All-American
Gold Member
Dec 15, 2002
4,372
1,546
113
These are good changes.
  1. Impose Congressional term limits
  2. Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, returning the election of Senators to state legislatures (Don't agree)
  3. Impose term limits for Supreme Court Justices and restrict judicial review
  4. Require a balanced budget and limit federal spending and taxation
  5. Define a deadline to file taxes (one day before the next federal election)
  6. Subject federal departments and bureaucratic regulations to periodic reauthorization and review
  7. Create a more specific definition of the Commerce Clause
  8. Limit eminent domain powers
  9. Allow states to more easily amend the Constitution by bypassing Congress
  10. Create a process where two-thirds of the states can nullify federal laws
  11. Require photo ID to vote and limit early voting
 
Apr 22, 2022
786
537
93
Not everything I put on the list to kick things off is something I agree with.

But mandatory voting does happen to be one I like.

Voting every couple of years is a small price to pay to have a government that really would be chosen by a majority of the people - instead of the 48.2% of the 60.2% of eligible voters who bothered to vote (2016 numbers).

Our current method of choosing presidents routinely puts someone in the White House who received the approval of barely 30% of eligible voters.
What would be the penalty for abstaining?
 

LuteHawk

HR Legend
Nov 30, 2011
28,131
18,320
113
1. Limit TV campaign ads to Sept. & Oct.
2. All candidates would get free TV ads with a limit of
30 minutes in Sept. and 30 minutes in Oct.
3. Limit the amount of money a candidate can raise
to not exceed $250, 000.

These 3 restrictions would apply to anyone running for
a federal office: U.S. Representative, U.S. Senator, &
U.S. President. It would eliminate the financial factor
and force candidates to rely on their own ability to
show citizens their vision for the best interests of our nation.
 

hwk23

HR All-American
Nov 22, 2010
3,868
1,544
113
Campaign finance reform. The practice of buying politicians needs to stop. One idea, the amount allowed should be limited to x amount, much smaller, equal and possibly only come from public funds. Or maybe make it partially private and public funding but only allow like $1,000 per individual for the private, no corporate funding. In Europe I think they allow x amount time, like 30 minutes, on public TV.

Term limits. 12 years for house and 12 years for senate, no more.

Also, no more ballot harvesting by 3rd parties.
 

Hawk_4shur

HR Legend
Jan 2, 2009
15,122
19,935
113
I'd like to see the House and the Senate to both change to 4 year terms, with a maximum of 3 terms. Put an age limit on all elected officials at 70.

SCOTUS - term limits and age limit.

End the filibuster - it's just stupid.

Get rid of the Electoral College

I like the idea of making election day a holiday, and requiring ID to vote.

Do we really need 435 members in the House?

A 3rd political party - the Moderate Party. No one party should have control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IACub

TheCainer

HR Legend
Sep 23, 2003
23,734
17,576
113
Some manner of generating congressional districts to make them more competitive.

No more lopsided, gerrymandered nonsense.
To add to your idea, I think it would be greatly beneficial to increase the number of House reps to coincide with the original intent stated in the Constitution, 1 Rep for every X number of people, whatever X might be. I think most people feel shut out from the process because their rep doesn't really give a hoot about at least half of their constituents interests and concerns. I know this would result in probably thousands of more House reps, but we do have the technological capabilities to make this happen, if we are truly serious about returning this republic to true democratic representation. This solution would also make it extremely harder for special interests to buy off Congress with so many more people to pay off.

Here are some suggestions on how to accomplish this:

https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/the-different-ways-of-expanding-the-house/
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkRCID

gonegolfing

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jan 6, 2009
14,642
12,057
113
1) Zero absentee voting outside of those unable to move do to a physical/health impairment, military service, or business related necessity
2) Weighted voting based off of tax contribution. 3 point scale based on amount of taxes paid. Less than 25K = 1 vote; 25K to 100K = 2 votes; over 100k in taxes = 3 votes
3) Strengthened electoral college which is one of the few things left that keep us as a representative republic
4) Term limits for Senators and no more old Presidents like Biden who can't even function because of his age
5) Mandated fairness doctrine for legacy media and large tech.
6) End political machine polling locations like we saw in Atlanta, Philadelphia, Detroit, etc. in 2020
 

WDSMHAWK

HR All-State
Jun 30, 2019
952
1,814
93
West Des Moines
1) Zero absentee voting outside of those unable to move do to a physical/health impairment, military service, or business related necessity
2) Weighted voting based off of tax contribution. 3 point scale based on amount of taxes paid. Less than 25K = 1 vote; 25K to 100K = 2 votes; over 100k in taxes = 3 votes
3) Strengthened electoral college which is one of the few things left that keep us as a representative republic
4) Term limits for Senators and no more old Presidents like Biden who can't even function because of his age
5) Mandated fairness doctrine for legacy media and large tech.
6) End political machine polling locations like we saw in Atlanta, Philadelphia, Detroit, etc. in 2020

#2 is absolutely laughable. I can't even understand the mental gymnastics you did to get to the conclusion that we need to give rich people more influence in American politics.
 

SolarHawk

HR MVP
Jun 27, 2021
1,103
2,308
113
1) Zero absentee voting outside of those unable to move do to a physical/health impairment, military service, or business related necessity
2) Weighted voting based off of tax contribution. 3 point scale based on amount of taxes paid. Less than 25K = 1 vote; 25K to 100K = 2 votes; over 100k in taxes = 3 votes
3) Strengthened electoral college which is one of the few things left that keep us as a representative republic
4) Term limits for Senators and no more old Presidents like Biden who can't even function because of his age
5) Mandated fairness doctrine for legacy media and large tech.
6) End political machine polling locations like we saw in Atlanta, Philadelphia, Detroit, etc. in 2020
LOFL
 
  • Like
Reactions: littlez

gonegolfing

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jan 6, 2009
14,642
12,057
113
#2 is absolutely laughable. I can't even understand the mental gymnastics you did to get to the conclusion that we need to give rich people more influence in American politics.
Not shocking that those that aren't positive contributors to society think they should have equal voice to those of us that are.
 

Herky T Hawk

HR Heisman
Feb 5, 2003
6,063
4,500
113
Term limits for all three federal branches and age limits for all three. Being elected to Congress is supposed to mean serving your country, not a career like Chuck. And Justices shouldn’t be on the job for more than 15 years.

Congressional districts drawn up by an impartial committee federally and approved by an impartial committee from the state. These districts should be drawn in a manner where a grade school kid could understand what they’re looking at, not this gerrymandering crap happening today.

Keep the electoral college but don’t use the winner take all method for each state. Instead use the method where the winner of a congressional district gets one vote and the winner of the state gets two.

Keep filibusters in the senate but change the threshold to 55 votes instead of 60 and them back to the old way where you had to continually talk to keep the floor.

Doing those four things would significantly change, and I think improve, our country. Term limits prevent tyranny from life-long politicians that have no idea how the real world works(similar to lords in a feudal society like under the King of England). Simplified congressional districts ensures that many more are toss ups every election. Keeping the electoral college prevents tyranny of a slight majority on high population states. Changing the rules on the filibuster prevents tyranny of a slight minority in the Senate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B1GDeal and DFSNOLE

noleclone2

HR Legend
May 4, 2015
13,688
39,790
113
1) Get rid of electoral college.
2) Federal election system and standards for all federal offices such as representative, senators and president that bypass the 50 separate state ideas of how you are eligible to vote and how you vote and when you vote. You get your federal voter registration and you can vote online just like everything else or mail it. Yes, I know this will terrify all Republicans.
3) Term limits 3 for US Senators 9 for US reps. I could even handle 2 and 6.
 

SSG T

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jul 10, 2002
42,208
58,191
113
Base both electoral college and # of Reps per state on the population of the smallest state. Wyoming has around (rounded) 600k, so a state with 1.2 mil would get 2 of each, 6 mil would get 10, 18 mil would get 30, etc. Also, electors are alloted by district not state. So if you win the district, you get that elector.

Publicly fund all state/national elections.

Fact check all campaign commercials and don't allow any that aren't factual on TV/radio.

Require news organizations to provide facts, don't allow opinion shows on news broadcasts or channels. Allow them on non-news broadcasts/channels. (Example, Maddow or Hannity can't be on news channels).

I'm sure there are others, but I don't feel like putting too much thought in now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B1GDeal

ichawkeye

HR All-American
Gold Member
Jan 11, 2003
4,994
2,356
113
  • No gerrymandering
  • Automatic voter registration
  • Reduced voter restrictions - some restrictions counter accessibility and don't offer any gains in security
  • Either popular vote, or electoral college votes are based on proportion of votes gained per (i.e. if candidate wins with 51% of votes, they gain 51% of that state's electoral college votes)
  • Priority rank voting - people vote for preferred candidate, then secondary candidate to eliminate the more divisive candidates
  • Primary voting not requiring political party enrollment
  • Campaign finance reform - abolish PACs
  • Term limits for House and Senate
  • Election day holiday
 

kcnole63

HR All-State
Jan 11, 2021
556
693
93
1. Limit TV campaign ads to Sept. & Oct.
2. All candidates would get free TV ads with a limit of
30 minutes in Sept. and 30 minutes in Oct.
3. Limit the amount of money a candidate can raise
to not exceed $250, 000.

These 3 restrictions would apply to anyone running for
a federal office: U.S. Representative, U.S. Senator, &
U.S. President. It would eliminate the financial factor
and force candidates to rely on their own ability to
show citizens their vision for the best interests of our nation.
I would like to see these also. I think they should also apply to state legislative races. I don't know about Iowa, but they have really gotten out of hand in Florida.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LuteHawk

artradley

HR Legend
Apr 26, 2013
30,058
52,808
113
No! the east and west coast would elect everyone. Flyover country would literally have no say—Ever!!

The idea that dirt is more important in deciding elections than people is something I simply cannot grasp. The notion that your vote should hold more power if you live in a small state than if you live in a large state baffles me.

It is impossible to support such an anti- democratic, unfair, and outdated idea unless it happens to benefit you. And then only if you care nothing about fairness and equity, it rather only care about yourself.
 

Jan Itor

HR Legend
Jan 31, 2009
27,845
11,909
113
The idea that dirt is more important in deciding elections than people is something I simply cannot grasp. The notion that your vote should hold more power if you live in a small state than if you live in a large state baffles me.

It is impossible to support such an anti- democratic, unfair, and outdated idea unless it happens to benefit you. And then only if you care nothing about fairness and equity, it rather only care about yourself.
Good thing you weren’t a founding father.
 

Keehawk

HR All-American
May 24, 2011
4,727
4,346
113
Base both electoral college and # of Reps per state on the population of the smallest state. Wyoming has around (rounded) 600k, so a state with 1.2 mil would get 2 of each, 6 mil would get 10, 18 mil would get 30, etc. Also, electors are alloted by district not state. So if you win the district, you get that elector.
I think the first part of this paragraph is an interesting idea. The last sentence doesn't make sense. You want the state to be decided similar to the Electoral college instead of the popular vote?