I don't like candidates going across America while not doing the job elected for. For example Cruz skipped a vote to go to a fundraiser. Total bullshit!

I agree that Election Day should be declared a federal national holiday.

If you hold it on Friday or Saturday it will disenfranchise the Jewish people; holding it on Sunday will disenfranchise the super-devout Christians. The ideal situation would be to allow people to choose either mail-in balloting or going to the election office sometime over the month before the election.

Early voting can still be used in this type of system.

And no campaign rallies? (can't drive?)

How about we develop a system that allows the maximum number of voters to participate, and not make decisions on the basis of religion.

The right to watch campaign debates live, rather than on video, is less so.

The CHOICE to vote is entirely up to them. Pick any day of the week and there will be some people observing some religious activity.

Retail workers who work weekends, etc. will struggle.

Vote Friday to Monday. Many states have early voting over a period of days or even weeks. It's doable.

Because that's the effect a national primary would have. Unlike the current system, where candidates with fewer resources can make up for it with effective retail campaigning in the small early States, you want a system where they have to run in all 50 States at once. In other words -- TV advertising, which means -- lots and lots of cash.

We should accommodate all people as much as possible, people who work long hours, travel for work, etc.

And yes indeed, all the primaries together on one day.

Work polling sites for one day. It seems my state has a pretty liberal absentee ballot program.. I do think all polls should close at the same actual time...

One day isn't enough, thought the idea of a national holiday sounds tempting.

Still, there are workers to be considered and other eventualities that come up.

Maybe one holiday for voting and a late voter program or something where people get an extension, have to go to a post office or other federal office.

Just thinking out loud.

Is a safeguard to keep metropolitan states from controlling voting...it keeps everyone's vote relevant...or at least as much as possible...

the rest I'm good with...I also believe voting should open and close at the same time nationally and results not published until after polls close....or at least no reporting of results until all polls are closed.

A LOT of the Constitution was written for a country with three and a half million people.

The most extreme example: an electoral vote in Wyoming is shared by 200,000 people. In California it's shared by 700,000 people.

The only people who want the electoral college gone are from metropolitan states and the only reason they want it gone is to control elections....what is good for metro states isn't necessarily good for rural states...200,000 who vote the same and 700k who vote the same....what is good for California isn't necessarily good for Wyoming and California shouldn't control what happens there...

The big and populous colonies like Virginia wanted things done based on population numbers, "We have the most people so it only makes sense we have a bigger share!". The smaller colonies like Rhode Island said "no way, they will drown out our voices!"

It's no different to how the Congress is organized. the House is based on population while the Senate is based only 2 senators per state regardless of population.

Ultimately though, without these compromises, the nation would have never been born. We would have had civil war.

And today, the small states will still never agree to give up power to big states like New York or California. That's probably why the electoral college will never be changed.

hillary would have probably easily won in 2008 if it was a national primary .

What does that mean, exactly? Would it mean, for example, that if HRC beat JEB Bush 55% to 45% in the popular vote, JEB would get to be president for 45% of the term?

electoral vote.

They tried to put a proposition in California which would divide the state into 6 parts. It didn't pass.

For strategic states they want to set it up like Nebraska

Hopefully, other states will not fall for that trap

The current system: California has 55 EV, which means they have 53 representatives and 2 senators. If a Democrat wins California, that person gets all 55 electoral votes.

The Republicans know California sent 14 Republicans to the House this time out. "Oh my, our people have been Disenfranchised by this! We must Do Something!"

I've heard of two ways they might Do Something.
The first is to count the votes in each district, and the candidate that won the election in that district gets the electoral vote. The candidate who won the majority in the state would get the senators' electors.

The other is a percentage thing - if 60 percent of the electorate voted D and the other 40 voted R, 32 electors would line up for the D candidate and 21 for the R, with the two senators' electors voting for the D candidate because the D candidate won the majority.

The whole friggin' thing is a scam to ensure a Democrat never wins the presidency again, and you can tell because the only states they want to do this shit in are blue states. They are perfectly fine with leaving Idaho winner-take-all because they know that state leans Republican. They are NOT fine with leaving Washington winner-take-all because a large percent of the population of Washington lives in King County, and King County is very Democratic, thank you very much.

Ohio’s GOP Secretary of State Already Has A Plan To Rig The 2016 Election For Republicans

by Ian Millhiser & Josh Israel Posted on November 9, 2012 at 9:53 am

Last year, Pennsylvania’s Republican Gov. Tom Corbett proposed rigging the Electoral College vote in his state through a plan that would have given the majority of the state’s electors to Romney even after President Obama carried the state. Under Corbett’s plan, the winner of each congressional district within Pennsylvania would receive a single electoral vote, and the overall winner of the state would receive an additional two electoral votes. Had this plan been in place last Tuesday, Mitt Romney would likely have won 13 of the state’s 20 electoral votes, despite losing the state overall by more than five points.

Corbett’s election-rigging plan died, largely because Republican members of Congress in Pennsylvania feared that it would cause the Obama campaign to shift resources into their districts and endanger their own chances of being reelected. Now, however, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted (R)– who spent much of 2012 inventing ways to prevent pro-Obama votes from being cast or counted — wants to revive this election rigging scheme. According to the Ohio political blog Plunderbund,

Husted’s solution to this perceived problem of Democrats and the national media picking on him? He says we should make Ohio less important in the election by dividing up our electoral votes by Congressional district.

This is huge and should raise giant red flags. Under the current winner-take-all system, Obama won all 18 of Ohio’s electoral votes. Under Husted’s plan, 12 of those 18 electoral votes would be handed to Mitt Romney, the popular vote loser.

As in Pennsylvania, Republicans gerrymandered Ohio within an inch of its life. Even though Obama won Ohio, Republicans carried 12 of 16 seats in Ohio’s House delegation. This gerrymander would have all but ensured that Romney carried the overwhelming majority of Ohio’s electoral votes, regardless of how he performed in the state overall.

6) In every election there must be a "None of the Above" option and it must be enforceable, such that if that option prevails, the entire election is run again with a new slate of candidates. The voters should be able to say they they do not want the lesser of two evils. They should be able to say "These are not good enough"

I would add to your # 2 that elections must be held over a period of 3 days, 2 of which shall be either a weekend day and/or a national holiday. The idea of making a national election only on a single Tuesday is absurd and counterproductive.

Also, ANY politician that initiates or votes for legistlation that makes voting more cumbersome or difficult should immediately be removed from office. The only people who do such things are those that really do not favor democracy. People like that have no business being in the government of this country.

I totally disagree with No. 5.

What in the world? Why would we want that? We would get inexperienced candidates running for the highest offices. And those running would have to find some source of income while running for a new office. That would lead to more bribery and corruption than we even have now and would be a terrible thing. We already have too much bribery and corruption.

Call it a paid leave of absence or something.

The problem with allowing a sitting official to remain sitting while campaigning is twofold.

First, we don't get the guy's complete attention to his duties if he's campaigning and governing at the same time.

And second, Congressman John Q. Public is going to get a lot more opportunities for airtime than Citizen John Q. Public...

Let me amplify this a little more thoroughly tomorrow...

Constitutional amendment for "Right to Vote", all native born and naturalized citizens have a right to vote. RTV suspended for duration of punitive sentence. Restored upon completion of sentence.

Ditch the electoral college, completely popular vote for POTUS.

Election day to be National Holiday, Early voting for the first four days after 4th of July, Fifth day national holiday for Elections. Employers do not have to pay holiday pay to those who are eligible to vote without proof of voting.

Declare intent to run last week of January, Primaries to be held last half of April.

Completely publicly funded elections at all levels. No contributions of any sort from anyone. OR Total political contributions limited to $2000.00 per individual per year. Contributor eligibility test to have three points 1) are you alive? 2) Can you lucidly express yourself toward political opinion? 3). Did you earn the money you wish to contribute?

All electronically transmitted political advertisements/propaganda/talking points/educational points are to be under the control of a political candidate, who is libel for them; both financially and ethically.

Third party freedom of speech is protected by the print medias (flyers, newspapers, signs, stickers). All printed political speech to be clearly mark as to the source. All sources to keep comprehensive list of donors and donations.

All voting be done via paper ballot, publicly tabulated and kept for two years.

Candidates may run for one office per election cycle

Incumbent Candidates seeking higher office must resign for current office after primaries.


That should be the start of the debate.

What's the big hurry? The election and inauguration are 10 weeks apart. If it took 2 weeks to count all the votes, who cares?

They only want to get rid of it in blue states.

because they don't really want you to be there.
not really.