If you want to dump Trump....

[thollandpe]

I was somewhat hopeful that, after the Citizens United verdict, left, right, center, and everyone in between would come together to denounce that horrid decision, even if it was through their respective ideological lenses.
Alas.

Has the very ardent champion of the money-equals-political-speech concept, George Will, done any backpedaling on that decision?

Op-Ed: I'm responsible for Citizens United. I'm not sorry. - Los Angeles Times

I hope that guy's family gives him a wedgie every Thanksgiving.

[monadnocky]

I remain mildly hopeful that, say 100 years from now, the CU verdict will be held in the same contempt as the Dred Scott decision (although the latter concerns itself with more fundamental rights, natch).
Here's to hoping.

[choke]

Hey John...what if we require all candidates for office to only take Federal Funding and restrict elections to a period of a few months?

I would love to see that happen. The way our election works out Representatives spend more time campaigning than actually doing their job.

I remain mildly hopeful that, say 100 years from now, the CU verdict will be held in the same contempt as the Dred Scott decision (although the latter concerns itself with more fundamental rights, natch).
Here's to hoping.

I agree that CU was a terrible decision but the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that 'corporations are people'. A good argument could be made that the first case in that regard was in 1819 with Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (17 U.S. 518). In 1886 there is no question that the SCOTUS held that view; during Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (118 U.S. 394) Chief Justice Waite remarked to the lawyers trying the case that "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does."

[jclay]

Hey John...what if we require all candidates for office to only take Federal Funding and restrict elections to a period of a few months? It is old news that many of these elected reps. spend most of their time grubbing for money. That's not conducive to a representative democracy yo.

Using the threat of "hard votes" and primaries as weapons to bend political will lessens representation of electorates....for instance.

Josh,

I didn't reply 'cause my fingers and brain were tired, and I'm not well versed on the technicalities. But, from 40,000 feet:

1) Citizen's United was a massive fuck up that never should have happened; I mean, what were the founders running from?? Excessive concentration of power/wealth, in their case government but to think that they would have countenanced an excessive concentration of power by commercial entities is moronic; off the charts moronic.
2) I don't know how to do it but asymmetrical money in support of political races needs to end....or we will, at least as a decent place to live.

We need some peeps more knowledgeable of that arena than I am to figure out the nuts & bolts of how you do it. But it needs to be done.

[AngryScientist]

i got nothing with regard to the solution, but the amount of money spent on campaign finance literally sickens me.

we have families here who can't afford to put food on the table and have to decide between letting their kid see the pediatrician or paying the electric bill this month and millions are "donated" to political candidates? disgusting.

give 'em all an equal 2 hours of TV air time and max 100 grand budget. level the field and stop the insanity.

[mzilliox]

this whole corporations are people thing is just wrong. they arent, at all. they are simply a human construct, itd be like calling a computer a human, makes more sense.

[thollandpe]

Three simple words: ranked choice voting.

[Too Tall]

Three simple words: ranked choice voting.

Ranked-choice voting (RCV) - Ballotpedia

I had no idea.

[guido]

How does RCV help in a two person race?

[mjbabcock]

How does RCV help in a two person race?

The primaries are where it helps. Instead of candidates playing to their radical partisan extremes, they find the middle ground of compromise. The primaries don’t happen.

[choke]

Three simple words: ranked choice voting.

So instead of holding my nose and voting for one person, I now have to hold it longer and vote for two or more?

[mjbabcock]

So instead of holding my nose and voting for one person, I now have to hold it longer and vote for two or more?

Nope...just list them in order from least crappiest to the most crappiest...the most crappiest sinks to the bottom and is never seen again. Think about the Republican primaries...Jeb and John and Marco weren’t savvy at media manipulation, but they are experienced statesmen. Trump hovered at 30-35%, and never would have worked the system the way he did...that said, Clinton wouldn’t have been at the top either as she was so polarizing.

[Matthew Strongin]

So instead of holding my nose and voting for one person, I now have to hold it longer and vote for two or more?

Not exactly. You would stop holding it and rank the candidates in order from most to least preferential. You may not love any of them but you probably like some more than others. And if your number one doesn’t get the nod at least your vote has a chance of helping your number two.

[Dallas Tex]

Three simple words: ranked choice voting.

1) impeachment

2) eliminate electoral college

3) ranked choice voting.

What’s next ??


At one point wouldn’t it simply make more sense to simply beat trump in an election?

[Dallas Tex]

..... the amount of money spent on campaign finance literally sickens me.

we have families here who can't afford to put food on the table and have to decide between letting their kid see the pediatrician or paying the electric bill this month and millions are "donated" to political candidates? disgusting.
.

You do know that trump spent around half of what Hillary spent on the 2016 presidential election. I’d say that’s a good start, wouldn’t you?

[Bob Ross]

You do know that trump spent around half of what Hillary spent on the 2016 presidential election.

Are you sure? I mean, we haven't seen his tax returns, so we don't actually know whether he spent any of his own money.

And by "his own money" I mean his dad's money.

[sk_tle]

1) impeachment

2) eliminate electoral college

3) ranked choice voting.

What’s next ??


At one point wouldn’t it simply make more sense to simply beat trump in an election?

I partially agree with you. Except on the impeachment part. You've got that option from the constitution and because the current president is credited for crimes and misdemeanor.

Do you think it would be better for your president to be above the law (I mean from a theorical point of view, regardless of who he is) ?

You do know that trump spent around half of what Hillary spent on the 2016 presidential election. I’d say that’s a good start, wouldn’t you?

Regardless of who won last time, I tend to think the campaign finance should be caped as it currently favors the bipartism and discredit any alternative.

[Dallas Tex]

I tend to think the campaign finance should be caped as it currently favors the bipartism and discredit any alternative.

Very insightful. Pick option‘A’ or ‘B’ and suck it up. Sort of like your local city water department telling you to feel free to find another provider.

I also think the limited A or B choice is what’s pits the two sides against each other so intensely.

[jclay]

You do know that trump spent around half of what Hillary spent on the 2016 presidential election. I’d say that’s a good start, wouldn’t you?

More nanny nanny poo poo; that is never a good start to anything constructive, it doesn't matter, it's not the point. And you know it.

The point is that problems related to how we elect govt officials are obvious and we need to remedy them for the health of the nation. Public financing, limits on spending, ditching CU, addressing gerrymandering, ranked voting and doubtless other ideas are worthy of intelligent and serious consideration for moving in that direction; and some should be implemented as a result.

[thollandpe]

So instead of holding my nose and voting for one person, I now have to hold it longer and vote for two or more?

It's not really that hard.

Perhaps it's wrong to float that concept in a "dump trump" thread but the concept has some serious advantages. And it has legs.

Ranked Choice Voting - Yang22 - Andrew Yang for President

A concrete solution that helps reduce partisan gamesmanship and negative campaigning.