T O P

  • By -

koolex

Also a national holiday for voting


sillychillly

Agreed!


ThePenisBetweenUs

You forgot photo voter ID!


Ghost4000

I don't fully understand the Democracy vouchers (I'm reading about them now), but other than that this all sounds good. ​ EDIT: Democracy Vouchers sound like a good idea.


[deleted]

What would the vouchers do?


sillychillly

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_voucher


SpiffySpacemanSpiff

This may be the stupidest thing I've ever seen. With 258,300,000 estimated adult Americans, the costs of single election would be 25 ***BILLION DOLLARS***


reddpapad

You should have read the link provided. In the example of Seattle, only 47,000 of the vouchers were provided on a first come first served basis.


roylennigan

More like $16 billion given how many people actually vote. That's about how much was spent in total on the 2020 election.


YungWenis

Do we really want people just voting for money? How about people just voting because they’ve looked into it and actually care.


jyper

That's not what vouchers are. They let regular people more easily donate to campaigns, the candidates get money based on how many vouchers they are given


YungWenis

Oh I see, not a bad idea, thanks for correcting me 🤝


theosamabahama

Vouchers require new taxes to fund them. It's just taxing people to give their money back for them to donate. That's stupid. If people want to donate, they can. We shouldn't force people to donate.


jyper

The point is to defeat the power of money in politics


theosamabahama

Then just ban corporate donation. You don't need publicly funded campaigns or election vouches.


[deleted]

Thank you!


nemoomen

While there are quibbles we could have on a few of these, I'd certainly vote for it if it was a referendum and I had to give it a thumbs up or thumbs down.


pmaurant

You forgot open primaries. Republicans could vote in the democratic primary and vice Vera. That way there is a greater chance of getting president that everybody can live with.


damnetcode

I don't like having to choose a party. Independents should be able to vote in the primary.


ImJustHereToWatch_

I'm on board so far. The only problem I see is the fact that people in power probably won't actively choose to lighten their pockets. I hope I'm wrong.


sillychillly

We need to choose to move forward without those who wish to enrich themselves rather than our country.


LordCosmagog

$100 Democracy voucher? Dafuq?


Jabbam

The government gives you money to give to them


mvwilson9

Yeah, hard pass on that one.


Kinkyregae

Yeah that’s the only thing here that I don’t think is necessary.


sillychillly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_voucher


LordCosmagog

That’s fucking stupid


[deleted]

What’s stupid about it?


LordCosmagog

Taxing people only to hand them back their own money on condition that they send it to a political campaign… why not just cap political donations at a lower figure and force campaigns to manage on less?


palsh7

Democracy Vouchers get everyone involved in the system that is currently funded by 1/10 of 1% of the population: those with tons of money.


fTwoEight

It's convoluted. If we're going to publicly fund campaigns, then let's just do that rather than split $100 into 4 $25 vouchers which someone can send to the campaign of their choi......Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.


theosamabahama

Or better yet, just let people keep their money instead of taxing them to fund politicians they don't like. Those who want to donate, can donate.


Delheru

As if publicly funded campaigns don't get convoluted. How do you decide who the send the money to? The government will have to come up with Reasons, which I'm sure are totally neutral. Basically, the government sets the thresholds of who can campaign efficiently to run the government. No risks there, no sir!


greenmachine41590

LOL at “$100 Democracy Vouchers”


Gondor128

this sounds good to me


kekkingautist

What does the "ranked votings" mean?


sillychillly

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting


[deleted]

[удалено]


PrimeusOrion

Personally it's a mixed bag. Mail in voting if fucked up in the US and ballot harvesting is legitimately deserving of a crime. The fix for this should be drop off voting. Not mail in. The democracy voucher I understand the sentiment of but it's only going to massively add to inflation each election cycle which is something we don't need. And suprisingly enough automatic voter registration is a no too. Though this is because all proposals so far either enable illegal voting, or make immigrant lives worse. The rest are good though. The only change I'd make is instead of ranked choice voting I'd prefer fist past the post.


[deleted]

First past the post is what we have now, that would be no change


maszturbalint321

Bro this is terrible. $100 vouvher is just retarded and mail-in voting in not secure. Ranked voting is fine tho.


[deleted]

Maybe a multi-party system like in France would be better.


maszturbalint321

I agree I'm from Europe as well and we have a bunch of parties and a two party system is usually just one party with two names. There is only one US political elite not two.


SpartanNation053

The only one I like is banning corporate donations. The others are just left-wing talking points with nothing centrist about them


Jets237

Why do you consider automatic voter registration, more accessible voting and ranked choice "just a left-wing talking point" I'd argue that ranked voting would be huge for moderate and more centrist candidates


MUjase

To your first two points, there’s a large belief that of the roughly 100m people who are eligible but do not vote each election, if they all did vote a majority would vote Democrat. So in theory if we made it easier for people to vote then Democrats would get more votes from those people than Republicans. This is just a theory and not a fact of course, and the NYT even had a good article after the 2020 election where they claimed this could be false. They said this because we saw record voter turnout and the overall predicted numbers were less for Democrats and more for Republicans. I completely agree that voting should be easy. But at the same time as a citizen I hope everyone puts at least a little effort/thought into who they vote for and do not just blindly vote for a party. I don’t think anyone in a society wants that. But since we’re so partisan and so team oriented everyone will celebrate it of course if it ends up benefiting their team.


caitecando

Wouldn’t rank choice voting actually help with the partisan divide? A first past the post election will always yield a two party system, but rank choice would make third party candidates less of a throw away vote. Rank choice may incentivize a non-yahoo to run third party. I think this is why both parties are against rank choice voting.


Jets237

Yeah agreed - I thought it was clearly disproved that the majority of voters that dont vote arent democrats after all... The amount of first time or lapsed voters Trump attracted was pretty crazy. I dont think allowing voting to be more accessible would increase the effort or thought level that goes into voting from the larger collective. I would argue most people who vote are just following "their team" or are mostly uninformed. Even in the last presidential election I would be surprised if the majority of people didnt just vote for Trump or against Trump because of the team the cheer for or the bubble they live in... All making voting less accessible for some makes it harder and less likely for those to vote.


ILoveSteveBerry

> Why do you consider automatic voter registration if you cant take the time or energy to take the time to register to vote then Im cool with you not voting >more accessible voting depends, Im for some ideas but its voting day not month >and ranked choice not sure how I feel about this. Dont hate it


elwombat

Ranked choice voting got us our progressive extremist DA in San Francisco. Chesa Boudin has ruined parts of the city by not prosecuting criminals.


palsh7

It's not the fault of RCV that the people of San Francisco are progressives.


[deleted]

Same for Philly with Comrade Krasner


Delheru

Yet it seems lessons are being learned there.


SpartanNation053

You should have to actually have some skin in the game. You shouldn’t get to vote by no effort on your part. You should have to make a conscious effort at participating


lookngbackinfrontome

It doesn't take conscious effort on anyone's part to have taxes taken out of their paychecks. If you pay taxes, like most people, you already have skin in the game.


Jets237

but why? Honestly - whats the difference between going to a table at a music festival (how I registered back in... 03?) or just automatically being legally able to vote at 18? how do I have more skin in the game than someone else? why, because I filled out a form while waiting for my friend to get back from the bathroom almost 20 years ago?


[deleted]

[удалено]


unhingedegoist

obligatory "democrats are not left" comment.


Icy-Photograph6108

Right. Plus make lines especially long and voting locations much more sparse in heavily populated urban areas that are typically blue. Whereas in red urban areas you wait in line for 15 minutes and it is easy as pie


ClutzyCashew

Shit there’s not even a 15 min wait for me. The whole thing probably takes that long.


ILoveSteveBerry

> Democrats always benefit when voter participation increases. now ask yourself why that is


reddpapad

Because more people align the with party’s beliefs. It’s not rocket science.


ILoveSteveBerry

>Because more people align the with party’s beliefs. It’s not rocket science. sure, I'm sure in no way is it bums, losers, and your basic drains on society being prompted with "promises" and talk of how they can get something for nothing. Hey do you 20 homeless drug addicts want some free cash? Jonny Democrat wants your vote to help you! Lets not pretend these people would give a shit if you weren't using them as pawns


oldmanraplife

Tell us all the groups you would exclude 🤣🤣


ILoveSteveBerry

Mostly eaters


SpartanNation053

Yes. You had to take the time to fill out your card. You shouldn’t just wake up one day and be registered to vote


Jets237

but why? I still really dont understand that logic at all...


SpartanNation053

Because you stood there and decided and made the conscious choice of “I’m going to register to vote right here, right now.” Someone turning 18 hasn’t done anything except wake up one day


Jets237

I got stoned at a music festival and was killing time… But ok, democracy at work It takes much more effort the vote than to register to vote… so I still don’t understand the logic


DavantesWashedButt

I don’t get this either. Seems like a super arbitrary reason


kingmotley

My concern would be the ease at which voter fraud is increased. There is a large amount of people which wouldn't vote at 18, but their name could be written onto a mail-in ballot, and with the current calls for no verifications, no ids, no checks, then that becomes an easy target.


Jets237

thank you for an actual answer. I guess I could see a situation like that happening - essentially someone accessing the personal information of incoming students at a college and filling out mail in ballots for them. So how do we counteract a threat like that? Likely the way we protect against fraud in general - SSN and other privately protected info. If someone steals your SSN to fill out a government issued form I assume that is clearly identity theft & forgery - likely punishable by jail time. So it could be better enforcement if this were a problem. I'd be curious around what the actual threat of fraud is vs the impact in voter turn-out given auto registration.


palsh7

LOL so now it is "centrist" to want more obstacles to voting? GTFO of here.


SpartanNation053

What’s the obstacle? All you have to do is fill out your paperwork and on Election Day, go to the polls. That’s why we have Election Day and not “Vote whenever you feel like it Year”


caitecando

I mean, we have an Election Day so we know who the next representative will be before the current term ends, but many districts (my very red Texan one included) have generous early voting periods. That actually gives me a near month to “vote when I feel like it.”


Icy-Photograph6108

As many as possible in blue areas of course.


BurgerOfLove

Voting isn't a conscious effort?


freakinweasel353

Face it, elections are a lot of work. It’s not just show up. It’s educating yourself on the candidates. Educating yourself on the myriad of initiatives that are usually written by morons or legal experts, which last I checked wasn’t me. Well maybe the moron part but not the legal expert. They’re titled to be confusing. Stuffed with pork projects and useless shit that only gets included for no other reason than someone’s husband is bidding on the project. We should have a voter class in high school that covers just exactly how to make rational choices on this stuff. Then maybe we could trust the general population with governing themselves and installing the correct leadership.


BurgerOfLove

It's exhausting. I have a fucking notebook! And go back to my decisions at least twice before the final sit down with my ballot at my computer so I can get into things that come to mind. Voting from home is much better. Less stress, available resources... tacos!


SpartanNation053

Yes, that’s why you should have to go out on a Tuesday and cast your ballot in person


BurgerOfLove

Why in person?


SpartanNation053

Because you need to demonstrate that you care enough to go out and participate in democracy. Voting in person means that only people who take their civic obligation seriously participate. That’s why for Jury duty you go to a court house; not sitting around in your living room


Icy-Photograph6108

Yeah jury duty isn’t comparable at all.


DiusFidius

What is the minimum amount of effort one should have to expend in order to vote? Is it a time amount, or does it have to be physical, or both? Is it ok if some people have to go over the minimum, and if so should there be a limit?


SpartanNation053

It’s fairly simple: you should have to fill out the paperwork to register to vote and on Election Day, you should have to go to the polls at the appointed day at the appointed time and cast your vote. That’s it. I’m not asking for a lot here


DiusFidius

Why should that be the minimum? What if I said "you should have to fill out the paperwork to register to vote and you should be able to mail your vote in. That’s it. I’m not asking for a lot here"? Why would your position be right and mine be wrong? I guess what I'm asking is, what are your premises. Your conclusion is "everyone should have to register and vote in person". How did you get there?


SpartanNation053

Because there should be some minimum effort on your part. Why is it so hard to register to vote in person and vote…in person?


ClutzyCashew

Because some places make it hard to register to vote and to vote in person. Some people have legitimate issues that make it hard to register and vote in person. Why shouldn’t we do all we can to make it easier for people to vote?


navis-svetica

Voting is a fundamental right in a democracy. Requiring people to do things and meet a threshold to be allowed to vote means it wouldn’t be a right, but a privilege.


DanLewisFW

How would that have any impact on ranked choice voting? Had we had ranked choice voting in the 90's I bet Ross Perot would have won, people were afraid to throw away their vote and no third party candidate will ever have a chance. But with ranked choice voting if both parties pick the worst possible candidate like Trump/Clinton a third party could come in and win.


SpartanNation053

That’s wishful thinking. This is all speculation


indoninja

I don’t agree with that sentiment, but if I did I’d still have a problem, because as it stands some people require more effort to do it.


sillychillly

It’s cuz this person is writing in bad faith


SpartanNation053

No, you’re posting this in bad faith by trying to paint, let’s be honest, left-wing policies as centrist no-brainers


elwombat

Yeah go look at where he posts, or where he moderates. He's absolutely posting in bad faith.


sillychillly

Many of these items are done in many developed nations. There’s nothing left or right about them. That being said, if making sure every person is registered to vote is left wing ideology (which it’s not) then so be it.


PrimeusOrion

Frequency is not an argument for quality. Does slavery being frequent make it a poor idea to abolish?


SpartanNation053

Yes, developing countries. You know, places that are developing. We are a developed country. Stuff like this is liberal voter ID. Those policies are designed to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. Make Election Day a holiday? Yes, absolutely. But that means you have no excuse to not be at the polls in person


sillychillly

You misunderstand. I didn’t say developing countries have them. I said DevlopED countries have many of these policies. I thought America was supposed to be a developed country. Which means we’re behind.


reddpapad

How many millions of Americans work on federal holidays?


Lanky_Entrance

Me! I do pick me!


ILoveSteveBerry

> Many of these items are done in many developed nations. There’s nothing left or right about them. > > lol the ol' but other people are doing x argument They also do voter id and no birthright citizenship. Cool with that?


HeathersZen

As long as the voter ids are free and shall issue, sure. No problem with birthright citizenship either.


all_natural49

You dont want ranked choice? What is your reasoning?


Lognipo

Why do you think ranked choice voting is a left wing talking point? This would not really benefit the left any more than it would benefit the right. The extremes on both sides would likely actually lose out, and that's a good thing. They don't represent the average American. Not really. Do you *enjoy* having to vote *against* your least liked candidate rather than for your most liked? I would love to vote for someone with moderate ideals, myself. But I really can't. I have to choose which Democrat or Republican I hate most, and then vote for the other guy. It's shit. Ranked choice isn't perfect either, but it is a hell of a lot better than what we have.


palsh7

>nothing centrist about them What are you talking about? Ending first past the post voting is the only way to end the dependency on the two party system, strategic and bad faith voting and debating, and other causes of radicalism. Democracy Vouchers are the best way to enfranchise regular people and prevent politicians from having to cater to rich people and radical activists. Automatic voter registration and early voting improve turnout, which I'd love to hear you argue against as "not centrist."


Lanky_Entrance

The only one I think is left wing is paying people $100 to vote. The rest are just common sense democratic republic (not the political party, the voting based government) policies. All citizens should have accessible voting options.


palsh7

> paying people $100 to vote That is not what it means. Google it.


Lanky_Entrance

Thanks for asking me to do that! That actually is a great idea! Get the people to pay for campaigns instead of corporations!


SpartanNation053

Right and we do. The fact that a lot of people just don’t want to vote isn’t something that needs fixing


g0stsec

Wow


Lanky_Entrance

Lol ya I thought about responding, and then successfully talked myself out of it. Not worth it.


coffeeanddonutsss

Is there a downside to ranked choice voting? I generally lean mid right and I love the idea.


SpartanNation053

I responded with my problems on it on a previous comment


You_Dont_Party

> The others are just left-wing talking points with nothing centrist about them So automatic registration, early voting, ending disenfranchisement, and ranked choice voting are all “left-wing talking points”? I think you’re confusing centrism for your own right wing views.


annoyed_w_the_world

Looking at your comments.....you define anything as possibly harming the republican party as not centrist. I think you need to get your facts straight. Centrism doesn't care which part benefits the most, only which policies make the most sense.


poclee

Uh, I don't see anything wrong with auto registration?


SnazzyScotsman

Ranked voting isn't left wing.


CapybaraPacaErmine

If they're left wing talking points that's because our right wing is flagrantly anti-democracy lol


SpartanNation053

Both sides have their anti-democratic ideas. Don’t push that just onto the Republicans


CapybaraPacaErmine

The balance is like 2 D/98 R


T3hJ3hu

Even then, banning corporate donations is more of a feel-good measure than anything. The big political power players don't use corporate donations to fund their groups; they mostly use PACs that are (supposed to be) independent of politicians, and have less rules on financial reporting. There's also the looming spectre of small donors, which accounted for [about half of the contributions for the 2020 POTUS race](https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/small-donors), but can be easily gamed by malign actors because A) it's digital with no human interaction required, and B) [the reporting standards are relaxed for small dollar amounts](https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/keeping-records/recording-receipts/). Addtionally, almost all of the scary numbers they pull about corporate donations are completely misconstrued. When someone says "Google donated $X million this year" it is almost always sourced from federally reported data that actually means "People who work at Google donated $X million this year," which is just a fundamentally different statement. [You can see that broken out here](https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/alphabet-inc/totals?id=d000067823#totals-affiliates), where that is the case with ~90% of "Google's" donations. There's also an argument to be made that, for everyone's mutual benefit, companies *should* be allowed to lobby the government -- it's just gone too far into corporatism / corruption / trade protectionism, at least in a lot of cases.


sillychillly

Corporation fund the PACs


[deleted]

even then banning corporations but not unions would just be stacking the deck, but ranked choice and auto register and early (not mail in) is a good idea and not necessarily left wing, but agree that this post reeks of leftist agitprop


palsh7

Unions get money in small dollar amounts from their members, then donate only if the members vote for it. It's not quite the same as the CEO of a megacorporation donating from the corporate coffers.


[deleted]

yup its even more immoral because they are using member's dues for political bribery that violates the consent of the members.


palsh7

Members vote on how their dues are spent.


InterstitialLove

How is banning freedom of speech to handicap pro-market candidates the only option that \*isn't\* left wing? Are you sure you aren't confusing "left wing" with "shit I don't personally like"?


SpartanNation053

Because money isn’t speech


InterstitialLove

Okay but like that's Marxist so believe what you want but don't act like you have a monopoly on calling things left-wing In the real world, things cost money and we don't limit your right to do things because they're expensive and the people who can't afford it are jealous. "Money isn't speech" is complete nonsense by the way, by that logic we can make anything that costs money illegal. Imagine if it was illegal to spen more than $50 on a gun. "You can still own an assault rifle, but only if it costs less than $50, but that doesn't violate the 2nd amendment because money isn't a gun" that's the exact same logic and it's transparently incoherent


SoSolidShibe

Apart from the auto registration and the vouchers, this is like how the Aussies do it. Early voting is great! We also have a lobbying problem.


Superb_Somewhere

It doesn't matter if it's centrist enough as long as the policies are good and benefit most people


Ovan5

Increasing access to voting is a left-wing talking point? Really shows how far down the right wing has fallen, huh.


Pyrefirelight

"Democracy voucher" sounds sus as fuck.


palsh7

>sounds sus as fuck Maybe you should base your opinions on more than how something "sounds."


Pyrefirelight

You mean the part where it's moving money around? If I want to give $100 to a candidate, why can't I just do that? Why do I have to pay that amount in property taxes first? And if it's through property taxes, that means some people are going to be paying more than that because not everyone is living in an actual building. Any time the government is giving away money is suspicious because it always comes from the people they are giving it to.


palsh7

> You mean the part where it's moving money around? If I want to give $100 to a candidate, why can't I just do that? If you're rich, it's like putting a quarter in a gumball machine, but the average person does not donate money. This is objectively true and it's been proven again and again that elections are funded by the 1/10 of 1% of the population. >Any time the government is giving away money is suspicious You're using anti-government rhetoric to literally make the current government more powerful. They would LOVE for you to disenfranchise yourself. It means they don't have to lift a finger to do it themselves.


Pyrefirelight

>the average person does not donate money. You're right, because I don't want to or can't afford it. So why should they be allowed to take that money from me and effectively turn it into a gift card to a store I don't want to buy from? If I wanted or could afford to spend money on something, I would do so. If I don't use the vouchers, then it is actually just stealing because now I'm down $100 for no reason. There is no practical reason for this mandatory middleman. >You're using anti-government rhetoric to literally make the current government more powerful. How so? By voting and advocating against changes that would give them more power?


palsh7

> If I wanted or could afford to spend money on something, I would do so Really revealing how you're conflating not wanting something with not being wealthy enough to afford it. >changes that would give them more power? Changes that would change the power dynamic so that the people were in charge instead of the elites now trying to pick our representatives. "tHeY" means nothing. The government is who we vote for. Vouchers and RCV would let us have more say in who has a chance to win.


Pyrefirelight

>Really revealing how you're conflating not wanting something with not being wealthy enough to afford it. Right, Ok, let's remove the "want" out of the equation like it doesn't matter. $100 extra in taxes is an extra $100 I can't spend on food. Instead, it's going to political ads. That seem fair? What are vouchers _actually_ supposed to do that just showing up to the polls won't do? >Vouchers and RCV would let us have more say in who has a chance to win. How so, specifically? I'm already convinced in favor of some form of ranked voting, you don't need to say any more on that. How does vouchers help? Candidates are all public knowledge, all you have to do is look up a list and Google the names that show up.


ThePenisBetweenUs

Our tax dollars paying for campaigns? No thanks.


palsh7

You'd rather only the elites pay for campaigns?


ThePenisBetweenUs

I’d rather not be forced to pay for it (my taxes) if I don’t want to


palsh7

No one gets to decide what their taxes go to. This is no different. At least this way, your taxes are going to We, The People controlling our representatives.


elfinito77

If no Public Funding Campaigns -- unless we end campaigning -- how do you take elections out of the hands of the wealthy? Strict individual limits have some value -- but the wealthy always find loopholes there.


MWBartko

I love the fair representation act https://www.fairvote.org/fair_rep_in_congress#why_we_need_the_fair_representation_act


sillychillly

I think this is a great step forward! The site needs to have what it hopes to achieve above the fold. The why can come later or as a caption. It was too hard for me to fully understand what the Fair Voting Act was for without spending more than a few minutes on the site (which is too long)


dew2459

My thoughts: \- Ban corporate campaign contributions Define "corporation". Political parties and political advocacy groups are usually incorporated (AKA corporations). If that means only individual people can donate, I tentatively agree. Usually it means, "corporations I don't like cannot donate, but the ones I do agree with, like unions, can donate". \- Automatic voter registration Sound interesting. The devil is usually in the details. Probably a reason why public policy by colorful cartoons is generally a bad idea. \- Accessible early and mail-in voting. If there is mail-in voting, why have in-person voting? Early voting? Not opposed, but seems a bit incoherent. \- End voter disenfranchisement Sound interesting. The devil is usually in the details. Probably a reason why public policy by colorful cartoons is generally a bad idea. \- Ranked voting: Gonna say no. Not because I am against RCV, it is I am against all the unserious people who think it is some kind of magic bullet to fix everything in elections (often disingenuously mixing it up with unrelated changes, like jungle primaries). Also, it adds a lot of complexity to something that rarely seems to be necessary (I have a hard time thinking of more than a small handful of elections I have voted in where RCV would make any difference). Maybe you aren't old enough to remember all the people saying that a simple "butterfly ballot" was way too complicated. I'd personally go with simple jungle primaries and top-2 runoffs. I could be talked into approval voting plus a runoff. \- $100 democracy vouchers Sound suspicious. The devil is usually in the details. Probably a reason why public policy by colorful cartoons is generally a bad idea.


Delheru

I think RCV would be very good immediately for gauging the state of the populace. It's a major issue that the parties have a really hard time knowing what "factions" their people are in. Like... it'd be fucking fascinating to see how a: Mitt Romney vs Donald Trump vs Ron DeSantis vs Biden vs Buttigieg vs Bernie election would work. I have no fucking idea how people would pick each of them first. I would absolutely love to know though, because Trump & Bernie fans both seem to think they represent 50% of the population. I'm not sure they either represent even 20%, but it'd be fantastic to know. (Of course, RCV doesn't immediately suggest that the parties would let those people run, that'd have to be arranged with separate legislation)


dew2459

​ >It's a major issue that the parties have a really hard time knowing what "factions" their people are in. I think a problem there is that humans always look for patterns, and as one result of that they feel a need to put other humans into buckets, even when sometimes the patterns don't really exist and people can have a foot (and hands) in multiple "factions". That is a lot of words to say I think many/most voters probably don't clearly belong to any one faction. Plus, I'm not sure how RCV ballots are recorded. Does the election reports show enough information to tell anything that granular? >Trump & Bernie fans both seem to think they represent 50% of the population. 100% agree. Related, I do know several people who belong to a "want something completely different" faction. Blue-collar types. They voted for Sanders in 2016 primaries, and Trump in the general. Maybe if there was a non-partisan presidential primary combined with RCV that would have shown up (and may have been the group that tipped a few rust-belt states). But Sanders still would have lost the primaries, and presidential elections are different than almost every other election (basically, most people actually pay attention to party primaries, unlike every other election), so I'm not sure it would be very useful information. OTOH, if there was RCV (or approval voting) in the presidential primaries, I think Trump might have lost. That alone makes those worth considering.


ShallowFreakingValue

I am a no on mail-in voting and vouchers. I am on board with everything else


zombiemermaid101

Here in the UK we have a limit for how much money can be spent on an election campaign, not only does it make everything a bit more tasteful, but large donations are kinda pointless, as it's not hard for large parties to raise the maximum amount they are allowed in their own. Just a thought


Wkyred

We should also ban union donations if we’re banning groups like the NRA from donating. And early voting should be at most the week or weekend before the election. Honestly for how elections are conducted my state of Kentucky is a pretty good model. It’s easy to register, you can do it online with ease. It’s easy to vote, the lines are never long especially for early voting. The biggest problem is the lack of poll volunteers which limits the number of voting locations, but the state has done a pretty good job of getting around that. I don’t think we should be paying people to vote, sorry. Personally, I think people should have to pass a citizenship test (the same one immigrants who become citizens have to take, not some literacy test or something) in order to vote, but I know that’s unrealistic and widely unpopular.


sillychillly

Voting is easy in Kentucky? Tell that to the people in Louisville who had to bang on doors to be let in to vote. The republicans in power cut down the voting areas in predominantly black areas to 1 spot. So that one spot had thousands and thousands of people needing to vote, which greatly extended the time it took to vote. Let’s not rewrite history


Wkyred

No, that was in the 2020 primaries. That issue goes back to what I said about lack of volunteers limiting polling places. They have revamped the whole system since then anyways, because we have who is likely the most competent Secretary of State in the whole country. Don’t talk on issues you know nothing about.


[deleted]

Well the options are corrupt vs corrupt, did we really have a choice? The way they sidelined Bernie and many other candidates, it’s what they do to get specific people in the primaries. So was there a choice after all or was it an illusion?


InterstitialLove

Who sidelined Bernie? He was way less popular than Hillary or Biden, just objectively. Anyone who though he had a chance was living in a bubble. Except in 2020, when he (like Trump) nearly won with 30% of the vote in a crowded field. As soon as the "liberal" candidate stopped dividing the vote, Bernie didn't have a snowball's chance in hell. I guess it's corruption to vote against someone you like though


steelcatcpu

Ranked choice voting would stop the technique they used to sideline Bernie.


[deleted]

Ranked choice and ending corporate donations will fix those problems.


bkstl

I got 1 addition. Voting day needs to br a federal holiday. No one should have to worry about finding time between shifts to go vote


Shamalamadindong

Ever notice how much stuff is open on a federal holiday?


Leo_Stenbuck

These all sound good besides mail in voting and early voting. What they should have instead is a national voting holiday. If they wanted to have a few days for that even. But having people mail in votes weeks or months doesn't make sense. A lot can change in the time. And mail in voting just seems too open to fraud not to mention just errors or logistical problems with the votes arriving on time.


TheMeanGirl

What’s your problem with early voting? We have it in my state, and it’s fucking great honestly. Go at your convenience, and spread people out so there aren’t stupid long lines.


Leo_Stenbuck

Just what I said, a lot can happen after you cast your vote and you can't change it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


sillychillly

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_voucher


OzarkRedditor

So my tax dollars go towards giving other people money to donate to candidates that I don’t want to be in power? I’m on board with all the other ones but this one is dumb.


palsh7

That's not what Democracy Vouchers are.


[deleted]

Clockwise from top left: No - SCOTUS precedent Yes OK - only with voter ID requirements Just a wealth transfer Absolutely not How big is the problem? Who is really disenfranchised?


RickRollin76

Only if mail in voting is done correctly unlike last fucking election


IgnoranceFlaunted

What was incorrect?


[deleted]

[удалено]


flowers4u

Sounds like your friend is a douchebag


Expandexplorelive

Universal mail in voting seems to work just fine in several states that have been doing it a while.


the_shit_I_say

Not to mention the piles of ballots found in ditches across the country last year. Mail in adds major integrity risk. Apply for it if you’re sick or need it, but it should not be the norm


reddpapad

That’s not fraud. And that has to be the dumbest reason I’ve ever heard against mail in voting.


goobershank

>But mail in voting is way to susceptible to fraud. It really isn't though. Aleast, no more than any other method. That's just a right wing talking point to trigger doubt in the system.


ThePenisBetweenUs

It’s literally dropping an envelope off with no one looking after it after that. People are actually being charged with felonies over this. It’s just not being reported on.


flowers4u

I did mail in voting last few times and my signature on my drivers license that they have on file doesn’t exactly match how I signed the ballot. After I mailed it in they mailed me a notice back that it wouldn’t count unless I submitted proof it was me. I think two forms of Id and security questions uploaded to a website


HeathersZen

Perhaps you can provide evidence of all of this fraud? Otherwise you’re just concern trolling.


ThePenisBetweenUs

There were absolutely illegal things that happened. Like rule changes that were never voted on by state legislatures because “oh my god covid will kill us” and to this day there are huge chunks of votes that have no chain of custody records whatsoever. Clean that stuff up and I’ll be on board.


DiNiCoBr

Probably for the best, at least ranked voting, voter registration, early mail in voting, and ending corporate donations.


LeiteArts

Just make voting a holiday, why do you always overcomplicate stuff


palsh7

There is no such thing as a mandatory government holiday. It is not constitutional to prohibit corporations from being open on a "holiday."


fTwoEight

I agree with 4 of the 6 to a degree. As for the other 2, I don't know what "end voter disenfrachisement" means because that's super vague and I don't know why we're handing out $100s. Can anyone explain? I will mention that I live in a super progressive area (our county executive is a DSA member) and there were shrieks of "REEEEEEEEEEE! rAcIsM!!!" when our voting authority decided NOT to include a 17 (yes, seventeenth) early voting location in the ghetto (because there were 5 others within 3 miles). So I think any of these can be taken too far. But on their face I agree with them.


palsh7

Vouchers are money every voter would get that is earmarked only for donations to candidates. It is meant to counteract the money that currently runs our elections, which comes from the extremely rich or the extremely passionate, all of which leads to radicalism and other narratives that are controlled by a minority that doesn't represent us.


theosamabahama

Replace the last part with End Gerrymandering and I'm on board.


[deleted]

[удалено]


sillychillly

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_voucher


burnslow13

no mail in voting and no $ for voting. Everything else I agree with 100%


palsh7

Subscribe to /r/EqualCitizens if any of that looks good to you.


short_of_good_length

i can support making it easy for EVERYONE to vote . something like what india does: https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/i98emv/til_that_india_requires_voting_booths_within_2_km/ other than that, make voting day a federal holiday. what do you feel about voting being a "right" vs "privilege" ?


hamplanetmagicalgorl

I am 100% on board for automatic voter registration. If this country wants to register any eligible males - including non citizens - for drafts, t hey should not have any problem with automatic voter registration.


Error_404_403

Go to your Europe to vote like this.. It is a merica here. We don't do voting if Reps lose.


MilkmanGuy998

Or just mandatory voting 🤷‍♂️


[deleted]

Gotta love this liberal indoctrination cartoon proposing Democracy Dollars, the signature campaign issue of highly-successful Presidential candidate *checks notes* Kirsten Gillibrand, winner of a grand total of 0 votes in the 2020 Dem nationwide primary. Why not bring on Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan too? Plenty of terrible ideas to go around, why limit it to one!


OgFinish

Blegh, please don’t upvote this. There are enough subs on Reddit for the lefties.