Rank The Vote: 2008 (951 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 1.61 on 40 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by John Galt (View user info) at 2004-10-14 14:51:42 EDT
Ever since I reached the minimum voting age I've been sorely disappointed in the limited options for each election. This year, it is especially bad. The simple fact of the matter is that the two party system sucks, mainly because both parties can't even manage to base all their policies on their own ideology consistently.
Republicans want a small, unobtrusive government for everything but moral and religious matters, at which point they change sides and want to tell everyone how to live. Democrats claim it isn't the government's right to tell you how to live, but they have no problem taking all your money to give it to someone who didn't earn it. Personally, I like the Libertarian party. Some people, useless hippies, but still people, like the Green Party. And others like the America First, American, American Heritage, American Independent, American Nazi, American Reform, Christian Falangist, Communist, Constitution, Constitutional Action, Family Values, Freedom Socialist, Grassroots Party, Independence, Independent American, Labor, Light Party, Natural Law, New, New Union, Peace & Freedom, Prohibition Party, Reform Party, The Revolution, Socialist, Socialist Action, Socialist Equality, Socialist Labor, Socialist Workers, Southern, Southern Independence, U.S. Pacifist Party, We The People, or Workers World parties (Man, I hope I got them all. If I missed you, sorry). The point is that the main two parties just don't fit everyone. In fact, they probably don't fit most people. But they have all the money and power, and thus all the media control and TV time, so people just have to pick whichever one they see as the lesser of two evils.
Today I present to you a plan to change all that. I have come up with the perfect solution to solve this problem once and for all.
Step 1: Candidates are not allowed to spend any of their own funds or someone else's to campaign in any fashion. There will be one big general fund which each candidate gets an equal share of. Some will come from fees that I'll outline below. The rest will come from donations.
Step 2: There is no limit on the number of Presidential candidates for any election.
Step 3: Anyone wishing to run for President must take a certification exam covering Political Science, Ethics, Money Management, etc. This exam will not be biased toward any specific political system. It will simply be a way to make sure they have a firm grasp of the different political systems, that they can count, add, subtract, etc, and that they at least know that they should be honest, even if they don't actually do it. The cost of this exam will be $500, which is non-refundable.
Step 4: After taking the exam, all candidates who pass and wish to continue in the election will pay a flat fee of $5000 to go into the general campaign fund as an entrance charge. They can get this money in any fashion that would be considered legal under any other circumstances. The same goes for the exam fee. They can borrow it, get donations, pay it out of pocket, or sell their kid's toys. I don't care, as long as they don't steal it or break the law to get it.
Step 5: Once everyone has paid their fees and officially entered the campaign a website will be created and information published via the usual media outlets. No candidate will get more air time than any other. No candidate may campaign outside this website. No special interest groups, individuals or corporations will be allowed to campaign on their behalf.
The website will be similar to a dating site. Each candidate will have a profile with information about them, their history, education etc. Each candidate will also be asked for their stance on the top issues. They will then rate those issues in order of their importance to them, and the results will be posted. They will be allowed one essay, up to 10 pages in length, further explaining why they wish to be President and covering any issues they feel are important. Beside each issue, they can put a comment to explain their stance. If they come back and change their stance, unless it was originally submitted in error, they must put a comment explaining the change of opinion.
Candidates will always be listed in random order by default, so no one can change their name to Alaa Abdelnaby (DUKE SUCKS!!!) to get put at the top of the list. However, anyone visiting the site can sort by other statistics to get better information. There will also be quizzes that website visitors can take, to see which candidates most match their political views.
The site will go up on January 1 of each election year. In early September, anyone who is registered to vote will rank their top 10 candidates. For every #1 vote a candidate receives, they get 10 points. They get 9 for a #2, 8 for a #3, and so on, down to 1 point for each #10. After the votes have been tallied, the top 10 will go into a 2nd round of the election.
In the 2nd round, the 10 remaining candidates will participate in a debate of sorts. Each one will get the same questions, and will respond without knowing what the other candidate's responses were. In early October, people will again rank them from 1st to 10th, using the same system. This time, the top 3 candidates advance to the 3rd and final round.
In round 3, the 3 remaining contestants will have live debates, in much the same way that the 2 candidates are doing this year. They can publish more information about themselves and will have much more freedom on the website, including their own custom pages, to put out whatever information they feel is important.
At the end of round 3, in early November, everyone will vote on the 3 remaining candidates. I like the scoring system myself, of ranking them 1st-3rd, with 3 points for a 1, 2 for a 2, and 1 for a 3, so that we end up with the best fit. If one candidate is the 2nd choice of most people, with a lot of 1sts as well, and very few 3rds, he is probably a better fit than someone who gets a lot of 1st place votes, but is considered the worst choice by everyone else. Either way, at the end of this, the President should be a much better representative of the citizens of the United States, and isn't that the point of the whole system in the first place?
User Reviews
Submitted by AlwaysAnEagle (user info) at 2004-11-02 01:52:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Eh, okay.
I think political science should be left the hell off ANY qualification exam. And I say this as a poli sci major. ESPECIALLY as a poli sci major, actually.
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2004-11-02 01:37:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
A very good idea. I've always thought about a very similar way of conducting the vote. (With the ranking system, etc.)
I hate Ayn Rand, though.
Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2004-10-15 14:05:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Either way, putting me in charge would be a really, really bad idea. Hell, I can't even run my own life all that well.
Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2004-10-15 14:02:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Durae (user info) at 2004-10-15 13:59:34 (#)
Ranking: 2
Fucking ballot requirements.
As much as I like you Chris, I don't think anyone who subscribes heavily to Ayn Rand should be put in charge of people's lives. Although putting a tax on stupidity would be really funny, corporate welfare is too scary.
I sound like I'm in a cult or something whenever I talk about Nader. Nader for God!
----------
I must have skipped the chapter where Rand condoned anything resembling welfare of any sort, especially welfare for a company.
Submitted by Durae (user info) at 2004-10-15 13:59:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Fucking ballot requirements.
As much as I like you Chris, I don't think anyone who subscribes heavily to Ayn Rand should be put in charge of people's lives. Although putting a tax on stupidity would be really funny, corporate welfare is too scary.
I sound like I'm in a cult or something whenever I talk about Nader. Nader for God!
Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2004-10-15 09:51:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Durae, I do agree with Nader on some issues, but not nearly enough to vote for him. It would be tempting though, just to get him in office for his ideas about education and vote reform. Once that's done we could kick him out and put in someone to get rid of the stuff that sucks. He isn't on the ballot in North Carolina, so it doesn't really matter either way.
Why don't we just say to hell with the election and I'll be King? I think it could work.
Submitted by Durae (user info) at 2004-10-14 23:14:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm sure we've had this conversation before. Why aren't you voting for Nader?
"Finally, money dominates expensive campaigns, mainly waged on television in sound bite format. The cost of campaigns creates a stranglehold making politics a game for only the rich or richly funded. Major electoral reforms are needed to ensure that every vote counts, all voters are represented through electoral reforms like instant run-off voting, abolition of the electoral college, none-of-the-above options, and proportional representation, non-major party candidates have a chance to run for office and participate in debates, and that elections are publicly financed."
Ralph Nader from http://youthdebate.newvotersproject.org/the_candidates_respond.html#q5
Notice instant run-off voting - that's where they set up point systems like the one you described for ranking candidates. I hope I didn't tell you something you already know - sorry in advance.
Stop hating on Nader. Love him. I'll send you some mp3s of his speeches if you want. You know you want it.
Submitted by lojope (user info) at 2004-10-14 21:15:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DanielH (user info) at 2004-10-14 17:30:36 (#)
Ranking: 2
First, +2 For your choice of Uber names, Ayn Rand's Galt is my hero.
Second, Bush would have never made it past the exam portion of your plan--a inspired plan, however.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Ahahahahahahaaaa!!! I was SO waiting for someone to say that!!!!
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2004-10-14 18:27:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
as far as that 'website' thing goes, not everyone has a computer. more free media coverage is required.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2004-10-14 18:23:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
So... honestly... tell us... WHO ARE YOU? IVE BEEN WONDERING! lol
Youre right, really. The funding thing is questionable though. Ayn Rand is great.
Submitted by Anjie (user info) at 2004-10-14 18:14:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Sounds like a great idea.... +2
Submitted by gibberish (user info) at 2004-10-14 18:07:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Interesting idea.
(Go Badnarik woo!!)
Submitted by spedmonkey (user info) at 2004-10-14 17:46:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 just because JG kicks all ass.
Submitted by DanielH (user info) at 2004-10-14 17:30:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
First, +2 For your choice of Uber names, Ayn Rand's Galt is my hero.
Second, Bush would have never made it past the exam portion of your plan--a inspired plan, however.
Submitted by drfeggphd (user info) at 2004-10-14 17:12:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Sounds good but there are some difficulties:
Most people, I think, do not understand the basic fundamental
principles of the U.S. federal system of government. I like the
Libertarian party, too--because they seem to base their approach
on a relatively straightforward interpretation of the Constitution
and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
But most people are essentially authoritarian. To paraphrase Mencken,
they are afraid someone, somewhere might be having some freedom--to do,
say, or think in a manner they may find personally unacceptable. And they
are afraid of the responsibility that comes with that freedom. So they
vote for whichever candidate or party they believe will most effectively
impose on everyone a version of morality, and of thought, speech and/or
behavior control that most closely reflects their own ideal society and
will make them feel safe from free thinkers, radicals and rabble rousers.
Or, they vote for whoever will give them the most stuff. Or for whoever
will give the most stuff to other people, because if we left charity up
to individuals, many would choose not to give, and that wouldn't be fair.
Also, my impression is that most people are incredibly uninformed and
lacking in both education and the discernment required to be worthy
participants in a system such as you propose.
I wonder how many of the 50% or so of eligible voters have just given up.
Maybe a system like yours would encourage them to participate once again
in their own government, and feel that we really have a government of, by
and for the people again. I know I don't feel that we do, now.
Well, anyway, nice post.
Submitted by LadyPlural (user info) at 2004-10-14 16:33:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yep. Has some rather large flaws, but overall I like your idea. Rock on, sir.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2004-10-14 16:25:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Good ideas. But not going to happen.
Would grassroots activism be banned under this system too? Phone polls and suchlike.
How about negative campaigning? Want to stop that too.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-10-14 16:19:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Go libertarians!
Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2004-10-14 16:13:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"But why isn't Nader on that list?"
----------
For the same reason I haven't seen him on any of the debates, the same reason he's only on the ballot in 34 states, and the same reason that 90% of the population doesn't know who his VP running mate is. It's because it's still a 2 party system, so we know he doesn't stand a chance. We have to change something, even if it is only to make it 3 parties or 4. At least we're getting closer to that, thanks in large part to Nader and the huge following he has.
Submitted by Quasiplasmohedron (user info) at 2004-10-14 16:07:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I was skeptical at first, but that idea of having them all answer the same questions without knowing what the others have said is great, and I agree that the results would be more representative if people could vote for their second or third choice as well. The chances of this ever being implemented are minute, but +2 for political reform anyway.
But why isn't Nader on that list?
Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2004-10-14 16:04:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2004-10-14 15:51:09 (#)
Ranking: 0
Why do Libertarians always think they are so much better than any other party? Is it because their name sounds like Liberal?
----------
First, I do not speak on behalf of all Libertarians. In fact, if you look at the reviews you'll see where I mentioned disagreeing with the party on one point. And if you go back and re-read what I said in the post, I never claimed to even BE a Libertarian. I simply said I like the party the best of all of them. I don't go with any party on each issue. I decide about each issue. It just so happens that the Libertarian Party and the philosophy behind it fall in line with my own opinions more often than any of the others. Secondly, this post makes no claim about which party is the "best". It is about a voting system, not an attempt in any way to proclaim Libertarians as the greatest party ever and then appoint them to be in charge.
On a side note, do you even realize how silly your first question is? Why on earth would anyone be a member of any party they didn't think was the best one?
Submitted by lojope (user info) at 2004-10-14 15:56:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Probably because it sounds like liberty not liberal.
Plus, they think they are better because they have JG on their team and he wins at life.
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2004-10-14 15:51:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Why do Libertarians always think they are so much better than any other party? Is it because their name sounds like Liberal?
Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2004-10-14 15:47:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2004-10-14 15:05:36 (#)
Ranking: 2
Geez...
We need to go to their convention (if they have one) and stand outside with half-barrels and funnels. Then again, their convention is prolly held in a church basement in the Virginia mountains.
----------
My guess would be that it isn't in Virgina, but is instead headquartered in a Mormon compound in Utah that you need a backpack with 3 days worth of supplies and a map and compass to get to. I say we find it and set up a shop selling bicycle helmets and thin black ties just outside. Then we can use the profits to fund our drinking.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2004-10-14 15:37:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
WTF? I'M NOT READING ALL OF THAT AT WORK!!!
+2 for having a sexy accent (still)
Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2004-10-14 15:37:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-10-14 15:27:05 (#)
Ranking: -2
These are ill conceived ideas.
----------
It may not be the best idea in the world, but it is a well thought out plan to try and fix something that I, and I think a lot of other people as well, see as broken. How is it ill-conceived? Why don't you tell me where the flaws are and how to make it better? I did post this for a debate after all.
Submitted by lojope (user info) at 2004-10-14 15:33:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2004-10-14 15:26:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
That should say:
I'm very much against allowing government control on how and where people spend their money on most things.
~*~*~*~*~*~
Capitalist Pig! :oP
Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2004-10-14 15:30:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Sassmasterr (user info) at 2004-10-14 15:18:58 (#)
Ranking: -1
nothing more problem free than a web-based government election. fantastic!
----------
Actually, I thought about the web-based part, and forgot to clarify that they don't vote online for a few reasons:
1. It leads to security issues and extra costs. Maybe, I'm not sure.
2. As you can see here on Uber, people don't take things seriously on the internet. It would be too easy for people to just pick stuff for the hell of it if the were doing it online.
3. Some people like to do things without any thought, or with the thought of "how much of a pain in the ass can I be for the rest of society". Those people are usually lazy and lack conviction. If you make them get up off their ass and go to a voting place, 99% of them won't. That means only 1% of the vote is being determined by the KoolMang's and Degreeless_cappapasomething or other's of the world.
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-10-14 15:27:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
These are ill conceived ideas.
Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2004-10-14 15:26:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
That should say:
I'm very much against allowing government control on how and where people spend their money on most things.
Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2004-10-14 15:25:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ICO (user info) at 2004-10-14 15:02:44 (#)
Ranking: 0
Hahahaha. Sharing the money... you call that libertarian? sounds more like socialism to me. and controlling the media like that isn't right. you are, in effect, forbidding the media to broadcast their views. and what about debates?
----------
The ideas about campaign finance are the one major point where I disagree with the Libertarian Party. I'm very much against disallowing government control on how and where people spend their money on most things. However, I don't think you can allow people to buy an election. They all pay an equal share, and they all get an equal share. It isn't like I'm saying some have to pay more than others, or that the rich fund the poor. It's simply a way to prevent whoever has the most money from controlling the election. Everyone gets an equal podium from which to shout their message. You can't have a fair election otherwise.
As for controlling the media, you are right. It is unfair to control the media and limit what or how much they can say about each candidate. So, how about this. They can say whatever they want about whoever they want, but if they have to add a disclaimer at the bottom unless it's certified as true and fair by the the election committee. If they give equal time to all candidates and use factual information, then they can get it approved and add credibility to it. Or they can run off with half information and give more air time to 1 or 2 people and have it have no credibility at all. If Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS or CNN wants to take that kind of risk with their viewing base they can.
I think I covered the debates in the post.
Submitted by cigar (user info) at 2004-10-14 15:19:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Good idea, but not very likely.
Submitted by Sassmasterr (user info) at 2004-10-14 15:19:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
then again you have some good points. jolly good!
Submitted by Sassmasterr (user info) at 2004-10-14 15:18:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
nothing more problem free than a web-based government election. fantastic!
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-10-14 15:07:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
BEST FUCKING IDEA EVER! when I take over the world I am so useing this...
Submitted by lojope (user info) at 2004-10-14 15:06:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Let's start a revolution.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2004-10-14 15:05:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Geez...
We need to go to their convention (if they have one) and stand outside with half-barrels and funnels. Then again, their convention is prolly held in a church basement in the Virginia mountains.
Submitted by ICO (user info) at 2004-10-14 15:02:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Hahahaha. Sharing the money... you call that libertarian? sounds more like socialism to me. and controlling the media like that isn't right. you are, in effect, forbidding the media to broadcast their views. and what about debates?
Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2004-10-14 15:00:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2004-10-14 14:57:54 (#)
Ranking: 1
Sounds a lot like the California recall election - chaotic.
Is there really a Prohibition Party? Or is that something from nineteen aught-seven? If so, I'm gonna drink in their honor this weekend.
----------
Yep, they still exist.
http://www.prohibition.org/
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2004-10-14 14:57:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Sounds a lot like the California recall election - chaotic.
Is there really a Prohibition Party? Or is that something from nineteen aught-seven? If so, I'm gonna drink in their honor this weekend.