New Continental Congress

[Cackalacky]

If we are starting with campaign finance my idea is to outlaw any sort donations individual or corporate. Instead I propose a different solution. Ultimately my financing plan comes from tax payer dollars but ultimately it will save money as it likely put an end to many corporate welfare practices.

My plan calls for giving each American citizen to receive $50 Patriot Dollars with their tax returns that they can choose to give to any party or candidate they chose. These Patriot Dollars have no real value but would be redeemable for a tax rebate from the government to any sort of media outlet rather it be TV, newspaper, or internet site.

What about those who don't pay taxes? To some it would be perceived as just another $50 giveaway to those who don't deserve it. Is this a dollar for dollar rebate? If not what is the purpose if it has no real dollar for dollar value. This would immediately be biased towards larger media markets under any circumstance.

While I keep the voting age at 18 I would give Patriot dollars out at 16 to start encouraging the youth to get informed about there government.

Why give it to the 16 year olds? Most do not pay taxes unless they are working. If it is not valuable to them how many can get invested in it? Seems to me it would be like "here's your monopoly money which you can't do any thing with but pay attention to the circus."

This will introduce $6 billion into the election cycle still a lot but more healthy than what we've been seeing. More importantly it would encourage candidates to appeal to normal Americans because all Americans rather rich or poor get 50 Patriot dollars.

You said it has no value except for a tax rebate for the media, which I don't like because they are the 4th estate, the one who is supposed to be objective. If they are dependent on this money come election time, I see that as a huge conflict of interest. Further, what does a millionaire care about $50 of imaginary money. This would be a waste of paper. Print costs? Distribution Costs?

While I would encourage state and local governments to follow this sort of idea, each state should set there own financing rules for state and local elections.

I don't think this would work at any level. Does each municipality print its own Patriot Dollar. Is this transferable to the state? to the federal government? is It printed by the government and distributed by the states to its constituents?

I would also make election day a national paid holiday with no work except for the people working the polls. We shouldn't have to force people to take time off work instead we should be celebrating our democracy.

This I agree with 100%. But Republicans won't want that. They would lose every election as it sits right now, purely on numbers. But it also begs the question what about local and state level elections not held on the Presidential day.

 

[Cackalacky]

Big risk, big reward. I don't like politicians hedging like this on the taxpayer's dime.

Could not agree more. Especially when campaigning starts right after re-election.
Congress' Wicked Problem | NewAmerica.net

This article does a pretty good job showing how Congress persons do not even spend time reading legislation anymore since the 1990s and rely more and more on outside influences for the substance, which inherently means that Congress people take their marching orders from those who donate to them, because that is who wants specific legislation passed.

 

[Cackalacky]

Agreed and reps sir! Hillary Clinton took that option but makes me wonder about her decision only bc of Benghazi

She was always going to run for president. I never saw her staying past this year. I hate Kerry took her position possibly giving up another Senate seat. that was dumb IMO. Obama should have chosen another Sec of State and let the Republicans keep that position open filibustering it (politically speaking of course). But they confirmed him and are now setting Scott Brown up to take that seat.

 

[Cackalacky]

First point of order needs to be getting the Executive Branch to stop using its investigatory powers to intimidate non-conformists. First came the Tea Party. Then Fox News reporters. I don't want to think what's next.

I think we all know the IRS scandal is an IRS scandal not the white house. There are specific things in place that keep the President from being able to intimidate or harass the IRS into doing things it wants. What Fox news reporters were intimidated? I am aware of the AP scandal which is extremely disturbing, (but that ties in with the repeal of the Patriot act).Was a disproportionate amount of the AP numbers gathered Fox news people?

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

She was always going to run for president. I never saw her staying past this year. I hate Kerry took her position possibly giving up another Senate seat. that was dumb IMO. Obama should have chosen another Sec of State and let the Republicans keep that position open filibustering it (politically speaking of course). But they confirmed him and are now setting Scott Brown up to take that seat.

I don't think Scott Brown is going to run for that seat.

 

[Cackalacky]

I don't think Scott Brown is going to run for that seat.

Good.

 

[Cackalacky]

Small Donor Matching Funds: The NYC Election Experience | Brennan Center for Justice
I really like this idea for public financing.

 

[chicago51]

What about those who don't pay taxes? To some it would be perceived as just another $50 giveaway to those who don't deserve it. Is this a dollar for dollar rebate? If not what is the purpose if it has no real dollar for dollar value. This would immediately be biased towards larger media markets under any circumstance.

Why give it to the 16 year olds? Most do not pay taxes unless they are working. If it is not valuable to them how many can get invested in it? Seems to me it would be like "here's your monopoly money which you can't do any thing with but pay attention to the circus."

You said it has no value except for a tax rebate for the media, which I don't like because they are the 4th estate, the one who is supposed to be objective. If they are dependent on this money come election time, I see that as a huge conflict of interest. Further, what does a millionaire care about $50 of imaginary money. This would be a waste of paper. Print costs? Distribution Costs?


I don't think this would work at any level. Does each municipality print its own Patriot Dollar. Is this transferable to the state? to the federal government? is It printed by the government and distributed by the states to its constituents?


This I agree with 100%. But Republicans won't want that. They would lose every election as it sits right now, purely on numbers. But it also begs the question what about local and state level elections not held on the Presidential day.

I'm revising my Patriot dollar plan as some clear draw backs were pointed out.

1- I'm scrapping the idea of giving $16 year olds any of my "patriot dollars". It was a bad idea on my part.

2-Insted of printing "Patriot Dollars" citizens will receive with their tax return a single $50 federal election campaign voucher (one piece of paper down from 50).

3- With that $50 voucher they can then give the voucher to any candidate registered for federal election or any registered political party. That candidate or party can then redeem that voucher through the treasurey for real money to spend as they seem fit. An extra $10 voucher would be give on Presidential years specfically for presidential candidates. Only $25 vouchers would be given on non federal election years.

4- This would not be for state or local elections. State and local authorities have the option of setting their own rules , although I would encourage them to do some sort of equal voice for all plan as well.

5- Coud this be seen as a giveaway to those that don't very much in taxes? Yes. The whole point is "an equal voice for all". That is the whole point of this whole idea. Money can't you speech. It benefits candidates that get out in there in the streets and meet the appeal. It benefits those that appeal to the masses not the view.

Some may see this as benefiting the Democratic Party but I actually don't. The Republican party as had economic populist in the past like Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Nixon (despite his shady dealings); even Reagan had some populist leanings.

It may also be seen to benefit the large population areas but that fact is we still have congressional districts so representives ultimately have to win the support of their districts. The make up of the Senate already heavily favors rural states and with the filibuster rules 15% of the country has the power to completely block legistlation in the Senate. As for presidential elections: large population areas already largely determine presidential elections today, no campaing finance system is going to change that. I think the overall balance is pretty fair and I wouldn't worry about voting blocks have too much influence.

 

[chicago51]

Small Donor Matching Funds: The NYC Election Experience | Brennan Center for Justice
I really like this idea for public financing.

This is a great idea. Doesn't make things competely equal for everyone as ultimately the rich still have an advantage of buying speech. That said it is more realistic than my idea.

I would vote for package that included this sort of premise of matching/multiplying of small donations.

I think a realistic package would be to have this sort of provision along with caps on the maximum amount of donations by individual in an election cycle.

 

[chicago51]

Since campaign finance falls into general voting I would now like to visit instant runoff voting.

Clear advantages:
1- More parties hence a great variety of ideas instead of the same old A or B.
2- Less candidates on the extremes at the either end because it replaces the need for primary voting.

If we are talking about constitutional issues. I would like to discuss is voting. This may seem weird to many but please I encourage everyone to think outside the box a bit here.

Essentially with our 2 party system we are surpressing new ideas because candidates that want a chance have stick to the party platform. Also with our primary system that is dominated by the hardcore bases or the party we are seeing more on the hard right, and the hard left as well (there is actually 84 progressive in the House, like 75 or so tea party candidates.) While many of my views would be considered hard left what the country needs to function is probably moderates that don't take an absolute "never ever stance" on anything from raising taxes to changes in social programs, etc.

We also as I mentioned could use candidates with new ideas, or at least a different mix of ideas. Basically right now when it comes improving the economy everyone falls into categories: 1-Just Cut Taxes or 2-Tax/Borrow and Spend/Invest. Reality wise it would be nice to see some sort of hybrid plan as well as ideas will do more to create competition and encourage innovation.

So to take away from the traditional Democrat vs Republican system. I encourage a different voting system that allows more candidates to run. More candidates equals more ideas and better debate.

Instant runoff voting would do just that.

FairVote.org | What is IRV?

 

[Black Irish]

Could not agree more. Especially when campaigning starts right after re-election.
Congress' Wicked Problem | NewAmerica.net

This article does a pretty good job showing how Congress persons do not even spend time reading legislation anymore since the 1990s and rely more and more on outside influences for the substance, which inherently means that Congress people take their marching orders from those who donate to them, because that is who wants specific legislation passed.

Or they mostly pawn the responsibility to their aides, who slog through the bills and narrow it down to cliff notes for them. Well, it's actually the aides who write the bills in the first place.

 

[chicago51]

Figured I would start laying out some of potential parts of our campaign finance / voting / elected officals that we would like to see.

Sort our voting bill/amendment, feel free change/amend just putting sort of a general framework down.

Section I - Campaign Finance

Section 1A- Creating a publicly financed pool for matching small donations. -Cackalacky's idead

We could possibly do this on a uniform but regressive scale. Ex everyone's first $10 get multiplied by 6 but then next $90 only get multiplied by 4. That way it is the same for everyone that donates rich or poor but the regressive multiplier would favor smaller donors. Just a thought.

Section 1B- Caps on maximum campaign contributions not just any particular candidate but by any individual donor during an election cycle.

Section 1C- Essentially toss out citizens united and don't allow corporations/unions to donate unlimited amounts of cash


Section II- Changes to Representive Duties

Section 2A- All memembers of the legistlative body are required to themselves read full bills in their entirety.


Is it enforcable? No, but if they get the facts on a bill competely wrong maybe it can be considered a breach of their oath office. Would also help keep bills shorter.

Section 2B- Term limits?

I'm personally against having term limits because the number of former memembers Congress working for lobyists groups is insane. Term limits will make the problem worse. I can accept term limits if members of Congress were prohibited from taking a job with a registered loby for 7 years after leaving office.

Section 2C - All Senate filibusters must be made on the Senate floor.

Section 2D- 12 Year limits for Supreme Court justices?

What do people think about this?

Section III- Changes to Voting Itself

Section 3A- End primaries and instead have instant runfoff general elections

I've talked about this but it is up to group as to what we decide. Don't how this would have changed history but if we had an instant runoff in 2008 with Mccain, Obama, and Hillary Clinton. Hillary would have won for sure. She is much more popular than Obama with independents, Obama won the primary because he slightly edged her out with the base.

I'm not a Mitt Romney fan but if we had instant runoff maybe we would have seen the Massachussetts Mitt Romney and not the guy that would say whatever needed to be said to win the Republican primary against the likes of Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Michelle Bachman.

Section 3B- Popular vote for President?

I say yes but again we all have to decide

Section 3C- National holiday for election day

Section 3D- National debate day, all Congressional Districts will have a debate at a high school. Mailings will go out.

My idea, yes people can't be force to come out to the debate but I would like to point Jefferson said this about democracy demanding an informed electorate:

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." (as cited in Padover, 1939, p. 89)

". . . whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right." (as cited in Padover, 1939, p. 88)

 

[Cackalacky]

Or they mostly pawn the responsibility to their aides, who slog through the bills and narrow it down to cliff notes for them. Well, it's actually the aides who write the bills in the first place.

In ALECs case they are representatives for the people who want the legislation passed and craft the legislation as they want it worded and the representative puts it in for voting.

 

[GowerND11]

Figured I would start laying out some of potential parts of our campaign finance / voting / elected officals that we would like to see.

Sort our voting bill/amendment, feel free change/amend just putting sort of a general framework down.

Section I - Campaign Finance

Section 1A- Creating a publicly financed pool for matching small donations. -Cackalacky's idead

We could possibly do this on a uniform but regressive scale. Ex everyone's first $10 get multiplied by 6 but then next $90 only get multiplied by 4. That way it is the same for everyone that donates rich or poor but the regressive multiplier would favor smaller donors. Just a thought.

Section 1B- Caps on maximum campaign contributions not just any particular candidate but by any individual donor during an election cycle.

Section 1C- Essentially toss out citizens united and don't allow corporations/unions to donate unlimited amounts of cash


Section II- Changes to Representive Duties

Section 2A- All memembers of the legistlative body are required to themselves read full bills in their entirety.


Is it enforcable? No, but if they get the facts on a bill competely wrong maybe it can be considered a breach of their oath office. Would also help keep bills shorter.

I like the idea in theory, but it would be hard to enforce.

Section 2B- Term limits?

I'm personally against having term limits because the number of former memembers Congress working for lobyists groups is insane. Term limits will make the problem worse. I can accept term limits if members of Congress were prohibited from taking a job with a registered loby for 7 years after leaving office.

I'm not in favor of term limits. If a Congressman is doing his/her job, let them stay in. Also couldn't this cause a problem for the tax payers in terms of paying for the retired Congressmen's benefits? I do agree with your limit on joining a lobby group

Section 2C - All Senate filibusters must be made on the Senate floor.

Section 2D- 12 Year limits for Supreme Court justices?

What do people think about this?

I am not one for Supreme Court term limits. I feel that, as mentioned previously, we need to limit their power.

Section III- Changes to Voting Itself

Section 3A- End primaries and instead have instant runfoff general elections

I've talked about this but it is up to group as to what we decide. Don't how this would have changed history but if we had an instant runoff in 2008 with Mccain, Obama, and Hillary Clinton. Hillary would have won for sure. She is much more popular than Obama with independents, Obama won the primary because he slightly edged her out with the base.

I'm not a Mitt Romney fan but if we had instant runoff maybe we would have seen the Massachussetts Mitt Romney and not the guy that would say whatever needed to be said to win the Republican primary against the likes of Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Michelle Bachman.

Agreed, at least in theory. Would allow other parties to participate with greater success, and allow candidates to be more true to their beliefs and not the party.


Section 3B- Popular vote for President?

I say yes but again we all have to decide

I disagree. Using the Electoral College keeps state sovereignty and not, hopefully, a too strong centralized government.

Section 3C- National holiday for election day

Yes

Section 3D- National debate day, all Congressional Districts will have a debate at a high school. Mailings will go out.

My idea, yes people can't be force to come out to the debate but I would like to point Jefferson said this about democracy demanding an informed electorate

I think this could certainly help, but hard to implement.
:

Responses in Bold and Italics.

 

[RDU Irish]

Tax day should be the same as election day, not as far as possible from each other on the calendar. That is, of course, my compromise if my proposal for a consumption tax wiping out all other taxes is not implemented.

 

[chicago51]

Tax day should be the same as election day, not as far as possible from each other on the calendar. That is, of course, my compromise if my proposal for a consumption tax wiping out all other taxes is not implemented.

By consumption tax you mean like a VAT? I'm actually not oppose to using a 5% narrow based VAT (one that exempts food, education, health care, and housing) and using it to cut the Social Security payroll taxes on both employers and employees by 2% (So from 6.2% down to a 4.2% and an 8.2% down to a 6.2% for employed workers).

A 5% narrow based VAT would bring in $225-235 billion a year enough cut the SS payroll taxes by 1/3. FYI SS payroll taxes bring about $700 billion, and Medicare payrolls bring in another $500 billion. I would start with payroll taxes first as those affecting both hiring (they are in many ways a job killing tax on hiring) and they affect the poor the most.

Any tax on consumption ultimately hurts the poor the most because the poor spend 100% of their income while as you go up the income chain people spend a lower % of their income and save/invest more. So those that use a lower % of their income on consumption are hurt less by it.

A consumption tax to eliminate everything would have to be insanely high. It would take a 12.5% broad based VAT with no exemptions just to eliminate the Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes.

I'm all for using a carbon tax, VAT, and old school straight up tariffs on imports to bring taxes down. Yes things cost more but we offset it my cutting other taxes, or doing rebates that benefit the most vulnerable.

Ideally I would eliminate payroll taxes and corporate taxes. Think about it if you don't any corporate tax, and you don't have to pay to hire workers and if it cost more to get your goods into the United States from a foregin country the only logical choice would be for businesses to locate and hire in the United States. Although I would stick with progressive income taxes and would have a more progressive estate tax. As I agree with Jefferson that wealth can be a danger to the state.

 

[chicago51]

Responses in Bold and Italics.

I can accept those responses and changes. While I would like a popular vote it isn't a deal breaker. I can stick with the electoral college.

 

[RDU Irish]

Consumption tax with a monthly pre-bate for all citizens. Example - 20% sales tax with $250/month sent to every citizen to start the month. Family of four gets $1000 every month, equal to no tax on $5000 of purchases. Spend less pay less tax, consume more pay more tax.

$16 trillion GDP taxed at 20% would be $3.2 trillion income less $1 trillion of pre-bates. Not far off of what we collect in taxes now.

 

[chicago51]

Consumption tax with a monthly pre-bate for all citizens. Example - 20% sales tax with $250/month sent to every citizen to start the month. Family of four gets $1000 every month, equal to no tax on $5000 of purchases. Spend less pay less tax, consume more pay more tax.

$16 trillion GDP taxed at 20% would be $3.2 trillion income less $1 trillion of pre-bates. Not far off of what we collect in taxes now.

I'll post more on this later. As mentioned I am entirely opposed to consumption taxes.

Any consumption tax is going to be a regressive tax has to be done carefully. Rebates are part of it but it is still a regressive tax. I do support consumption taxes but in addition I would exempt food, housing, education, and healthcare.

Even with rebates under an all consumption tax system working families are going to pay a higher effective tax rate than millionaires and billionaires. Some who makes 20 million may realistically spend 2 million so with a 20 percent consumption that individual would effectively be a paying 4 percent tax rate. Meanwhile someone that makes 20k and spends it all pays 20 percent. So Paris Hilton making 20 million from dividend checks from her dad pays 4 percent. Single mom pays 20 percent plus and has to pay more for stuff.

FYI when it comes to VATs this is how much it would take just get rid of the payroll taxes much less all of the taxes:

Washington Post

 

[Cackalacky]

Consumption tax with a monthly pre-bate for all citizens. Example - 20% sales tax with $250/month sent to every citizen to start the month. Family of four gets $1000 every month, equal to no tax on $5000 of purchases. Spend less pay less tax, consume more pay more tax.

$16 trillion GDP taxed at 20% would be $3.2 trillion income less $1 trillion of pre-bates. Not far off of what we collect in taxes now.

Double post.... Sorry

 

[Cackalacky]

Consumption tax with a monthly pre-bate for all citizens. Example - 20% sales tax with $250/month sent to every citizen to start the month. Family of four gets $1000 every month, equal to no tax on $5000 of purchases. Spend less pay less tax, consume more pay more tax.

$16 trillion GDP taxed at 20% would be $3.2 trillion income less $1 trillion of pre-bates. Not far off of what we collect in taxes now.

I like it. I am for most consumption taxes. Would this remove gas taxes, tolls, sales tax etc? Just curious. Also RDU could you expand on or address chicago51's assertion they are regressive? Why do we need to go through the hassle of rebates. Is it not possible to pick a flat rate without having to send money one way or the other?

 

[Cackalacky]

I'll post more on this later. As mentioned I am entirely opposed to consumption taxes.

Any consumption tax is going to be a regressive tax has to be done carefully. Rebates are part of it but it is still a regressive tax. I do support consumption taxes but in addition I would exempt food, housing, education, and healthcare.

Even with rebates under an all consumption tax system working families are going to pay a higher effective tax rate than millionaires and billionaires. Some who makes 20 million may realistically spend 2 million so with a 20 percent consumption that individual would effectively be a paying 4 percent tax rate. Meanwhile someone that makes 20k and spends it all pays 20 percent. So Paris Hilton making 20 million from dividend checks from her dad pays 4 percent. Single mom pays 20 percent plus and has to pay more for stuff.

FYI when it comes to VATs this is how much it would take just get rid of the payroll taxes much less all of the taxes:

Washington Post

I am confused. Are you for or against consumption. You say both.

 

[chicago51]

I like it. I am for most consumption taxes. Would this remove gas taxes, tolls, sales tax etc? Just curious. Also RDU could you expand on or address chicago51's assertion they are regressive? Why do we need to go through the hassle of rebates. Is it not possible to pick a flat rate without having to send money one way or the other?

All sales taxes except for maybe one's on luxury items are regressive.

The thing is if you are poor you got spend 100 percent of your income on food and housing. Spending 100 percent of one's income means on is paying sales tax on 100 percent of their income.

Now say you make 20 million. You spend 5 million and you the the rest in the stock market, retirement accounts, and the bank hopefully an American bank not one in the Camen Islands. So by only spending 25 percent of their income they are only paying sales / consumption tax on 25 percent of their income and are in effect paying a lower tax rate.

I support revenue neutral VATs as well as revenue neutral carbon tax. I would try to lower payroll taxes which everybody pays but the middle class pay in a greater percentage of income. I would also try to lower the corporate tax rate. I'm also not opposed to bringing back old school tariffs on imports on imports from China and other places.

With carbon taxes, VATs aka consumption taxes, and tariffs it means higher prices hence the rebate is needed for low and middle income is needed. There is a lot of ways to do a rebate lower payroll taxes would be a rebate. There was making work pay tax credit in the Obama stimulus that gave $400 per individual and $800 per family.

 

[chicago51]

I am confused. Are you for or against consumption. You say both.

I am in favor consumption taxes if they except food, school, housing, and education. I also would prefer revenue neutral consumption taxes that bring down payroll and corporate rates.

I am not in favor of using a consumption tax in place income or estate taxes as they are the most progressive taxes. Even a conservative states rights guy like Jefferson said we should tax wealth geometrically and too much wealth was a danger to the state.

Our best GDP growth has been when we taxed progressively and invested in things like research and especially infrastructure. A look at top tax rates by decade and GDP growth.

 

[chicago51]

Here is a study about how Value Added Taxes (basically a consumption tax) work and a little bit about using them to lower payroll and/or corporate taxes.

Talks about the difference between broad based and narrow based VATs as well.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/412062_VAT.pdf

Again there is good things and bad things about consumption taxes posting the study more for people's information.

 

[Cackalacky]

I am in favor consumption taxes if they except food, school, housing, and education. I also would prefer revenue neutral consumption taxes that bring down payroll and corporate rates.

I am not in favor of using a consumption tax in place income or estate taxes as they are the most progressive taxes. Even a conservative states rights guy like Jefferson said we should tax wealth geometrically and too much wealth was a danger to the state.

Our best GDP growth has been when we taxed progressively and invested in things like research and especially infrastructure. A look at top tax rates by decade and GDP growth.

I know RDU will likely counter with the Laffer Curve, but I have serious doubts about its ability to accurately model GDP output and tax rates.

 

[Black Irish]

This is just my personal theory, but I think that the Electoral College suppresses voter turnout. If you are a liberal in a solid red state or a conservative in a solid blue state (like me) you start to feel that your vote really does not matter with regard to presidential elections. You feel like your vote has absolutely no bearing on the national outcome because the other side posted better numbers. The office of the President is the only truly national office and I think a person's vote should have bearing outside the confines of his state.

 

[Cackalacky]

This is just my personal theory, but I think that the Electoral College suppresses voter turnout. If you are a liberal in a solid red state or a conservative in a solid blue state (like me) you start to feel that your vote really does not matter with regard to presidential elections. You feel like your vote has absolutely no bearing on the national outcome because the other side posted better numbers. The office of the President is the only truly national office and I think a person's vote should have bearing outside the confines of his state.

I agree as I am a progressive in a red state (however there is common ground on several large issues between progressives and libertarians). My vote is essentially worthless except for local ballots. I can't comprehend its usefulness anymore. Especially where in Nebraska and Maine you can split the college votes up.

Although I read this by an FEC director from 1992 http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

Conclusion
The Electoral College has performed its function for over 200 years
(and in over 50 presidential elections) by ensuring that the President of the
United States has both sufficient popular support to govern and that hispopular support is sufficiently distributed throughout the country to enable
him to govern effectively.

Although there were a few anomalies in its early history, none have
occurred in the past century. Proposals to abolish the Electoral College,
though frequently put forward, have failed largely because the alternatives
to it appear more problematic than is the College itself.

The fact that the Electoral College was originally designed to solve
one set of problems but today serves to solve an entirely different set of
problems is a tribute to the genius of the Founding Fathers and to the
durability of the American federal system.

But it does appear the alternatives proposed may be worse than the college itself. chicago51s plan is interesting. I would love to seem some national voting data models based upon it but we are two party system, which I would also like to see changed.

 

[Black Irish]

The common arguments in favor of the Electoral College have always rung false to me. People say that with direct popular vote, the candidates will just focus their campaigning on large states with big populations and ignore the smaller states. But that's what happens anyway with the EC. Delaware, with its measly 3 EC votes barely gets any attention. The only reason Obama made a stop here in his first go round is because Biden was his VP candidate. And I assume the EC is not compatible with Chicago51's runoff plan, which I support.

As for public campaign funding, how many of us check off the box on our federal tax return that reads "Yes, I want $3 to go to the presidential campaign fund?" As cynical as I can be, I've always checked "yes." But so many people check "no" either out of ignorance and/or spite. Then those same people whine that corporations and unions are buying elections. Well, the money has to come from somewhere, so if the people won't support campaign financing, there's plenty of deep-pocket groups who will open their checkbooks.

 

[chicago51]

EDIT: Would like to add we can do a better job with my making our infrastructure money go further if do what many Republicans suggest and open projects up for bidding to call construction companies rather they be union or non union.

Wanted add another grievance:

We talk about our deficit but we don't talk about our infrastructure deficit.

This happened a few days ago in south east Missouri:

This last week in Washington (state):

We need remove infrastructure from the generic domestic discressionary spending category and give infrastructure its own seperate budget. We could also use that infrastructure bank Obama has been asking for to attract private investment on public infrastructure projects.

We also need some sort of infrastructure bill catch up on how far behind we are.

We should passed this back in 2011:

Both the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL CIO both endorsed this bill, which almost never happens.

Fact Sheet: The American Jobs Act | The White House