Agreed, but is the millenial wave of republicans more "American" than those republiucans that are sitting in congress and the senate right now?

runoff voting would eliminate strategic voting and result in much closer races, along with races that can include closer to 5 parties. We also need final voting to be non-partisan, meaning that the end result could in theory be 2 democrats or 2 republicans, making each candidate more unique since they're racing against their fellow party members, not just the other parties

I identify myself as an American, a Veteran, a Dreadnaught, and an Asshole.

this would shift the idea of "Parties" from a legitimized system of governmental division to an ideological divide, making it a descriptor rather than a slot to fill on the ballot

Until this happens, republicans and democrats can safely hide behind their parties instead of thinking for themselves, and once this occurs, our representatives will then be responsible for their own decisions, not just their party affiliation

(I have a whole plan [says the libertarian who doesn't like government intervention], and I can talk about it all day)

Basically abolish the RNC and DNC from endorsing someone for president or state officials and make races more competative in terms of ideologies by having 2 people from the same party with differences within that party run against each other. Effectivley elliminating the 2 candidate system and replacing it with a 4 candidate system. How would that pan out with the electoral college system we have in place?

no

let me re-explain, once mr mee6 lets me

Parties are fine as a way of uniting people of similar ideas. My problem is that our system endorses parties in a way that makes for high cost of entry of any new parties. The system I propose would work as follows: primary elections are either abolished or reworked in a way that doesn't result in GOP and Dem nominations. Instead, each person shows up on election day to a list of candidates, which they number in order of preference (this can be done with party nominees or without, simply changing the number of candidates). We then go through a runoff system, where the least liked candidate is eliminated and the votes from them go to the individual voters' next choices, repeating until a single winner. If we remove party nominees then that could result in multiple candidates running from the same party in the general election, making the system less party centric and more candidate centric. This is about the popular vote, but the electoral vote should be handled based on the popular vote rather than unrestricted like it is now. Representatives should represent their states, not their own whims

Ooh, I get it now. Thanks for that explination!

that would result in only 1 election, rather than at least 2 with the primaries being eliminated, and it picks the "happiest winner" by being the person that the country hates the least, on average, not by picking the candidate who had the highest plurality of "most wanted"

Wow, someone else who identifies as a Rockefeller Republican.

Now kith 💋

that's it? no criticism about my ideas? well then

I'm for ranked fptp, but only on the basis of regional rep

I kind of like the "Draft Elections idea"

So yes to 1st/2nd/3rd voting, but I'd keep the college

I'm not saying get rid of the college, just make it so they have to actually pay attention to their states' voting

gcpgrey has some good videos on voting systems and that's where I got most of this concept

That's a self correcting issue. If a candidate can't be trusted, don't vote for them next time

maybe so, but it seems like an oversight IMO

it opens the door for lazy thinkers to let people stay in power

I don't think that can be designed out without getting authoritarian

the people who want to get rid of the Electoral Colleges are the people who think that City Dwellers are the only ones who can be trusted to be smart enough to vote. That is what the last election taught us.

I have to study up on my electoral college stuff, but it just worries me how far away from the actual election it feels like the population is

and I'll fully admit I'm a city dweller who wasn't really educated much in the point of the college, so... meh

Most states require the colleges to reflect the county vote or the state overall vote. and those are laws that can get the collegates fired and jailed if they violate them

Hence why Comrade Mickeal Moore was offering to pay the fines and legal fees of Collegates to not vote in accordance with the state popular vote (Trump)

I'm very confused about my 5 minute google search about the electoral college

because it seems disingenuous and deceitful to me

Remmember the College was established in the 1790's

How is it either, @GoldenPhoenix ?

A national vote could take months to just to count. So to consolidate and speed it up, The College was formed to take local results and vote up in a smaller more manageable forum and then again up the chain until it was delivered to the Feds as one simple result

It also ensures that regions get properly represented, rather than having 4 cities run the country via bulk votes

Yep, it gives me in Bumble fuck west Texas as great a voice as the asshats in LA, NYC, SF or Chi-raqi

not in what it does, but in how it's formed and all that

apparently it's party tied and voted for by the general election rather than the presidency itself, despite the population making the choice between the candidates, not the representatives

According to my 10 minutes on the internet

So who thinks the Generation Identy stole there logo from Overwatch and who thinks OW stole their logo from GI? Niether https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Lambda+in+circle&atb=v147-6&iax=images&ia=images

Who was first?