This lengthy story in the Kansas City Star examines three aspects of U.S. presidential elections, and suggests all are flawed. The article discusses how parties nominate presidential candidates, the electoral college, and general election presidential debates. The story suggests that presidential primaries may be a bad idea, and suggests the nation was better off before they existed. It also criticizes the electoral college for giving the “swing states” so much power, and boosts the National Popular Vote plan.
Flaws? You mean Trump and Hillary?
Why don’t the Kansas city star make a dual endorsement and Support both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein .It would be very fair .Maybe wake up some people to who are naive about both the Libertarian party and Green Party .
Joshua even though our politics might differ .We both along with others fight the political naivety and misinformation about the Green Party and Libertarian party .Of you live in the Kansas city statistical area send Letters to the Kansas city promoting Gary Johnson and Jill Stein .It will be very helpful .
We need to fight the naivety and misinformation.Many people are ignorant about the political system and the way Presidential Candidates are nominated.I hope the article in the Kansas city star will wake up people who need to be fully informed.
The flaw is having a President.
OK as far as it goes. Needs to tackle Constitutional reform for Congress, too, to follow in Jim Riley. At least part of Congress needs to be elected from a national list, like in continental Europe, to empower third parties.
The main flaw is the two party system. In a democracy how can there by laws that favor only two parties.
Nothing wrong with two strong parties , but make them earn it. A system should not be set up to favor only two. Second would be the electoral college . In what other country can the candidate with less votes win the election.
Number two is easy. Popular vote wins. The second we need a system that allow national representation for all or most parties. Develop a system of proportional representation. But in the mean time expand the House of Representatives by 20 seats. Third parties can be allotted seats based on their percentage of the third party vote.
For example Libertarians win 50& of third party vote, they get 10 seats.The important point is that they get a voice in Congress and those several million that voted for them will be represented. In presidential years they could go by the vote for President. In off years they could have a box for the “Party of Choice”
How rotted are New Age Civics/Government classes — if they even exist any more ???
See the New Age TV media MORONS in the JUNK debates — loving the personality cult stuff and about talking ZERO about the EFFECTS of ALL sorts of laws.
——–
P.R. – ALL legislative bodies
NONPARTISAN App.V. — ALL elected executive officers and ALL judges.
SocraticGadfly… National lists, or lists of any kind, simply mean that party insiders and party elitist will be the only ones to ever get seats. Party lists have ALWAYS been a flaw of proportional representation. We need Prop Rep. but it needs to be fully open list. Mixed Member Proportional with open list where candidates for the proportional seats also run in each district but instead of running against a candidate in another party, they’re running against people in their own party for a place on the list.
Since each district has an uneven amount of votes cast, compared to one another, what you do is create point system, which is solely based on the percentage of the vote in their district, and those points determine their place on the list.
So if a candidate in district 1 for a prop. seat gets the party a vote of 35%, in that district, they get 35 points on their party list. If the candidate in district 4 for a prop. seat gets the party a vote of 55%, in that district, they get 55 points on their party list, and would therefore be in front of the candidate in district 1 to be awarded a proportional seat.
Most countries have a combined system I would expect any PR system would be combined In presidential election years the candidate of the party should be at the head of the list. Conventions could nominate lists or a vote of party members. Party activists should have more of a say in choosing what candidates could better represent the party views in congress.
Andy…that would be nothing more than an oligarchy then.
To bad Thomas Knapp isn’t running for President.His Views are very interesting.
“Most countries have a combined system I would expect any PR system would be combined In presidential election years the candidate of the party should be at the head of the list.”
This is such an unknowledgeable recommendation. There is one executive, with no ties whatsoever to the legislature. To do this would require the abolishment of the presidency and all the cabinet departments, replaced by the Speaker of the House running the country. So John Boehner would’ve ran the free world for six years, replaced by Paul Ryan.
I agree with the Kansas City Star on the state of primaries. It’s a notion that works good in principle but only if there is broad participation. The percentage of voters is so low that it’s not representative of either party.
It not unusual to have the presidential candidate at the head of the list . I have an aunt that ran for President of Mexico and she was also at the top of the Proportional Representation list. She didn’t win the presidency but was elected to the Chamber of Deputies. This has nothing to do with the Office of President or the speaker of the house running the country. Your a little off here.
AMcCarrick Oligarchy? How So ? Party activists controlling their own party. Not exactly a strange concept.
Oligarchy is what they have here,NOW.