Higher thresholds for re-election

How do you guys think a government would work with this system:

A politician can run for re-election, but must garner a higher share of the vote to win. A few different scenarios:

1) A flat rate for re-election. Simple majority the first time, and then something like 2/3 for any re-election (probably lower, 3/5 could be more likely, but you get the drift).

2) An increasing rate with each subsequent successful re-election. So, he's gotta get 50% the first time. If he wins, and wants to go again, he's gotta get 55%. If he wins that, next time around, he's gotta get 60%. Etc. etc. Obviously, those numbers are just for example and it'd be a more complicate formula, unless you're okay with a scenario were someone has to win 100% (or 105%) of the vote.

3) Must beat his last vote total. So, he gets 53% of the vote the first time. When he stands for re-election, he's gotta get at least 54% of the vote.
 
For the most part the best thing about the Constitution is that it is just a few pages long, probably not originally exceeding three or four large pages. The other thing is that a simple majority or supermajority vote for all elections doesn't require having know any besides basic mathematics and probably can be easily figured out by individuals with the most basic of schooling.

Why the unnecessary complexity?
 
I think the US Constitution is too short IMO, but that's just my opinion. Some other constitutions in the world are longer, but have articles which can be amended in different ways (some requiring a simple majority, some requiring a super-majority and some requiring a super-majority and a referendum). At the moment, some things which would be included in the constitutions of other countries (like the Presidential Succession) are included in a separate law even though it is a very fundamental law. There is no need to make it overly complex, but it seems too simple to me today.

I agree though that such a re-election formula is too complex. It also brings up a question:

If Candidate A is standing for her second re-election (third term) and needs 3/5ths of the vote (60%) to win, but only gains 52% (but won by 57% in the first and second elections), then who wins? If only one other Candidate is running, Candidate B, then "B" will only get 48% of the vote (and we are talking about valid votes here and most likely not the entire voting-age population will vote either). If 2 other Candidates are running, Candidate B and Candidate C then each Candidate will get 24% on average. In either of these situations it would be very troublesome to declare anyone other than Candidate A as the winner.

Votes or elections that require more than 50%+1 can work, but not for candidate elections, only for certain referenda options (like independence for a colony or union for two countries, e.g. the free association referenda in Tokelau) since there is always the status quo to fall back on. In an election for candidates to a certain position the status quo situation would be to have the incumbent continue in office (which defeats the purpose of having higher thresholds for incumbents to win re-election).
 
Mathematical formulae in a basic law/constitution are recipes for later unforeseen difficulties. The unpased 12th Ammendment originally proposed in the Bill of Rights (the 27th Ammendment was also) provided for a formula which would guarantee a large house by fixing the number of people in a congressional district. However, the formula also capped the total number of representatives, ensuring that the lasting legacy of this would be an extremely small (120 or), unrepresentative House. Better to make the language more general and leave it to an independent judiciary and Congress to make specific laws and rulings.
 
I think the US Constitution is too short IMO, but that's just my opinion. Some other constitutions in the world are longer, but have articles which can be amended in different ways (some requiring a simple majority, some requiring a super-majority and some requiring a super-majority and a referendum). At the moment, some things which would be included in the constitutions of other countries (like the Presidential Succession) are included in a separate law even though it is a very fundamental law. There is no need to make it overly complex, but it seems too simple to me today.

The beauty of the brevity of the US constitution is that it is readily accessible to everyday citizens (compared with, for example, the now defunct 400 page EU constitution or my own state of Texas' constitutions with +390 ammendments). This is essential to confirm the core of popular sovereignty in the Constitution: We the People can read and understand our Constitution.

I agree with your point, however, to the extent to which many procedures and traditions which are crucial enough to the political process to be matters of constitutional law are not in the text of the Constitution. While Presidential Succession is now determined by the 25th Amendment, some other examples include: the size of the House of Reps, the rules of voting in either house (the filibuster introduces a extra-constitutional stumbling block/minority right), procedures for party politics, and election finance. Just to name a few. This is perhaps the danger of written constitutions.
 
The beauty of the brevity of the US constitution is that it is readily accessible to everyday citizens (compared with, for example, the now defunct 400 page EU constitution or my own state of Texas' constitutions with +390 ammendments). This is essential to confirm the core of popular sovereignty in the Constitution: We the People can read and understand our Constitution.

I agree with your point, however, to the extent to which many procedures and traditions which are crucial enough to the political process to be matters of constitutional law are not in the text of the Constitution. While Presidential Succession is now determined by the 25th Amendment, some other examples include: the size of the House of Reps, the rules of voting in either house (the filibuster introduces a extra-constitutional stumbling block/minority right), procedures for party politics, and election finance. Just to name a few. This is perhaps the danger of written constitutions.

I agree with the idea that constitutions shouldn't be too long - 400 pages is far too long (or if they need to be then all the essential core parts should be grouped together for easy reading), but I think that constitutions can also be too short. I like the brevity of the US constitution, although it strikes me as being a bit too brief, especially in light of the popular use of the term "unconstitutional" when the more appropriate term would be "illegal" since everything "illegal" can also be "unconstitutional" as it pertains to laws including the constitution, but the only things that can be "unconstitutional" are those things which go against things in the constitution itself. I can understand why laws relating to party politics and election finance and so forth are not in the constitution originally (since originally party politics wasn't envisaged), but things like the Succession Law at least should be included or labelled as "Constitutionally Relevant Laws" and always be included as an appendix with printed copies of the Constitution if not included in the Constitution itself.
 
If one is going to tinker with the US Constitution regarding elections, I think the biggest issue is NOT how national elections are decided or the electoral college, but Party primary elections. This is a completely extra-constitutional process for deciding who can actually stand for president. If I were king (sort of an oxymoron when discussing the USA, but here goes), I'd propose amendments formalizing (ie constitutionalizing) the role of political parties and establishing nationwide procedures under which the parties propose their slate of candidates for national office - preferably eliminating state primary elections and going back to the conventions of elected delegates being the actual decision makers.
 
I would argue that the party primary process in the U.S. is not unconstitutional, Zoomar. As such, reforming that area of policy could be done merely through statute, not constitutional amendment.
 
How do you guys think a government would work with this system:

A politician can run for re-election, but must garner a higher share of the vote to win. A few different scenarios:

1) A flat rate for re-election. Simple majority the first time, and then something like 2/3 for any re-election (probably lower, 3/5 could be more likely, but you get the drift).

2) An increasing rate with each subsequent successful re-election. So, he's gotta get 50% the first time. If he wins, and wants to go again, he's gotta get 55%. If he wins that, next time around, he's gotta get 60%. Etc. etc. Obviously, those numbers are just for example and it'd be a more complicate formula, unless you're okay with a scenario were someone has to win 100% (or 105%) of the vote.

3) Must beat his last vote total. So, he gets 53% of the vote the first time. When he stands for re-election, he's gotta get at least 54% of the vote.

I don't think this works well, especially if more than two candidates are factors in an election, or if one candidate or more faced a challenge for renomination.
 
Top