Plausible Constitutional Ammendments

El Speculador

Evan said:
I would endorse this system - but when something similar was proposed in Britain, a lot of pundits thought it'd be too complicated for voters.
Click to expand...
I think the main argument against it was that an extreme candidate could take votes away from a moderate candidate, and that moderate candidate's votes would go to the moderate candidate in the other party, while the first moderate candidate would have won in the first place. As a whole, I think the opened up opportunity for a candidate with wide appeal is worth the relatively small risk of that happening.
 

mkemp

El Speculador said:
240 million divided by 50,000 is several thousand members.


The reason that congress is relatively easy to buy is because campaign usually need to spend a large ammount of money for TV advertising and other forms of mass media, but with less constituents a Representative has more availability for rallies, townhalls, and the like relative to the population, thus reducing the influence of money. At least in theory.
Click to expand...

U.S. population 318.9 million (2014) / Wyoming population 584,000 = 545 Representatives
 

MrBill

Limit campaign donations to the following conditions.

1. The donor must be a individual citizen and a registered voter.
(No corporations, unions, PAC's or any other non-voter)

2. The donor must be eligible to vote on the candidate or issue.
(this means you cannot contribute to candidates or issues outside your voting district)

3. Limit the amount of total contributions for a year to the amount of average net income for that year.
(This means the average of all the filed taxable income for individuals on their tax returns)

4. The contributions must be made out of personal after tax funds.
(Cannot donate a gift from another without paying tax on the funds.)

Thanks,
MrBill
 
Last edited:

dirtboy

El Speculador said:
I think the main argument against it was that an extreme candidate could take votes away from a moderate candidate, and that moderate candidate's votes would go to the moderate candidate in the other party, while the first moderate candidate would have won in the first place. As a whole, I think the opened up opportunity for a candidate with wide appeal is worth the relatively small risk of that happening.
Click to expand...

Is this similar to the Australian system of numbering all boxes? I believe this system works well because it avoids vote splitting and requires an elected candidate to be approved (however grudgingly) over second place by the majority of voters
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top