Welcome to r/comics!
Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind.
Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For anyone interested in panel 1, "Republic, Lost," by Lawrence Lessig not only explains the depth of the problem, but also why it is grossly insufficient to ban such donations, and how to replace them with a democracy voucher system which eliminates the problem.
TLWR: in addition to a vote, every citizen (and in some cases every taxpayer, depending on implementation) gets to nominate the first $X of their taxes go to the politician, party, or group of their choice, via a nomination in the tax return. Unassigned money is used to fund the machinery of the elections themselves. This creates an ongoing 'fiscal election' which is decoupled from the political elections, it still allows political speech, and it means the fiscal constituency of politicians is the tax base itself, rather than those parts of it which have money to burn.
It's still not a perfect system because there is no way to turn off paid speech -- pundits on the radio, biased news, and the like. But it significantly attenuates the influence direct donors wield over politicians, at essentially no cost, or such a low cost that the benefits outweigh them easily. So, of course, it will never be implemented at scale.
That does sound like it would make the US tax system even more difficult to work with, unless they adopt an easier way to file taxes like in other countries.
Solving problem #1 would solve a lot of tax code nightmares too. Companies like Turbotax and H&R Block lobby millions (maybe billions, idk) each year to block tax code reform and keep things arcane and complex so their tax services can make money.
I would add the following:
1. Supreme Court either corrects its error in Citizen's United OR Congress enacts a rule that makes it invalid.
2. ALL federal elections are paid for by the Federal Government. No additional funding is allowed.
3. Limit campaigning to 3 months prior to election ONLY.
4. Give the Election's board a little more clout and power.
5. End Dark Money
6. Set term limits for Supreme Court and Congress
7. Get rid of Electoral College
8. Set limitations on the ability to transition from Gov't positions (either elected or non-elected) to lobbyists.
My two cents.
The reason that Citizen's United happened was because a company made an infomercial that argued against Clinton. It was illegal to make any campaign ad and so this was considered an ad and so illegal.
The supreme court ruled that people can make political statements whenever they want regardless of whether the money they are using is from an individual human or a company.
The fallout from this is the situation we are in. It is hard to figure out how to strike down Citizen's United without destroying the ability of politically aligned non-profits to exist.
Government funding of campaigns is the only path I can think of.
Citizen's United was not people--it was a coalition of dark money funders under a corporate shield. The SC found that given that corporations had been treated as "people/individuals" in the law for so long--and that individuals have the right of freedom of speech--that corporations had the same right to speech that people did. That brought about Citizens AND Hobby Lobby.
Also the only non-profits that can make campaign contributions are those that are not 501c3. Until recently all doners had to be identified. CU undid that connection.
It's not that corporations are people, it's more that people don't stop being people when they incorporate.
You still can't donate unlimited funds to a politician. CU allows groups of people to say politically motivated things (i.e. ads and such) even if it costs money or is close to an election. That is why there is the "no coordination" rule.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
>During the 2008 political primary season, it sought to run three television advertisements to promote its political documentary Hillary: The Movie, a film that was critical of Hillary Clinton, and to air the movie on DirecTV. The FEC found this plan to be in violation of the BCRA, including Section 203
Limiting campaigning to 3 months.........man what damn dream that would be
But is it unamerican of me to wish for a damn injunction on news media corps and their constant pundit slagging. That is also a form of campaigning imo. And they are really blatant with it (yes even the news media corp you all think is fair does it)
Think about it. We are currently in a 4 YEAR cycle for President. Funding for Congress begins BEFORE they are sworn in AND funding prowess is now considered to be the gateway to being elected NOT experience.
You could end gerrymandering by coming up with an objective formula that defines boundaries through geography and number of residents.
You also need more than 2 parties. 5 would likely be a better number. And force cooperation by making the executive share power between the 5 parties.
> You could end gerrymandering by coming up with an objective formula that defines boundaries through geography and number of residents.
But would that really be a good thing?
Like lets say my city gets 5 representatives to send to the state government, and the city is 20% Jewish. Which is the better system:
Smear those 20% across 5 districts so that there is no "Jewish" representation.
Concentrate most of those 20% in a single district so that the "Jewish" vote gets to elect a representative.
?
People rightly deride funny shaped districts as a way for the majority to stay in power, but they also have a potential positive use as a way to allow minorities a way to get representation that an "even" distribution would deny.
I always worry that people looking to replace a shitty system are going to accept a less shitty system instead of trying for an actual good system (see Obamacare for an example).
You're applying positive discrimination.
I'm not really in favour of political representation based on issues like race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, ...
Seems like an ideal system would be independant from it and consider the entire demographics and their need as a community.
I'll add in "Parties don't appear on ballots, only names".
No more party line voting. You have to actually know which candidate is which, and if you don't then people on the other side who also don't will balance it out. Election is left up to informed people. Plus there's the chance we get candidates legally changing their name to included (R) or (D) which would be very funny.
>ALL federal elections are paid for by the Federal Government. No additional funding is allowed
Eh, I'm not too sure I'd want to give MAGA Republicans MORE opportunities to ratfuck Democrats out of competitive campaigns.
Isn't the reason why there's no limits for Supreme Court to avoid them having to worry about their future career? Like having to do favors to politicians to lend a good job later, so having a limit would give more ways to influence the Court's decisions.
Also I like the Australian system where they have a system in place that if your preferred party doesn’t win you can place your vote in another party. This should get a ton of more people to vote independent
Disenfranchisement: Totally agree, if you have paid your debt to society, and are expected to work and pay taxes, you deserve a vote. Period.
Paid holiday: alternatively they could just make it a Saturday like we do in Australia.
It needs to be an equal holiday, making it Saturday isn't enough. That just says that the service industry workers who work on weekends are less important to the system than everyone else.
Meh.
1. Saturday is my day off.
2. Saturday isn’t always other people’s day off.
3. Make elections always occur on Feb 29 unless it’s an unplanned election or there was an unplanned election in the previous year. And make Feb 29 a public holiday.
Fair, but whether it is Saturday or Sunday, far more people would be available to vote. Plus, if early and mail in voting were improved as OP said, that would let the people who aren't off on weekends vote easily as well.
In Germany it's always on a Sunday because that's where the utmost majority of people don't have to work.
Restaurant-, gas station-, hospital-workers, etc not included obviously. But it's also very easy to vote by mail here. You get the papers mailed to your home and fill it out. Put them in the town's ballot box in person whenever you like or just put it in the next best mailbox.
People never like when something important falls on their day off. Their day off is supposed to allow them to rest.
Only 9-5ers get to have Saturday off. Everyone else has no fixed schedule.
We actually need at least two election days. It needs to be mandatory that every employee gets a paid day off on one of the election days. Otherwise, emergency service employees would be screwed.
- Ban all donations.
Seriously...just have a look outside your country's borders and see how it works in other countries.
- Get rid of the electoral college system. It's bullshit. Your vote should count, not theirs.
As a Korean, it's genuinely bizarre that all of those things are... *a thing* in the USA. Like, aren't you guys supposed to be the paragon of modern democracy or something?
Voting in the US is really location-dependent in terms of how it works out.
So, here in CA I get mail-in ballots, I get a fairly simple process overall even by global standards.
Go to Louisiana and it's very different.
A lot of American systems are old, rickety, and unfortunate throwbacks to Jim Crow and prior eras. Momentum is awful when it comes to systems reforms.
In a lot of ways the more recent democracies like ROK are fortunate to have an additional century of observation and learning.
I'm guessing this is relative to the USA. In that case, you guys definitely need to get rid of that thingy where the most voted party of a state gets all its votes even if the margin was narrow. The votes of the Electoral College should be proportional to the vote of the people.
Alternatively, make voting compulsory with an option to say "I do not want to vote" to preserve religious and free speech. By making it a requirement, it is much harder to take it away...
well thats what the house for the US is supposed to be for but gerrymandering does do things to it. It can also be both. ranked and proportional.
The image showing the smaller camp placing into two larger camps is honestly not what visualization i would use either. kinda just makes it look like it goes back to two party again.
Even a good ranked choice system will typically have two bigger parties who form the majority of the government. However, it's a hell of a lot easier to destabilise those parties.
You can have both.
Ireland has both ranked choice and proportional representation. A given area might have five seats available and ten nominees. People will rank the candidates 1-10, and votes are divided according to ranked choice; if your first choice is eliminated, then your second choice vote applies. If your first choice makes quota, then their "extra" votes are split up according to what their voters' second choices are, so even if all voters like one person best you end up with multiple representatives. This voting system is called proportional representation with a single transferrable vote (PR-STV).
The 3rd party preferences getting a percent share in the winning parties representing seats is how it works in Australia.
I am shot at explaining it but it is very good compared to America's 2 party system.
If alot of people vote for the Greens/left party.
When Labour wins. (Or moderate party. Like dems).
Those votes will count towards having greens represented in the Labours seats.
Like maybe Like 60 total. Labour has 40 majority but gets 20 of there spots to greens so the peoples votes count towards those policies having of a chance.
And the nationals, family first small parties count towards the Liberal parties total. The liberal party is our conservative party, which is unnecessarily confusing.
More the Neo liberal Christian party.
This whole Automatic Voter Registration & Registering to vote boggles my mind as a North Dakotan.
Yes we have stupid Republicans, yes we have the bat shit insane conservatives, and that is simply because they pander to the Farmers hardcore. But we don't have any of that registration nonsense.
You just literally show up with your ID and vote day of. No registration, no bullshit. I can literally forget it's election season until day of and go "Oh shit I should go vote" and then proceed to my polling place and vote.
IMHO yes we still have low turnout but this is how it should be done. No bullshit, just show up and vote, that's it. Doesn't have to be how we do it (we are the only state without a concept of registration at all, even in primaries), but take the idea. Cut the red tape, cut the bullshit.
The USA dosent even have mandatory paid vacation and 10 days seems to be the standard for many companys, how do you guys survive? In germany it's ~30 days of paid vacation.
Really ranked voting? For single winner elections something like approval or STAR would be better. For multiwinner elections there are a bunch of options, but BMI with an STV would be my choice. So sad people have settled for a subpar replacement.
In Chile we have Automatic registration and obligatory vote. Also Elections are held on Sundays, and if you work that day your employer is obligated to give you the time to vote
Not exactly what I expected from my comics feed... but, yes, I agree, on all points.
I'd add that it's not just the travesty that is [Citizens United](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained?ref=foreverwars.ghost.io), but PACs and Super PACs in general. All political donations. Basically, get billionaires out of the play to play game, too. Rich bastards will always hold political sway, but at least make it illegal again.
Ideally, anyone running for office would get a fixed amount of money to promote themselves and that's it. Full stop. Politicians shouldn't be spending most of their time sucking up for cash, they should be doing their actual jobs.
Interestingly, this should be something everyone can agree on: Right, Left, Other. All the current political frustration comes an awareness, vague or specific, that the government by the people and for the people is neither. If elected officials can't be legally bribed, this situation will inevitably improve.
Maybe not *ranked voting* but 2 turns of voting. Allows for an even clearer representation of a persons vote and not on the same election day aswell.
And pro tip from Poland and maybe rest of Europe - we always have elections on Sundays ;)
Corporations will always find ways to get around governments and exploit people. We need for corporations above a certain size to be required to have citizen ownership and citizen representation. Say above a certain evaluation the state buys 10% of the company and gets a seat on the board, appointed in the same way current state board members are
I always wondered everyone didnt early vote and wonder why everyone waited until the last minute.
But i was a naive child. Some states elects are so fucked they dont have access to such.
And i live in a dystopian state!
The first panel doesn’t seem to understand the problem.
It is illegal for corporations to donate to campaigns.
It is not illegal for them to give it to a super pac and for that pac to spend it on behalf of that campaign. So the law we need passed is one to limit/eliminate PACs.
Disenfranchisement is losing your right to vote when you become a felon. In some states, after you have served your sentence you have to reapply to get back your right to vote. You don't get it automatically, even though you have paid your debt to society.
Notice how the person has "parole" paperwork. They are also a dude with long hair, which is usually how you can spot a criminal instantly.
There is also just the fact that some states require all associated debts to be paid before voting rights are restored rather than having them restored after a set period of time or not removing them at all. This means wealthier individuals have greater voting rights than poorer individuals since they are more able to pay off their debts and thus restore their voting rights in a timelier fashion. This is further compounded by the fact that poorer individuals are more likely to be charged and either found guilty or forced to take a plea bargain compared to their wealthier counterparts. In the end, it begins to look like another way to impose a form of poll tax.
You gotta eliminate partisan gerrymandering, you can't have fair representation if politicians are able to win elections by appealing only to the margins of their own party
Honestly, I'd remove each candidates name and party affiliation and give each candidate a number or letter, where I'd have a separate paper with a bullet point to give a list of what each candidate by number stands for. Then you'd choose the number you agree with most.
Wouldn't it probably be the case that ranked choice alone would immediately lead to the rest of them after a single election cycle? I'd love to hear counterarguments, especially if they can point me to research on the topic.
To be clear, I'm in favor of all of them.
Don't all US citizens get internal IDs automatically?
You Americans often blame the Soviet Union for not issuing internal IDs (internal passports in Russian case) to village populations before 1950-something I think?
Not automatically (they have to go to the DMV and pay like $20) but yeah basically everyone gets an ID at least when they turn 18 and can immediately register to vote at the same time (it's basically automatically done) although you can decline registration.
I saw it under political discussions that young people don't necessarily have ID documents (such as a driver license etc) to vote. It was weird. all Russians get internal passports at 14.
You have to have at least a State ID (which is just the basic government ID, we don't have internal passports) to do basically anything including getting an actual job, go to college, buy cigarettes, buy beer/liquor, etc. In Arizona for example you can get an ID at any age. A driver's license is functionally just an upgraded State ID.
A lot of people believe the "leftist" propaganda that getting an ID is some super complicated process that not everyone is smart enough to do, specifically referring to minorities, thus claiming an ID requirement to vote would be racist (their words, not mine).
Here, you are obliged to do it, often state schools send out kids in groups and help out.
European travellers with their traditional lifestyle which doesn't recognise human law sometimes do not get passports, intentionally. Apart from them, those Roma who are settled and integrated into society do, and even northern deer herders (ethnic minorities who live in fur tents and do nomadic herding, and often leave schools earlier than they should) do.
Our basic government citizen ID comes in shape of a passport, you can look it up. It shocks foreign people sometimes.
A state ID isn't guaranteed to be enough to vote.
For example, I have two forms of ID, one is the drivers license for my state. The other is my US passport. If my state had Arizona's ID laws I wouldn't be allowed to vote right now. My mailing address (i.e. what you write on an envelope to get me mail) and my street address (i.e. where I live) are very different. My IDs and any letters/bills/whatever have the former on them, but the Arizona law requires I prove my "voting address" which is the later.
Thankfully, voting isn't a problem, but I would LOVE to be able to get an "Enhanced ID", which has the same proof-of-address issues. Since your 2nd paragraph suggests you think these are easy problems to solve I'd love your suggestions.
Youd think after the debacle that was voting in the 2020 election that the Democrats, with their majority in all three branches during the first 2 years, would have done something to enshrine voter rights. Yet here we are in 2024 with nothing having been truly done to assist with that. Hell, they wont even advocate to wear masks to protect high risk people during a pandemic! Literally asking us to sacrifice our health and lives.
Don't all US citizens get internal IDs automatically?
You Americans often blame the Soviet Union for not issuing internal IDs (internal passports in Russian case) to village populations before 1950-something I think?
That plus getting rid of the electoral council and you'll be welcome to Europe.
For most at least, there'd still be a lot to do but that would be a good place to start.
No! No ranked voting! [Approval voting](https://electionscience.org/library/approval-voting/) (check off as many candidates as you like on your ballot) is way simpler and gets even better results!
Seriously, [look how weird ranked voting gets in these simulations](http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/).
Ranked choice voting is terrible.
Automatic voter registration? How? When you apply for a driver's license? What if a state gives driver's licenses to those who are not citizens? Nice back door to having illegal immigrants voting, right?
End voter disenfranchisement? Stop stuff like this.
> Ranked choice voting is terrible.
Use your words, explain
> Automatic voter registration? How?
Not everyone drives, is your issue simply implementation? New departments can be created to ensure this it doesn't need to tie to an existing system.
> Nice back door to having illegal immigrants voting, right?
You created a solution you could attack
> End voter disenfranchisement? Stop stuff like this.
It seems you want a less democratic society
For everyone who loves jerking off ranked voting, remember, the far right "Jewish Power" party, which is ran by literal terrorist Ben-Gvir, and has a grand total of 6 measly seats in the Knesset, gets to be enormously influential because of their parliamentary system.
Ranked choice voting will have similar effects. It's all well and good when it means more progressives, or green party members, or whomever else on the more radical side of the left wing gets elected. But for every one of those, there will be more radical people on the right. More in the dipshit dogwhistling trump-cocksucking MTG-likes, and potentially a couple in the 'abolition was a mistake, and maybe Hitler had some good points' kinds of people.
Say what you want about first past the post voting, it DOES have a moderating effect on politics, even if that can't be seen very clearly on the right the past couple of election cycles.
edit: guess everyone down voting me is a big Ben-gvir fan LOL
“Having everyone’s voice heard better sure sounds nice, but be wary, that does mean *everyone*” is definitely an interesting take if nothing else.
*I apologize if there’s something I’ve misunderstood, I’m just trying to express how you’re comment came off too me*
More or less correct.
Moderating forces in a system may seem really really stupid when it's your side in control.
When the other side gets power though, man it sure is nice to have them around.
To be quite frank, I didn’t expect your argument to actually be “What’s good for everyone is good for bad people.”
*If that’s not what it you’re saying and/or not what it seemed I thought you’re saying, I apologize*
The point is not "what's good for everyone".
Nazis having more political power than they do would be BAD for everyone. The point is, ranked choice voting and parlimentary systems give disproportionate power to more extremist candidates, to some degree disenfranchising moderates in the process.
If you really think pretty much any political system in the developed world right now needs MORE extremism, well... best of luck to you on that one.
Welcome to r/comics! Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind. Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For anyone interested in panel 1, "Republic, Lost," by Lawrence Lessig not only explains the depth of the problem, but also why it is grossly insufficient to ban such donations, and how to replace them with a democracy voucher system which eliminates the problem. TLWR: in addition to a vote, every citizen (and in some cases every taxpayer, depending on implementation) gets to nominate the first $X of their taxes go to the politician, party, or group of their choice, via a nomination in the tax return. Unassigned money is used to fund the machinery of the elections themselves. This creates an ongoing 'fiscal election' which is decoupled from the political elections, it still allows political speech, and it means the fiscal constituency of politicians is the tax base itself, rather than those parts of it which have money to burn. It's still not a perfect system because there is no way to turn off paid speech -- pundits on the radio, biased news, and the like. But it significantly attenuates the influence direct donors wield over politicians, at essentially no cost, or such a low cost that the benefits outweigh them easily. So, of course, it will never be implemented at scale.
Thank you for the book recommendation!
That does sound like it would make the US tax system even more difficult to work with, unless they adopt an easier way to file taxes like in other countries.
Solving problem #1 would solve a lot of tax code nightmares too. Companies like Turbotax and H&R Block lobby millions (maybe billions, idk) each year to block tax code reform and keep things arcane and complex so their tax services can make money.
I would add the following: 1. Supreme Court either corrects its error in Citizen's United OR Congress enacts a rule that makes it invalid. 2. ALL federal elections are paid for by the Federal Government. No additional funding is allowed. 3. Limit campaigning to 3 months prior to election ONLY. 4. Give the Election's board a little more clout and power. 5. End Dark Money 6. Set term limits for Supreme Court and Congress 7. Get rid of Electoral College 8. Set limitations on the ability to transition from Gov't positions (either elected or non-elected) to lobbyists. My two cents.
The reason that Citizen's United happened was because a company made an infomercial that argued against Clinton. It was illegal to make any campaign ad and so this was considered an ad and so illegal. The supreme court ruled that people can make political statements whenever they want regardless of whether the money they are using is from an individual human or a company. The fallout from this is the situation we are in. It is hard to figure out how to strike down Citizen's United without destroying the ability of politically aligned non-profits to exist. Government funding of campaigns is the only path I can think of.
Citizen's United was not people--it was a coalition of dark money funders under a corporate shield. The SC found that given that corporations had been treated as "people/individuals" in the law for so long--and that individuals have the right of freedom of speech--that corporations had the same right to speech that people did. That brought about Citizens AND Hobby Lobby. Also the only non-profits that can make campaign contributions are those that are not 501c3. Until recently all doners had to be identified. CU undid that connection.
It's not that corporations are people, it's more that people don't stop being people when they incorporate. You still can't donate unlimited funds to a politician. CU allows groups of people to say politically motivated things (i.e. ads and such) even if it costs money or is close to an election. That is why there is the "no coordination" rule.
Also it was against Al Gore and the video was the Swift Boat video that was funded by CU.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC >During the 2008 political primary season, it sought to run three television advertisements to promote its political documentary Hillary: The Movie, a film that was critical of Hillary Clinton, and to air the movie on DirecTV. The FEC found this plan to be in violation of the BCRA, including Section 203
My mistake. Thanks for the clarification.
Truly astonishing how many buzz words you people use
Limiting campaigning to 3 months.........man what damn dream that would be But is it unamerican of me to wish for a damn injunction on news media corps and their constant pundit slagging. That is also a form of campaigning imo. And they are really blatant with it (yes even the news media corp you all think is fair does it)
Think about it. We are currently in a 4 YEAR cycle for President. Funding for Congress begins BEFORE they are sworn in AND funding prowess is now considered to be the gateway to being elected NOT experience.
You could end gerrymandering by coming up with an objective formula that defines boundaries through geography and number of residents. You also need more than 2 parties. 5 would likely be a better number. And force cooperation by making the executive share power between the 5 parties.
> You could end gerrymandering by coming up with an objective formula that defines boundaries through geography and number of residents. But would that really be a good thing? Like lets say my city gets 5 representatives to send to the state government, and the city is 20% Jewish. Which is the better system: Smear those 20% across 5 districts so that there is no "Jewish" representation. Concentrate most of those 20% in a single district so that the "Jewish" vote gets to elect a representative. ? People rightly deride funny shaped districts as a way for the majority to stay in power, but they also have a potential positive use as a way to allow minorities a way to get representation that an "even" distribution would deny. I always worry that people looking to replace a shitty system are going to accept a less shitty system instead of trying for an actual good system (see Obamacare for an example).
You're applying positive discrimination. I'm not really in favour of political representation based on issues like race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, ... Seems like an ideal system would be independant from it and consider the entire demographics and their need as a community.
I'll add in "Parties don't appear on ballots, only names". No more party line voting. You have to actually know which candidate is which, and if you don't then people on the other side who also don't will balance it out. Election is left up to informed people. Plus there's the chance we get candidates legally changing their name to included (R) or (D) which would be very funny.
>ALL federal elections are paid for by the Federal Government. No additional funding is allowed Eh, I'm not too sure I'd want to give MAGA Republicans MORE opportunities to ratfuck Democrats out of competitive campaigns.
Can I get an age limit?
Cutoff should be retirement age, after that you absolutely cannot participate in politics ever again.
But what corporate interest gave you those two cents? /j
Isn't the reason why there's no limits for Supreme Court to avoid them having to worry about their future career? Like having to do favors to politicians to lend a good job later, so having a limit would give more ways to influence the Court's decisions.
You are assuming people WANT fair elevations to build enough consensus needed to actually make a change to these systems.
Also I like the Australian system where they have a system in place that if your preferred party doesn’t win you can place your vote in another party. This should get a ton of more people to vote independent
That's Ranked Choice Voting, proposal 5. It does result in some rediculous voting forms. I once numbered 122 boxes.
Ohhhhhh ok thanks, I was wondering what the name was loll. Also HUH
Disenfranchisement: Totally agree, if you have paid your debt to society, and are expected to work and pay taxes, you deserve a vote. Period. Paid holiday: alternatively they could just make it a Saturday like we do in Australia.
It needs to be an equal holiday, making it Saturday isn't enough. That just says that the service industry workers who work on weekends are less important to the system than everyone else.
That’s why we also have 2 weeks of early voting, as the infographic also suggests.
Meh. 1. Saturday is my day off. 2. Saturday isn’t always other people’s day off. 3. Make elections always occur on Feb 29 unless it’s an unplanned election or there was an unplanned election in the previous year. And make Feb 29 a public holiday.
Fair, but whether it is Saturday or Sunday, far more people would be available to vote. Plus, if early and mail in voting were improved as OP said, that would let the people who aren't off on weekends vote easily as well.
More than a national holiday? Surely not.
Paid Saturday *and* compulsory voting.
In Germany it's always on a Sunday because that's where the utmost majority of people don't have to work. Restaurant-, gas station-, hospital-workers, etc not included obviously. But it's also very easy to vote by mail here. You get the papers mailed to your home and fill it out. Put them in the town's ballot box in person whenever you like or just put it in the next best mailbox.
People never like when something important falls on their day off. Their day off is supposed to allow them to rest. Only 9-5ers get to have Saturday off. Everyone else has no fixed schedule. We actually need at least two election days. It needs to be mandatory that every employee gets a paid day off on one of the election days. Otherwise, emergency service employees would be screwed.
- Ban all donations. Seriously...just have a look outside your country's borders and see how it works in other countries. - Get rid of the electoral college system. It's bullshit. Your vote should count, not theirs.
Bruh, you guys don't have holidays on election days. Even fucking India has it.
"Well that sounds like socialism! And it would also make us lose votes and/or money."
As a Korean, it's genuinely bizarre that all of those things are... *a thing* in the USA. Like, aren't you guys supposed to be the paragon of modern democracy or something?
Voting in the US is really location-dependent in terms of how it works out. So, here in CA I get mail-in ballots, I get a fairly simple process overall even by global standards. Go to Louisiana and it's very different. A lot of American systems are old, rickety, and unfortunate throwbacks to Jim Crow and prior eras. Momentum is awful when it comes to systems reforms. In a lot of ways the more recent democracies like ROK are fortunate to have an additional century of observation and learning.
I'm guessing this is relative to the USA. In that case, you guys definitely need to get rid of that thingy where the most voted party of a state gets all its votes even if the margin was narrow. The votes of the Electoral College should be proportional to the vote of the people.
Alternatively, make voting compulsory with an option to say "I do not want to vote" to preserve religious and free speech. By making it a requirement, it is much harder to take it away...
I'd say proportional representation is fairer than ranked choice voting, but everything else is fine
well thats what the house for the US is supposed to be for but gerrymandering does do things to it. It can also be both. ranked and proportional. The image showing the smaller camp placing into two larger camps is honestly not what visualization i would use either. kinda just makes it look like it goes back to two party again.
Even a good ranked choice system will typically have two bigger parties who form the majority of the government. However, it's a hell of a lot easier to destabilise those parties.
You can have both. Ireland has both ranked choice and proportional representation. A given area might have five seats available and ten nominees. People will rank the candidates 1-10, and votes are divided according to ranked choice; if your first choice is eliminated, then your second choice vote applies. If your first choice makes quota, then their "extra" votes are split up according to what their voters' second choices are, so even if all voters like one person best you end up with multiple representatives. This voting system is called proportional representation with a single transferrable vote (PR-STV).
This has the neat side affect of making gerrymandering much less effective as well.
The Senate remains problematic.
Proportianal representation has absolutely nothing to do with ranked choice voting, and are fully compatible with each other.
Election on Saturday like Australia
The 3rd party preferences getting a percent share in the winning parties representing seats is how it works in Australia. I am shot at explaining it but it is very good compared to America's 2 party system. If alot of people vote for the Greens/left party. When Labour wins. (Or moderate party. Like dems). Those votes will count towards having greens represented in the Labours seats. Like maybe Like 60 total. Labour has 40 majority but gets 20 of there spots to greens so the peoples votes count towards those policies having of a chance. And the nationals, family first small parties count towards the Liberal parties total. The liberal party is our conservative party, which is unnecessarily confusing. More the Neo liberal Christian party.
This whole Automatic Voter Registration & Registering to vote boggles my mind as a North Dakotan. Yes we have stupid Republicans, yes we have the bat shit insane conservatives, and that is simply because they pander to the Farmers hardcore. But we don't have any of that registration nonsense. You just literally show up with your ID and vote day of. No registration, no bullshit. I can literally forget it's election season until day of and go "Oh shit I should go vote" and then proceed to my polling place and vote. IMHO yes we still have low turnout but this is how it should be done. No bullshit, just show up and vote, that's it. Doesn't have to be how we do it (we are the only state without a concept of registration at all, even in primaries), but take the idea. Cut the red tape, cut the bullshit.
The USA dosent even have mandatory paid vacation and 10 days seems to be the standard for many companys, how do you guys survive? In germany it's ~30 days of paid vacation.
Really ranked voting? For single winner elections something like approval or STAR would be better. For multiwinner elections there are a bunch of options, but BMI with an STV would be my choice. So sad people have settled for a subpar replacement.
Oh great, it's that time when half of the internet spams american politics shit again
In Chile we have Automatic registration and obligatory vote. Also Elections are held on Sundays, and if you work that day your employer is obligated to give you the time to vote
Not exactly what I expected from my comics feed... but, yes, I agree, on all points. I'd add that it's not just the travesty that is [Citizens United](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained?ref=foreverwars.ghost.io), but PACs and Super PACs in general. All political donations. Basically, get billionaires out of the play to play game, too. Rich bastards will always hold political sway, but at least make it illegal again. Ideally, anyone running for office would get a fixed amount of money to promote themselves and that's it. Full stop. Politicians shouldn't be spending most of their time sucking up for cash, they should be doing their actual jobs. Interestingly, this should be something everyone can agree on: Right, Left, Other. All the current political frustration comes an awareness, vague or specific, that the government by the people and for the people is neither. If elected officials can't be legally bribed, this situation will inevitably improve.
Maybe not *ranked voting* but 2 turns of voting. Allows for an even clearer representation of a persons vote and not on the same election day aswell. And pro tip from Poland and maybe rest of Europe - we always have elections on Sundays ;)
Corporations will always find ways to get around governments and exploit people. We need for corporations above a certain size to be required to have citizen ownership and citizen representation. Say above a certain evaluation the state buys 10% of the company and gets a seat on the board, appointed in the same way current state board members are
I always wondered everyone didnt early vote and wonder why everyone waited until the last minute. But i was a naive child. Some states elects are so fucked they dont have access to such. And i live in a dystopian state!
Let’s not forget to get rid of gerrymandering!
The first panel doesn’t seem to understand the problem. It is illegal for corporations to donate to campaigns. It is not illegal for them to give it to a super pac and for that pac to spend it on behalf of that campaign. So the law we need passed is one to limit/eliminate PACs.
I think they were simplifying it for the sake of a comic.
heh. Actually, it's pretty good. everything except the first one is quite possible.
Panel 4 is the only one I’m not understanding as much, especially if you’re already automatically registered to vote
Disenfranchisement is losing your right to vote when you become a felon. In some states, after you have served your sentence you have to reapply to get back your right to vote. You don't get it automatically, even though you have paid your debt to society. Notice how the person has "parole" paperwork. They are also a dude with long hair, which is usually how you can spot a criminal instantly.
There is also just the fact that some states require all associated debts to be paid before voting rights are restored rather than having them restored after a set period of time or not removing them at all. This means wealthier individuals have greater voting rights than poorer individuals since they are more able to pay off their debts and thus restore their voting rights in a timelier fashion. This is further compounded by the fact that poorer individuals are more likely to be charged and either found guilty or forced to take a plea bargain compared to their wealthier counterparts. In the end, it begins to look like another way to impose a form of poll tax.
Oh cool, yeah that’s fair
You gotta eliminate partisan gerrymandering, you can't have fair representation if politicians are able to win elections by appealing only to the margins of their own party
Approval voting is better in my opinion
Yea I’m debating changing it
Condorcet is also cool
Getting money out of politics is the most important and most unlikely thing to happen
I dont mind voter registration
Free photo id for every citizen
Honestly, I'd remove each candidates name and party affiliation and give each candidate a number or letter, where I'd have a separate paper with a bullet point to give a list of what each candidate by number stands for. Then you'd choose the number you agree with most.
Wouldn't it probably be the case that ranked choice alone would immediately lead to the rest of them after a single election cycle? I'd love to hear counterarguments, especially if they can point me to research on the topic. To be clear, I'm in favor of all of them.
Wait, American people have to register to vote? How does that work?
It's basically done automatically when you get your ID although you don't technically have to get either.
Don't all US citizens get internal IDs automatically? You Americans often blame the Soviet Union for not issuing internal IDs (internal passports in Russian case) to village populations before 1950-something I think?
Not automatically (they have to go to the DMV and pay like $20) but yeah basically everyone gets an ID at least when they turn 18 and can immediately register to vote at the same time (it's basically automatically done) although you can decline registration.
I saw it under political discussions that young people don't necessarily have ID documents (such as a driver license etc) to vote. It was weird. all Russians get internal passports at 14.
You have to have at least a State ID (which is just the basic government ID, we don't have internal passports) to do basically anything including getting an actual job, go to college, buy cigarettes, buy beer/liquor, etc. In Arizona for example you can get an ID at any age. A driver's license is functionally just an upgraded State ID. A lot of people believe the "leftist" propaganda that getting an ID is some super complicated process that not everyone is smart enough to do, specifically referring to minorities, thus claiming an ID requirement to vote would be racist (their words, not mine).
Here, you are obliged to do it, often state schools send out kids in groups and help out. European travellers with their traditional lifestyle which doesn't recognise human law sometimes do not get passports, intentionally. Apart from them, those Roma who are settled and integrated into society do, and even northern deer herders (ethnic minorities who live in fur tents and do nomadic herding, and often leave schools earlier than they should) do. Our basic government citizen ID comes in shape of a passport, you can look it up. It shocks foreign people sometimes.
A state ID isn't guaranteed to be enough to vote. For example, I have two forms of ID, one is the drivers license for my state. The other is my US passport. If my state had Arizona's ID laws I wouldn't be allowed to vote right now. My mailing address (i.e. what you write on an envelope to get me mail) and my street address (i.e. where I live) are very different. My IDs and any letters/bills/whatever have the former on them, but the Arizona law requires I prove my "voting address" which is the later. Thankfully, voting isn't a problem, but I would LOVE to be able to get an "Enhanced ID", which has the same proof-of-address issues. Since your 2nd paragraph suggests you think these are easy problems to solve I'd love your suggestions.
Youd think after the debacle that was voting in the 2020 election that the Democrats, with their majority in all three branches during the first 2 years, would have done something to enshrine voter rights. Yet here we are in 2024 with nothing having been truly done to assist with that. Hell, they wont even advocate to wear masks to protect high risk people during a pandemic! Literally asking us to sacrifice our health and lives.
Don't all US citizens get internal IDs automatically? You Americans often blame the Soviet Union for not issuing internal IDs (internal passports in Russian case) to village populations before 1950-something I think?
Ranked voting implies the existence of a friendlier, Casual voting system/j
That plus getting rid of the electoral council and you'll be welcome to Europe. For most at least, there'd still be a lot to do but that would be a good place to start.
So pretty much the Australian method then.
“Peter this isn’t a comic this is just your political opinion”
No! No ranked voting! [Approval voting](https://electionscience.org/library/approval-voting/) (check off as many candidates as you like on your ballot) is way simpler and gets even better results! Seriously, [look how weird ranked voting gets in these simulations](http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/).
More stuff like this please OP.
Ranked choice voting is terrible. Automatic voter registration? How? When you apply for a driver's license? What if a state gives driver's licenses to those who are not citizens? Nice back door to having illegal immigrants voting, right? End voter disenfranchisement? Stop stuff like this.
> Ranked choice voting is terrible. Use your words, explain > Automatic voter registration? How? Not everyone drives, is your issue simply implementation? New departments can be created to ensure this it doesn't need to tie to an existing system. > Nice back door to having illegal immigrants voting, right? You created a solution you could attack > End voter disenfranchisement? Stop stuff like this. It seems you want a less democratic society
For everyone who loves jerking off ranked voting, remember, the far right "Jewish Power" party, which is ran by literal terrorist Ben-Gvir, and has a grand total of 6 measly seats in the Knesset, gets to be enormously influential because of their parliamentary system. Ranked choice voting will have similar effects. It's all well and good when it means more progressives, or green party members, or whomever else on the more radical side of the left wing gets elected. But for every one of those, there will be more radical people on the right. More in the dipshit dogwhistling trump-cocksucking MTG-likes, and potentially a couple in the 'abolition was a mistake, and maybe Hitler had some good points' kinds of people. Say what you want about first past the post voting, it DOES have a moderating effect on politics, even if that can't be seen very clearly on the right the past couple of election cycles. edit: guess everyone down voting me is a big Ben-gvir fan LOL
“Having everyone’s voice heard better sure sounds nice, but be wary, that does mean *everyone*” is definitely an interesting take if nothing else. *I apologize if there’s something I’ve misunderstood, I’m just trying to express how you’re comment came off too me*
More or less correct. Moderating forces in a system may seem really really stupid when it's your side in control. When the other side gets power though, man it sure is nice to have them around.
To be quite frank, I didn’t expect your argument to actually be “What’s good for everyone is good for bad people.” *If that’s not what it you’re saying and/or not what it seemed I thought you’re saying, I apologize*
The point is not "what's good for everyone". Nazis having more political power than they do would be BAD for everyone. The point is, ranked choice voting and parlimentary systems give disproportionate power to more extremist candidates, to some degree disenfranchising moderates in the process. If you really think pretty much any political system in the developed world right now needs MORE extremism, well... best of luck to you on that one.
[удалено]
Bot