#Electoral Reform

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Democratic Senators Schatz, Durbin, and Welch push Constitutional amendment process to abolish Electoral College

Alexander Bolton at The Hill:

Three Democratic senators unveiled a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College system Monday, just more than a month after President-elect Trump stunned the Democrats by sweeping all seven battleground states, knocking off three Senate Democratic incumbents in the process. Sens. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii,) Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.), three leading progressive Senate voices, say it’s time to “restore democracy” by allowing for the direct election of presidents through the popular vote alone. The senators are troubled that the Electoral College has twice elected a candidate who didn’t win the popular vote in the past 19 years. In both those instances, a Republican captured the White House — George W. Bush in the 2000 election and Trump in the 2016 election. “In an election, the person who gets the most votes should win. It’s that simple,” Schatz said. “No one’s vote should count for more based on where they live. The Electoral College is outdated and it’s undemocratic. It’s time to end it.” To be sure, Trump would have still won the 2024 election if it had been decided by popular vote. He collected 77,300,739 votes compared to Vice President Harris’s 75,014,534. But many Democrats think that they would have had a better chance to beat Trump if they had a reason to focus on running up the margin of Harris’s victory in populous Democratic strongholds such as California, Illinois and New York. Republicans, however, also have big, populous states squarely in their column, namely Florida and Texas.

Democratic Senators Schatz, Durbin, and Welch push Constitutional amendment process to abolish the antiquated disgrace known as the Electoral College. Presidencies should be decided purely by popular vote, and such a move would widen the battleground map, as it would force both parties to compete in states currently safe for their respective parties to get the vote out.

[itsallpoliticsstupid]

Reform voters not understanding consequences of their choice

There are reports of Reform voters complaining that they didn't expect to end up with a Labour Government by voting Reform.

And all I can ask is, how?!

Having the right to participate in free and fair elections is one of the cornerstones of democracy and why I vehemently defend living in one. That being said, I also fear people have such low Political literacy that they can't really make an informed choice on the matter.

I believe that Politics should be mandatory in schools. Why are we teaching children about Philosophy, but not something that they will be participating in for their adult lives.

Maybe it's time to start considering bringing this subject in to schools.

(Just to note, I'm not having a go at people voting Reform. I've always had the view political literacy is low across all sides of the political spectrum and it should be taught in schools by teachers who do not have any political alignment. This whole deal just cements that fact for me.

[allthecanadianpolitics]

A petition calling for a reform of the voting system in Quebec, posted on the national assembly's website, has received more than 10,000 signatures since Oct. 3. The petition, launched by the Mouvement démocratie nouvelle(opens in a new tab) and sponsored by PQ MNA Pascal Bérubé, had collected more than 12,000 signatures by Sunday morning. It is the petition with the most signatures among those currently open on the National Assembly website -- its closest competitor has received around 2,000. The document calls for the first-past-the-post voting system currently in force to be replaced by a mixed-member proportional voting system, which "would allow for a fairer representation of the diversity of opinions, values and convictions expressed by the Quebec population," according to the petition's instigators.

Continue Reading.

Tagging: @politicsofcanada

[boreal-sea]

How do we get people we actually like into government?

This is a multi-stage problem that comes in 3 parts:

Immediate concerns for the election of 2024

Near-future concerns after the 2024 election

Far-future concerns after certain goals are achieved

Immediate Concerns: Re-elect Biden and Democrats in your state on the national and local levels:

You might not like Biden or the Democrats, but if you want REAL election reform, we NEED them, because Republicans are against election reform in every way.

Near Future Concerns: Election reform in your local area:

Vote in local elections! I told you to do this up in step 1, but I'm going to reiterate it again because towns run elections all the damn time. Local elections are a great way to build power from the bottom-up. These people are closer to you than the president or your congressperson; they know you and your town. Vote for school board, vote for mayor, vote for the chief of police, vote for council members. You're going to need them on your side for the following goals.

Lobby for ranked-choice voting (RCV) in your town or city. This is one of the biggest reforms we need. With ranked-choice voting, we can fix a lot of problems. Ranked-choice voting means we'll be able to vote in third party candidates and actually have them win elections. It is happening! You'll notice on the map I linked that states like Florida have banned RCV. That's because Republicans know they'll lose if it becomes the law in their area. So if you have Republicans in charge of your town or city, this is going to be an uphill battle - which is why step 1 was to vote local.

Lobby for more polling locations. Many Republicans have had voting locations taken down, making it harder for people to vote in a multitude of ways (longer distance to get to a polling location, more people per location causing longer lines which makes it harder for people with an hourly wage to take off time to vote etc).

Vote for voter-ID reforms: Republican-lead states have incredibly strict ID laws you can help strike down. Vote them out, and then vote out their laws.

Lobby for incarcerated/convict voting. Being convicted of a crime and even being in jail shouldn't strip you of your right to vote especially in a country that disproportionately arrests and convicts people of color.

Vote to expand by-mail voting and other voting methods that make it easier for working people, disabled people, and other marginalized folks vote so their voice is heard.

On election day, VOLUNTEER. Drive people to the polls. Be a poll watcher - Republicans love to volunteer for this because it allows them to intimidate marginalized people out of voting. Your presence could make someone feel safe. You could get someone to the poll who might not have been able to make it otherwise.

Far-Future Goals: Lobby to eliminate the Electoral College

Once we have ranked-choice voting and we've been able to vote far-left candidates into office and we no longer have Republicans in control of everything, then we can do the hardest part: a Constitutional Amendment to eliminate the Electoral College. This absolutely positively cannot happen with Republicans in power. It requires 2/3rds of all US states or 2/3rds of the House and the Senate to even get and Amendment proposed. Then, 3/4 of all the state legislatures must ratify it.

[feckcops]

“The best way of influencing a prospective Starmer Government ... would be through external pressure, through things like the trade unions, through things like the Green Party ...

“When I joined the Green Party, I got a lot of people saying 'Ooh, why the Greens?'. Well look, the Brexit Party was a vehicle to move the Conservative Party to where the Brexit Party wanted it to be. The Green Party can be that vehicle for the Labour Party. And ultimately we want to bring about proportional representation, and we want to highlight and illustrate that this electoral system that we have is not fair; it has effectively created gatekeepers to our democracy who will not allow anything beyond very very narrow parameters to operate … That is a huge democratic problem ...

“All of these things, I think, can be resolved through electoral reform. All of these things can be resolved through ensuring, I think, adequate pressure from the left on the Labour Party that is external to it.”

- Matt Zarb-Cousin

[skaiawards]

Emerging from poring through Title 24 of the Virginia Code trying to find the explicit ban on fusion voting like

[ppcbug]

What Canada really needs is senate reform!

All of the major political parties have scuffed policies when it comes to the senate!

For example, the NDP and Bloc want to abolish it, the Liberals want to appoint liberals disguised as independents to the senate, and the Conservatives want it to be business as usual while they appoint "conservatives" to be senators.

Canada's upper house is based off of the UK's House of Lords but why must we take the bad aspects of it?

Canadian's deserve a senate that is:

Of the people

By the people

For the people

Canada needs an elected senate!

[laurelrusswurm]

"Proportional representation will ensure that a minority will never rule. It also will ensure that no considerable minority will ever be excluded from having a voice Is that not democracy?

"What have the self- appointed protagonists of democracy and majority rule in this House to say about that?

"Are they opposed to a minority having a voice?

"Are they opposed to majority rule?"

—William Irvine, MP (1923) [Pictured] https://www.lipad.ca/full/permalink/643351/

[newsbites]

News from Nanaimo and Beyond.

NANAIMO — Life hasn’t been the same for a young Nanaimo man since he was hit and thrown into a ditch by an impaired driver on Gabriola Island.

Josh Marsh was walking home from work during a clear evening on June 28, 2020, at 6:30 p.m. on the shoulder of North Rd. when the then 17-year-old was hit by a truck which veered off-road, according to an agreed statement of facts outlined in Nanaimo provincial court.

Kelly William Jordan, 39, was slumped forward in the prisoner’s box as the damning circumstances were relayed during an emotionally charged sentencing hearing on Wednesday, May 3.

The Crown’s Sabrina Avery told court Jordan, an unlicensed driver, slanted onto the shoulder and hit Marsh with the front right side of his truck, throwing the victim 13 meters and into a roadside ditch.

Three separate out-of-control wildfires burning near the boundary between British Columbia and Alberta, including two in the Peace River region, have prompted evacuation orders and an alert.

The Peace River Regional District has ordered the immediate evacuation of residents near the Red Creek wildfire, covering 1,550 hectares (15.5 square kilometres) — nearly four times the size of Stanley Park — directly northwest of Fort St. John, B.C., about 1,200 kilometres northeast of Vancouver.

CACHE CREEK, B.C. — Much of British Columbia’s Interior continued to be under the threat of flooding triggered by rain and warm weather Sunday, but water levels appeared to be receding at one of the hardest hit communities.

Even so, Cache Creek, a village about 350 kilometres northeast of Vancouver, remained under a state of local emergency, which was expanded to May 13 at midnight.

Village officials said 21 properties remained on evacuation order, while 12 others were still on alert. Crews brought in sandbags, cleared asphalt and put in a berm in a key location along the creek near Quartz Road to prevent further flooding.

The Liberal government is expected to announce the renewal of its multimillion-dollar federal gun and gang violence program today.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says he doesn’t expect his government to move on electoral reform, despite his party membership calling for a national council to examine the issue.

United Way BC hopes to "Help Bring the Joy Back to Childhood '' in its spring fundraising campaign calling attention to child and youth mental well-being, featuring emotional renditions of children's video game characters, product mascots, and toys – and challenging popular children's brands to do the same.

[worldwatcher3072]

Is It Time to Fix the US Political System? Experts Weigh In

The United States political system has long been a topic of debate, with many citizens and experts alike arguing that it is in dire need of repair. From gridlock in Congress to concerns about money in politics, the issues are complex and multifaceted. But what are the solutions? We spoke to a range of experts to get their take on the best ways to fix the US political system.

Campaign finance reform One of the most commonly cited issues with the US political system is the role of money in politics. According to a report by the Brennan Center for Justice, spending on federal elections has skyrocketed in recent years, with $14 billion spent on the 2020 election alone. This has led to concerns about the influence of wealthy donors on the political process.

To address this issue, many experts recommend campaign finance reform. This could include measures like increasing transparency around political donations, limiting the amount of money individuals and corporations can donate, and implementing a public financing system to help level the playing field.

2.) Electoral reform Another key issue with the US political system is the way in which elections are structured. The Electoral College, for example, has been a source of controversy for decades, with critics arguing that it gives undue influence to certain states and undermines the principle of one person, one vote.

To address this issue, some experts recommend reforms like ranked-choice voting or the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would ensure that the winner of the presidential election is the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide.

3.)Redistricting reform Gerrymandering is another issue that has long plagued the US political system. By manipulating district boundaries, politicians are able to effectively choose their own voters, making it more difficult for opposition parties to win elections.

To address this issue, many experts recommend redistricting reform. This could include measures like creating independent redistricting commissions, implementing strict criteria for redistricting, and using computer algorithms to draw district lines.

4.)Strengthening democracy Finally, many experts argue that the best way to fix the US political system is to strengthen democracy itself. This could include measures like expanding voting rights, ensuring fair representation for all communities, and promoting transparency and accountability in government.

Ultimately, the US political system is complex and multifaceted, and fixing it will require a range of reforms and initiatives. But by working together and implementing smart, evidence-based solutions, we can create a political system that truly represents the people it serves.

[glitchyvoxel]

You could have something like this!

If you (like me) want 3rd party candidates to be an actual viable option in USA elections so you no longer have to vote for Democrats OR Republicans as your first and only choice, then what we need is Ranked Choice Voting. In order for that to happen, we as voters have to do two things:

Vote Democrat this fall, because Republicans fucking hate Ranked Choice Voting, and in several Republican-run states they have outlawed it. So if you want it, you have to keep Democrats in power in your state.

Lobby for and then vote for Ranked-choice voting in your state!Many American states have already adopted Ranked Choice voting and several more are set to do so in 2024. The ball is literally already rolling on this, we just need YOU to help it along.

[txttletale]

what does it mean when people say stuff like individual morality or action is incompatible with class analysis or class struggle?

alright so like one of the key ideas about class analysis is the idea that classes (as a whole) have economic interests that affect all their members but don't extrapolate out to an individual analysis.

for example, let's say that you can't find a job, and somebody offers to pay you below the table for below minimum wage. it's in your individual interest to do this--it beats having no job! but as a member of the working class, once this practice becomes normalized, suddenly the standards of pay for everyone are lower because people know that they can just pay less than minimum wage under the table. competition between workers for jobs drives wages down for everyone, leaving them all in a worse situation overall even if each individual choice to scab, to accept lower pay, to resist unionization, etc, leaves the person who makes it better off. cf. karl marx on what happens when wages and working conditions deteriorate:

The labourer seeks to maintain the total of his wages for a given time by performing more labour, either by working a great number of hours, or by accomplishing more in the same number of hours. Thus, urged on by want, he himself multiplies the disastrous effects of division of labour. The result is: the more he works, the less wages he receives. And for this simple reason: the more he works, the more he competes against his fellow workmen, the more he compels them to compete against him, and to offer themselves on the same wretched conditions as he does; so that, in the last analysis, he competes against himself as a member of the working class.

— Karl Marx, Wage Labour & Capital

similarly, any individual member of the working class is completely dispensable and replaceable by capital. if one person refuses to work unless they're paid a higher wage, they'll be fired and replaced with somebody who doesn't. the individual worker has no economic leverage whatsoever. but the working class has incredible economic leverage! and so does the intermediate stage between the working class and the individual--organized segments of the working class (e.g. trade unions) have economic leverage. if one person strikes, the capitalist can fire them. if 40,000 people strike, your industry is going to shut down.

so the reason why class analysis is compatible with individual action is that your incentives measurably change when you start organizing--it's in the interests of the individual to compete, but in the interests of the class to cooperate. and obviously you cannot just expect everyone to spontaneously coordinate! you, the individual, are disposable to capital! if you, personally, refuse to take the under-the-table offer, either on moral grounds or because you recognize your class interest, your neighbour's going to take it--unless you and her get together and agree that neither of you will take it. that's the only way that the guy making the offer is going to have to give in and offer the job for a living wage.

and this is what organization is--trade unions (although they have severe limitations!), communist parties, and other worker's organizations allow the working class to pursue their collective interest--which can only be pursued by collective action, because engaging in the strategies of collective action as an individual, without the cooperation of your peers, is high risk for no reward.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Andy Craig at The UnPopulist:

In 1801, when President John Adams peacefully accepted defeat and ceded power to the winner of the prior year’s election, his partisan opponent Thomas Jefferson, it established a model for how electoral contests, even sharply divided ones, would conclude in our burgeoning republic. It was, substantially, the first time anything like it had ever happened. Over time, as elections attracted novel challenges of various sorts—such as the 1876 presidential contest—Congress and the states passed new legislation, and sometimes constitutional amendments, and courts provided rulings that accumulated in more procedural certainty. For the most part, we got by without triggering very many electoral crises thanks to candidates of all political affiliations following longstanding norms. We can no longer take those norms for granted.

Donald Trump’s avowedly anti-democratic stance, in both the previous election and this one, isn’t grounded in serious arguments about flaws in our electoral processes, or fairly arguable legal disputes. He rejects the premise, root and branch, that voters should ultimately be able to go with someone else instead, and that his power should be checked in any way by the rule of law. He is not running for president, he is running for dictator. Trump and allies filed over 60 lawsuits in 9 different states after the 2020 election—none with any merit. When legal efforts weren’t leading anywhere, he resorted to fraud and then to violence. And if things don’t go his way on Nov. 5, he’s likely to attempt even more of the same. But we should resist treating his electoral challenges with a legitimacy they don’t possess. We shouldn’t normalize what is essentially a repudiation of our democracy, not a good-faith challenge to the accuracy of vote totals or our election processes. These are not just questions of law, with answers to be found in the Constitution and statutes and court rulings. They are an attack on our fundamental political philosophy as a nation, the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

Trump’s Election Claims Aren’t Genuine Legal Challenges

Today, largely in response to the turmoil following the 2020 election, the legal architecture around election disputes has become more robust. The Electoral Count Reform Act (ECRA), which passed with bipartisan support in 2022, tightened the procedures for certifying presidential results, ensuring that no vice president or rogue state officials can obstruct the will of the voters. Some states have also taken measures to shore up weak points in the administration and certification of their election results. But while the law has evolved, the fundamental reality hasn’t changed. No recount or post-election lawsuit is capable of flipping a presidential election unless the apparent margin of victory is razor-thin—as in, no more than a few hundred votes in a decisive swing state.

Of course, the arguments advanced in the aftermath of the 2020 election were completely spurious, both factually false and legally baseless. Voting machines did not alter the count. Trump’s claims of millions of illegal votes were made up out of thin air. Changes made to accommodate the pandemic were lawful, and upheld by the courts, and happened in states Trump won as much as those he lost. Nor did botched social media policies about Hunter Biden’s laptop affect the outcome, not that such a thing could be legally relevant anyway. State legislatures do not have the power to overturn presidential election results. Neither do governors and secretaries of state have the power to refuse certification. The fake electors scheme was completely bogus, and the conspirators who instigated the attempt knew it. The last-ditch litigation by Texas suing Pennsylvania and other swing states won by Biden was so frivolous the Supreme Court refused to even hear it. Mike Pence did not have the power to change the result, and neither did Congress under the circumstances. And yet, most of these same lies are being repeated now.

The groundwork being laid for Trump to overturn a defeat, if he is in fact defeated, is far more ambitious than any sincere dispute over a genuinely close outcome. These attempts cannot be reduced to mere creative lawyering, or trying to find the right legal loophole. Treating them as such, even in rebutting them, grants these schemes a patina of legitimacy they do not deserve. They are pure lawlessness. Like the attempt to overturn the last election, which Joe Biden won by tens of thousands of votes across multiple states, these plans are not pursuing any colorable legal theory. They are a criminal conspiracy—as one federal judge put it: “a coup in search of a legal theory.”

[...]

Recounts Adjust, They Don’t Overturn

Recounts exist to correct small errors, not to rewrite history. When every vote is recounted, slight adjustments are inevitable, but they are typically minor—a handful of votes here, a few miscategorized ballots there. In highly unusual cases, the final tally shifts by a few hundred votes, but even that is the upper limit. Often it’s less that; a recent statewide recount in Washington, where the candidates were initially separated by only 53 votes, ended up moving the margin by just two votes. The reality is that modern voting systems and election administration methods, despite their imperfections, are remarkably accurate. They are designed to withstand the occasional human error or technological hiccup without compromising the overall result. Even if a court finds evidence of localized errors or irregularities, the remedy is proportional to the scope of the problem. If some ballots are misread or reported incorrectly, the solution is to correct the mistake—not to invalidate thousands of legitimate votes. Legal challenges that aim to disqualify broad swaths of the electorate or overturn certified results require proof of systemic failures or outright fraud on an extraordinary scale.

[...]

The Myth of Widespread Fraud

Donald Trump and his allies, including X owner Elon Musk and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, have been busily pushing the idea that non-citizens are voting in large numbers and tipping elections. There is no evidence to support this claim, but that hasn’t stopped them from using it as a rallying cry. It is worth being blunt: the idea that there is widespread voter fraud going on is an utter myth. Exhaustive investigations by election officials, courts, journalists, and independent watchdogs have consistently found that improper voting happens at rates so low as to be statistically irrelevant. Georgia, for example, identified a small number of incorrect registrations, but could not identify a single non-citizen who’d actually cast a ballot. Even in the few cases where non-citizens or ineligible voters have cast ballots, the numbers are minuscule. Isolated instances, often the result of confusion rather than malice, and which involve members of both parties, are not sufficient to swing a presidential election. In the vast majority of elections, the margin of victory is measured in thousands of votes or more, far beyond the impact of any sporadic irregularities. In a system where more than 158 million votes were cast in 2020, a number likely to be greater this year, some errors are inevitable, and yet the number of provable cases is astonishingly few. But the purpose of these fraud claims is not to address a real problem; it is to provide a pretext for overturning accurate results. This narrative is not just about casting doubt on election outcomes, it is about laying the groundwork for rejecting the possibility of losing an election altogether. Trump’s playbook isn’t to prove fraud under any existing law—it is to create a cloud of suspicion, enough to justify extraordinary measures. The point is not to win by the rules, but to convince supporters that the election was stolen, regardless of the evidence, and that a possible Democratic victory can’t be legitimate.

Andy Craig writes in The UnPopulist that Donald Trump is likely to see another coup attempt if he loses to Kamala Harris.

[thedreadvampy]

personally I think all national elections should have a Reopen Nominations option on the ballot like smaller-scale elections do. we should be allowed to send it back and demand different candidates.

except Americans. they already have too much election season. dial it back to a normal 2 month election period instead of whatever the fuck this year-on-year shit is and THEN maybe introduce a 'fuck this whole ballot start over' option.

[originalleftist]

I go back and forth on whether I'd prefer a ranked ballot or runoff system nation-wide, I suspect in practice it'd end up, like so many issues, being decided state by state in the US (some states already use one or the other for state elections, for example Georgia uses a runoff between the top two candidates if no one gets 50% on the first round, while Alaska IIRC uses a ranked ballot system, which is probably a big part of why the otherwise red state has a Democratic Congresswoman now).

Ranked ballots probably give more of an opening to third party candidates, while runoffs seem more intuitive, easier for voters to understand where their vote is going. Though I confess I'm not an expert on either.

The Electoral College requires a Constitutional Amendment that we probably won't ever be able to elect enough supporters to pass without other major reforms first. There's also the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, but I suspect that if enough states ever sign on for it to take effect, it'll get struck down by the courts. Its more about forcing the issue to build support for the eventual amendment push, in my view- in either case, this is unlikely to be an issue that's solved in this or the next election cycle.

And yes, if third parties had any sense this is where they'd be focussing all their efforts. Just rushing to run for the Presidency every election under our current system pretty much guarantees that they'll be lucky to ever break five percent, or accomplish anything but split the vote and help one of the major parties (usually Republicans) win.

The revolution the USA actually needs is electoral reform. Abolishing the Electoral College would be great, but realistically I don't see that happening anytime soon. One thing that can happen, and which would help enormously, is ranked choice voting. Start reading up on it and how to get involved in its implementation. Ranked choice voting is the best chance to move away from the two-party lesser-of-two-evils shitshow: it enables you to vote for third party candidates as your top choice without the risk of "throwing your vote away" if your top pick doesn't win.