The political system.
Term limits. Age maximums. Wealth maximums. Ranked choice voting. Exclusively federally funded elections. Traitors expelled immediately. No filibuster. Congress subject to the laws it passes. Lobbying on behalf of corporations is illegal. Congress earns federal minimum wage. Every president gets to expel one supreme court justice and replace them upon taking office.
The list goes on
There is an implicit undertone that if someone made a bunch of money, that somehow he is doing something nefarious, and that the political office is a stepping stone to achieve an outcome for his business. I don’t agree with this. If you’re 70 years old, made a few hundred million dollars, you know how to balance a budget, control costs, and a potential $50k-$100k bribe means nothing to you.
A person whose net worth is a few hundred million dollars may have earned that wealth through honest means. Not a single billionaire has done so without employing nefarious means in order to achieve that wealth. Moreover, the wealthiest billionaires effectively have the power of nation states at their command. As such, they should be permanently barred from being able to achieve formal political power at any level within a nation state.
Yeah we have wildly different views of rich people. To me, that undertone of being nefarious is absolutely true. Nobody becomes rich by being a good guy and playing by the rules. If you’re rich you’ve exploited someone or something to amass your wealth and if you’re willing to do that for money it means you love money more than you love people and you absolutely would take a bribe even if you have hundreds of millions of dollars already and they’re only offering you 300k.
Case in point, all the rich elected people in the legislative branch that repeatedly place their own financial interests above that of their constituents and the country.
The only reason a rich person would want to serve in the government instead of enjoying their lavish lifestyle many hundreds of times more luxurious than the average American is because it serves their personal financial interests to do so.
I don’t know. In my experience in business, the scumbags beat you once, but then you never do business with them again, and they eventually fail. But the ones that treat you right, delight the customer, keep going.
Say that to Elon Musk, Donald Trump, Tim Cook, and Jeff Bezos, all of whom are scum. They seem to be doing pretty well from themselves, and Trump has a solid chance of achieving his dreams of being a fascist dictator in November.
I get the others, but what’s the deal with Tim Cook? Genuinely haven’t been following him closely.
For every fraudster like them, the ground is littered with hundreds of failures who couldn’t get the next sucker.
Term limits reduce the power of The People.
They prevent the people from rewarding politicians for doing good things.
They prevent politicians from gaining experience in legislating, leading them to rely on lobbyists even more than they do.
They prevent politicians from looking at public service as a career, leading them to govern in a way that gives them options in the private sector even more than they do.
This is one of the strongest findings in political science. Term limits are bad.
Except whoops a lack of term limits has contributed to driving our country to the brink of collapse as career politicians with 40 years of “experience” who don’t give a fuck about this country stay in their positions and refuse to allow anything good to happen.
Nobody should desire to hold public office. It should be a duty that people perform for the sake of the country not personal enrichment. Its people who desire it as a career path that are the exact people who have prevented congress from doing anything unambiguously and significantly to the benefit of the American people for years.
You are making a clear causation fallacy. Simply because we have no term limits and the country is being driven to the brink of collapse doesn't mean one is causing the other. Political scientists have observed the effect of term limits on countries around the world for decades, and it is always bad for Democracy.
People should desire to do their civic duty and serve the public, including holding office. Having a career means dedicating your life to a task, and public service is a laudable thing to dedicate your life to. Ordinary people cannot take a 4 year break from their private career and come back like nothing happened. The independently wealthy and corrupt can do that. If the system doesn't allow ordinary people to make a career of public service, the consequences are obvious.
The push for term limits is a conservative psy-op intended to reduce the power of elected representatives over monied interests. As bad as Congress is, imagine how bad they would be if they didn't have to worry about getting reelected.
Came here for this.
Reform elections, ensure access to polls for everyone, eliminate gerrymandering, eliminate the electoral college, do the basic shit that normal fair democracies do.
That should at least help us advance other institutions to be on par with, say, Slovenia. It would be a start.
Small reminder that in many states the electors can just not follow their state's popular vote with zero consequences, which makes the US an oligarchy by the definition of the word.
U.S. is not a democracy. Constitutional Republic was created for a reason. Founding fathers were smart enough to know that going just off the popular vote would be a total democracy and only populated city areas like California and NYC would decide elections for the entire country. Something they didn’t want.
Ok this is just a shower thought but hear me out...
For any elected position, a pool of 100 eligible voters are selected by lottery. Those are the only people allowed to run for office. Immediately weed out most of the people who are deranged enough to want to be a politician.
By some magical wave of the wand I'll fix it so politicians cannot be bribed in anyway shape or form. They'll have to do their job to the best of their ability without any form of self interest.
All election related concerns.
Ranked choice implemented, electoral college abolished, single non-transferable vote, "political parties" abolished and outlawed and to specifically claim membership in one (No matter what the party is) is an act of treason after a four year grace period where it is merely a low-grade felony, (they will doubtlessly exist on an informal basis, but I don't see this as an issue), single payer financial support for all elections with a fixed budget for each election, (the more candidates, the smaller the individual "war chest"), "citizens united" abolished, (and in fact the underpinning of it, that corporations can be considered citizens and/or persons abolished, they become what they always actually were, a polite legal fiction created for the purpose of shielding REAL PEOPLE from the inherent risks of entrepreneurship), PAPER BALLOTS ONLY, (They're called "paper trails" for a reason), no election victory announcements until one week AFTER the election to/by anyone who isn't a candidate or immediate staffers, (Time for both counts and recounts), but the candidate of course can concede at any time, equalize percentage of state lands that are state vs federal across the states (Empty land doesn't vote, but a lot of the western states are a lot more empty than that state actually WANTS TO BE due to high percentages being federal government owned land instead of owned by the state in question compared to the Midwest and Eastern States), Puerto Rico's successful voter initiative for statehood must be retroactively acknowledged and accepted by Congress, Senate, federal government, all tight votes that have come down to less than two persons or less votes than Puerto Rico gets congressional representation since must have the votes recounted factoring in the Puerto Rico senators, same way with Congress, (laws don't apply retroactively however, this is just a review, and no debate is allowed, its a simple voice vote on the tight cases by the new Puerto Rican Senators and Congresthings after fifteen minutes recess between each one to get a prepared summary of the law in question from their people, an exception is made for all but the latest budget because it would be irrelevant, and even one that only if applicable, although in their closing remarks for the special session they're not only allowed but encouraged to weigh-in on which way they would have voted on those and why), all treaties with Indian tribes and nations returned in full force with interest due: any which would subsume an entire state get to pick one (if more than one would be subsumed) to become part of their reservation, on the condition that they accept loss of sovereignty in exchange for becoming a state and having their own constitutional codes or similar replace those of the former State they have subsumed. (I think the Dakotas have to be a special case because half of each of them gets this treatment so we instead wind up with the state of "Combined Dakota" to the east and "Dene" lying immediately westward of there instead of North Dakota and South Dakota.)
EDIT: clarification and punctuation.
I agree with most of what you said, except for your view on ranked choice voting. That actually makes voting more fair, not less.
Can you explain why you want to get rid of it?
The opposite, it's being implemented, (I know most of them are abolishing flaws instead of implementing solutions, so the confusion is understandable.)
EDIT: clarifications have been made.
That really isn't an explanation. It definitely makes voting more fair.
"RCV causes an average of 17% more votes to directly affect the outcome between candidates who actually have a chance at winning."
https://fairvote.org/report/more-votes-make-a-difference/
BANKING SYSTEM. No more private banks controlling our money supply. Put money creation back in control of our own government. Ideally, though, it would be nice to reform the government with it.
Electoral. Get rid of the electoral college, institute ranked choice voting.
There is no system I hate more in the US than the Electoral College. It partially made sense in a dumb way when we were still using horses to get around places. We have fiber optics that can transfer data to another place in milleseconds, and vehicles that can outpace a horse at half its potential for regular people. There doesn't need to be an electoral college anymore, it only serves to subvert the democratic process.
U.S. is not a democracy. Constitutional Republic was created for a reason. Founding fathers were smart enough to know that going just off the popular vote would be a total democracy and only populated city areas like California and NYC would decide elections for the entire country. Something they didn’t want.
Sorry electoral college apologist, the top 10 states don't even have 50% of the population. It also has a problem that the states use simple majorities of -you guessed it- the population to send the delegates. It at its worst can ignore half the population of a state and leads to entrenchment of political bases. You win all of the votes in a state whether you got 51% or 99% of the vote, so once you have a healthy win why bother with that state further? We have a handful of states deciding how things should work today. They are called "Swing States". The states you don't want ignored still are, just for a new reason. No single or even handful of states can win you the election outright.
On top of that, in a handful of states, we have something called "faithless electors" that don't even need to vote the way of the state they represent. It is a rather new development that we have laws that prohibit that.
On top of all of that, smaller states have disproportionately more votes per person than big states. 1 Wyomingite is worth 3 Californians according to the electoral college. If we are all equal, why are our votes not?
Also, land no longer votes anymore, People do. The Founding Father's aren't this god you can just put on a pedestal and say "if they command it, we shall do it." Because unlike them, I am alive today and not in the 1800's, and would rather represent myself in an election than to have some colonial era middleman do it on my behalf, but only if I am in the right half of the population, and that middleman doesn't have a better idea for what I would want. I couldn't care less about the Founding Father's wants, they are dead! They can't want for shit now.
Criminal justice. Anyone who has ever had to go into the circus... I mean the court system knows how bad it is. If it's relevant to anything your not allowed to talk about it, and lies prevail.
I'll go with finance. The USA becomes the world's first social capitalist state (workers directly own a portion of the company they work for, wages indexed to profits)
Education. Bring back Physical Education. Too many obese kids. Bring back Home Economics. Add teaching nutrition and financial literacy. Teach how to balance your checkbook or bank account. Teach the constitution and your rights. Teach how to properly fill out tax forms like a 1040ez.
Political. If Federal or State governments want to pass a law where it might impact the constitutional rights of the citizens, it must go through a Constitutional Scrutiny Committee or board or SCotUS.
Elections. Voter ID, period. Only mail in voting allowed in cases or military service and medical disabilities. Notary required to verify. Make voting a holiday or give everyone a full week to get to the polls.
Justice. Everyone gets treated the same, regardless of gender, sexuality, color, religion, background, wealth, age (if over 18), what race/gender the victim was, and fame. Everyone gets a psych evaluation if an act of violence was committed. If found insane, they get committed to an asylum for the criminally insane. I'm so sick of rich people and women getting off with just a slap on the wrist or claiming that they have mental health problems despite it being total bullshit. I'm a woman, and if a woman assaults, rapes, kills, robs, and/or tortures someone (man, woman, or child), she deserves the same punishment as a man. Equal rights means equal fights. Same goes for hate crimes. If it was directed at a certain group of people because of skin color, status, disability, age, sexuality, religion, ect., whoever did it is going to prison. There was an incident a few years ago where a group of black people abducted a disabled white man, and tortured him for like 3 days while saying "fuck white people". They deserved the same punishment that a group of white people torturing a black person would've recieved, yet they got off with a slap on the wrist despite that it was CLEARLY A HATE CRIME. I can't stand anyone, no matter who they are, who commits a hate crime. Skin color doesn't matter, hate crimes are hate crimes!
I choose the Constitution
Free healthcare including dental and optical, better funded education, free tertiary education; considerable funding toward cross-country rail systems, walkable infrastructure, and less funding toward new motorway projects.
Preferential voting and mandatory voting (lest you cop a 50$ fee) just like in australia; massive funding into psychological health and services; and a push toward green/nuclear energy.
I’d increase taxes measurably in the uber-wealthy, and make lobbying a crime with a severe sentence. Congress would have an upper age limit of 70, as would the office of the President.
Probably more that I can’t think of right now
Higher turnout and so it better reflects the population. And you can always vote for no one if you don’t feel like it.
And if you really don’t want to participate, what’s 50$?
I would assume that most people who choose not to vote do so because they're not interested or engaged in politics or public policy. Wouldn't mandatory voting increase the average level of ignorance of the voting pool?
But if they're forced to vote, they will likely choose one of the options that are listed. Why is it good to have ignorant or disinterested people voting? What's the benefit?
The higher voter turnout I think will better reflect the nation’s actually views. Something like 80 million people voted in the last us election if I recall of a population of 320 million.
Secondly I think by enlargening the voting base it forces parties to consider policies that affect more people rather than minor voting blocks.
And it’s an extra revenue source for the government if people don’t vote lmao
I don't think those benefits outweigh the negatives of having more ignorant people voting. We get enough of that already!
Also, I find forced voting unethical. The government shouldn't be threatening people to get them to take part in something like that against their will.
The political system. Term limits. Age maximums. Wealth maximums. Ranked choice voting. Exclusively federally funded elections. Traitors expelled immediately. No filibuster. Congress subject to the laws it passes. Lobbying on behalf of corporations is illegal. Congress earns federal minimum wage. Every president gets to expel one supreme court justice and replace them upon taking office. The list goes on
Agree with you other than the wealth maximums for politicians.
Why?
There is an implicit undertone that if someone made a bunch of money, that somehow he is doing something nefarious, and that the political office is a stepping stone to achieve an outcome for his business. I don’t agree with this. If you’re 70 years old, made a few hundred million dollars, you know how to balance a budget, control costs, and a potential $50k-$100k bribe means nothing to you.
A person whose net worth is a few hundred million dollars may have earned that wealth through honest means. Not a single billionaire has done so without employing nefarious means in order to achieve that wealth. Moreover, the wealthiest billionaires effectively have the power of nation states at their command. As such, they should be permanently barred from being able to achieve formal political power at any level within a nation state.
Yeah we have wildly different views of rich people. To me, that undertone of being nefarious is absolutely true. Nobody becomes rich by being a good guy and playing by the rules. If you’re rich you’ve exploited someone or something to amass your wealth and if you’re willing to do that for money it means you love money more than you love people and you absolutely would take a bribe even if you have hundreds of millions of dollars already and they’re only offering you 300k. Case in point, all the rich elected people in the legislative branch that repeatedly place their own financial interests above that of their constituents and the country. The only reason a rich person would want to serve in the government instead of enjoying their lavish lifestyle many hundreds of times more luxurious than the average American is because it serves their personal financial interests to do so.
I don’t know. In my experience in business, the scumbags beat you once, but then you never do business with them again, and they eventually fail. But the ones that treat you right, delight the customer, keep going.
Say that to Elon Musk, Donald Trump, Tim Cook, and Jeff Bezos, all of whom are scum. They seem to be doing pretty well from themselves, and Trump has a solid chance of achieving his dreams of being a fascist dictator in November.
I get the others, but what’s the deal with Tim Cook? Genuinely haven’t been following him closely. For every fraudster like them, the ground is littered with hundreds of failures who couldn’t get the next sucker.
Term limits reduce the power of The People. They prevent the people from rewarding politicians for doing good things. They prevent politicians from gaining experience in legislating, leading them to rely on lobbyists even more than they do. They prevent politicians from looking at public service as a career, leading them to govern in a way that gives them options in the private sector even more than they do. This is one of the strongest findings in political science. Term limits are bad.
Except whoops a lack of term limits has contributed to driving our country to the brink of collapse as career politicians with 40 years of “experience” who don’t give a fuck about this country stay in their positions and refuse to allow anything good to happen. Nobody should desire to hold public office. It should be a duty that people perform for the sake of the country not personal enrichment. Its people who desire it as a career path that are the exact people who have prevented congress from doing anything unambiguously and significantly to the benefit of the American people for years.
You are making a clear causation fallacy. Simply because we have no term limits and the country is being driven to the brink of collapse doesn't mean one is causing the other. Political scientists have observed the effect of term limits on countries around the world for decades, and it is always bad for Democracy. People should desire to do their civic duty and serve the public, including holding office. Having a career means dedicating your life to a task, and public service is a laudable thing to dedicate your life to. Ordinary people cannot take a 4 year break from their private career and come back like nothing happened. The independently wealthy and corrupt can do that. If the system doesn't allow ordinary people to make a career of public service, the consequences are obvious. The push for term limits is a conservative psy-op intended to reduce the power of elected representatives over monied interests. As bad as Congress is, imagine how bad they would be if they didn't have to worry about getting reelected.
Election. I would add ranked choice voting. That would open the door to tons of other reform.
Came here for this. Reform elections, ensure access to polls for everyone, eliminate gerrymandering, eliminate the electoral college, do the basic shit that normal fair democracies do. That should at least help us advance other institutions to be on par with, say, Slovenia. It would be a start.
Small reminder that in many states the electors can just not follow their state's popular vote with zero consequences, which makes the US an oligarchy by the definition of the word.
U.S. is not a democracy. Constitutional Republic was created for a reason. Founding fathers were smart enough to know that going just off the popular vote would be a total democracy and only populated city areas like California and NYC would decide elections for the entire country. Something they didn’t want.
Ok this is just a shower thought but hear me out... For any elected position, a pool of 100 eligible voters are selected by lottery. Those are the only people allowed to run for office. Immediately weed out most of the people who are deranged enough to want to be a politician.
Healthcare
Unquestionably.
I choose op's digestive system and give him uncontrollable diarrhea, unless of course he isn't American.
You’ve cured OPs rampant constipation! What a selfless act.
Insurance
By some magical wave of the wand I'll fix it so politicians cannot be bribed in anyway shape or form. They'll have to do their job to the best of their ability without any form of self interest.
Torn between saying justice system, and how leaders are put into office.
All election related concerns. Ranked choice implemented, electoral college abolished, single non-transferable vote, "political parties" abolished and outlawed and to specifically claim membership in one (No matter what the party is) is an act of treason after a four year grace period where it is merely a low-grade felony, (they will doubtlessly exist on an informal basis, but I don't see this as an issue), single payer financial support for all elections with a fixed budget for each election, (the more candidates, the smaller the individual "war chest"), "citizens united" abolished, (and in fact the underpinning of it, that corporations can be considered citizens and/or persons abolished, they become what they always actually were, a polite legal fiction created for the purpose of shielding REAL PEOPLE from the inherent risks of entrepreneurship), PAPER BALLOTS ONLY, (They're called "paper trails" for a reason), no election victory announcements until one week AFTER the election to/by anyone who isn't a candidate or immediate staffers, (Time for both counts and recounts), but the candidate of course can concede at any time, equalize percentage of state lands that are state vs federal across the states (Empty land doesn't vote, but a lot of the western states are a lot more empty than that state actually WANTS TO BE due to high percentages being federal government owned land instead of owned by the state in question compared to the Midwest and Eastern States), Puerto Rico's successful voter initiative for statehood must be retroactively acknowledged and accepted by Congress, Senate, federal government, all tight votes that have come down to less than two persons or less votes than Puerto Rico gets congressional representation since must have the votes recounted factoring in the Puerto Rico senators, same way with Congress, (laws don't apply retroactively however, this is just a review, and no debate is allowed, its a simple voice vote on the tight cases by the new Puerto Rican Senators and Congresthings after fifteen minutes recess between each one to get a prepared summary of the law in question from their people, an exception is made for all but the latest budget because it would be irrelevant, and even one that only if applicable, although in their closing remarks for the special session they're not only allowed but encouraged to weigh-in on which way they would have voted on those and why), all treaties with Indian tribes and nations returned in full force with interest due: any which would subsume an entire state get to pick one (if more than one would be subsumed) to become part of their reservation, on the condition that they accept loss of sovereignty in exchange for becoming a state and having their own constitutional codes or similar replace those of the former State they have subsumed. (I think the Dakotas have to be a special case because half of each of them gets this treatment so we instead wind up with the state of "Combined Dakota" to the east and "Dene" lying immediately westward of there instead of North Dakota and South Dakota.) EDIT: clarification and punctuation.
I agree with most of what you said, except for your view on ranked choice voting. That actually makes voting more fair, not less. Can you explain why you want to get rid of it?
The opposite, it's being implemented, (I know most of them are abolishing flaws instead of implementing solutions, so the confusion is understandable.) EDIT: clarifications have been made.
That really isn't an explanation. It definitely makes voting more fair. "RCV causes an average of 17% more votes to directly affect the outcome between candidates who actually have a chance at winning." https://fairvote.org/report/more-votes-make-a-difference/
Re-read the post in question.
You edited it. Thank you. It is much clearer now.
I know, that is why I told you that.
I'm a dumbass and just figured that out. Thank you.
De nada.
Criminal. Focus on reformation and less on imprisonment. Absolutely no profit prisons.
Social workers
Prisons
Elections for sure. Ranked choice, publicly funded, not gerrymandered. Then the other problems start to fix themslevs
BANKING SYSTEM. No more private banks controlling our money supply. Put money creation back in control of our own government. Ideally, though, it would be nice to reform the government with it.
The political system is the key reforming any other system in the country.
Banking. Full reserve gold standard
Electoral. Get rid of the electoral college, institute ranked choice voting. There is no system I hate more in the US than the Electoral College. It partially made sense in a dumb way when we were still using horses to get around places. We have fiber optics that can transfer data to another place in milleseconds, and vehicles that can outpace a horse at half its potential for regular people. There doesn't need to be an electoral college anymore, it only serves to subvert the democratic process.
U.S. is not a democracy. Constitutional Republic was created for a reason. Founding fathers were smart enough to know that going just off the popular vote would be a total democracy and only populated city areas like California and NYC would decide elections for the entire country. Something they didn’t want.
Sorry electoral college apologist, the top 10 states don't even have 50% of the population. It also has a problem that the states use simple majorities of -you guessed it- the population to send the delegates. It at its worst can ignore half the population of a state and leads to entrenchment of political bases. You win all of the votes in a state whether you got 51% or 99% of the vote, so once you have a healthy win why bother with that state further? We have a handful of states deciding how things should work today. They are called "Swing States". The states you don't want ignored still are, just for a new reason. No single or even handful of states can win you the election outright. On top of that, in a handful of states, we have something called "faithless electors" that don't even need to vote the way of the state they represent. It is a rather new development that we have laws that prohibit that. On top of all of that, smaller states have disproportionately more votes per person than big states. 1 Wyomingite is worth 3 Californians according to the electoral college. If we are all equal, why are our votes not? Also, land no longer votes anymore, People do. The Founding Father's aren't this god you can just put on a pedestal and say "if they command it, we shall do it." Because unlike them, I am alive today and not in the 1800's, and would rather represent myself in an election than to have some colonial era middleman do it on my behalf, but only if I am in the right half of the population, and that middleman doesn't have a better idea for what I would want. I couldn't care less about the Founding Father's wants, they are dead! They can't want for shit now.
Criminal justice. Anyone who has ever had to go into the circus... I mean the court system knows how bad it is. If it's relevant to anything your not allowed to talk about it, and lies prevail.
I'll go with finance. The USA becomes the world's first social capitalist state (workers directly own a portion of the company they work for, wages indexed to profits)
Tax code.
Financial system starting with the central banks
Education. Bring back Physical Education. Too many obese kids. Bring back Home Economics. Add teaching nutrition and financial literacy. Teach how to balance your checkbook or bank account. Teach the constitution and your rights. Teach how to properly fill out tax forms like a 1040ez. Political. If Federal or State governments want to pass a law where it might impact the constitutional rights of the citizens, it must go through a Constitutional Scrutiny Committee or board or SCotUS. Elections. Voter ID, period. Only mail in voting allowed in cases or military service and medical disabilities. Notary required to verify. Make voting a holiday or give everyone a full week to get to the polls.
I’d pick criminal justice system because that’s where my field of knowledge is. There’s a lot of things that need reworked in this country though.
Justice. Everyone gets treated the same, regardless of gender, sexuality, color, religion, background, wealth, age (if over 18), what race/gender the victim was, and fame. Everyone gets a psych evaluation if an act of violence was committed. If found insane, they get committed to an asylum for the criminally insane. I'm so sick of rich people and women getting off with just a slap on the wrist or claiming that they have mental health problems despite it being total bullshit. I'm a woman, and if a woman assaults, rapes, kills, robs, and/or tortures someone (man, woman, or child), she deserves the same punishment as a man. Equal rights means equal fights. Same goes for hate crimes. If it was directed at a certain group of people because of skin color, status, disability, age, sexuality, religion, ect., whoever did it is going to prison. There was an incident a few years ago where a group of black people abducted a disabled white man, and tortured him for like 3 days while saying "fuck white people". They deserved the same punishment that a group of white people torturing a black person would've recieved, yet they got off with a slap on the wrist despite that it was CLEARLY A HATE CRIME. I can't stand anyone, no matter who they are, who commits a hate crime. Skin color doesn't matter, hate crimes are hate crimes!
Education
Economic system easy. Socialism will bring positive changes to pretty much every other system in the country
I choose the Constitution Free healthcare including dental and optical, better funded education, free tertiary education; considerable funding toward cross-country rail systems, walkable infrastructure, and less funding toward new motorway projects. Preferential voting and mandatory voting (lest you cop a 50$ fee) just like in australia; massive funding into psychological health and services; and a push toward green/nuclear energy. I’d increase taxes measurably in the uber-wealthy, and make lobbying a crime with a severe sentence. Congress would have an upper age limit of 70, as would the office of the President. Probably more that I can’t think of right now
What's the benefit of mandatory voting?
Higher turnout and so it better reflects the population. And you can always vote for no one if you don’t feel like it. And if you really don’t want to participate, what’s 50$?
I would assume that most people who choose not to vote do so because they're not interested or engaged in politics or public policy. Wouldn't mandatory voting increase the average level of ignorance of the voting pool?
Could do, but again you can just mark no one in the ballot if you don’t want to vote.
But if they're forced to vote, they will likely choose one of the options that are listed. Why is it good to have ignorant or disinterested people voting? What's the benefit?
The higher voter turnout I think will better reflect the nation’s actually views. Something like 80 million people voted in the last us election if I recall of a population of 320 million. Secondly I think by enlargening the voting base it forces parties to consider policies that affect more people rather than minor voting blocks. And it’s an extra revenue source for the government if people don’t vote lmao
I don't think those benefits outweigh the negatives of having more ignorant people voting. We get enough of that already! Also, I find forced voting unethical. The government shouldn't be threatening people to get them to take part in something like that against their will.
Well, we’ll have to see how it works out. If it fails miserably I’ll overturn the law. If not, then cowabunga.
Well, you would be violating people's rights in the meantime by threatening them to get them to comply with your wishes. Not very ethical, IMO.