Reform Concept: Separation of Politics and Elections

[L. Coyote]

Why do political parties have special priviliges and, hence, members of political parties special rights in American elections?

Primary elections are the best example. The state pays for partisan primary elections. Only members of a party are allowed to vote in the primaries. The state enforces the special privilige rule at state expense.

Parties often get a free ride onto the general election ballots, with a ballot spot reserved for the party for every office.

Would you support a reform removing parties from public elections, a separation of politics and government?

Would you support a non-partisan (all candidates in one race) national primary around Labor Day, then a general election with only the top two individual candidates in the Final, even if they were from the same party. This way, candidates do not get elected with 35% of the vote in 4-5 candidate races.

The current system confers special priviliges upon parties. Is that fair?

[patricia92243]

1. Would this not just make a mess with hundred of people running for office?

It would be impossible for the average person to know much about any candidate and we would still end up with the same thing we have now - the one with the most money able to get their message out - would therefore be the winner.

[troubleinwinter]

2. In the California Recall election for governor in 2003

there were 135 candidates. Look who we got. The Gropenator.

[L. Coyote]

4. Why would more people run for office than do now?

Actually, the political parties have an advantage today. Is that fair?

[Bemis]

3. How about just

making the State Elections Commissioner barred from any partisan activities. (examples being Harris and Blackwell) Then tie their compensation to the voter turn out and accuracy of the vote.

Greed can be a good motivating factor.

[Cocoa]

5. absolutely make Sec. of State nonpartisan

not so sure about the compensation idea...

[suston96]

6. Politics and elections don't mix!

I like that concept.

When we cook or bake do we decide the ingredients by majority rule? Of course not.

An election should be completely neutral, without partisan interference, so that the result will be "palatable" to all.

There should be no partisans handling ballots or equipment that process an election.

Hard to do? Yes it is. But if we make the effort we can succeed.

And avoid ending up with these outrageous and indigestable results we are experiencing right now.

[demodonkey]

7. I think we need proportional representation.

Congress, State Legislatures. City Councils, etc. ALL parties with enough registered voters (not just the top 2) would get a certain number of guaranteed seats based on how many people are registered with them.

That, and IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) where you vote for your first choice AND second choice, etc etc... when no one gets a majority they eliminate the candidates with less votes and the SECOND CHOICE of those who voted for the eliminated candidates is counted. Process of elimination keeps going until one candidate gets a majority. IRV allows people to vote for third party and "minor" candidates, without fear of "spoiling" (i.e. a vote for Nader in 2000 really ending up a vote for Bush).

If we had just one big mass primary, I am afraid it would just end up a free-for-all with the richest candidates (or biggest celebrity, or both) coming out on top anyway.

[L. Coyote]

8. "certain number of guaranteed seats based on how many people ... "

You write: "certain number of guaranteed seats based on how many people are registered"

And what, suddenly have representation w/o voting. I hope not. That's a step in the opposite direction, giving representation to political parties without anyone running for office!

This idea just disenfranchises the people who are smart enough not to join a political party!