Government Policy and Budget Discussion Thread (no politics)

[medinabuckeye1]

I want to see the NPVIC get passed to make the electoral college obsolete and make the popular vote matter. It's getting close to 200 votes worth and just needs to get to 270. Yes, they have been mostly democratic states to this point, but there are conservative states that are supposedly starting to consider it more seriously.

Campaign finance is definitely a big issue.

Term limits have already shown to be counterproductive for reasons explained above.

I am adamantly opposed to this simply because I don't trust other states.  

Illinois is legendary for having dead people vote.  At one point I think five straight Illinois Governors (from both parties) had served time in Federal Penitentiaries after serving as Governor.  I think that is enough proof that Illinois is corrupt.  

California is essentially a one-party state with absolutely zero motivation to make sure that only legal US Citizens vote.  I have no doubt that Trump's claims of Illegal Aliens voting in California are likely exaggerated but I also have no doubt that at least SOME Illegal Aliens DID vote in California (some Cali Cities allow it in Municipal elections).  

Under the Electoral College I don't really care if a whole bunch of dead people and Illegal Aliens vote in Illinois and California.  It doesn't matter nationally because even if you took out their votes I'm sure the D candidate would still win and the margin is irrelevant.  However, if you had a National Popular Vote then the margin would matter.  

Example:
Suppose you had a National Popular Vote and Trump beat Biden by ~10,000 votes.  Millions of Americans would believe that Trump's margin was made up by voter suppression in Red States.  

The same could obviously apply in reverse if Biden beat Trump by ~10,000 in the popular vote.  Millions of Americans would believe without a doubt that Trump had won and that Biden's ~10,000 vote margin was more than made up for by dead people in Illinois and Illegal Aliens in California and the like.  

Thus, in any close election nearly half of the population would credibly believe that the election had been stolen from their candidate by the other side's illegal activities.  That is a recipe for disaster.  

[Cincydawg]

Another issue is how one could do a recount, were one needed (it happens).  Do you recount the entire country with differing laws in each state?

[MichiFan87]

I am adamantly opposed to this simply because I don't trust other states. 

Illinois is legendary for having dead people vote.  At one point I think five straight Illinois Governors (from both parties) had served time in Federal Penitentiaries after serving as Governor.  I think that is enough proof that Illinois is corrupt. 

California is essentially a one-party state with absolutely zero motivation to make sure that only legal US Citizens vote.  I have no doubt that Trump's claims of Illegal Aliens voting in California are likely exaggerated but I also have no doubt that at least SOME Illegal Aliens DID vote in California (some Cali Cities allow it in Municipal elections). 

Under the Electoral College I don't really care if a whole bunch of dead people and Illegal Aliens vote in Illinois and California.  It doesn't matter nationally because even if you took out their votes I'm sure the D candidate would still win and the margin is irrelevant.  However, if you had a National Popular Vote then the margin would matter. 

Example:
Suppose you had a National Popular Vote and Trump beat Biden by ~10,000 votes.  Millions of Americans would believe that Trump's margin was made up by voter suppression in Red States. 

The same could obviously apply in reverse if Biden beat Trump by ~10,000 in the popular vote.  Millions of Americans would believe without a doubt that Trump had won and that Biden's ~10,000 vote margin was more than made up for by dead people in Illinois and Illegal Aliens in California and the like. 

Thus, in any close election nearly half of the population would credibly believe that the election had been stolen from their candidate by the other side's illegal activities.  That is a recipe for disaster. 

The current system is already a disaster.

I'll take those problems over the existing ones.

I'll also add that this year has already shown me the problems with the primary system, as well. The primary schedule should definitely be condensed (and arguably done on one night).... As it is, the states with relatively early primaries are disproportionately conservative states so a lot of those voters are getting disproportionate influence in the election even though their state will vote for Trump in the end.

This will never happen, but I'd ideally like to see the primaries scheduled for democrats and republicans separately in order of which party is most dominant in their state (so DC, HI, and CA would be some of the first states with democratic primaries and last with republican ones.... Conversely, states like AK, ND, and WY would have the first republican primaries and last democratic ones)..... Better yet, I'd probably rather have a popular vote for primaries with ranked choice voting, but that's not much more likely to happen either.....

[rolltidefan]

What I found interesting is that, at the time, the life expectancy was ~40 and yet there were quite a few ~80 year olds.  Today the life expectancy is ~80 and there are no 160 year olds, why not? 

 

i know this was rhetorical, but the reason is because we got a lot better at keeping people alive at birth/young age, not so much old age... yet.

[Cincydawg]

Once you live past 1 year old, your life expectancy goes up a bit.  Infant mortality back in the day was awful, and it's all counted.

Once folks hit 40 or so back then they had a pretty good live expectancy and could live to 80.

[rolltidefan]

..... Better yet, I'd probably rather have a popular vote for primaries with ranked choice voting, but that's not much more likely to happen either.....

won't ever happen, but i'd love to see us get rid of the first past the post voting method and go to an alternative vote.

for those unaware, alternative vote is one where you rank your choices. so, this year, lets say you have 5 candidates (trump, biden, bernie, horneberger, and warren). well, in current system, that list gets dwindled down to 2, which are usually the 2 worst, imo. instead, under the new one, you'd rank your preferred candidates. so, for example, a liberal would likely go 1 - bernie, 2 - warren, 3 - biden, 4 - maybe horneberger or blank, 5 - blank. These videos explain better than i can.
alternative vote and first past the post problem
obviously they're simplified, and there's problems with both, but alternative is much better imo. i've rarely voted for my preferred candidate, instead having to vote for lesser of 2 evils.

[OrangeAfroMan]

I am adamantly opposed to this simply because I don't trust other states. 

California is essentially a one-party state with absolutely zero motivation to make sure that only legal US Citizens vote. 

Ehh, as a one-party state, there's also no incentive to allow illegals to vote....but I get your point sans-electoral college.

[OrangeAfroMan]

For president, there's an age minimum, why not a maximum?  The fact that the last 4 candidates for president in 2020 were all 70+ is a problem.  One of them being that old is fine, but exclusively 70+ is not okay.  
There was a great young candidate this time, BUT HE WAS A GAY!  Anyway, if 35 is the lower limit, why not 65 for an upper limit?  

[Cincydawg]

I'd be fine with 70 as an upper limit for any Federal position.  Granted, many 70 year olds are in good shape mentally and physically, but not all are.  And what are you doing after 70 anyway trying to hold down a job as Justice or Judge?  Or President?

I think there are more Presidents alive now than ever in our history.  Jimmy obviously has some health issues at times, but for his age ....

We just had a rather loud motorcade of cops on motorcycles go by, the wife asked me if Trump was here, and I said no, the governor might be in it, and now I'm wondering if Carter might warrant a motorcade.  More likely it was a funeral of some dignitary.

[rolltidefan]

i think i'd be fine with a 65 upper limit on running for office for a first term. an incumbent should have that limit waived, imo.

[betarhoalphadelta]

For president, there's an age minimum, why not a maximum?  The fact that the last 4 candidates for president in 2020 were all 70+ is a problem.  One of them being that old is fine, but exclusively 70+ is not okay. 

Or even better, set it based on the national average life expectancy at birth.

You can run for president as long as your term will complete before you reach the average life expectancy at birth.

This seems to have multiple facets:

• While you won't limit it to first term vs second term, it will cause political parties to not nominate anyone seeking their FIRST term who is less than 8 years from that age. Because they don't want someone to win if they can't seek reelection, due to the natural advantages of incumbency for the party in power. 
• If you want a bunch of old dudes (and women) in Congress, the Senate, or Governorships to take healthcare and public safety seriously--the things that impact average life expectancy at birth, they now have a direct incentive to increase that age.

Where it might get interesting then is if you actually make it different between men and women. That's probably unconstitutional, but if you want to get 50% of the populace to buy in, women have about a 4 year advantage in average life expectancy at birth. For all the people in this country wondering when we'll elect our first female President, that would certainly open the field somewhat. But if you didn't want to do that, I'd set the age as the average between the two. 

[Cincydawg]

I think a government "of the people" is going to be a mess at best.  I'm reading a biography of John Marshall that goes into quite a bit of detail of the time.  The election of 1800 of course was a complete mess.  The Federalists and the Republicans were extremely partisan, vituperative, slanderous, nasty, and downright mean to each other.  Virginia was the most important state in the union.

We had most of the Founders alive still and they were often trying to kill each other.  Well, at times, and at times they did.

We almost went to war with Napoleon, and did have a Quasi-war, and later went to war with GB, again, with rather poor prospects.  As much as anything else, it reminds me of today.

[847badgerfan]

Let's not cross the line here guys. No names need to be mentioned.

[Cincydawg]

Sorry, I did mention Napoleon, won't do it again.  Much.