We’d require anyone who wants to run for office to work at least one full election cycle at a polling place so they could see the commitment of the people who are both full time administrators and part-time, sometimes volunteer judges and managers. That would eliminate any doubt about the difficulty of “stealing” or “rigging” an election and might even provide a dose of much needed humility for some of our political class.
We’d insist on straightforward understandable language in everything on the ballot so there wouldn’t be any games played with “explaining” what a measure really meant. Instead of Secretaries of State and Attorneys General making the final decision about what goes on the ballot, there should be a bipartisan committee of people chosen at random (sortition) who would determine what everyone else sees when they go in to vote.
Ballot measures would include language that prevented legislatures from invalidating anything that voters approve. Anyone challenging an election result for an official or a ballot measure would be required to post a bond sufficient to cover all costs involved in resolving the dispute. Attorneys filing spurious or frivolous challenges would be subject to immediate disbarment and required to cover court and other costs. Appeals would be limited to matters of fact and law and would be required to be completed within one year from the date of the election in question.
We’d adopt in each state, territory, and other voting jurisdiction the Alaskan system of non-partisan elections and ranked choice voting to encourage competition and moderation in campaigning and platforms. This article gives a good explanation of why and how it works: https://www.governing.com/politics/does-alaska-have-a-solution-for-our-national-political-dysfunction
Nothing guarantees honesty, openness and good will in elections or anything else if the people involved don’t have those qualities going in but we don’t have to and should not treat those who don’t display those qualities as though they were deserving of our respect.
Dave, you make a hell of a lot of sense--and you do it in plain English.
I would upgrade to support you, but I am already beyond maxed out--"bingo" on cash on my VA fixed income. So I'll just be a grateful free reader for now....
Excellent ideas, Dave. You have my vote! I am a huge fan of RCV. It encourages diverse opinion without wasting votes. I could vote for a "Green" candidate to express my support for the Earth and yet also select the candidate that could really have a chance at winning - with my vote not being wasted on a "fringe" candidate.
Over time as the "Green Party" or the "Peace Party" or the "Friends of Fiscal Responsibility" or the "Support our Troops Party" or the "Clean Water Party" or the - use your imagination... develop greater numbers from this exposure they will influence the direction of the major parties. If Republicans see that there is segment of voters that are dedicated to financial discipline (like when Conservatives actually were "conservative") they would begin to incorporate more of that in their platform (when they get around to creating one). If Democrats see that younger people voted in huge numbers for an "Earth First" candidate, their pitch would need to shift even more practically to concerns about Climate and Pollution.
RCV gives voice to ideas that don't get enough attention and eliminates the sabotage by candidates with absolutely no hope of winning. RCV makes "spoilers" into influencers. Ranked Choice Voting is brilliant and I have heard no credible downsides.