Alolan_Apples
“Assorted” Collector
I may have voiced my opinions on many political issues, but since another election is coming up next year, this entry is about voting and election issues. The topics covered include voter registration, voter ID laws, gerrymandering, campaign funding, electoral college, and foreign interference.
Issue Shortlist:
Here are all the issues related to elections. If I am in support, I say “yep”. If not, I say “nope”. I could also say “maybe” or “maybe not”, but this is the summary of all issues.
Electing Politicians:
The top two issues related to this are gerrymandering and the electoral college. According to that shortlist, I am in support of the electoral college, but I am against gerrymandering (and almost against the direct election of senators).
The electoral college was established by our founding fathers for a reason. It’s to prevent someone unfit for office or bad for society from holding office, no matter how popular they are. It’s also important for state sovereignty as it gives every state a voice.
In recent times, people have been more in favor of abolishing the electoral college, but they’re only supporting it because Donald Trump won the 2016 Election. However, they’re not just appealing to feelings. They’re also in favor of abolishing it because it is undemocratic and it allows people to win even if they didn’t get the majority vote or plurality vote. I am against abolishing the electoral college. Not only that I’m in favor of state sovereignty and the notion to prevent tyrants from winning, but there is a huge urban-rural divide and uneven population in each state. Without the electoral vote, one president can win an election with just two or three states determining the fate, leaving other state votes meaningless. Also, it would only appeal to the urban voters while rural voters will have their voices ignored. Without the electoral vote, one president can win an election with just city votes or city and suburban votes without rural votes counting. Finally, this may sound like a weak argument against abolishing the electoral college, but it’s still vital. There needs to be a balance in both political parties, especially in a time when they can’t compromise anymore. If we have a one-party rule in all chambers, the politicians can pass anything without the opposing party, even if the measures are radical. This is exactly what happened to California and maybe what will happen to Texas had the Democrats not gained seats in Texas last year. Right now, the Democrats have the huge advantage of popular vote, and getting rid of the electoral vote will throw the political parties out of balance. Now the whole winner-take-all system, that’s a different story. The founding fathers wanted the electoral college, but they never said about the winner-take-all system. If I were to fix the electoral college, the winner should have at least the majority of the electoral votes from that state while the proportion of the electoral vote distribution should reflect the voting percentage. Or they can have separate regions for different voters.
Gerrymandering, however, I am very much against. When the districts are drawn isolate a voting body while the others vote for more representatives is very unfair. Even incumbent gerrymandering is a bad idea, but the issue is more about partisan gerrymandering. When you have been gerrymandered out of a district, your vote won’t matter, which leads to a lower voter turnout. If we get rid of it, the House of Representatives will represent our population better.
I also think corporations and unions have the right to fund for a president’s election campaign, as well as a senator’s campaign and a representative’s campaign. Everyone’s voice matters. Even a corporation’s voice matters.
I have mixed views on the 17th amendment. While a senator should represent a state’s values, people should have the right to pick their senator.
Finally, if you don’t live in the United States, you should have no reason to care about who we elect, especially if it means hacking into a candidate’s files or an election database. This was exactly what Russia did wrong. If foreign affairs affect domestic policy like that, we’re letting foreign nations have power over us.
Term Limits and Power Limits:
One of my favorite post-BOR amendments is the 22nd Amendment, which puts restrictions on how many terms a president can have. That’s why George Bush couldn’t have a third term. Neither could Obama. But whether or not we have term limits for any politician is a double-edged sword. Changes will favor one party, but once it falls out of that party’s hands, it will hit them really hard. But if we have term limits, it will make sure that the same people won’t be in power for ten years or longer. Some senators have been in office for over 30 years. One thing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did right was that she unseated a 12-year incumbent, and beat one of his long-time rivals. If we impose term limits, we can have a new generation of politicians.
Separation of Powers is very important. The Executive Office should not have too much power over Congress. Part of the reason why George Bush couldn’t do anything with a Democrat-controlled Congress but Obama did his radical leftist policies with a Republican-controlled office is because Obama couldn’t respect the Separation of Powers and the fact and it’s part of the constitution. Supreme Court Reform, I am against (especially when it comes to banning ruling on particular cases to protect stuff like Obamacare or legal abortion being a national issue). No Supreme Court decision is settled law of the land, and a Supreme Court decision cannot blacklist future laws like Congress can. I think majority vote is fair in court cases (not supermajority vote), but not religious tests to consider justices. The right for the minority party to filibuster in the Senate needs to stay. Even getting rid of that for court picks, office picks, and cabinet picks is a bad idea, but we live in an age where we cannot compromise anymore. But getting rid of the legislative filibuster, that’s definitely a bad idea. Imagine how many radical laws could pass on the national level from any party if we got rid of the legislative filibuster.
Right to Vote:
The last subject is on the right to vote, a very important right to everyone. It originally applied to white men 21 years or older. But we lowered it to 18 while letting women and non-white men vote. All of that is expanding the right to vote, and that’s a good thing.
However, expanding it even further is not a good idea. There’s a reason why prisoners or convicted felons can’t vote. It’s because they could vote to get themselves out of trouble. Illegal Immigrants and foreign visitors should not be allowed to vote because if you’re not a citizen, you shouldn’t even care about America’s domestic policy. Same-day voter registration is also bad because it would allow people to make up many identities so they can vote as many times as they want in a single election. The voting age was lowered to 18 for a good reason. If you’re under the age of 18, you’re not mature enough. Not only that, but if all of these expansions happen, it would definitely throw the political parties out of balance, leading to a long era of a party’s supermajority. One more thing, if someone is dead, there’s no way they could vote, as their voice no longer matters.
Now if there’s one thing I support on expanding the right to vote, it would be national voter registration. If that were to happen, it would ensure voting integrity as it means people can only vote once, no matter what state they are in. But at the same time, they can only vote for senators and representatives from their state or district per election.
Finally, let’s go over voting restrictions. Voter ID laws are a good idea since they improve election integrity and prevent voter fraud, but other restrictions, including historical ones (like the poll tax and literacy tests) are bad for America. That is clearly voting discrimination, and everyone needs a voice. I may have threw in the “Voter Suppression based on Ideology” in the shortlist, but that’s not of the issues. And yes, it is a bad idea. If that happens, it counts as voter discrimination while it, once again, leads to long-term supermajority rule. It’s bad enough that social media companies are trying to silence people based on ideologies.
Issue Shortlist:
Here are all the issues related to elections. If I am in support, I say “yep”. If not, I say “nope”. I could also say “maybe” or “maybe not”, but this is the summary of all issues.
- Electoral College: Yep
- Winner-take-all: Maybe
- Gerrymandering: Nope
- Corporate and Union Funding: Yep
- Same-day Voter Registration: Nope
- Ex-con voting: Nope
- Lowering Voting Age: Nope
- National Voter Registration: Yep
- Non-citizen Voting: Nope
- Voter ID Laws: Yep
- Voter Suppression based on Ideology: Nope
- Voting Prevention Devices: Nope
- Term Limits for President: Yep
- Term Limits for Senators: Yep
- Term Limits for Representatives: Yep
- Direct Election of Senators: Maybe Not
- Foreign Influence on Voting: Nope
- Legislative Filibuster: Yep
- Supreme Court Reform: Nope
- Separation of Powers: Yep
Electing Politicians:
The top two issues related to this are gerrymandering and the electoral college. According to that shortlist, I am in support of the electoral college, but I am against gerrymandering (and almost against the direct election of senators).
The electoral college was established by our founding fathers for a reason. It’s to prevent someone unfit for office or bad for society from holding office, no matter how popular they are. It’s also important for state sovereignty as it gives every state a voice.
In recent times, people have been more in favor of abolishing the electoral college, but they’re only supporting it because Donald Trump won the 2016 Election. However, they’re not just appealing to feelings. They’re also in favor of abolishing it because it is undemocratic and it allows people to win even if they didn’t get the majority vote or plurality vote. I am against abolishing the electoral college. Not only that I’m in favor of state sovereignty and the notion to prevent tyrants from winning, but there is a huge urban-rural divide and uneven population in each state. Without the electoral vote, one president can win an election with just two or three states determining the fate, leaving other state votes meaningless. Also, it would only appeal to the urban voters while rural voters will have their voices ignored. Without the electoral vote, one president can win an election with just city votes or city and suburban votes without rural votes counting. Finally, this may sound like a weak argument against abolishing the electoral college, but it’s still vital. There needs to be a balance in both political parties, especially in a time when they can’t compromise anymore. If we have a one-party rule in all chambers, the politicians can pass anything without the opposing party, even if the measures are radical. This is exactly what happened to California and maybe what will happen to Texas had the Democrats not gained seats in Texas last year. Right now, the Democrats have the huge advantage of popular vote, and getting rid of the electoral vote will throw the political parties out of balance. Now the whole winner-take-all system, that’s a different story. The founding fathers wanted the electoral college, but they never said about the winner-take-all system. If I were to fix the electoral college, the winner should have at least the majority of the electoral votes from that state while the proportion of the electoral vote distribution should reflect the voting percentage. Or they can have separate regions for different voters.
Gerrymandering, however, I am very much against. When the districts are drawn isolate a voting body while the others vote for more representatives is very unfair. Even incumbent gerrymandering is a bad idea, but the issue is more about partisan gerrymandering. When you have been gerrymandered out of a district, your vote won’t matter, which leads to a lower voter turnout. If we get rid of it, the House of Representatives will represent our population better.
I also think corporations and unions have the right to fund for a president’s election campaign, as well as a senator’s campaign and a representative’s campaign. Everyone’s voice matters. Even a corporation’s voice matters.
I have mixed views on the 17th amendment. While a senator should represent a state’s values, people should have the right to pick their senator.
Finally, if you don’t live in the United States, you should have no reason to care about who we elect, especially if it means hacking into a candidate’s files or an election database. This was exactly what Russia did wrong. If foreign affairs affect domestic policy like that, we’re letting foreign nations have power over us.
Term Limits and Power Limits:
One of my favorite post-BOR amendments is the 22nd Amendment, which puts restrictions on how many terms a president can have. That’s why George Bush couldn’t have a third term. Neither could Obama. But whether or not we have term limits for any politician is a double-edged sword. Changes will favor one party, but once it falls out of that party’s hands, it will hit them really hard. But if we have term limits, it will make sure that the same people won’t be in power for ten years or longer. Some senators have been in office for over 30 years. One thing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did right was that she unseated a 12-year incumbent, and beat one of his long-time rivals. If we impose term limits, we can have a new generation of politicians.
Separation of Powers is very important. The Executive Office should not have too much power over Congress. Part of the reason why George Bush couldn’t do anything with a Democrat-controlled Congress but Obama did his radical leftist policies with a Republican-controlled office is because Obama couldn’t respect the Separation of Powers and the fact and it’s part of the constitution. Supreme Court Reform, I am against (especially when it comes to banning ruling on particular cases to protect stuff like Obamacare or legal abortion being a national issue). No Supreme Court decision is settled law of the land, and a Supreme Court decision cannot blacklist future laws like Congress can. I think majority vote is fair in court cases (not supermajority vote), but not religious tests to consider justices. The right for the minority party to filibuster in the Senate needs to stay. Even getting rid of that for court picks, office picks, and cabinet picks is a bad idea, but we live in an age where we cannot compromise anymore. But getting rid of the legislative filibuster, that’s definitely a bad idea. Imagine how many radical laws could pass on the national level from any party if we got rid of the legislative filibuster.
Right to Vote:
The last subject is on the right to vote, a very important right to everyone. It originally applied to white men 21 years or older. But we lowered it to 18 while letting women and non-white men vote. All of that is expanding the right to vote, and that’s a good thing.
However, expanding it even further is not a good idea. There’s a reason why prisoners or convicted felons can’t vote. It’s because they could vote to get themselves out of trouble. Illegal Immigrants and foreign visitors should not be allowed to vote because if you’re not a citizen, you shouldn’t even care about America’s domestic policy. Same-day voter registration is also bad because it would allow people to make up many identities so they can vote as many times as they want in a single election. The voting age was lowered to 18 for a good reason. If you’re under the age of 18, you’re not mature enough. Not only that, but if all of these expansions happen, it would definitely throw the political parties out of balance, leading to a long era of a party’s supermajority. One more thing, if someone is dead, there’s no way they could vote, as their voice no longer matters.
Now if there’s one thing I support on expanding the right to vote, it would be national voter registration. If that were to happen, it would ensure voting integrity as it means people can only vote once, no matter what state they are in. But at the same time, they can only vote for senators and representatives from their state or district per election.
Finally, let’s go over voting restrictions. Voter ID laws are a good idea since they improve election integrity and prevent voter fraud, but other restrictions, including historical ones (like the poll tax and literacy tests) are bad for America. That is clearly voting discrimination, and everyone needs a voice. I may have threw in the “Voter Suppression based on Ideology” in the shortlist, but that’s not of the issues. And yes, it is a bad idea. If that happens, it counts as voter discrimination while it, once again, leads to long-term supermajority rule. It’s bad enough that social media companies are trying to silence people based on ideologies.
