I love to read thoughtfully written articles about our government from folks from the younger (than myself generations), even if I don’t appreciate being cursed at by the writer before I even read or respond.
That being said, while I do not agree with many of the specific ideas presented (the electoral college is absolutely necessary even if I do believe there are improvements that can be made and compulsory would make elections worse not better), I understand and appreciate the frustration.
Unrelated riders. Yes, they should be gone. Additionally, if the bill requires a lawyer to interpret, it is far to complicated and probably shouldn’t be legislated. The very concept that Congress would pass legislation requiring hundreds, if not thousands of pages of words is asinine.
Transparency with campaign donations. Absolutely. I live in Florida and when I see how much money was spent on the races for both Senate and Governor I it makes me sad to see all of that money, which could have been used for so many other worthwhile endeavors like college funds, health care, teacher pay, etc. spent so one of these two individuals can hold that office. Then it makes me sad to think that those two governmental positions hold so much sway over my State and my country that people were willing to spend that much money to win (and lose) rather than funding the items I mentioned earlier. to further that thought, it also sickens me to think how many people that have nothing to do with Florida, are trying to influence the selection of my Senator and my Governor. Why does Oprah care about the Governor of Florida, perhaps she should worry more about the current state of Chicago. Florida is doing just fine without her. Why does Tom Steyer or the Koch Brothers, who do not live in Florida, care about MY Senator? The answer? Power. Too much of it concentrated in Washington DC with too much influence by the ultra-wealthy.
I like the Congress as Jury Duty in theory. Very interesting idea. However, given that Congress is supposed to represent the people, if get individuals who only represent a small fraction of their constituency, it no longer becomes a “representative” democracy.
Winner-take all is not required. Each State can apportion their delegation (Congress, Electoral Votes) as they choose. Take a look at Nebraska and Maine. Neither are winner take all states for Electoral Votes. But the need to dissipate voting is required. Just look at a State like New York, or Illinois, or now Georgia. One enormous city that dominates the population surrounding by sparsely (in comparison) rural and agricultural communities. Should the singular densely populated area dominate STATE politics? I don’t believe so, and neither did the Framers. They recognized that densely populated areas develop a level of parity, today we call it the echo chamber, and will undoubtedly have highly consistent voting patterns. The Electoral College, and the Senate, help to disperse power away from the dense population centers so their group think doesn’t dominate.
would love to write more, but must get to work. Thank you for your time and I look forward to engaging you more in the future!