I would just like to know how the dates are chosen, or are they assigned; and why some states have such early primaries, while others are so late? I have tried general Google and Bing inquiries, and state specific inquiries and can find nothing. I'm hoping someone in Reddit-world has the answer.

Does anyone know much about this? I know they require citizens to vote in Australia, but don't know much about it. Can anyone explain it? How is it enforced?

I think the president should be elected in 2 rounds: a nationwide open primary to narrow it down to 5 options, then a 2nd round to decide between those 5.

My ideal primary would be staggered; 4 states first, then 8 more, then 16, then the rest. The order would be determined by which states were closest in the previous election; the most polarized states would vote last, with smaller states given priority in the case of a tie to make it easier for smaller parties and independents to gain traction.

I would personally prefer STAR voting, but condorcet RCV would be fine.

Hello, we are a group of psychology researchers from the University of Kent, UK. It would be a huge help if anyone from any background who is interested would fill out our quick survey (18+ years old only) about your views of politics, society, and more.

Fill out the survey here: https://universityofkent.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_8ICkX7mBre5IGpM

We are posting here because we hope to collect responses from a wide range of political perspectives and backgrounds. Please let us know if you would like a summary of your responses in comparison to others once the data collection is complete.

The survey takes 15-30 minutes to complete, and we are happy to respond to any queries or questions. Please private message us to avoid giving away the point of the study to others.

Thanks for your time.

Edit: The survey is now closed! Thank you very much for your time, we will be sure to post the results up here when they're ready.

My name is Ashwani Jain, and I am running for Congress in Maryland’s 6th Congressional District which represents Western Maryland including Northern Montgomery County as well as Frederick, Washington, Allegany, and Garrett Counties.

I am a former White House official, published author, and cancer survivor, and while I would be Maryland’s first Millennial and first Asian-American ever elected to represent Maryland in Congress, I am specifically running because I have strong policy solutions to open the doors of opportunity for my community.

This is an open seat with no incumbent and Maryland's Primary election is on the 14th of May.

Some of my top Election Reform priorities include:

• Ranked Choice Voting
• Independent Redistricting
• Open Primaries

Please feel free to ask any questions regarding my policies, the Congressional election, my experience campaigning, or anything else!

You can find out more at JainForCongress.com or at my Subreddit r/JainForCongress

FREE ONLINE TALK: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/would-parliamentary-america-have-more-fun-registration-796321829027?aff=outreach

Co-presented by the Los Angeles Times!

With the 2024 election season upon us, Americans feel political despair. The president and his leading challenger, a former president, are deeply unpopular. Huge majorities, in both parties, tell pollsters that the two-party system is broken. For many, the prospect of engaging in upcoming political contests evokes downright dread.

So, where can we find the inspiration and ideas to fundamentally repair our democracy, climb out of this political rut, and turn the mood around? In other democracies around the world, says Maxwell L. Stearns, constitutional law professor and author of the new book Parliamentary America: The Least Radical Means of Radically Repairing Our Broken Democracy. Stearns visits Zócalo to outline a three-part plan to turn the United States into a multi-party parliamentary democracy that could make our politics less maddening, more collaborative—and perhaps even more fun. What are the legal, constitutional, and political steps needed to modernize American democracy and reignite civic zeal and joy? And how different might the U.S. look if governed by a parliament of multi-party coalitions?

​

We are Zócalo Public Square - our mission for the last 20 years has been to connect people to ideas and each other, which we do by publishing a digital magazine and convening live events.

I've always referred to it as 'soft term limits', but I'm not sure where I first heard of the concept, or if I made it up myself.

So here's the concept: it works in any multi-round system where a candidate needs a certain percentage. Depending on the number of candidates, and the number of available seats, it should take a pretty popular candidate to win before the 2nd round, theoretically.

'Soft term limits' would mean requiring a candidate to win in the first round after a certain number of terms, to show that they have at least a certain level of agreement among the voters.

So for example, if the house were multi-seat districts, a house member in a 3 seat district could win their first several terms with wins in the 2nd or later rounds, but after say, 9 terms, they have to actually pass 33% in the first round.

Or, for the president, you'd need to it 50% in the first round of a ranked choice vote to get a 3rd.

This election has me bothered. It's hard for me to believe that in a country as big as the United States, Joe Biden and Donald Trump are the best we have to offer. I must believe that we have more capable people around.

Trump is the obvious RNC nominee. I don't see that going any other way. RNC politics is paralyzed by his presence and will continue to be until he leaves the stage.

Biden is the incumbent. It's unheard of for an incumbent to not be rerunning.

I personally don't want either of these guys in charge of the country. They're too old and too disconnected. Biden's policies have been horrendous, and Trump's ethics are something I don't want in charge of the country. I feel that to be the feeling of a lot of moderates in the country right now. Disenfranchised voters that don't see representation in the general election candidates. However, they will vote for one of them, because we're zombies, and most think that the 3rd party votes are invalid.

Thinking back to Wallstreetbets and the GameStop ordeal... Assuming the use of social media to spread the message across the internet, I believe it is possible to short circuit that model. We buy into one of the 3rd parties and grass root campaign for the nominee. We spread the message over the next 10 months, and get as much reach as possible.

Roughly one-third of americans see themselves as moderate. Most young people want change. I believe that with enough reach, it would be possible to get a 3rd party elected.

I’m sure this has been done before, and if something similar has been posted before- my apologies!

I am tired of having to choose between two old white guys every 4 years in the presidential election. We have an age restriction for how old you must be in order to run (35 years old), so why is there no age limit on how old candidates can be for the highest elected office in the US?

According to a study by Harvard Medical School, cognitive decline begins around age 60 and accelerates after age 70 (Harvard Health Publishing). This can potentially impact decision-making abilities which are crucial for a president. Furthermore, according to Pew Research Center data from 2019, millennials and Gen Z will make up more than one-third of eligible voters in the next election cycle (Pew Research Center). These younger generations deserve representation that understands their unique challenges.

That’s why I created a petition to enact an age limit of 65 for presidential candidates - because we simply deserve better choices for the most important position that we can vote on. If you agree, please take what amounts to maybe five minutes to sign (and share the petition if you feel so inclined to do so).

https://chng.it/cdxtkpgQqy

Current voting options by party create a vote of last resort in the case neither candidate is desirable. Just an idea - a Relegate option, should it meet a majority vote or minimum threshold, would relegate all candidates on the ballot. Thus, requiring a new set of candidates. Would this be a way to fix voting in the provider of last resort case? What issues would it create?

For example,

View Poll

First, the real problem right now is not the president, but the senators and representatives that have been confined to their position for so long they have completely lost touch with the American people. That is where the most reform needs to happen. That said...

If I were allowed to implement changes to the presidential election with absolute authority, and no questions asked, this is what I would do.

First and foremost I would get rid of the archaic and obsolete travesty that is the electoral college. Overall popular vote only. The people elect the president, not the states. I know... but what about more populated states or special interest groups... that is a problem with the educational system and Americans not understanding the challenges present in other Americans lives. It has little to do with the election format.

2, it will be an election year, not just a single day with a voting day every month. Ran tournament style. Every candidate that wishes to run will be on the ballot regardless of party affiliation. Money will only be provided in specific amounts equally to every candidate directly from an election pool fund. The amount of money you have will neither qualify nor disqualify, and candidate cannot spend personal funds, or recieve donations toward campaigns. Every American will have two possible votes, one indicating yes I want this specific candidate, the second for no I do not want this specific candidate, each no vote will cancel out a yes vote. The first election day a candidate must recieve a certain percentage of the vote, after no votes have been calculated to move on to the next month. Then they have a month for campaigning until the next voting day which will require a larger percentage. This will repeat the entire year, or longer if needed, until one candidate gets at least 51% of the popular vote who will be the winner. At any point if it gets to two candidates left the no votes will stop.

3. If a candidate is going to be on the ballot they will be allowed at all debates, period.

4. Candidate eligibility laws will be strictly enforced, all proceeding will be overseen by an impartial third party whose only authority is to ensure the process is being accurately followed.

5. Multiple terms will be allowed but with the restriction that no terms can be consecutive. The candidate must return to and participate in society, outside of public service, for at least one term before being eligible to run again.

Hi

Is there any website site or form which I can use for nomination system for election.

We have different scenario then normal election. Where person can do self nomination between Jan 10 to jan15. But during that period no one can know who fill up nomination form. We want to do this online. So is there any website or service which we can use where people can fill up nomination form which no one can see and will only available to viewing after Jan 15.

Thanks for your help

Wondering if a bill like this (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB730) for example, would apply to a U.S. Senate race in California. Sorry if this is a stupid question.

I'm in the US but like to follow parliamentary elections in other countries, and I often notice how the outcome of an election in countries with proportional representation (party list or MMR) depends (somewhat arbitrarily) on which parties barely make it above the PR threshold and which parties fall just below it.

I've wondered why, in order to avoid wasted votes, no jurisdiction that I'm aware of lets voters rank party lists in order of preference, and then, if that voter's first-ranked party choice does not meet the PR threshold, allows their vote to contribute to the vote share and seat count of whatever that voter's highest-ranked party is that does meet the PR threshold.

Here's an example. Suppose that in an election in some imaginary country, a left-leaning voter ranks the parties in order of preference, putting a very small socialist party first, a slightly larger green party second, and a large social democratic party third. If, as is likely, the small socialist party fails to meet the PR threshold based on people's first preferences, but the green party does, that voter's vote will contribute to the vote share (after reallocation of preferences) and seat count in the parliament of the green party. If the green party doesn't meet the PR threshold with people's first preferences but the social democratic party does, then that voter's vote will contribute to the vote share and seat count of the social democratic party.

This voting system would not help any party that fell short of the PR threshold to make it into parliament. Rather, it would help prevent the votes for parties that fall short of the PR threshold from being wasted by allowing those votes to go to the second, third, fourth, etc., preferences of their voters.

Note that this system might sound like but is different from STV like the system used for the lower house of the Republic of Ireland and for the Australian Senate. STV has multi-member districts with candidates winning seats based off voters' listed preferences, but because voters vote for candidates rather than for party lists, you often wind up with a large number of independents being elected, which can make coalition-formation even more difficult than it is with multiple small parties. Although some people like this system because it has the potential to encourage deliberation and compromise, I was looking for a voting system that tries to award votes proportionally to parties rather than individual candidates. (There are ways to allow voters to express their preferences for individual candidates in party-list PR systems, such as with open-list PR.)

Does this type of voting system exist and do I just not know about it? Does it have a name? Has anyone ever used it?

​

I feel so much better when I'm not emotionally invested in this bullshit.

2024 general election is nearing. I don’t see any changes being done to improve election integrity. I heard somewhere that we can go to the polls on Election Day and “write in” our selection in ink and sign it as long as the candidate is nominated and on the ballot. I admit, I haven’t looked up my county’s election laws yet.

Please help me with this

#WarrenPorter 2024

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/22/bidenworld-joe-may-not-run-2024-00083905