American presidential elections should come in two phases: first, asking if the incumbent should continue in office, and then (if the majority says no), a few months later, deciding who should replace them. This would be a big improvement over how we do things now. Let’s make it the 34th amendment.
Most voters’ answer to the first question (should we retain the incumbent) depend heavily on the second (who gets the spot). What’s the benefit of separating these? Why not reverse it (vote on best replacement excluding incumbent, then runoff between that winner and the incumbent), or combine it (as we do today, but with instant-runoff or other changes that are unstated but necessary for your proposal).
This and many other improvements will never happen. The founders locked the codebase by requiring 2⁄3, 2⁄3, and 75% (of the states). Therefore it is simply not possible to make any meaningful improvements because in order to really change something requires someone to lose or perceive they are losing. Even when they are winning in absolute terms but their relative status is shrinking. (for example, an economic change that grew the economy and reduced wealth inequality)
I see 2 future routes where these bugs get fixed:
a. Eventually, the United States may fall. It may take decades of slow decay but eventually another power without certain flaws may be able to take over one way or another. The European Union is an example of this—the EU has trumped many incorrect member country laws and policies with their own , hopefully superior versions.
b. The problem we have right now is each of us doesn’t know the truth, and is being manipulated to act against our own self interests. Maybe AI could solve this problem and give us all a shared, correct, and common worldview again. For most Americans alive, “which government policies maximizes my well being” is a factual question with a shared answer.
I am not talking specific politics, just if you have policy A and policy B, most Americans alive will receive more benefit from one of the 2 policies than the other, and it will be the same policy. In addition, while we cannot know the future, all available evidence can be combined to determine the expected values of [A,B] against most people’s utility heuristics, and for most people they should do [A or B].
But if the right answer is A, currently endless ads may try to scam people in voting for B, and sometimes B wins.
(Obviously, this would only apply to elections at the end of an incumbent’s first term. Elections where the incumbent is already outgoing wouldn’t look any different)
American presidential elections should come in two phases: first, asking if the incumbent should continue in office, and then (if the majority says no), a few months later, deciding who should replace them. This would be a big improvement over how we do things now. Let’s make it the 34th amendment.
Most voters’ answer to the first question (should we retain the incumbent) depend heavily on the second (who gets the spot). What’s the benefit of separating these? Why not reverse it (vote on best replacement excluding incumbent, then runoff between that winner and the incumbent), or combine it (as we do today, but with instant-runoff or other changes that are unstated but necessary for your proposal).
This and many other improvements will never happen. The founders locked the codebase by requiring 2⁄3, 2⁄3, and 75% (of the states). Therefore it is simply not possible to make any meaningful improvements because in order to really change something requires someone to lose or perceive they are losing. Even when they are winning in absolute terms but their relative status is shrinking. (for example, an economic change that grew the economy and reduced wealth inequality)
I see 2 future routes where these bugs get fixed:
a. Eventually, the United States may fall. It may take decades of slow decay but eventually another power without certain flaws may be able to take over one way or another. The European Union is an example of this—the EU has trumped many incorrect member country laws and policies with their own , hopefully superior versions.
b. The problem we have right now is each of us doesn’t know the truth, and is being manipulated to act against our own self interests. Maybe AI could solve this problem and give us all a shared, correct, and common worldview again. For most Americans alive, “which government policies maximizes my well being” is a factual question with a shared answer.
I am not talking specific politics, just if you have policy A and policy B, most Americans alive will receive more benefit from one of the 2 policies than the other, and it will be the same policy. In addition, while we cannot know the future, all available evidence can be combined to determine the expected values of [A,B] against most people’s utility heuristics, and for most people they should do [A or B].
But if the right answer is A, currently endless ads may try to scam people in voting for B, and sometimes B wins.
(Obviously, this would only apply to elections at the end of an incumbent’s first term. Elections where the incumbent is already outgoing wouldn’t look any different)