[quote=paulflorez]I would think that California taking redistricting out of the hands of legislators and into the redistricting commission helped reduced the political influence in the redistricting process itself. In 2012, many incumbents who relied on gerrymandering lost their elections after the new commission drawn districts were used. All states taking redistricting out of the hands of legislators would be a good start.
The new jungle primary system also, I assume, helps. In districts that lean heavily towards one party, a challenger from that same party could represent more moderate views to draw support from voters of the other minority parties, making voting not a complete waste of time for those voters.
As for publicly funded elections, I don’t see how you can avoid having tons of private dollars flooding elections without the courts finding it a first amendment violation (since corporations now have many of the same rights that people do). Since it can’t be beat, why not encourage it? Tax any and all spending that explicitly mentions an election, candidate, proposition, etc, to provide a fund which is then divided equally amongst all candidates. The more political spending there is in favor of one candidate/issue, the more political spending there will be given to the opposite side. Neither side has limits on how much they can spend.[/quote]
Interesting observations, but I would add that the bolded part can indeed be changed. People are working on repealing “Citizens United” as we speak.
