Explanation of Voting Reform Proposals
Explanation for Our Three Voting Reform Proposals
Here is a more detailed explanation of reasons for, workings of and impact of implementing our three proposals. Please note these alternative forms of voting are not new. They are already in use in various places and forms. Australia, for example, uses Instant Runoff Voting to elect its Parliament.
More detailed analysis of all these proposals is available on Mr. Larry R. Bradley’s website (and in particular his Blog with his cataloged Ezines) at www.TheCenterStrikesBack.org.
Proposal No. One: Our reliance on the Winner-Take-All Ballot enables the Spoiler Scenario. The Spoiler Scenario limits the choices voters have. Voters are afraid to vote for a new candidate because they dread they will be weakening the vote for the candidate they would normally prefer. Voters fear enabling that weakening will allow the candidate they dislike the most to win. Indeed, the Presidential Elections of 1992 and 2000 demonstrate the reality of that fear.
Winner-Take-All also can prevent the establishment of a majority winner who is the clear consensus choice of a Political Party or Electorate. Americans need an affordable efficient process that allows a majority consensus winner to be determined, rather than allowing a motivated minority to thwart the will of the majority.
The institution of the ballot allowing Instant Runoff and Ranked Choice Voting will resolve both those issues.
Here are several links to Internet sites that more fully explain the process in a non-partisan way.
Instant Runoff Voting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE&index=3&list=PLqs5ohhass_QhOSkrNqPFEAOv5fBzTvWv
FairVote.org has several resources explaining Ranked Choice and Instant Runoff Voting and its benefits. http://www.fairvote.org/rcv#rcvbenefits Included in these resources are places where Instant Runoff Voting is already in use.
Proposal No. Two: In 48 out of the 50 States, the Presidential candidate who gets only a plurality of the vote gets 100% of the Electors to the Electoral College. In the other two States, the Electors are allocated based on which candidate wins in each of the State’s Congressional Districts and the candidate who wins the overall popular vote (once again, only a plurality is required) gets the two votes authorized/represented by the State’s two U.S. Senate seats.
In those states dominated by one Political Party, these rules create a “What’s the use?” attitude among those who are not members of the dominant Party. What our proposal enables is for the votes of “Red” voters to count in a state like California and the votes of “Blue” voters to count in a state like Texas.
This proposal does not require a Constitutional Amendment. The proposal enables the economic and cultural concerns of a low population State to be expressed. Other proposals to amend or get rid of the Electoral College (going to a direct popular vote election or National Popular Vote Interstate Compact) either require a Constitutional Amendment or allow highly populated states to run rough shod over the low population ones.
Our proposal enables voters to rank order their choices for President. All voters will be able to vote for their first choice without fear they are enabling their last choice to win. The allocation of the Electors will be a fair representation to carry forward to the final balloting of the Electors.
When all is said and done, the majority of voters will be able to say they are accepting of the result.
For a more detailed explanation of this proposal, see Mr. Bradley’s Ezine #370 at this link. http://blog.thecenterstrikesback.org/?p=127
Proposal No. Three: We think our basic proposal is largely self-explanatory. For more detail, here are two links.
An Introduction to Proportional Representation
Here is FairVote.org’s explanation of Proportional Representation