I was blowing the leaves out of my parents' yard and just thinking about all sorts of random shit when I came up with this. WARNING: LOTS OF TEXT.

Okay, we all know how democracy essentially works. The people vote on some issue, almost always who will be their leader/representative. The victor in this election is the one who acquires the most votes, ie greater than 50% of the people chose that person. But it's also no big secret that most people in this country these days don't vote; I don't have any actual numbers, but isn't voter turn-out somewhere like 30% now? So only 30% of American citizens that are eligible to vote end up voting, while the other 70% do not. For the sake of argument, it is assumed that their apathy is the result of not wanting the current set-up of things to change. In other words, they like the way things are and therefore see no need to actively try to change anything.

So I was thinking to myself, 'what if we changed the requirement for electorial victory from the percentage of total votes cast to the total number of votes that can possibly be cast?' In case that wasn't clear at all, let's take an example. Let's assume that the number of people eligible to vote is 300 million. In order to win an election, a campaigner must gather at least 50%, so that works out to 150 million votes. It doesn't matter if only, say, 100 million actually turn out to vote, he/she must gather 150 million. 150 million votes represents 50% of the total number of votes that can possibly be cast. For the sake of argument, this is also extended to any matters discussed in the Senate and House; votes are determined by the total number of senators and representatives, not by who happens to be in session at the time to vote on it.

So you're probably wondering why I'm even bothering to propose something like this when it clearly is not necessary. Well, this set-up works on the premise that a decision to not vote is a vote in and of itself. It is a vote for things to stay the same. 'But wait,' you say, 'if the person who ran last runs again and wins, then things stay the same anyway. The leadership has remained the same. Nothing has changed.' That's where my other part of the idea comes in. In the event that neither candidate successfully manages to gather more than half of all the possible votes, if neither opponent manages to convince enough people to vote, then whoever ran last will remain in office. But with just one catch.

If the number of people who did not vote exceeds the number of people who did vote, then the last person in office will remain in office for another term, with the exception that they lose some of their powers. As an example, the president would lose the ability to pass a bill into a law. He would still command the military (for national emergencies or defensive purposes), and he would still be unable to go to war without Congress's approval first, but for that term he loses the ability to pass any bills into law. It would work largely the same way with a Congressman; they can keep their office for another term, but maybe they lose the ability to vote on a new bill or something.

The reason I would only take away some of their powers is two-fold; first, the lack of voter participation assumes that the majority of the population is satisfied with the current status quo, so it's pointless for any new laws or new legislation to be passed. If, say, more than half of North Carolinians fail to vote for a new senator, then the current ones keep their seats for another term but lose the ability to vote on any new bills. The lack of voter participation on the part of the people is assumed to be the will of the people, and therefore extends to the government itself. I also thought that it was necessary to have the powers of the "victors" reduced because I came across an interesting result; if the last person to run simply won by default, then he wouldn't ever need to actually run again. He wouldn't have to gather up enough votes to get elected. In fact, he would have to encourage people not to show up and not to vote. If I didn't have some kind of punishment in place for losing to public apathy, then this system really would be pointless.But on the flip side, if I just took away all of their powers and threw them out of office completely then nothing would get done. The government isn't completely useless, and it wouldn't make sense to just shut it down completely. If shit started going down on US soil the president still needs to be able to issue commands.

So my question to you soap boxers is this; would this system work at all, or would it fall flat on its face for some painfully obvious reason that I have overlooked? Are there any possible merits to this system, or am I completely brain-dead and this whole thread is an abhorence to logic and critical thinking? But if such a system could work, what are some of its problems and how could they be overcome?

The way I see it, if the majority of people don't care enough to go out and vote, it's probably because they don't really care enough to try and change things. That doesn't necessarily mean that they actually like the way things are, but they also don't hate them enough to try and do something about it. This set-up wouldn't necessarily give people an incentive to vote, but it does kind of punish them. If, say, more than half of North Carolinians fail to vote, then the current NC congressionals lose their power to vote on any issue. But suppose the other forty nine states still have their ability to vote. Now suppose there is some issue being discussed that is of importance to North Carolina. North Carolinians have essentially shot themselves in the foot because they have basically said "we don't care." By way of apathy, they would lose their voice in Congress. If they want any say in the future, then they'll vote the next time around. But on the other extreme suppose at least forty other states also lose their voice in Congress. Then abosultely nothing can pass because there simply aren't enough votes to make an issue viable. If enough people don't vote, this system at the very least would kind of "freezes" everything in place, preventing potentially "harmful" legislation (in quotations because it really depends upon how you define a harmful piece of legislation) from making things progressively worse. Once enough people decide that they want to make something happen, then things start to pick back up.

11/17/2006 11:08:08 PM

Well, it seems to me that your basic premise is wrong.

Not voting is not a vote in and of itself. There are a variety of reasons, besides the love of status quo that could cause people not to vote.

Perhaps they are SO disillusioned in the way things are that they choose not to vote.

Perhaps they really want change, but don't want any candidate proposed and are refraining from voting because they all suck (<~~~Very likely)

Perhaps they have other more pressing matters than being an informed voter.

Also, taking away the presidents signature on bills won't further the status quo, it will remove a check and balance procedure and allow the legislative branch more control and thus encourage change.

And

Quote :

"If, say, more than half of North Carolinians fail to vote for a new senator, then the current ones keep their seats for another term but lose the ability to vote on any new bills. "

What other power do they really even have?

[Edited on November 17, 2006 at 11:19 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2006 11:15:38 PM

I was using that as an example, I haven't completely thought this thing all the way through.

Quote :

"Perhaps they really want change, but don't want any candidate proposed and are refraining from voting because they all suck"

But that's the beauty of this system. If the majority of the population doesn't like either candidate, then they don't have to be forced to pick one or the other (ie, "the lesser of the two evils"). If the elections keep churning out shitty candidates, then this system keep the current leaders from pumping out more crap legislation until somebody finally comes along that is appealing enough for people to want to pick.

[Edited on November 17, 2006 at 11:26 PM. Reason : blah]

11/17/2006 11:25:28 PM

What was that movement with the "None of the Above" as a candidate
You know, so if enough people voted NOTA, it would automatically end with new candidates.

11/17/2006 11:35:25 PM

Your system suffers a unique problem. Even early in the republic only 80% of eligible voters voted (that includes the 120% that voted in most major cities, but that is another thread). So most of the time no one is going to win. If we extend your rule, that means a large percentage of congress at any given time will not be allowed to vote on bills. At this point, depending on the rules, either no bills can be passed (need 50 votes to pass a bill in the senate and only 60 senators are allowed to vote) or if only a majority is required (30 votes if 60 are allowed to vote) then whatever section of the country most agrees with itself ends up running the whole country.

Now, I like gridlock as much as the next guy but only because it causes compromise, not because it brings government to a halt. If you were proposing this system back in 1890 I would be more energetic, but as it is we need an ocean of bills past just to create a limited government. As it is, shutting down congress today would just eliminate oversight of the army of Washington Bureaucrats, leaving them free to run the country as they see fit.

11/18/2006 7:15:59 AM

i think the idea is decent, just hasnt been thought through. maybe instead of limiting powers, which is a horrible idea, you could talk about runoff elections or a slot with a none of the above option, to show dissatisfaction.

11/18/2006 9:48:16 AM

But what do you do if "none of the above" wins?

It is absurd. Instant run off voting, of course, is quite sensible.

11/18/2006 10:19:10 AM

no cause then you can properly address how many dissaffected people there are. my theory is that if you get out of bed to vote, then your gonna vote, and a sure way to show dissaproval is if you go vote and then still vote a vote that wont matter, for the sake of making a point. the winner is still determined by the most votes.

and i mean this for the larger elections, not town sherriff, where 8 people vote.

11/18/2006 10:28:26 AM

I missed this the first time around.

Quote :

"taking away the presidents signature on bills won't further the status quo, it will remove a check and balance procedure and allow the legislative branch more control and thus encourage change."

Why would it remove a check and balance? A bill can't become a law unless the president signs it. Congress can pass bills until it's blue in the face, but if the President isn't allowed to pass any of them into law then it's a moot point. Unless you are referring to Congress's ability to override presidential veto with a 2/3rd's majority. All I could say is that this exception only applies to the President's willful and deliberate veto; since the President would technically not be vetoing anything (he just plain isn't allowed to pass any new bills into law), Congress has nothing to override.

ddlakhan, could you elaborate a little bit for me on why limiting government power is a bad idea? Maybe some examples or something.

11/18/2006 11:27:49 AM

umbrellaman:
"Now, I like gridlock as much as the next guy but only because it causes compromise, not because it brings government to a halt. If you were proposing this system back in 1890 I would be more energetic, but as it is we need an ocean of bills past just to create a limited government. As it is, shutting down congress today would just eliminate oversight of the army of Washington Bureaucrats, leaving them free to run the country as they see fit."

ddlakhan:
So what if you can? What do we gain from this information? "None of the above" cannot serve in an office, so all you've done is introduced another way to bring government to a halt and I have somewhat explained why bringing the behemoth that is the Federal Government to a halt is a disastrous plan.

11/18/2006 12:26:40 PM

I'm not 100% on this, but I'm pretty sure bills become law after a period of time even if the president doesn't sign it.

11/18/2006 12:32:39 PM

lazy president

11/18/2006 12:59:22 PM

loneshark-

for one i think the media could easily use this to the advantage or detriment of a leader who is affected. in that, it would give the leader incentive to pay attention to that type of vote. and like i said if they are willing to wait in line and take the time and effort, then they would have to willingly go and vote for nothing after all that. meaning that if they are trully disaffected they would be able to express it instead of sitting at home getting and doing nothing. thinking they are making a statement. basically if they thought they could vote for a lesser of two evils and live with it they would, but this just means that they sooo strongly believe that they neither candidate is good, that they are willing to put none of the above. i think this would stop the claiming by many people in politics that many times they have a MANDATE, or lots of supposed political capital. this way they trully would know. does that make more sense?

U-man

Limiting power is fine i think, but shutting down the gov't in such a gridlocked fashion, as i would think would ensue, or unbalancing regional power so much, or even making it so the states with lesser populations ( which would be easier to mobolize) have such vast new powers would be bad.

If all of a sudden huge states like NY and Cali couldnt get their senetor to have any powers they drastically lose power, and when sheer number comes into play, it may be that convincing 1,000 people is far easier than 1, million in a district. thus leading to a unbalanced representation. Agree?

[Edited on November 19, 2006 at 1:13 AM. Reason : U-man....]

11/19/2006 1:10:19 AM

Okay, I can agree. It would be easier for states with larger populations to lose their power than smaller states due simply to the number of people that would have to be convinced to actually vote. These are the sorts of things I wanted to know; what sort of short-comings would this system have? In this case, it looks like that it's very easy for smaller populations to gain a disproportionate amount of power, an outcome I had hoped to avoid entirely.

Great feedback, everyone.

11/19/2006 1:26:06 AM

instead of trying to revamp the entire system, b/c thats what that proposal is you should tweek it.....

11/19/2006 10:52:45 AM

People need to vote.

As mentioned above, choosing to not vote, in itself, can be viewed as a "vote".

The problem is, one may choose to not vote for reasons other than approving the status quo.

In fact, I'd tend to think that the majority of eligible non-voters choose to not vote because they view the election as pointless, they view the system as broken, or they simply don't consent to the election in question.

So, simply grouping all non-voters together doesn't make sense. None.

Instead, we should continue efforts to increase voter turnout.
(more early voting options, making election day a national holiday, etc.)

People need to view voting as something you do even if you don't care for the candidates.

Even if the voter turns in a blank ballot, that vote is clearly better for determining the "public will" than no vote at all.

Voters should also be given the option, instead of selecting a candidate, to vote "I do not consent to this election", (IOW, voting for "none of the above".) If more votes are cast for non-consent than any one candidate, then the election should be thrown out and a new one conducted. This choice appears with the list of candidates on ballots in Nevada, but it's not binding.....

A binding NOTA (none of the above) election looks like this:

Quote :

"Binding NOTA: This binding Voter Consent Ballot Option, known as the Massachusetts Model allows voters to reject all candidates for an office and call for a new election, with new candidates, to fill the office. Sample ballot: [ ] Candidate A [ ] Candidate B [ ] None of the Above; For a New Election Results in the following Voter Consent Ballot Options: Voter Option 1: A voter may vote for a candidate. Voter Option 2: Instead of voting for a candidate, a voter may vote for the line "None of the Above; For a New Election", indicating the voter selects none of the above candidates and is calling for a by-election with new candidates to fill the office. If "None of the Above; For a New Election" receives more votes than any candidate, then no one is elected to that office and a follow-up by-election with new candidates must be held to fill the office. Comment: A binding NOTA empowers voters to withhold their consent to an election to office so that even candidates running unopposed must obtain voter consent to be elected. Because a binding NOTA can result in the calling of by-elections with new candidates to fill an office, it is far more complex than an non-binding NOTA, involving greater cost and delays in the filling of an office. However, those costs and delays occur only if voters vote to hold a new election. In addition, we expect political parties to improve the quality of their candidates in response to having a binding NOTA on the ballot without any cost to the voters. In the Massachusetts Model, the by-election occurs not less than 60 days and not more than 80 days after the prior election. "

I don't see what's wrong with advocating that every election, on all levels of government, should have binding NOTA ballot options. To be realistic, states may first enact non-binding NOTA ballot options before enacting binding ones, but that's still a step in the right direction.

11/19/2006 11:43:21 AM

holy shit i agree with hempster

11/19/2006 12:40:14 PM

i agree also

11/19/2006 2:59:40 PM

We should also consider using an alternative voting method, especially in local and state elections...
(something easy, of course)

The Borda count is good...(ranking method)
...so is the approval method.

"one man, one vote" just doesn't work that well....

11/29/2006 6:08:00 PM

I like the simple system where-by it says "Vote for as many candidates as you wish."

Ranking is kinda complicated and doesn't add anything unless you just happen to vote for both the first and second place winners.

11/29/2006 7:33:59 PM