Here's my idea of what a voting model could be in a true democracy:
No electoral college, for starters. Why should one person's vote count more than another's just because of where in the country they live? I realize it once made some sort of sense, but it seems absurd.
In my model, every citizen gets one vote. Every vote counts equally. You can use that vote to cast a yes OR no vote. If you cast a no vote for a candidate, that cancels out one of that candidate's yes votes.
There were people in this last US election who voted for a candidate they didn't like because they disliked the alternative even more. This happens in all elections, but I think this last election was an extreme example. I know people who voted for an independent, because they were confident that Trump would never get in, and now regret having basically thrown away their vote. And these were lifelong Republicans, who were horrified and embarrassed by their party's candidate. There were also people who voted for Trump simply because they couldn't stand and didn't trust Hillary.
So let's say you voted for Hillary because you couldn't stand Trump. You didn't like Hillary one bit either, but you REALLY didn't want Trump to win. In my model, instead of feeling you had to vote for Hillary so Trump wouldn't get in (or not voting at all because you were disgusted with the choices), you could have cast a NO vote against Trump.
When the election results came in, with every yes and no vote being counted, this would give a quite accurate reflection of how the citizenry is thinking and feeling. More people would vote- not everyone who doesn't vote is simply apathetic or non-political- sometimes they just can't stomach the choices. And no one would feel they had to vote for a politician they actually didn't support.
Comments?
No electoral college, for starters. Why should one person's vote count more than another's just because of where in the country they live? I realize it once made some sort of sense, but it seems absurd.
In my model, every citizen gets one vote. Every vote counts equally. You can use that vote to cast a yes OR no vote. If you cast a no vote for a candidate, that cancels out one of that candidate's yes votes.
There were people in this last US election who voted for a candidate they didn't like because they disliked the alternative even more. This happens in all elections, but I think this last election was an extreme example. I know people who voted for an independent, because they were confident that Trump would never get in, and now regret having basically thrown away their vote. And these were lifelong Republicans, who were horrified and embarrassed by their party's candidate. There were also people who voted for Trump simply because they couldn't stand and didn't trust Hillary.
So let's say you voted for Hillary because you couldn't stand Trump. You didn't like Hillary one bit either, but you REALLY didn't want Trump to win. In my model, instead of feeling you had to vote for Hillary so Trump wouldn't get in (or not voting at all because you were disgusted with the choices), you could have cast a NO vote against Trump.
When the election results came in, with every yes and no vote being counted, this would give a quite accurate reflection of how the citizenry is thinking and feeling. More people would vote- not everyone who doesn't vote is simply apathetic or non-political- sometimes they just can't stomach the choices. And no one would feel they had to vote for a politician they actually didn't support.
Comments?