One person, one vote—part one.

Why do we have it that any individual only has one vote to cast? Why not ten? Ten votes would allow a great many things to be revealed by a vote than is now possible and it would be a formal part of the official record. One goes to the polling place and can enter one or more votes in favor or against a candidate or issue up to the maximum ten. You cannot split votes and if you don't use all of your potential ten votes, the remainder are not saved or available for any other issue or time. Every vote starts with at least one and a maximum of ten per voter per issue.

The issue would still be decided by who or what got the greatest number of votes but in this case the maximum possible would be ten times the number of voters and the minimum would be the number of voters. What voting with more than one vote would allow is a degree of vote and that is how the cast votes would be counted. One would keep track of how many votes of seven, of three, of five, of ten were cast for or against while still each vote adds to the total tally. An issue or candidate that won with only single votes would have a different significance than an issue or candidate who won with all voters casting all ten of their votes. Clearly one person casting ten would counter ten people casting but one, but is that inherently unfair? Nobody is bound to cast only a single vote.

The relative number of low votes (one, two or three) compared to the number of high votes (eight, nine, or ten) would be an indicator of the importance of the issue and candidate to the electorate and that, then, would be part of the political process and significance for governing. This would be particularly true if all voters were required to vote and if all issues had the option none of the above as part of their choice. Indeed a no-show vote might be counted as ten votes if voting was considered an essential part of participatory governance. An actual voter might be able to cast one vote for none-of-the-above or a full ten as felt appropriate. This would certainly make participation and relevance to the electorate a much bigger matter than it is now.

And the analysis of the degree of voting would be much more than sample polling or interviews. Voters would have a deeper view as to how they felt on issues as part of every vote. That cannot be a bad thing.
 

Non of the Above!

While there are periodic efforts to establish some kind of third party in our present two-party system there is, in fact, already a third party present: the so-called 'silent majority,' or voters who do not vote. Not voting is a form of voting and is interpreted in various ways--usually self-serving--by the Democrats and Republicans.

If the issue or candidate are seen as irrelevant, the voter does not vote. The procedures that are supposed to assure relevancy simply let a small number of people make decisions. Good governance would suggest that a high proportion of registered voters should vote..Hence the need to officially have on all ballots the choice 'none of the above.'

If none of the above wins, nothing is decided and things need to be reconsidered. That is as reasonable as the suggestion that the vote is by an extreme minority is acceptable to all.  I would like to suggest that since "none of the above" is already a de facto third party, it should be made a more formal part of the democratic process. This requires two things: first, a voter should be encouraged or required to vote. Don't wish to vote? Remove your name from the registered voters--you can reregister at any time. If you are registered and do cast your ballot, this might make you eligible for a variety of benefits. If you do not vote, you could not claim voter benefits. In a worst case scenario, there might be some kind of fine for not voting.

The second part of this proposal is that there should be formal recognition of 'none of the above' as a legitimate part of every choice--and that 'none of the above' can win the ballot. None of the above can win in two ways: by the actual casting of a 'none of the above' choice at the polling place. Here you would exercise your obligation to vote and claim voter's benefits. Or one can choose not to cast an actual ballot; these no-show voters' non-votes be counted as none-of-the-above. In both cases all voters will have spoken. If none-of-the-above wins, then the process that serves to vet choices has failed.

Degree of voter participation is often measured by turn-out percentages. This is usually interpreted as an indication of how relevant or 'hot' a candidate is. But it is also a measure of how few folks are left to make decisions. In many cases the actual number of people whose votes are counted is astonishingly small in relation to the number of folks governed. Indeed, the number that comprise a wining majority is even smaller. Not quite what is described as ideal for a democracy. It is a good question whether such small numbers can even be called a democracy, even though the process seems to be democratic.

Being a voter is a big deal and a key right. It is the fundament of governance in a democracy. Yet the power of a vote has languished: nothing rewards or compels a voter to vote after they have gone to the trouble of registering. This is strange. If one does not wish to vote, perhaps it is because the issue or choices are not seen as relevant. Yet things put to vote should be relevant--not just in theory. To make an issue important the system relies on advertising --which usually costs money and a great deal of which is biased. If advertising is successful, the result is that votes are cast one way or another. Without advertising, it is only committed self interest that motivates a voter to vote.

It is not just that all votes need be counted accurately, all VOTERS need be counted, regardless of whether they show up to cast a ballot. If they do not show up to cast a ballot, their no-show ought to be counted as a vote for none of the above. There are more than one way for a voter to cast an official ballot so having a voter weigh in is not a burden if they take voting seriously.  By formally counting the none of the above ballots cast at the polling centers and the no-shows as being none of the above, none of the above could win the ballot. That would only indicate that what was to be voted on did not connect with the voters. What good is a democratic governing process disconnected from the voters? And what good is a vote highly influenced by expensive partisan advertising if it still results in a minority participation no matter what the cost?

This is no more complicated than having a third or fourth or more political parties or candidates running for office. Run-offs or different ways of counting votes might be needed, as a simple majority might not be possible. But these complications are arguably not any worse than empowering poor choices by a very few or by the influence of campaign finances. Indeed, it would level the playing field in ways that simple election campaign finance reform cannot. It would empower registered voters and political discourse in ways that are not imaginable now and would transform the present two-party dysfunction.

There is much more that needs to be discussed. That will take time and many minds—and tests— to clarify, but I submit this to you for your serious consideration and perhaps amusement.

Silence & Noise

Blogging is new for me. I am not used to saying things into the void filled with almost infinite eyes and ears attached to folks I do not know. Indeed, I have followed many blogs and found the replies and comments to be very uneven, divided between people who are very full of themselves and often two cents that are hard to add up. While the universe exposed in a blog is huge, it isn't really a dialog that I think of as an exchange between people you know and who you have learned to understand. Replies on most blogs vary with each posting and reposting is not that common. So one is exposed to much more than one might originally have conceived, and that is good. But it is also time consuming and even distracting to pay attention to all the comments. I should have such problems.

The fact a blog isn;t quite the traditional dialog is not exactly a red herring as in dialoging with people you know there are etiquettes and ways of avoiding or mentioning things that are different than with a complete stranger. So I don't quite see blogging as the usual idea of communication: something between broadcasting and salesmanship, not friendship. Not necessarily bad, just different and a new reality to creatively adapt to. So much depends on who is participating.

With all these anxieties and reservations, here it is. I have no idea how or why anybody might read this, let alone what comments I might get. Topics with other focus will have to wait subsequent postings.