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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment