This method is for electing executives, not legislators. I think executives should be non-offensive to all, whereas legislators should be representative of each small group.
We do not give more votes to the people who pay more taxes. Everyone has the same number of votes. But the highest paying 50% after all benefits and credits and deductions are accounted for vote in one booth, and the lowest paying 50% vote in the other booth (do no confuse this with how much they make or should pay. Just the net transferred money.) People on welfare can vote too. (you still have anonymity in numbers, and everyone's voting power is the same)
1You vote yes or no to each candidate. Better yet, you can give 0, 1, or 2 points to as many candidates as you want, with some being equal if you want, but no negative an no more than 2 per candidate.
We add up each candidates approval rating.
Here is where my method is different:
For each candidate, you multiply their approval ratings they got from each group. Example: Candidate A got 40% approval from the tax payers and 40% approval from the lower paying half. Candidate B got 90% approval from the lower half, and 10% approval from the tax payers. Candidate A gets 0.4x0.4=0.16 electoral points, whereas Candidate B gets 0.9x0.1=0.09 electoral points. 0.16 is higher than 0.09, so Candidate A wins.
My method does not elect the democratic winner, but rather the bipartisan winner. And it allows multiple candidates to run without vote splitting. Straight approval ratings would have given candidate A 40% approval and Candidate B 50% approval, which are close, but say nothing about how partisan the two are. 0.16 is much more different from 0.09.
It is based on a simple algebraic principle that if A + B = constant, then A x B is biggest when A = B. 100 x 0 = 0. 90 x 10 = 900. 50 x 50 = 2500. Approval voting, which our current system is a simple form of, just says what total group is a bit bigger, and 51% rules 49%. My method gives each group veto power, and only the candidate who is nice to everyone is selected.
We could further expand it to women in the top 50%, women in the bottom paying 50%, men in the top paying 50%, and men in the bottom paying 50%, voting at 4 separate polling stations that each count equally. Of course, that is 4 per geographic area of same population size.
Have you noticed that if a bully is in a room, beating up one person at a time, most people will be afraid to help fight him off. They think that if they attack the bully, maybe no one else will help them, and the bully will beat them up while everyone else watches. The same is true with our current voting method, that the highest vote getter wins even if not a majority. If the media tells us that there are two likely winners, and each person may only caste one vote, then we are afraid that if we vote for our favorite, we are voting against the lessor of evils, and that everyone else will probably think this way and vote for it instead of our favorite. That is why we need a system that lets us not be afraid to vote for our favorite candidate. Being allowed to vote yes or no to every candidate means we have nothing to lose by also voting for our favorite, even if we also vote for the lessor of evils. And we can be confident others will too. My method just takes approval voting a step further so you don't have two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner, and 51% telling the other 49% how to live.
I propose we keep the electoral college, but instead of plurality wins, we use my multiplication method to multiply approval numbers from every electoral district. It would be a minor change to the current system.
We do not give more votes to the people who pay more taxes. Everyone has the same number of votes. But the highest paying 50% after all benefits and credits and deductions are accounted for vote in one booth, and the lowest paying 50% vote in the other booth (do no confuse this with how much they make or should pay. Just the net transferred money.) People on welfare can vote too. (you still have anonymity in numbers, and everyone's voting power is the same)
1You vote yes or no to each candidate. Better yet, you can give 0, 1, or 2 points to as many candidates as you want, with some being equal if you want, but no negative an no more than 2 per candidate.
We add up each candidates approval rating.
Here is where my method is different:
For each candidate, you multiply their approval ratings they got from each group. Example: Candidate A got 40% approval from the tax payers and 40% approval from the lower paying half. Candidate B got 90% approval from the lower half, and 10% approval from the tax payers. Candidate A gets 0.4x0.4=0.16 electoral points, whereas Candidate B gets 0.9x0.1=0.09 electoral points. 0.16 is higher than 0.09, so Candidate A wins.
My method does not elect the democratic winner, but rather the bipartisan winner. And it allows multiple candidates to run without vote splitting. Straight approval ratings would have given candidate A 40% approval and Candidate B 50% approval, which are close, but say nothing about how partisan the two are. 0.16 is much more different from 0.09.
It is based on a simple algebraic principle that if A + B = constant, then A x B is biggest when A = B. 100 x 0 = 0. 90 x 10 = 900. 50 x 50 = 2500. Approval voting, which our current system is a simple form of, just says what total group is a bit bigger, and 51% rules 49%. My method gives each group veto power, and only the candidate who is nice to everyone is selected.
We could further expand it to women in the top 50%, women in the bottom paying 50%, men in the top paying 50%, and men in the bottom paying 50%, voting at 4 separate polling stations that each count equally. Of course, that is 4 per geographic area of same population size.
Have you noticed that if a bully is in a room, beating up one person at a time, most people will be afraid to help fight him off. They think that if they attack the bully, maybe no one else will help them, and the bully will beat them up while everyone else watches. The same is true with our current voting method, that the highest vote getter wins even if not a majority. If the media tells us that there are two likely winners, and each person may only caste one vote, then we are afraid that if we vote for our favorite, we are voting against the lessor of evils, and that everyone else will probably think this way and vote for it instead of our favorite. That is why we need a system that lets us not be afraid to vote for our favorite candidate. Being allowed to vote yes or no to every candidate means we have nothing to lose by also voting for our favorite, even if we also vote for the lessor of evils. And we can be confident others will too. My method just takes approval voting a step further so you don't have two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner, and 51% telling the other 49% how to live.
I propose we keep the electoral college, but instead of plurality wins, we use my multiplication method to multiply approval numbers from every electoral district. It would be a minor change to the current system.