PURE DEMOCRACY AMENDMENTS (EXTENDING THE USE OF REFERENDUMS AND THE INITIATIVE)
PROXIES FOR CITIZENS
ONLINE ACCOUNTS FOR POLITICALLY ACTIVE CITIZENS
RANKED CHOICE VOTING - WITH MULTIPLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS
RANKED CHOICE VOTING - FOR SINGLE-WINNER ELECTIONS
DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT USING RANKED CHOICE VOTING
THE DETAILS OF CONDUCTING AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION
REPEAL THE UNIFORM CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT ACT
MAKE THE U. S. SENATE A DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTION
MAKE IT CLEAR THAT CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE
VETO OVERRIDES BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY
GIVE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (NOT PRESIDENTS OR GOVERNORS) THE POWER TO ISSUE PARDONS
MODIFY JUDICIAL REVIEW
GET RID OF THE FILIBUSTER
From the dawn of history until the final years of the 19th century, direct democracy was considered to be impossible in a state or nation with a large population spread over a vast geographical area, since it was impossible for all citizens to meet in a single place at the same time.
In the final years of the 19th century, two powerful forms of direct democracy – referendums and the initiative – were introduced some states in America and some nations in Europe. The adoption of referendums and/or the initiative in twenty-three states in the twenty-year period between 1898 and 1918 was one of the most significant and enduring victories for democracy in our nation’s history.
A referendum is an election in which the people of a state or nation vote directly to determine whether a proposed law or constitutional amendment is enacted or rejected. Referendums can be called by various methods: by a legislative body, according to mandates in a constitution, or by the people of a state or nation through the “initiative", which gives citizens the power to initiate and enact legislation, including constitutional amendments, without the involvement or approval of a legislature, governor, or president.
There are currently twenty-six states in America that have provisions for referendums and/or the initiative in their state constitutions. The details regarding how referendums are called and how the initiative can be used vary from state to state. Some local governments have provisions for referendums and the initiative in their charters. There is no provision for referendums or the initiative in the Constitution of the United States.
In the states that have referendums and the initiative, calling a referendum or putting a proposal on the ballot through the initiative is difficult and expensive, requiring the gathering of hundreds of thousands of signatures on petitions and raising millions of dollars.
Despite these difficulties, states with referendums and the initiative have been able to increase the minimum wage, expand Medicaid, repeal anti-worker so-called “right-to-work” laws, enact ethics laws, and pass other laws supported by the people but opposed by politicians who do not believe in democracy.
Some politicians in states that have referendums and the initiative, unhappy with the occasional success of ballot proposals, have introduced legislation that would make it more difficult to use the initiative. If these antidemocratic amendments are enacted, it will be a significant setback for democracy.
When it comes to defending democracy, an adage commonly associated with sports and warfare applies – “the best defense is a good offense.” We need to do more than defend democracy - we need to proactively promote democracy. Two of the best ways to promote democracy in America would be to extend the use of referendums and the initiative to the federal government and to the states that do not yet provide for them and make it easier to call referendums and use the initiative in the states that already make provisions for them.
Pure Democracy Amendments will make it easier to call referendums and use the initiative in the states that already have them and extend the use of referendums and the initiative to the federal government and the states that don't yet provide for those powerful forms of direct democracy.
Empowering the people of the United State to call referendums and use the initiative will involve either amending Article V of the Constitution or adding a separate Pure Democracy Amendment. The details of Pure Democracy Amendments at the state level will vary from state to state depending on whether a state’s constitution already provides for referendums and the initiative and the differences in the language and composition of state constitutions.
The European Union has provided for electronic signatures for initiative petitions (in the form of “statements of support”) since 2011. The only power given to the “super-minority” of legislators would be the power to ensure a democratic decision-making process by referring measures to the people.
There are two things we can do to make it easier to call referendums and use the initiative. We can allow citizens to sign petitions electronically (online) and we can introduce a legislative version of referendums and the initiative by empowering a “super-minority” of one-third or more of the members of a legislative body to call referendums or put proposals on the ballot through the initiative.
The European Union has provided for electronic signatures for initiative petitions (in the form of “statements of support”) since 2011. Not only is signing petitions online easier and more convenient, but when people sign statements of support securely online, every is that all the statements of support can reasonably be considered legitimate. There is no need for election officials to check signatures and no signatures are preemptively rejected.
ANTICIPATING AND ADDRESSING ARGUMENTS AGAINST PURE DEMOCRACY AMENDMENTS
One argument certain to be made against making it easier for citizens to call referendums or use the initiative is that too many referendums will be called, and we will be inundated with far too many ballot proposals, including proposals that are frivolous or dangerous. It may be necessary to adjust the number of signatures needed to call referendums or use the initiative, but the problem right now is that it is too difficult to call referendums and use the initiative. A great deal of legislation that does not appear to have majority support is being enacted by state legislatures and both Congress and state legislatures are failing to enact a great deal of critically needed legislation that does have majority support among the citizenry.
In a true democracy, all political power is vested in the people. Referendums should be conducted whenever it appears likely that a law or amendment that does not have the support of most of the citizens has been enacted by Congress or a state legislature. Placing proposed legislation on the ballot through the initiative should be a relatively easy and simple process when it appears likely that Congress or a state legislature has failed to enact legislation that is supported by most of the citizens.
Concerns regarding giving “super-minorities” of the members of legislative bodies the power to call referendums (and initiate legislation) are also likely to be expressed. The only power that Pure Democracy Amendments gives to super-minorities is the power to refer legislation to the people. Giving the people the power to accept or reject legislation makes a government a true democracy and gives a government the form of a perfect democracy.
The best way to strike the proper balance regarding the number of referendums called and the number of proposals put on the ballot through the initiative is to make our “representative assemblies” a more accurate reflection of the will of the people. The best way to do that is by implementing systems of Proxies for Citizens.
A proxy is the authority to represent someone else, especially in voting. When you assign your proxy to someone, you authorize them to vote on your behalf.
Proxies are routinely used by corporations to allow shareholders to designate someone to vote on their behalf at annual shareholder meetings. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party utilize proxies at meetings of their national and state committees. The U. S. House of Representatives used proxies among its members during the COVID pandemic.
The best way to make a system of representation as pure as possible is to implement systems of Proxies for Citizens that allow every citizen to assign proxies to any one member of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, in both Congress and their state legislature (and the Unicameral in Nebraska), and then allow each legislator to cast a number of votes equal to the number of proxies they hold, plus one for themselves. Citizens should be able to reassign proxies at any time. That will allow citizens to vote (albeit indirectly) on legislation
Votes taken in an ideal “representative assembly” should correlate closely with how the people governed by a legislative body would have voted, if voting directly. The best way accomplish that is to give every citizen who is governed by the laws passed by a legislative body, a proxy that can be assigned to any member of that legislative body, and then allow each member of that legislative body to cast a number of votes equal to the number of proxies they hold (plus one for themselves) on every matter that comes before them (including votes taken in committees and on procedural matters).
A simple proxy form could be completed and submitted electronically (or a paper form could be completed and mailed to the appropriate government official).
No other reform we could enact even comes close to doing as much as Proxies for Citizens will do to bring a system of representation as close as possible to pure democracy.
Systems of Proxies for Citizens will ensure that all citizens have equal representation and bring Congress and state legislatures much closer to John Adams’ vision of the ideal representative assembly, ensuring that every politically active citizen is represented by legislators who vote as they would vote and that “equal interests among the people” have “equal interest” in Congress and their state legislature, making them a much more accurate “portrait” of “the people at large”.
Implementing a system of proxies for citizens in the U. S. House of Representatives can be done with simple legislation. Implementing a system of proxies in the U. S. Senate would require a constitutional amendment because Article I, Section 3 of our Constitution stipulates that “each Senator shall have one vote” and Article V states that “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” The nature of the legislation needed to implement proxies for citizens in state legislatures will vary from state to state.
A MINOR CHANGE WITH MAJOR BENEFITS
Most Americans recognize that our government is broken and dysfunctional, but many people are uncomfortable with change. Implementing a system of proxies for citizens might seem like a major change, but a system of Proxies for Citizens can be implemented as a simple add-on to the system that is in place. And this relatively minor change would have many major positive impacts on our political system.
The many blessings that will flow from implementing systems of Proxies for Citizens may not be immediately apparent to most people. Proxies are a new idea and comes from well outside the box of politics as usual. What follows is a reasonably comprehensive list of the many ways proxies will minimize, neutralize, or eliminate the flaws in our current electoral system.
PROXIES WILL BREAK THE GRIDLOCK THAT HAS PARALYZED CONGRESS
Within the system that is in place, very little, if any, of the legislation favored by the people is likely to pass. Certainly not anytime soon. As soon as we implement a system of Proxies for Citizens in both houses of Congress (or in a state legislature) all the legislation favored by the people will be enacted in short order.
Utilizing the website Congress.gov (or other websites providing similar information), citizens will be able to learn which members of Congress have sponsored and cosponsored legislation they would like to see passed and reassign their proxies to one of those members (when necessary) to build the support needed to get critically needed legislation enacted. By focusing on one piece of legislation at a time, we will be able to end the gridlock that has paralyzed Congress for decades.
PROXIES WILL MAKE THE REPRESENTATIVE PART OF OUR DEMOCRACY AS PURE AS POSSIBLE
Direct democracy is sometimes referred to as “pure democracy” because each citizen has an equal vote and votes directly as their community, state, or nation makes political decisions collectively.
Allowing every citizen to assign their proxies to the senators and representatives they believe are most likely to vote the way they would vote on issues of concern to them will result in a system that effectively allows citizens to vote on legislation, albeit indirectly, through their chosen representatives. That will result in a near perfect correlation between the way Congress and state legislatures vote and the way the people would have voted, if voting directly.
PROXIES WILL GIVE CITIZENS FAR MORE CHOICES REGARDING WHO REPRESENTS THEM IN THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES THAT GOVERN THEM
Without making any other changes to our electoral and political systems, implementing a system of proxies will greatly increase the number of choices citizens have regarding who represents them in Congress and our state legislatures. Instead of the one or two or three viable candidates appearing on the ballot in the legislative district in which we reside, we will be able to assign our proxies to any of the 435 members in the U. S. House; 100 senators; and any one of the senators and representatives our state legislature as our representatives.
Many citizens, especially those with who have a minimal interest in politics and who voted for the winning candidates from their state and district, will choose to assign their proxies to the senators and representatives from their state and district. Voters who did not vote for the winning candidates will have the option of assigning their proxies to someone other than the senators and representatives elected from their state and districts.
The power of proxies will begin to show itself at that moment, when those citizens realize they can assign their proxies to any member of each legislative body that governs them.
PROXIES WILL FORGE A MUCH MORE DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN CITIZENS AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES
Proxies will make it clear that the legislators to whom we assign our proxies are casting votes on our behalf. With that being the case, more citizens will pay closer attention to how legislators are voting, especially to the way the representatives they have chosen are voting on legislation addressing issues of concern to them. Any citizen who disagrees with the way the legislators to whom they have assigned their proxies cast their votes will be free to reassign their proxies to legislators who will vote the way they would vote. This will ensure that all citizens will not only feel represented but will be represented.
PROXIES WILL ENSURE THAT ALL CITIZENS ARE REPRESENTED EQUALLY
Implementing a system of proxies will immediately result in the achievement of the most essential element of representative democracy – equal representation for all citizens. Every citizen will have one proxy to assign to one member of each legislative body that governs them. “Equal interests among the people” will have “equal interest” in each legislative body.
Within our present electoral system most voters have very limited choices regarding who will represent them in Congress and their state legislature.
The way we conduct our elections – a “winner-take-all” system with plurality winners and single-member congressional and legislative districts – virtually ensures that we will have a duopoly (a system dominated by two major parties). That leaves many voters feeling that they are being forced to choose between the “lesser of two evils”.
The geographically based nature of representation in our political system, with states, not people, represented in the U. S. Senate and congressional and legislative districts, not people, represented in the U. S. House of Representatives and in state legislatures, further limits the choices for voters.
When nearly all those congressional and legislative districts have been “gerrymandered” to strongly favor one or the other of the two major parties, resulting in less than ten percent of the elections for members of Congress and state legislatures being competitive, most voters are left with something worse than a choice between the lesser of two evils – no meaningful choice at all.
In our bitterly divided two-party system, Republicans living in a state or district with a Democratic senator or representative do not feel represented and Democrats living in a state or district with a Republican senator or representative do not feel represented. Citizens who do not identify with either major party often do not feel represented in Congress or their state legislature regardless of whether they are “represented” by a Democrat or a Republican. And even Democrats represented by Democrats and Republicans represented by Republicans, often feel the individuals serving as their senators and representatives may not always vote the way they would vote on issues of concern to them.
The present system is also unfair to well-intentioned senators and representatives at both the state and federal level, who are left with the impossible task of attempting to represent all the people who live in the district they represent – people with an extremely diverse range of thoughts, opinions, and concerns. (A situation that is even more impossible for members of the U. S. Senate, who theoretically represent all the people in the state they represent.)
With a system of proxies in place that allows politically active citizens to select individuals who “think, feel, reason, and act like them” as their representatives in Congress and their state legislature, every citizen will not only feel represented - they will truly be represented. And every senator and representative in Congress and a state legislature, will truly represent every citizen who has chosen them as their proxy.
PROXIES GIVE VOTERS A CHOICE BETWEEN GEOGRAPHICALLY-BASED OR ISSUE-BASED REPRESENTATION
The concept of geographic representation, with the voters of each congressional district, legislative district, and/or state electing representatives and senators who also reside in their state and/or district, is deeply embedded in American politics. Given the opportunity to choose any member of Congress or a state legislature as their representative, there may be some citizens who, initially at least, don’t even bother to assign proxies. And many citizens will simply assign their proxies to the legislators elected from their state and districts, especially when they identify as a member of the same political party as the candidates who are elected to represent their state and district.
In the deeply and bitterly divisive political climate we are in at present, however, the opportunity for Republicans living in states and districts represented by Democrats and for Democrats residing in states and districts represented by Republicans to assign their proxies to a member of the party they belong to or support, will be extremely important. When those voters engage in the process of deciding which member of their party they will choose as their senator or representative and realize that they can choose any member of each legislative body, the revolutionary nature of implementing a system of Proxies for Citizen will sink in immediately.
Voters who belong to minor parties and independent voters will, likewise, be extremely excited to discover that if there is a single member in a representative assembly that governs them who votes as they would vote on the issues of concern to them, they too will be truly represented.
And the most excited group of all will be political activists who devote a significant amount of time and money working to get issues they care about addressed. They will find that by focusing on one issue at a time and assigning their proxies to the cosponsors of legislation they are working to get enacted; they will experience something they rarely experience within the present system – success.
When the full range of blessings that will flow as a result of making America a perfect democracy begin to shine brightly, citizens across the political spectrum, with varying levels of political engagement, who may not fully appreciate the benefits of implementing systems of Proxies for Citizens until such a system is put in place, will be energized in ways that are scarcely imaginable within our present corrupted, gridlocked, broken, and dysfunctional system.
PROXIES WILL NEUTRALIZE OR CIRCUMVENT MOST OF THE PROBLEMS WITH OUR ELECTIONS
Proxies will provide instant relief for citizens who are the victims of voter suppression or gerrymandering, ensuring that they will still be represented in Congress and their state legislature. Citizens who are discouraged from voting by tactics such as having a limited number of polling places or voting machines (making it necessary to stand in line for hours to cast your votes), having been purged from the voting rolls, or requirements for photo identification that they do not possess, will still be represented by simply assigning their proxies.
PROXIES WILL SHIFT THE FOCUS OF CIVIC ACTIVITY FROM POLITICIANS TO ISSUES
It is easy to vilify and demonize politicians and many of them invest a considerable amount of time and money attacking their opponents. Proxies will make it clear that the most important quality to look for in a senator or representative is that they share your views, values, and concerns – and most importantly vote as you would vote. That will shift the focus of politics in America to resolving issues and solving problems instead of quarrelling endlessly without ever getting anything meaningful accomplished.
When discussing and debating issues, being respectful increases your chances of persuading enough people to agree with you to get issues resolved and problems addressed in the manner you support. Over time, a focus on issues will unite our deeply and bitterly divided nation.
As more and more voters utilize their proxies in this manner, the focus of both legislators and media will shift from endless arguments and posturing by politicians to legislators proposing solutions to the problems we face as a nation (and in the states) and debating the pros and cons of each proposed solution. The response of the citizenry to various ideas put forward by our elected representatives will be tangible and objective – evidenced by the increases and decreases in the number of proxies held by legislators on both sides of an issue. That will shift the focus of political activity away from politicians and personalities to issues of concern - a much more constructive focus for political activity and media attention than which candidates have raised the most money and which candidates are ahead in the polls in the midst of one ugly, angry election after another.
PROXIES WILL MAKE BEING IN HARMONY WITH THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, NOT MONEY OR SENIORITY, THE SOURCE OF POWER FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND STATE LEGISLATURES
Within our present system, the amount of power a legislator wields is strongly correlated to how much money they have raised and how long they have been in office (seniority). Within such a system, money is the dominant factor who is elected and reelected.
Within a proxy system, power will flow to legislators who hold the most proxies. Legislators who show leadership on key issues and help get legislation supported by a majority of the citizenry enacted will attract more proxies. Legislators who do not demonstrate leadership or who vote “with a view to the private interest” will see the number of proxies they hold shrink appreciably over time. The amount of money a legislator has raised will be of little interest to voters focused on actually and effectively addressing the problems we face as a nation. Making leadership on key issues, rather than raising the most money or seniority, the key to gaining power and remaining in office will be appealing to politicians who ran for office and serve for the right reasons.
To the extent that politically active citizens utilize objective information regarding what members of a legislative body introduce, cosponsor, and vote for the legislation they (each citizen) would like to see passed (and such information is readily available at Congress.gov and other websites), voting in harmony with the will of the people, not raising huge amount of money will be the primary way for a legislator to increase their power.
A legislator who introduces, cosponsors, and votes for popular legislation will see the number of proxies they have been assigned increase. A legislator who opposes popular legislation will see the number of proxies they have been assigned decrease.
Making leadership on key issues, rather than raising the most money or seniority, the key to gaining power and remaining in office will be appealing to politicians who ran for office for the right reasons – to govern with a view to the common interest.
The number of proxies each senator and representative has been assigned will be a powerful indicator of how closely they are aligning with the will of the people. With more voters focusing on each legislator’s voting record and record of support for the legislation favored by voters, the amount of money a candidate has raised will become less of a factor in reelection campaigns. Incumbents who are not in harmony with the will of the people will be easier to replace. Tallying the number of proxies each legislator has been assigned will make it easy to identify the legislators who are truly serving the common interest. Those members of Congress will not only have more power, but they will also have the inside track on leadership positions and justifiably be less likely to be voted out of office.
PROXIES ARE THE BEST MEANS OF OBTAINING THE “CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED”
The Declaration of Independence says that governments derive their "just powers" from "the consent of the governed” but does not go into the details of how the consent of the governed is to be obtained. The implicit (and reasonable) assumption is that the “governed” give their consent through voting. But the many problems plaguing our elections have rendered voting ineffective as the means of obtaining the consent of the governed. Giving every citizen a proxy that can be assigned to any member of the legislative bodies that govern them is the best means of properly obtaining the “consent of the governed”.
GRASSROOTS MOVEMENTS WILL BE EMPOWERED
Proxies will empower active citizens and political organizations to build support for major pieces of legislation by reassigning their proxies as necessary, moving them to members of Congress and state legislatures who have demonstrated their support by introducing or cosponsoring the desired legislation. Once a majority of the members of a legislative body have signed on as cosponsors, the legislation can be brought to a vote and enacted.
PROXIES WILL SHIFT POWER TO THE PEOPLE
A system of proxies for citizens and will enable grassroots activists to join forces and utilize proxies to build support for legislation. A grassroots movement among the citizenry led by politically oriented grassroots organizations could focus on one piece of major legislation at a time (a federal job guarantee, a public option for health care, et cetera), with citizens giving their proxies to legislators who are sponsoring bills. Once the sponsors of a bill collectively hold a majority of the proxies, legislation favored by the citizenry will be passed into law. That is what democracy looks like.
The gridlock that has come to typify politics in Washington, D. C. has kept major problems from being solved and issues from being addressed. Proxies will provide concerned citizens with the means of breaking the gridlock in D. C. and getting major pieces of legislation passed.
EQUAL INTERESTS AMONG THE PEOPLE WILL BE EQUALLY REPRESENTED
Allowing every citizen to assign proxies to the legislators they believe are most likely to vote the same way they would vote on issues of concern to them is the best way to ensure that "equal interests among the People” have equal interests in a Representative Assembly".
PROXIES WILL PROVIDE INSTANT AND CONTINUAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Frequent elections have been the most common means of holding our elected “representatives” accountable. But the shortest term of office is two years for members of Congress and the House of Representatives in most state legislatures. U. S. senators serve six-year terms. And four-year terms are common for senators at the state level. Rather than citizens having to wait for an election that may be nearly two, four, or six years away to register their displeasure with legislators who are failing to keep their campaign promises or opposing legislation favored by a majority of the people of a state or of the nation, a system of Proxies for Citizens, empowering citizens to reassign their proxies at any time, would create a system of instant and continual accountability.
There is also a major drawback to frequent elections. Legislators end up spending inordinate amounts of time raising money for their campaigns and campaigning for reelection instead of legislating. This is especially true for members of the U. S. House of Representatives, who serve two-year terms and must engage in fundraising nearly non-stop if they wish to remain in office.
Proxies are a better way than frequent elections to hold our elected representatives accountable. Legislators who fail to keep their campaign promise or act in harmony with the will of the citizens who have given them their proxies would see the number of proxies they have been assigned decrease immediately. Conversely, legislators who are actively promoting and supporting legislation favored by the citizenry would see the number of proxies they have been assigned increase immediately. With enough citizens acting collectively, dramatic swings in the number of proxies held by each senator or representative would reward legislators who are responsive to the will of the people.
Proxies will enable citizens to immediately and effectively withdraw their support from a legislator by reassigning their proxy.
PROXIES WILL MAKE ELECTIONS LESS IMPORTANT
Elections are expensive for governments to conduct. They are even more expensive for candidates. Raising enough money to win elections has become a major part of the job for most of our elected officials and is a major source of corruption. Members of Congress and state legislatures spend inordinate amounts of time “dialing for dollars” and attending an endless circuit of fundraising events. And, as mentioned above, the way we conduct our elections is deeply flawed.
Proxies will alleviate the need for such frequent elections. We could amend the Constitution to give legislators longer terms, which would reduce the pressure to raise money non-stop and allow legislators to focus on legislating.
SELECTION BY PROXIES COULD EVEN REPLACE ELECTIONS
With a system of proxies and weighted votes in place, elections for legislators would not even be necessary.
Legislation could be passed stipulating that the seat in each congressional district (and legislative district for state legislatures) is to be held by the person residing in each district who holds the greatest number of proxies from citizens who reside in the same district. Citizens would still be able to assign their proxies to legislators residing in other states and districts, but those proxies would not count in determining who would represent each state or district.
It would be wise to give people time to adjust to the rather significant change resulting from moving to proxies before putting the idea of doing away with elections for members of Congress and state legislatures up for a vote, but proxies could replace ballots as a means of selecting members of legislatures.
CITIZENS WILL BE REPRESENTED AS SOON AS THEY TURN EIGHTEEN OR ARE NATURALIZED
Depending on where your eighteenth birthday or naturalization falls within election cycles for various offices, it may be up to two years before you can vote for who will represent you in the House of Representatives and as many as four to six years before you can vote for both senators from your state. With a system of proxies in place, citizens will be represented immediately upon turning eighteen or becoming a naturalized citizen.
PROXIES WILL INCREASE CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
Many Americans who are eligible to vote do not vote because they believe (with considerable justification) that their votes do not matter. The fact that citizens who have assigned proxies to legislators will be voting, albeit indirectly, on the legislation voted on in Congress and state legislatures, will dramatically increase civic participation for citizens of all ages.
PROXIES WILL BRING REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLIES CLOSER TO PERFECTION
Legislative bodies in European nations have come closer than we have in America to realizing John Adams' ideal representative assembly by putting various systems of proportional representation in place. Support is building in America for ranked choice voting, which, when combined with multiple-member districts or at-large elections is a form of proportional representation. (Discussed below.)
Proxies for Citizens is a new idea. That will delay its implementation. Although our electoral and political systems are truly broken and dysfunctional, many people are always very nervous about trying something new. But every good idea was new and untested at some point. And once Proxies for Citizens is implemented in a few places, it will almost certainly prove to be the best and most effective form of proportional representation, enabling us to fully realize Adams’ vision of the ideal representative assembly, making Congress “an exact portrait” of the people of America and state legislatures “an exact portrait” of the people of each state.
To be a perfect democracy in the 21st century, a government must strike the proper balance between direct democracy and representative democracy. Every citizen must have both an equal vote and equal representation. To the extent that the power to enact laws is delegated to, or shared with, a representative assembly, there must be a strong (near perfect) correlation between acts of the legislature and the will of the people. Proxies for Citizens will make that more likely by ensuring equal representation for politically active citizens. Referendums and the initiative will give every citizen an equal vote when Congress or a state legislature enacts legislation that does not have the support of the people or fails to enact legislation supported by the people.
Although referendums were called and proposals put on the ballot long before the Internet came into being and systems of Proxies for Citizens could be implemented without including an online component, by using paper forms, we should take full advantage of the many ways the Internet can make it much easier for citizens to interact politically.
Establishing Online Accounts for Politically Active Citizens will make it much easier to call referendums, use the initiative to put proposals on the ballot, and assign (and reassign) proxies. Websites like Congress.gov and state government websites already make a wealth of information regarding legislation available online, including information regarding legislation and members of Congress and state legislatures. Candidates for public office and a wide range of political organization maintain websites. Political issues are discussed on numerous online sites.
There are sure to be concerns expressed regarding security and privacy related to Online Accounts for Politically Active Citizens. It is a near certainty that there will be problems to deal with in that regard. The same precautions that are in place to protect our money, privacy, and identity when we shop online, pay bills online, et cetera, should be put in place. Hackers and other individuals seeking to invade or corrupt online accounts should be penalized appropriately.
We must, however, take full advantage of the opportunities to bring democracy into the 21st century and use technology to our advantage as we seek to make America a perfect democracy.
As the name implies, Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) allows voters to cast votes for more than one candidate and rank their choices in order of preference.
Votes are tabulated in rounds. In the initial round of tabulation, only first choice votes are counted. If a candidate receives a majority of the first-choice votes, that candidate is elected.
If no candidate receives a majority of the first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated and the second-choice votes of voters who voted for that candidate as their first choice are distributed among the "continuing candidates". If a candidate then has a majority of the "cumulative votes", that candidate is elected. If no candidate has a majority of the cumulative votes, the continuing candidate with the fewest cumulative votes is eliminated and the highest-ranked remaining choice votes of voters who voted for that candidate are distributed among the continuing candidates. This process is repeated for as many additional rounds of tabulation as necessary, until a candidate has a majority of the cumulative votes.
The simplest tabulation method for a legislature with multiple-member districts or at-large elections for legislators involves the same basic process, with the tabulation process continuing until the number of "continuing candidates” is equal to the number of members to be elected to a legislative body.
There are other more complicated processes for tabulating votes for legislatures with multiple-member districts. Some tabulation methods employ formulas involving “election thresholds” and for dealing with “surplus votes”. The end result of any of the commonly accepted methods is that the candidates with the broadest and deepest support are elected.
WINNING CANDIDATES HAVE MAJORITY SUPPORT
In elections with plurality winners, the candidate with the most votes (a “plurality”) wins. When there are more than two candidates, the winner may have less than a majority of the votes cast. The more choices we have, as voters, the smaller the percentage of the votes needed to win. If there are three candidates to choose from and the votes are evenly split, a candidate can win with as little as 34% of the votes cast. With five candidates on the ballot, a candidate can win with as little as 21% of the votes cast. This can be a major problem when several candidates have similar views on the issues and divide up the votes of like-minded voters. For example, if a public option for health care is supported by two-thirds of the voters in a state or district and there are four candidates on the ballot, if three of the candidates support a public option for health care and a federal job guarantee, they will split the votes of like-minded voters between them – averaging just over 22% of the votes cast. The candidate who is out of step with two-thirds of the voters may win with 33% of the vote.
When used in an election where there is a single winner (an executive office, such as president, governor, et cetera; or for seats in a legislature with single-member districts) the tabulation method for ranked choice voting ensures that winning candidates have the support of a majority of the voters (at some level of preference) instead of just a plurality (the most votes, even if that is less than a majority). This is in harmony with the primary principle of democracy – majority rule.
ELIMINATES CONCERNS ABOUT THE “SPOILER EFFECT” AND “WASTED VOTES”
In a “winner-take-all” system with plurality winners, and with major party candidates typically having a significant better chance of winning than minor party or independent candidates, voting for a minor party or independent candidate can make it more likely that the major party candidate you least support may win over a major party candidate who would be your preferred choice between the two major party candidates. With ranked choice voting, you can vote for the candidates you support, in order of your true preferences, knowing that, as long as you include the major party candidate you prefer to the other major party candidate somewhere among your choices, you will not help the major party candidate you oppose and your vote will not be “wasted” by voting for a candidate you truly prefer, but who might not have as good a chance of winning.
GIVES VOTERS MORE CHOICES
With ranked choice voting you can vote for all the candidates you truly prefer, in order of preference, including minor party or independent candidates, without worrying about the “spoiler effect” or wasting your vote, if you choose one of the major party candidates among your preferences.
LESS NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING
Most voters are tired of, and turned off by, attack ads and mudslinging. With ranked choice voting, candidates do best when they reach out positively to as many voters as possible, including those supporting their opponents. While candidates must still differentiate themselves to earn first choice support, attacking other candidates can alienate voters who might otherwise cast a vote for a candidate among their other choices. Having more than one opponent also makes it much more difficult to win by attacking other candidates.
MAKES PRIMARY ELECTIONS AND RUN-OFF ELECTIONS UNECESSARY
The introduction of primary elections to determine the candidates of political parties was a significant victory for democracy and for the Progressive Movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, allowing citizens to have an important role in the process of nominating candidates. It is a reform, however, that has not aged well.
In addition to the financial cost to governments of conducting an additional election, primary elections (and run-offs in “Top Two” or “Top Four” elections) add to the cost of running for office for candidates. And the need to raise enormous amounts of money to win election to office is a major source of corruption within our present system.
Voter turnout is also typically much lower for primary elections. The citizens who do vote in primary elections are often extremely passionate about certain issues and candidates. When more moderate voters are not involved, candidates with extreme views (many of whom are well-funded by corporate interests) are more likely to be nominated. And when most of the congressional and legislative districts have been gerrymandered to favor one or the other of the two major political parties, the extreme candidates who are nominated usually win.
Ranked Choice Voting makes primary elections and run-offs unnecessary. Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is sometimes referred to as “Instant Run-Off Voting” (IRV). With voters able to rank numerous candidates in order of preference, Ranked Choice Voting narrows the field of candidates and results in the candidate with the broadest support winning election to office.
“Top Two” and “Top Four” systems where the field is narrowed to two or four candidates in a primary is a form of ranked choice voting, but it is not as efficient as Ranked Choice Voting.
INCREASED VOTER PARTICIPATION
It should not be surprising that more voters vote in countries with some form of proportional representation experience. When voters feel that their vote matters, they are more likely to vote.
AS MUCH CHANGE AS YOU WANT – BUT NO MORE CHANGE THAN YOU WANT
A lot of people are intimidated by change. And ranked choice voting is a major change in the way we conduct elections. However, voters who are reluctant to embrace new ways of voting do not have to do anything different with ranked choice voting. They can simply cast a single vote for a single candidate and stop there. Voters who want to take advantage of RCV, however, should be able to do so. Voters should be able to list a reasonable number of candidates in order of preference.
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
The systems of ranked choice voting that have been adopted in the United States so far have only been for elections with a single winner. When ranked choice voting is used to elect the members of a legislative body with multiple member districts it results in a form of proportional representation. To use John Adams’ language - equal interests among the people have equal interests in the representative assembly. Legislatures with proportional representation more accurately reflect the will of the people – another primary principle of democracy.
Ranked choice voting is even more powerful when combined with multiple member districts for electing members of a legislature. It results in a form of proportional representation – with political parties or other collections of like-minded voters holding a percentage of the seats in a legislature equal to the percentage of the votes the top candidates from each party receive in an election. Legislatures with proportional representation more accurately reflect the will of the people – another primary principle of democracy.
BREAKS THE DUOPOLY
“Winner-take-all” systems with single member districts are nearly always dominated by two major parties. Countries with some form of proportional representation (like RCV with multimember districts) nearly always have more than two viable political parties. With more candidates running, both within parties and from different parties, RCV gives voters a much broader range of choices. No more "lesser-of-two-evils" elections.
NEUTRALIZES GERRYMANDERING
Research has shown that the effects of gerrymandering are neutralized in legislatures electing at least five members from each district. With state-wide, at large elections, gerrymandering is eliminated completely. Electing members of a legislative body "at large" or from multi-member districts also neutralizes distortions in representation resulting from the uneven distribution of partisan voters.
MORE VOTERS ARE REPRESENTED
“Winner-take-all” systems with single member districts are nearly always dominated by two major parties. Countries with some form of proportional representation (like RCV with multimember districts) nearly always have more than two viable political parties. With more candidates running, both within parties and from different parties, RCV gives voters a much broader range of choices. No more "lesser-of-two-evils" elections.
Increasing the number of members elected from a district also increases the chances that voters who support minor parties and independent candidates will be represented. Experience has demonstrated a strong correlation between the number of candidates elected from a multiple-members district and the number of parties represented in a legislature.
ALL ELECTIONS ARE COMPETITIVE AND EVERY VOTE MATTERS
The method by which we choose our representatives in Congress, state legislatures, and local governments has failed to even come close to constituting ideal representative assemblies. We have not managed "to prevent unfair, partial, and corrupt elections".
The fact that we have a two-party system (a duopoly) typically limits voters to a choice between the candidates representing the two dominant political parties, which many voters have come to consider a choice between the "lesser-of-two-evils". The combined effects of gerrymandering, natural distortions in representation resulting from uneven partisan distribution, and the advantages of incumbency make most districts "safe" for the candidates of one of the two major parties makes matters even worse. With less than 10% of the elections being competitive, voters in more than 90% of congressional districts are left with something worse than a choice between the lesser of two evils - no meaningful choice at all.
The fact that a challenger has almost no chance of winning keeps many potential candidates from running and makes it extremely difficult for those who do run to raise the money and recruit the volunteers necessary to run a viable campaign. With RCV in multi-member districts, every election is competitive. Every vote matters.
Combining Ranked Choice Voting with referendums would provide voters with a simple method for choosing between several different proposals addressing a single issue or problem.
For example, rather than simply voting for or against raising the minimum wage to a single dollar amount, voters could be offered a range of choices (no increase, $15 per hour, $50 per hour, et cetera) and allowed to rank their choices in order of preference. Or, regarding a public option for health care, voters could choose between repealing the Affordable Care Act with no replacement (which has been proposed numerous times by Republicans in Congress), Medicare-for-All (which has been proposed by some Democrats in Congress), or a public option (sometimes described as “Medicare for All Who Want It”).
The tabulation method would be the same as for candidates.
The benefits of ranked choice voting are not theoretical, they are based on observable differences between our "winner-take-all" system with single-member districts and more genuinely democratic systems that have been in place in more and more countries around the world dating back to 1899. (Over 90 countries have some form of proportional representation.)
A sizable majority of voters in America are even more upset than usual this year about the choices for president being offered by the two major political parties. Neither major party candidate has an approval rating of more than 50%. There will be other candidates on the ballot in most states, but without ranked choice voting in place, voters who cast their ballot for alternative candidates are almost certainly casting "wasted votes". If enough votes are cast for alternative candidates the "spoiler effect" may lead to the major party candidate, who would have won in a head-to-head match-up, losing, because of the wasted votes cast for other candidates.
And if a minor party or independent candidate were to actually win enough electoral votes to prevent any candidate from winning a majority of the electoral votes, within the system that is in place, that would trigger the even more anti-democratic process provided for in the 12th Amendment, with the House of Representatives electing the president, with each state having a single vote, regardless of size.
We need to amend our Constitution to provide for direct election of the president using ranked choice voting. That will allow us to eliminate primary elections (saving a considerable amount of money), give voters more choices, without triggering anti-democratic procedures, and ensure that the winning candidate has the support of a majority of voters (at some level of preference).
The Electoral College has overruled the voters (the popular vote) in five presidential elections, including two of the last six. Having states, instead of people, elect the president is thoroughly anti-democratic. The votes of the citizens of small states count for more than the votes of citizens from larger states and, even worse, the votes of citizens in swing states the only ones that really matter.
We have, so far, avoided a repeat of the only presidential election (in 1824) decided through an even more antidemocratic process for electing the president that is triggered when no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes. In that event, the 12th Amendment, as it stands, provides for the House of Representatives to elect the president with each state, regardless of population, casting a single vote and the vice-president is elected by the Senate.
Within the present system, voting for any candidate other than one of the two major party candidates is almost certain to be a “wasted vote” because none of the other candidates have a realistic chance of winning a plurality of the votes. In an election that is closely contended by the two major party candidates, the “spoiler effect” may result in the candidate who would have won a majority of the votes in a two-person race losing. That was the case in 2000, when Ralph Nader got enough votes in Florida, most of which would otherwise have gone to Al Gore, to tip that state (and the election) to George W. Bush.
By allowing voters to cast votes for more than one candidate and rank their choices in order of preference, ranked choice voting eliminates concerns about wasted votes and the spoiler effect for voters who include the major party candidate they prefer somewhere among their choices.
[The proposed text of a constitutional amendment that would accomplish this reform is posted on the Model Legislation page of this website.]
Article V of the U. S. Constitution includes a provision for amendments to be proposed by means of a constitutional convention to be convened “on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States” but does not include any details regarding how delegates to that convention would be chosen or how the business of the convention is to be conducted. If an Article V Convention is called without those details already in place, it will precipitate an unnecessary and avoidable constitutional crisis.
Several separate campaigns are actively seeking to call a convention, each of them calling for competing limitations on the amendments that can be proposed or considered at a convention. Twenty-eight states have adopted resolutions calling for a convention. That is only six short of the number required. It is not clear if Congress is required to call a convention if there are different limitations in some of the resolutions or if states legislatures have the power to set limits on the amendments that can be proposed the delegates to an Article V Convention.
The delegates to the Federal Convention of 1787, immediately upon convening, decided to disregard the language in the resolution that called the convention limiting them to do proposing nothing more than revisions to the Articles of Confederation. The delegates to an Article V Convention could presumably do the same thing.
Our greatest blessing, as Americans, is that we can change the form of our government peacefully, using ballots instead of bullets. (Although the amendment process is among the most anti-democratic provisions in our Constitution.). An Article V Convention is likely to be the best means of enacting the amendments needed to remove the other anti-democratic provisions from our Constitution. Absent legislation detailing a democratic process for electing delegates and conducting the business of the convention, there is good reason to fear an Article V Convention. With a democratic process in place, there would be good reason to celebrate a convention.
The Uniform Congressional District Act requires that all members of the U. S. House of Representatives be elected from single-member districts. Repealing this act will enable states to neutralize the effects of gerrymandering and give voters more choices regarding who will represent them in Congress by electing representatives at-large or from multi-member districts using ranked choice voting.
The Senate, in and of itself, is antidemocratic, with equal representation for states resulting in grossly unequal representation for the people of the larger states. Equal representation for the states in the Senate was “The Great Compromise” between the larger, more populous states (that wanted representation to be based on population) and the smaller states (that wanted to retain the equal representation for each state that they enjoyed under the Articles of Confederation). It was an unfortunate compromise, made necessary because the small states threatened to leave the convention (and the union) if they were denied equal suffrage in one house of Congress. It was designed to be an "elite" assembly (originally elected by state legislatures instead of directly by the people) to give the wealthy a check on the will of the people. Absent a desire to check or limit the will of the people, there is really no reason to have a bicameral (two chamber) legislature. We should move to a unicameral legislature.
The alternative (extending a system of proxies for citizens to the U. S. Senate) would make both the House of Representatives and the Senate considerably more reflective of the will of the people, which would presumably put an end to endless gridlock. It would also introduce an unnecessary redundancy. That might be necessary at least temporarily in order to get the necessary amendment enacted.
Abolishing the Senate, merging it with the U. S. House of Representatives to make Congress a unicameral legislature, or implementing a system of proxies in the Senate will require a constitutional amendment.
Amendments merging the Senate with the House of Representatives should be adopted in state governments. The primary reason we have a Senate at the federal level was to appease the small states at the Federal Convention of 1787. Our legislatures are also modeled on Great Britain's. We don't need a Senate to block the will of the people. We need a Congress and state legislatures that reflect the will of the people.
Corporations are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Corporations are not people. They are a form of business organization. The fact that five misguided, dark-robed Supreme Court Justices declared that corporations are people, with the same natural rights as human beings, does not make it so. The corporate form of business organization enables companies to reap enormous profits, grow very large, and become very powerful. We must prevent that power from being used to take control of our government.
[A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 54) has been introduced in the U. S. House of Representatives by Representative Pramila Jayapal. It currently has 75 cosponsors. A copy of that resolution is posted on the Legislation page of this website.]
Allowing one person (a President or a governor) to overrule the votes of a sizable majority of the members of Congress or a state legislature if support for a bill falls even one vote short of a super-majority in either the House or the Senate is extremely undemocratic. It borders on autocracy.
The power to veto should remain in place, as a means for a president or governor to encourage a representative assembly to reconsider a bill they have enacted and to share their concerns and reasons for doing so. But, to be consistent with the principle of majority rule, the representative assembly should be able to override a veto by a simple majority.
In a democracy, the power to veto legislation is properly vested in the people. Whenever it appears likely that Congress or a state legislature has enacted legislation that does not have the support of a majority of the people, whether or not a president or governor has vetoed it, veto referendums, with every voter having a single vote, and the votes of a simple majority deciding whether legislation is approved or rejected should be conducted. And calling veto referendums should be a simple and relatively easy process.
Allowing one person to set aside convictions for crimes is a formula for corruption, placing too much power in a single person. Lord Acton's assertion that "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely" has been proven true over time.
The House of Representatives (both in Congress and in state legislatures) should have the power to grant pardons or commute sentences, by majority vote. (Ideally, within a system that includes Proxies for Citizens.)
The power of the Supreme Court to nullify acts of Congress that have been signed into law by the president is not included in the Constitution. The power of "Judicial Review" is a power the Supreme Court gave itself early in our nation's history. Allowing a handful of Supreme Court Justices to unilaterally "veto" legislation through "Judicial Review" makes the judicial branch supreme rather than the legislative power.
The Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Courts in the states should have the power to notify representative assemblies of their opinion with regard to legislation being "unconstitutional" and offer suggestions for how to address their concerns. Representative assemblies should have the option of addressing or ignoring those concerns by a majority vote of the members.
Requiring a super-majority of 60 votes in the U. S. Senate to even discuss or debate, let alone pass, legislation has been one of the primary reasons that critical problems and issues are rarely addressed by Congress. Getting rid of the filibuster requires nothing more than electing senators who believe in majority rule (democracy) to a majority in the U. S. Senate.
Making America a true democracy (with the form of a perfect democracy) is objectively a matter of enacting the legislation included in the Democracy Agenda. Most Americans believe in democracy and will support the reforms that are needed. That does not mean that enacting these reforms will not be easy. “Power concedes nothing without a struggle.” Making America a true democracy will shift power from corporatists and plutocrats to the people of America. The corporatists and plutocrats will do everything they can to prevent these reforms from being passed into law. And if and when we succeed, they will continue to fight – seeking to roll back any legislation we have managed to get passed.
There is a great deal of discussion taking place these days about defending, protecting, and/or saving democracy in America. Before we can do that, we need to enact the reforms that are needed to make America a true democracy. That is the task at hand. And pro-democracy activists working together, across party lines, and in spite of differences of opinion on a host of issues, is the key to victory.
If you want to receive occasional emails with calls to action, event notifications, and updates regarding pro-democracy legislation, please subscribe. You will never be asked for a financial contribution. Your contact information will not be shared.
The material on this website is adapted from a soon to be published book: Government by the People: A Citizen's Guide to Making America a Perfect Democracy by Winston Apple.
This website was created by, is maintained by, and paid for by Winston Apple, Content is Copyright 2024 Gary Winston Apple, unless noted..
Permission is granted to share with proper attribution. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by GoDaddy