Introducing the Split Vote System
"[American legislatures] should be an exact portrait, in miniature, of the people at large, as it should think, feel, reason, and act like them." -John Adams
In a recent Elway Poll, 42 percent of Americans felt that they were either represented in our government "poorly" or "not at all". The cause of such sentiments is fairly straight forward: almost half of Americans are in fact not represented in our government. Our ancient voting system is designed to only ensure representation for a majority of voters in a particular geographic area. Most Americans have become so accustomed to our system of voting that they its just "the way democracy works". They are mistaken.
Our congressional elections use what electoral engineers call the single-member district plurality system.However, most everyone else prefers to use the more succulent name, "the winner takes all system". We are all familiar with the drawbacks of this system. Whether you are a Democrat who lives in Alabama, or a Republican who lives in Massachusetts, you are above all an American who is without a voice in Government. The good news is that there are alternatives to the winner-takes-all-system. In fact, most democratic countries have already replaced our antique system with newer system: proportional representation.
I propose a unique breed of proportional representation which I suppose could be called "the two member district proportonally split-vote system". However, lets just call it the "split vote system" . To begin, every district would be given two seats to represent the majority and minority factions. Thus, our House of Representatives would expand to 870 seats.
The two Representatives would not have equal votes in congress. Rather, they would split one vote to mirror the outcome of the election. Thus, if a candidate won 51% of the popular vote they would receives 51% of the district's vote. This system would end the practice of gerrymandering. More importantly, it would also better protect the interests of minority factions.
Another peculiar aspect of this system is that it doesn't grant an equal vote to every district. Instead, the weight of a districts vote is proportional to the amount of registered voters who participated in an election. Thus, if only 38 percent of a district's citizens participate in a congressional election, than the two elected representatives will split 38/100 of their district's vote. In such a system, not a single citizen would be able to say, "My vote doesn't matter."
This system has quite a few advantages. The additional seats to the House would increase the responsiveness of representatives to their constituents. Furthermore, the additional representatives insure that the voice of the minority isn't silenced by the mere fact that a partisan majority's candidate won 51% of the popular vote. Congressional candidates will be encouraged to reach out to as many diverse groups of as possible. This is in contrast to our current system, which allows candidates to win by using wedge issues to encourage groups whose vote is easily controlled, while making the rest apathetic. In the proposed system, a strategy designed to make voters apathetic or polarized will result in less power for not only the representatives, but also for citizens of the district.
Perhaps the greatest strength of this proposal is its realistic approach toward people and power. Since the power of a representative's vote is dependent on how many people participate, citizens will feel a greater obligation to vote. Rather than merely encouraging citizens to "rock the vote", the proposed system will make it clear that the entire community will suffer if they don’t vote. While latter has always been true, this proposed system will make it clear in concrete terms.
Non-voting will no longer default power to the winner of an election. Instead, a non-voter will default their entire community's power over national affairs. Best of all, it avoids the institution of fines for non-voting, such as the mandatory participation laws in Australia. Instead, it exploits the natural power of social pressure when an entire community's voice is at stake.
Moreover, the splitting of a vote between two candidates will fundamentally alter American politics for the better. An effective campaign strategy would have to attempt to build as many bridges between diverse interests as possible. Candidates would not only be rewarded for capturing the imagination of the voters in their district; they'd be punished for concentrating on divisive issues like abortion or gun control. While many activists would cringe at the loss of attention toward those problems, our ailing democracy would breath a sigh of relief.
In a recent Elway Poll, 42 percent of Americans felt that they were either represented in our government "poorly" or "not at all". The cause of such sentiments is fairly straight forward: almost half of Americans are in fact not represented in our government. Our ancient voting system is designed to only ensure representation for a majority of voters in a particular geographic area. Most Americans have become so accustomed to our system of voting that they its just "the way democracy works". They are mistaken.
Our congressional elections use what electoral engineers call the single-member district plurality system.However, most everyone else prefers to use the more succulent name, "the winner takes all system". We are all familiar with the drawbacks of this system. Whether you are a Democrat who lives in Alabama, or a Republican who lives in Massachusetts, you are above all an American who is without a voice in Government. The good news is that there are alternatives to the winner-takes-all-system. In fact, most democratic countries have already replaced our antique system with newer system: proportional representation.
I propose a unique breed of proportional representation which I suppose could be called "the two member district proportonally split-vote system". However, lets just call it the "split vote system" . To begin, every district would be given two seats to represent the majority and minority factions. Thus, our House of Representatives would expand to 870 seats.
The two Representatives would not have equal votes in congress. Rather, they would split one vote to mirror the outcome of the election. Thus, if a candidate won 51% of the popular vote they would receives 51% of the district's vote. This system would end the practice of gerrymandering. More importantly, it would also better protect the interests of minority factions.
Another peculiar aspect of this system is that it doesn't grant an equal vote to every district. Instead, the weight of a districts vote is proportional to the amount of registered voters who participated in an election. Thus, if only 38 percent of a district's citizens participate in a congressional election, than the two elected representatives will split 38/100 of their district's vote. In such a system, not a single citizen would be able to say, "My vote doesn't matter."
This system has quite a few advantages. The additional seats to the House would increase the responsiveness of representatives to their constituents. Furthermore, the additional representatives insure that the voice of the minority isn't silenced by the mere fact that a partisan majority's candidate won 51% of the popular vote. Congressional candidates will be encouraged to reach out to as many diverse groups of as possible. This is in contrast to our current system, which allows candidates to win by using wedge issues to encourage groups whose vote is easily controlled, while making the rest apathetic. In the proposed system, a strategy designed to make voters apathetic or polarized will result in less power for not only the representatives, but also for citizens of the district.
Perhaps the greatest strength of this proposal is its realistic approach toward people and power. Since the power of a representative's vote is dependent on how many people participate, citizens will feel a greater obligation to vote. Rather than merely encouraging citizens to "rock the vote", the proposed system will make it clear that the entire community will suffer if they don’t vote. While latter has always been true, this proposed system will make it clear in concrete terms.
Non-voting will no longer default power to the winner of an election. Instead, a non-voter will default their entire community's power over national affairs. Best of all, it avoids the institution of fines for non-voting, such as the mandatory participation laws in Australia. Instead, it exploits the natural power of social pressure when an entire community's voice is at stake.
Moreover, the splitting of a vote between two candidates will fundamentally alter American politics for the better. An effective campaign strategy would have to attempt to build as many bridges between diverse interests as possible. Candidates would not only be rewarded for capturing the imagination of the voters in their district; they'd be punished for concentrating on divisive issues like abortion or gun control. While many activists would cringe at the loss of attention toward those problems, our ailing democracy would breath a sigh of relief.
