A Democratic Voting System
Our current method of voting is dated and flawed – we use highly-susceptible voting machines to cast ballots for politicians that are supposed to represent us. This method is dangerous for many reasons: 1) machines can (and often are) hacked, 2) politicians can be bought, incompetent, or evil, 3) it limits our ability to govern ourselves to generally electing politicians every 2 (and usually just every 4) years. While the list goes on, these few reasons alone should be enough to elevate the seriousness of the current method’s problems.
Instead, I propose a democratic voting system.
Here’s what that means:
Every election cycle, persons registered and eligible to vote receive a unique 16-digit Voter ID. This VID is equivalent to a one-time use ticket: you use this to vote in the given cycle.
Why is it needed?
A 16-digit Voter ID means there are exactly 10 QUADRILLION possible combinations. For added security this number is linked to your Social Security Number, meaning that in order for your vote to be valid, your 16-digit VID and 9-digit SSN must match. The results of the election are posted and your completely anonymous 16-digit Voter ID can be used to confirm how you voted indeed matches how you voted. This adds an insurmountable level of voting security – much, much more than what we have now.
What does it do?
The 16-digit VID protects your interests and allows you to vote on issues each cycle. You simply visit the government website, sign in using those 2 sets of numbers, and cast your ballot for whatever issues are at hand. If your Voter ID is ever lost or compromised, you can request a new one.
Since the VID is replaced every cycle, fraud is virtually impossible. Since it’s so versatile, citizens can vote on actual issues instead of trusting politicians to represent a large amount of people.
Issues can also be presented using this same Voter ID: while we’d still need “politicians” to administrate the process, it and subsequent laws remove their ability to knowingly vote against public interest. They simply serve as representatives to deliver the votes and handle administrative tasks such as placing items on the docket (with strict rules forcing them to publish ALL measures that pass a certain threshold); in other words, they must do their job and do it accordingly. Citizens are finally in power.
How does the election cycle work?
The cycle is divided into 4 segments: Proposal, Revision, Election, Result.
Proposal (March 1 - May 30)
The proposal period is the beginning of the election cycle. During this time citizens can petition the government to make changes to existing laws or create new ones. Proposals are processed using both computers and humans. Computers sort through the data in a non-bias fashion, picking up on keywords and scanning submissions for context. Humans then examine this data and convert it into human-friendly reports. These reports are what gradually become criteria for revision.
Revision (June 1 - August 31)
During the revision period, voters have the ability to view reports all proposals that made it to the revision stage. These proposals are then refined to prepare them for election. The revision stage is like a soft election in where the exact nature of the proposed law is established. Voters are given multiple-choice style options to further refine the law.
Here is an example of how this process works.
Report
During the proposal period 30,462,501 Americans weighed in about abortion. This issue has met the threshold for a proposal and will now move to revision. Based on submissions, we submit the following questionaire to The People for consideration. A final law will be created using these results.
Definitions used:
Abortion: the act of terminating a pregnancy artifically or with intent.
Birth: the moment a child exits the mother's body in viable state.
Trimester: one of three periods of pregnancy in which different features develop.
Elective: an action or decision made by choice.
Medical Professional: a physician or doctor with the necessary credentials to practice medicine in good standing.
In the case of multiple pregnany (more than one child in the womb), the definitions herein apply to all of such children in the singular form.
Questions
Should abortion be legal in certain situations?
- Yes, in all situations before birth.
- Yes, in some situations before birth.
- No, in no situation should abortion be legal.
Note to reader: in this scenario, choice 1 and 3 are absolute answers – no further questions are required. If the voter chooses 2, additional input is required.
In what situations should abortion be legal? (Check all that apply)
- Elective, before the 3rd trimester.
- Elective, before the 2nd trimester.
- Elective, before the 1st trimester.
- If a fetus is developing with 1 or more signficant birth defects.
- When a medical professional deems it necessary for the life of the mother.
- In cases of incest or rape.
- Before a fetal heartbeat develops (5-6 weeks after gestation).
(End of example)
In this example several things happened: proposals were submitted, the amount of voters discussing abortion during the proposal period met the threshold for revision, a report was given combining data harvested from submissions to create a concise set of details plus questions.
A new law will be available for voting during the election period. The wording of that law depends on the result of the questions listed above.
If the majority vote for option 1, there will be a yes or no vote on a law that reflects "abortion will be legal in all situations before birth".
If the majority vote for option 2, there will be a yes or no vote on a law that proclaims each situation in which at least 50% of the voters chose as acceptable legal and prohibit all others from that list.
If the majority vote for option 3, there will be a yes or no vote on a law that prohibits abortion no matter the situation.
That's a really simple solution to a complex topic.
Election (September 1 - November 30)
After the revision stage, a law is ready to be voted on by the public. The exact content of this law is made available no later than September 1st of the same year. Legislation presented this way is in the form of a yes or no question. The question can not be confusing and the wording of the bill must honor the result of votes during the revision period. Votes will continue to be allowed until the end of the election period.
Result (December 1 - March 1)
During the result period Congress will carry out the will of the people — with a few exceptions. Legislation that survives this period will become effective no later than March 1st of the year following the previous election cycle (the dates overlap to avoid February's leap day and start each election cycle off fresh, with new laws intact).
Checks and Balances
You likely noticed the result period of the election cycle states "Congress will carry out the will of the people — with a few exceptions". These exceptions protect us against hastily-made decisions and mob rule. The democratic system I propose does not replace the current government: it adds a 4th branch to it called "The Civilian Branch".
I do this because the founding fathers had legitimate concerns about a direct democracy. A simple majority could trample the rights of minority groups without end. There would be no civil recourse for the minority in such a system, nor incentive for the majority to change. It is in that inevitable consequence alone that I denounce a fully democratic system.
The Exceptions
The U.S. has 3 branches of government: the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. These are meant to work in tandem so no one branch becomes too powerful. As we have seen in recent years – and to some level since the nations's start – this system can fail. Little gets done. Debt continues to rise. The priorities and struggles of the people are not shared by officials in power. We have developed an oligarchy in which 2 organizations control nearly all of the governing power. This system changes that.
The people overrule the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial – however, it is within limits.
When a law passes through the election cycle in the affirmative, Congress may pass it as if it were their own. They may also:
- safeguard against a simple majority (hold their own vote on the law as-written)
- abide by a 3/5 majority (pass it automatically if 60%+ voted yes)
- acquiesce to a 3/4 majority
To explain,
A passing vote by simple majority (50%+) is treated like any other bill except that Congress cannot alter it prior to the vote.
*It can still receive a veto by the President.
A passing vote by a 3-5ths super majority (60%+) cannot be voted on by Congress; it is passed directly to the President as if Congress approved it.
*It can still receive a veto by the President.
A passing vote by a 3-4ths super majority (75%+) cannot be voted on by Congress; it cannot be vetoed by the President; it cannot be challenged by the Court. It is the de-facto law of the land unless repealed by a super-majority of 60% Civilian or 75% Legislative.
In summary,
This grants us the freedom of democracy with the safeguards of a republic. I believe it's a win-win safe government for several decades to come.
Have more questions?
Answers to common questions:
Who decides what gets a vote?
The system works similarly to what we have now (except it'll actually lead to results).
What we have now
Currently there are 2 official ways to bring about change in this system:
- Create and get the required number of signatures for a petition.
- Ask your state's representatives to bring it up for you.
Surprisingly (or maybe not so surprisingly), these methods rarely accomplish their goal.
How this system works
This system also relies on petitions and representatives, with key changes:
- The voters bring up and endorse issues directly (works similar to petitioning).
- Representatives can bring up issues for voters directly.
The difference is voters get to vote on bills & petitions alongside representatives.
No more trusting your representatives to represent you. You vote for you.
Why would we still need representatives?
Think of representatives more like referees or guardians. Though very few, there are cases where the people should not or can not make an informed or timely decision.
For example,
- We have just been attacked. Emotions are high. No one is taking credit. Citizens are understandably upset. We need a proper investigation and an appropriate response.
- 51% of voters voted yes to a Universal Basic Income of $2,500/month. The impact to our economy and currency would be catastrophic based soley on the math.
- A Magnitude 8.8 earthquake has just occured in California. They need help immediately to save the lives of those trapped in the rubble.
These examples show the need for centralized leadership in certain cases.
We still overrule Congress with a 60% supermajority.
How is the language of a bill formed?
Ideally we would work hand-in-hand with our representatives – after all, we pay them to be our full time policy makers. However, the text of the bill remains in the hands of the people.
- Voters bring up the issues (including "line item" issues) during Proposal.
- Voters vote and modify issues during Revision (each line has a subvote).
Policy makers (representatives) can only advocate for changes during Revision. - During Election, the bill remains unchanged unless specific items get formal votes.
One hurdle with American goverment is the wordiness of the codex. While I believe this method of codifying laws needs an overhaul, for bills to be integrated into the codex they require special language (with subsections, 'strike' phrases, etc.).
Lawmakers cannot change the context or meaning of a bill passed this way. They can take a formal vote if the bill did not receive supermajority, but the context cannot be changed.
Why does the cycle begin on March 1st?
Elections are held in November and elected officials do not officially take office until January. Additionally, Congress (generally) adjourns halfway through the year.
Most legislative actions take place in the first few months of the year, leading up to summer recess.
While January 1st might sound nice, it creates too much conflict with how our system works now (and there is no real benefit to changing this).
An important sidenote is Congress will be out of session during Election period.
This means on odd-numbered years the seats will be changing — Congress will not be able to vote on new issues until the updated body is in session.
Is there anything else?
Probably, but this proposed system is evolving over time. I do not foresee any big changes, but new modifiers may be added. For example:
These are only considerations.
They are not parts of the Democrating Voting System as it stands now.
The same issue cannot be introduced 2 years in a row.
This reduces the opportunity for "grandstanding" and allows room for proposals with less gravitas to be more fairly considered.
Allowing civilian votes on pending legislation.
While good in theory, this can get messy very quickly. I think may be appropriate for state level functions, but nationally requires too much coordination (and invites chaos).
The "Civilian Branch" system moves slow for a reason: it's to course correct legislators when they run afoul or ignore us, not to micromanage them or force us to be deeply involved in every proposal that lands on the floor.
Have something you'd like to ask or add?
Feel free to ask questions or donate some of your time to help us improve this Democratic Voting System.