I’ll address both of these here . . . I made a fairly loose set of suggestions without much detail to generate discussion but that is not a problem. I’m not clear on how you take one person/one vote in the way you do. This is not a question of the number of positions for which you can vote but the relative weighting of each vote. The working assumption from the beginning was to weight certain votes more than others. This is the interpretation of the constitution since the 1960s. So this is not a departure from the norm. The problem is, of course gerrymandering by the political parties that use the winner take all concept of US voting (a very bad idea) and allows them to created districts that are predetermined to be won by their party. The normal model is to create a district, no matter how bizarre, that has 60% ours versus 40% theirs so that as many districts as possible are won whatever the total voting result for the state, for instance. What I was trying to get at is way to eliminate manipulation by any group that distorts the value of another groups votes. I should have gone much farther if I were presenting this seriously and simply moved to a proportional voting system.

And I wasn’t so concerned with eliminating political organizations as clearing the deck and starting over.

Written by

Educator, CIO, retired entrepreneur, grandfather with occasional fits of humor in the midst of disaster. . .

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store