Redesign the system and run an election

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

This is a fun game! In it you redesign the US election system and run an election on it.

In short, your job is to redesign the US political system. Your options are limitless! Want a Congress with a single house? 3 houses? Co-Presidents? Want to change the 2 party system to a 22 party system? Go ahead! Then use your system to show how you feel an election would result.

Also note, my 21 questions game will unlock in a day or two, as I'm building answers as we speak.


My system:

Party System:
The two party system would be done away with. All RINOs would be kicked out of the Republican party, and all DINOs kicked from the Democrats. They would then be united into a single RINO-DINO party straddling the center line. I call this the Moderate Party.

State level:
There is a law that states must, in their state senate, use representation by population. I'd toss that out with a proviso* see below. If the federal government can have 2 senators for 500,000 people in one place, and 2 for 35,000,000 in another, than a state can do the same.

Referendums will be held in two areas. Southern California and the New York City area. The ballot would have two questions. First. Do you think that Southern California / New York City area should become a new state. Second, regardless of your vote on the first part, if the first question succeeds, do you want to be a part of this new state, or remain in your current state. If the first part wins, then areas that voted for the new state on the second part would then become part of these new states. I will, however, write the remainder of this presuming these initiatives fail.

Washington DC would be proclaimed to not be a state, or a territory, but a "Province" of the United States. As a "Province" it may style itself however it choses, using words like State, Territory, or District; Province is only a legal term. Being a Province, Washington DC would gain some, but not all the rights a state has. It would not need to be consulted on amending the constitution, but it would gain electoral votes for President. It will send senators to the senate, but they will not be able to vote. It will send representatives to the house, equal to the number they would deserve if they were a state, and these representatives WILL be able to vote. Puerto Rico would be invited to apply to also become a "Province"

Federal:

I would not change the house of representatives at all. People are comfortable with it. In would, however, write in a proviso: Should any foreign nation, in part or in whole, join the United States, it will be given a number of representatives based on the current representatives-per-person ratio; and the US House will then, as a result, be permanently increased in size. Put another way: Cuba has 11.5 million people. This is the same number as live in Ohio, which has 18 reps. Should Cuba become democratic and vote to join the US they would be given 18 reps, and keep those above and beyond the current 435 members of the house. This would mean that if Cuba joins the House would now have 453 members. This is to prevent huge losses should the US ever have another nation (like Cuba, Mexico, or Canada) merge into it.

The Senate would see some changes I'm sorry to say. States with over a certain portion of the national population (FL, NY, TX, CA) would get an extra senator. This would mean the Senate would now have 104 members. The portion would be calculated as such. National population divided by the number of states (50) multiplied by 3. This means states with three times the "average" number of persons get the extra senator. Florida is right on the cusp, and may or may not qualify depending in the full results of the next census. With 50 states, your "average" is therefore 2%, and three times that is therefore 6% of the national population. The elder senator will be the "Senior" while the middle the "Jr" and the last the "Extra" senator from the state. States with 3 senators would, of course, see elections in all 3 senate election turns.

Presidential Succession would be improved upon, by having the following tacked on to the bottom. All members of the senate, by seniority, followed by all members of the house by seniority, followed by the longest serving governor of any of the 50 states (followed by the next longest serving, etc etc etc) then the state senate (including Nebraska) of each state, largest to smallest (seniority within each state) then each state house (excluding Nebraska) followed by the city mayors of any city containing more than 1/50th (the number of states) of the national population (currently only New York City). If all of those people, and we are talking thousands of elected officials, are killed; then you have permission to be @#$@ed.

Lastly, presidential elections.
Presidential elections are the only truly "National" elections, and the law would recogonize that. While state law takes precedence in all other elections, for the president, there is federal laws that take precedence on certain issues. One is ballot access. Any party that can get a number of signatures equal to 1% of the number of votes cast last time in the last presidential election becomes qualified in all states. Parties meeting this qualification get placed at the top of the ballot and listed as a "National Party"

The election will be run using an Instant Runoff Voting. That means you can vote for more than one person and rank them in order. You do not have to vote for more than one person however. the IRV system will mandate states use technology that allows the voter to pick at least three persons, and rank them accordingly. This will allow people to, for example, rank Ralph Nader as #1 but Al Gore as #2.

Results will be calculated like so:
The ballots will be added up. This total will be called the "First Count". If no candidate has 50%+1 of the votes, the following procedure will be followed. If the next candidate wont be able to 'make the jump' he or she will be dropped to. For example, the election results in one person winning 41%, another winning 39%, and everyone else splitting the rest. Since the remainder is a maximum if 20%, all other candidates get dropped, because even if that entire 20% backs a single person, he cannot defeat the second placed candidate who has 39%. After this is done, someone will win 50%+1 of the votes cast and be declared to have 'won' the state.

Once this is done, the electoral college (I will speak on this later) applied. If someone has 50%+1 of the electoral votes, they are declared elected. If not, the following procedure is used. The candidate who has won the smallest number of electoral votes from the states will be dropped. State he (or she) has won will be re-calculated to determine a new winner. This will continue until only two candidates have electoral votes from the states. At this point, the candidate with the highest number of electoral votes is declared the winner.

The Electoral College will be the last thing to be changed. Remember that each state gets an electoral vote for each House Representative it has, and for each Senator it has. Those "House" Electoral Votes will not be touched, but all those "Senate" electoral votes will be tossed into a national "bin". Those 100 or so electoral votes are calculated using the "First Count". First we need to find the number of 'qualifying' votes. In order to 'qualify' the candidate needs to have taken 5% or more of the national popular vote. Candidates with less have their votes disqualified. Lets say someone wins 41% and someone else 39%, and everyone else less than 5%. Then only those two have 'qualifying' votes. Next, the proportion of 'qualifying' votes per candidate is worked out. If it is 41% VS 39%, that would work out to 51.25% and 48.75%. Using those numbers, the "national" electoral votes are then assigned based on the number of votes won, and are then 'locked in'. Check the above paragraph, I mention votes "from the states".




A sample election.


Obama (D) VS Palin (R) VS McCain (Moderate Party)

Obama wins 44% of the vote, and many states
Palin wins 34% of the vote, and a good deal of states.
McCain wins 20% of the vote, and only a hand full of states.

Obama would not get 50%+1 of the electoral votes, and so McCain would be eliminated. His votes lean to Palin but also go to Obama, allowing him to win the presidency.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

I dunno about you but I sure as hell had fun writing that

[k-onmmunist]

Can't I redesign the UK system? I know more about it.

[Hash]

Can't I redesign the UK French (or Canadian) system? I know more about it.

Though this seems very interesting.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Meh, why not.

I dont have much in the way of ideas for the UK, but for Canada...

Party system would work better if the PC Party and Reform were still separate parties IMO. Each riding should use IRV, so that someone wins with 50%+1. With the use of this, the splitting of the vote on the right would not be that harmful. This would also have the pleasant side effect of taking away seats from the Bloc.

To this I would add parallel proportional representation seats. Because it is parallel and not top-up, this means if your party gets 50% of the vote, you get 50% of these proportional seats, not all seats. They would be given on the basis of 1/5th of ridings. Each province would use this, and federally each province would be an electoral district, except that SK, MB, and the Territories would be one electoral district, as well all 4 atlantic provinces would be one. So for example...

Ontario 2007
Ontario has 107 ridings. 1/5th of that is 21.4, or, 21.

Lib   ---   71   -   42.2%   -   9   =   80
PC   ---   26   -   31.6%   -   7   =   33
NDP   -   10   -   16.8%   -   3   =   13
Grn   ----   0   ---   8.0%   -   2   =   2


Due to the fact it is parallel and not top-up, it would not stop the formation of majority governments.

What this will do is two things. First, it will ensure the opposition is represented. Too often does the government win 80% or more of the seats in provincial legislatures. Secondly, it will ensure all parties get the chance to be represented in all areas of the province. I would make a law that all list candidates must also run in a riding, so in the unlikely event that a party were to win every riding, all the PR seats would be distributed to the opposition, guaranteeing them an absolute floor of 20% of the seats.

Next is the Senate. I would make changes, but not radical changes.
First, Saskatchewan and Manitoba would be dropped from the "West" region. The new "West" region would therefore be just Alberta and BC. Since each senate region needs 24 seats, this would result in 6 extra seats going to each of Alberta and BC. Saskatchewan and Manitoba, would become like Newfoundland, a 6 seat non-regional province.

Second, I'd make a limit for service in the Senate. A person is appointed and then serves 8 years from that date, regardless of age (minimum of 18). They can, however, be re-appointed.

Finally, the way Senators are chosen will be changed. 2/3rds of each province's senators will be appointed by the premier of the province, while the remaining 1/3rd will be appointed by the federal government.


I believe if we do these things we will fix what is wrong with this country.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

To begin with, instead of a bicameral legislature, there would be a tricameral one.

The House of Representatives would be a large unruly mess, but it would have the most power.  Districts would be allocated as they are now, but the number would be set using the cube root rule, so that there would be 676 districts after the next census.  However, each district would elect one representative each year to a three year term, using a cumulative voting system that works as follows:

Suppose we have a district that tends to vote 49% Conservative, 39% Liberal, and 12% Socialist

Year 1: C:49 L:39 S:12 The Conservatives win, and the other two parties bank their votes.
Year 2: C:49 L:78 S:24 The Liberals win
Year 3: C:98 L:39 S:36 The Conservatives win
Year 4: C:49 L:78 S:48 The Liberals win
Year 5: C:98 L:39 S:60 The Conservatives win
Year 6: C:49 L:78 S:72 The Liberals win
Year 7: C:98 L:39 S:84 The Conservatives win
Year 8: C:49 L:78 S:96 The Socialists win
Year 9: C:98 L:117 S:12 The Liberals win
Year 10: C:147 L:39 S:24 The Conservatives win

Note that this system gives minority parties a shot at being elected every so often.  However, the system is likely to see splinter parties established so as to more efficiently use votes.  Suppose that the Conservative party forms a clone party so that excess vote share not needed is diverted to it, with the clone taking a base 5%, and the main Conservative having a minimum of 10%

Year 1: C:40 C2:9 L:39 S:12 Conservative win
Year 2: C:44 C2:14 L:78 S:24 Liberal win
Year 3: C:54 C2:53 L:39 S:36 Conservative win
Year 4: C:23 C2:79 L:78 S:48 Conservative 2 win
Year 5: C:62 C2:5 L:117 S:60 Liberal win
Year 6: C:73 C2:43 L:39 S:72 Conservative win
Year 7: C:44 C2:48 L:78 S:84 Socialist win
Year 8: C:88 C2:53 L:117 S:12 Liberal win
Year 9: C:98 C2:82 L:39 S:24 Conservative win
Year 10:C:44 C2:87 L:78 S:36 Conservative 2 win

Notice that this gives the pair of Conservative parties one more election victory than they would have had over the ten years than if they had cobined to form a single party.

The net effect of the cumulative voting is to encourage smaller parties.  Small parties have a chance of getting people elected and large big tent parties can so slightly better as two smaller tents.

Anyway, in addition to the 2,028 Representatives elected from the districts, each year's election also elects as many as 100 proportional representatives by party list for a one-year term.  For each full percent of the national vote, which includes votes from the territories, a party gets one seat.  45.0001% gets 45 seats, 44.9999% gets 44 seats.  In addition, the President, the Chief Justice, and the Speaker of each of the other two Houses get to appoint one Representative who serves at their pleasure.  With 2,132 Representatives, the House of Representatives will not see much floor debate, but it is not supposed to.

The House of Representatives has sole authority to appropriate money to programs, but those programs must be authorized with the concurrence of the National Senate, and in some cases the Congress of States.
The Congress of States is the weakest of the three Houses.  It consists of five Congressmen from each State.  Four of them are elected (one per year per State) to four year terms and the fifth serves at the pleasure of the Legislature of the State.

As far as laws are concerned, the Congress of States only needs to be consulted if the law (or treaty) touches upon the States in some manner.  However, since the Congress will in theory have relatively little to do with legislation, it will be given the power to impeach.
The National Senate is the smallest of the three houses.  Each year, ten Senators are elected on a proportional ballot to a six-year term.  Also each of the other two Houses may, by a two-thirds vote appoint someone to a six-year term.  Ex-elected Presidents are to be life Senators once their Presidential term is finished.  Powers are much like the current Senate, except that it's assent is not required to pass appropriations.  (Taxes and debt do need Senate approval.)

[k-onmmunist]

Very interesting. I'll do my own ideal system shortly.

[k-onmmunist]

The Executive

First things first: The Monarchy is abolished. Instead, a Chief Warden shall become the new head of state and will be elected every 3 years. There shall be a four term limit on the Chief Warden. His or her powers will include appointing a Prime Minister (with approval from the Commons), setting up commissions or inquiries, sign agreements with foreign powers (with approval from the Commons) and appointing judges to the Supreme Court. The Chief Warden will also have the power to veto legislation, which will mean the act will require 70% approval from the House of Commons to pass. However, there shall be a limit of 5 uses annually on this power.

The Prime Minister shall have power over internal affairs and will control the government. Much of this role will be unchanged from current prime ministerial powers.

The Constitution

A constitution will be codified, including a Bill of Rights. It shall be impossible to amend the Bill of Rights. The rights protected in this shall be:

1. Freedom of speech, expression, press, religion and assembly
2. Habeas corpus and the right to a fair trial
3. Bear arms
4. Protection from double jeopardy, self-incrimination etc.
5. Protection of private property

As well as the Bill of Rights, there shall be an amendable constitution dealing with other rights and matters. This shall be amendable by approval from both houses of the legislature AND through approval by popular referendum.

The Legislature

The House of Commons shall be maintained. However, the House of Lords shall be abolished and replaced with the House of Merits, made up by appointment from the Prime Minister, with Commons and Chief Warden approval. This shall consist of men and women who have made major contributions to British society, culture, technology, enterprise etc. It shall have the power to block legislation, apart from bills that were proposed on the government's manifesto, money bills and foreign treaties.

The Judiciary

Pretty much remain the same to be honest.

Devolution

Britain would be divided up into regions with similar powers to Swiss cantons. These would all have their own constitutions and a great deal of power over local politics. Local elections for the assemblies would be held annually. List of regions:

Highlands
Lowlands
Scottish Borderlands
Northumberland
Cumbria
Lancashire
Manchester
Yorkshire
Midlands
Birmingham
North Wales
South Wales
Cotswolds
East Anglia
Chilterns
North London
South London
Kent
Hampshire
Cornwall
Ulster
Overseas Territories

The Election

Using STV proportional representation, parliamentary elections would be held annually. For example, to use a very small election for a single seat:

1st round:
Labour, 196
Conservatives, 278
Liberal Democrats, 106
UKIP, 79
BNP, 43
Greens, 92
Nuclear Disarmament Party, 21
Maoists, 9
One Day Working Week Now!, 3

2nd round:
Labour, 230 (+2, ODWWN; +9, Maoists; +10 NDP; +13 BNP)
Conservatives, 287 (+9 BNP)
Liberal Democrats, 111 (+1, ODWWN; +4 NDP)
UKIP, 100 (+21 BNP)
Greens, 99 (+7 NDP)

3rd round:
Labour, 248 (+18 Greens)
Conservatives, 387 (+100 UKIP)
Liberal Democrats, 192 (+81 Greens)

4th round:
Labour, 383 (+135 Lib Dems)
Conservatives, 444 (+57 Lib Dems) - WINNER

[Хahar 🤔]

However, the House of Lords shall be abolished and replaced with the House of Merits, made up by appointment from the Prime Minister, with Commons and Chief Warden approval. This shall consist of men and women who have made major contributions to British society, culture, technology, enterprise etc. It shall have the power to block legislation, apart from bills that were proposed on the government's manifesto, money bills and foreign treaties.

Really?

[k-onmmunist]

However, the House of Lords shall be abolished and replaced with the House of Merits, made up by appointment from the Prime Minister, with Commons and Chief Warden approval. This shall consist of men and women who have made major contributions to British society, culture, technology, enterprise etc. It shall have the power to block legislation, apart from bills that were proposed on the government's manifesto, money bills and foreign treaties.

Really?

Really.

[Хahar 🤔]

However, the House of Lords shall be abolished and replaced with the House of Merits, made up by appointment from the Prime Minister, with Commons and Chief Warden approval. This shall consist of men and women who have made major contributions to British society, culture, technology, enterprise etc. It shall have the power to block legislation, apart from bills that were proposed on the government's manifesto, money bills and foreign treaties.

Really?

Really.

That's basically the same thing as the Lords now.

[k-onmmunist]

However, the House of Lords shall be abolished and replaced with the House of Merits, made up by appointment from the Prime Minister, with Commons and Chief Warden approval. This shall consist of men and women who have made major contributions to British society, culture, technology, enterprise etc. It shall have the power to block legislation, apart from bills that were proposed on the government's manifesto, money bills and foreign treaties.

Really?

Really.

That's basically the same thing as the Lords now.

Would be smaller, all the hereditaries would go and it would be fairer.

[Хahar 🤔]

However, the House of Lords shall be abolished and replaced with the House of Merits, made up by appointment from the Prime Minister, with Commons and Chief Warden approval. This shall consist of men and women who have made major contributions to British society, culture, technology, enterprise etc. It shall have the power to block legislation, apart from bills that were proposed on the government's manifesto, money bills and foreign treaties.

Really?

Really.

That's basically the same thing as the Lords now.

Would be smaller, all the hereditaries would go and it would be fairer.

Fairer to whom? It certainly wouldn't be smaller; wholly appointed houses have a tendency to balloon in size.

[k-onmmunist]

The Commons would control who got appointed.

[Хahar 🤔]

And since the Commons would be the slave of the government, that would be meaningless.

[k-onmmunist]

And since the Commons would be the slave of the government, that would be meaningless.

Proportional rep. would prevent that.