Accurate Democracy Primer

Accurate Democracy Primer
Booklets color $3.95 or 10 for $29; B&W 20 for $19. © , Robert Loring,

See How Better voting rules are fast, easy & fair. They help in classrooms & countries. Results are well centered & widely popular. Politics are more principled & peaceful with fair shares for representation & money, full majorities for presidents & policies. Politics are more principled & peaceful with fair shares for representation and money, full majorities for presidents and policies. Booklet back cover 2

Preview of the Primer 4 Great Decision Tools
Tragedies, Eras and Progress of Democracy Instant Runoff Voting elects a strong CEO. Fair Representation fills a balanced Council. Fair-shares quickly set Budgets. New Condorcet tally enacts a popular central Policy. Goals for Voting, Conclusions and Action Table of Contents Better tools offer real hope; we can stop the tragedies caused by old methods often used in nations and towns, co-ops and corporate boards. This primer shows the need for better voting rules. The workshop shows the simple steps in each tally. The Web site has the footnotes – and free software!

A Tragedy of Democracy Old ways of adding up votes fail to represent large groups in many places. North Carolina had enough black voters to fill two election districts. But, they were a 25% minority spread over eight districts. So for over 100 years, they won no voice in Congress. As voters they were silenced.1 How would you feel about government if your choices for Congress never won? Would voting be worth losing several hours pay? This is the kind of question we need to ask over and over. Think that you are not yet in any group. You are a member of both the rich and poor, the majority and minority. This is the "veil of ignorance" that should surround those writing a constitution or by laws. You might consider it even deeper than the reciprocity of "Do unto others…" The writers should identify with all others equally. Can you list some democratic tragedies? Can we end such raging or silent tragedies? Better tools offer real hope; we can stop the tragedies caused by old methods. 1) Douglas J. Amy, Proportional Representation: The Case for a Better Election System. North Carolina is on page 30; Misconceptions Terms Tyranny of the majority? In fact it is worse than that. US elections do not require a candidate to win any more than a plurality, that is, more votes than any one rival. This system often leads to minority rule. From a California reform flyer: “Did you know that our elected officials can be, and often are, elected without a majority? Have you had enough of negative campaigning? Wouldn’t you like to see elected leaders in office who have the clear mandate of demonstrated majority support?” Booklet inside cover - top 4

Another Tragedy The Northwest was ripped apart for many years as forestry policies were reversed: Hasty logging in times of weak regulation wasted resources. Sudden limits on logging bankrupted some workers and small businesses. The political pendulum swings. It cuts down forests and species, families and towns.2 2) Kathy Durbin, Tree Huggers: Victory, Defeat & Renewal in the Northwest Ancient Forest Campaign, (Seattle, The Mountaineers, 1996) A Tragedy of Democracy OR a travesty of democracy + These tragedies were caused by voting rules often used by nations and towns, co-ops and corporate boards. OR These repeated reversals of laws have been a wrecking ball for the regional ecosystem and economy. + Agencies and businesses often lose wealth when a council changes hands and changes laws. These reversals are a major cause of war-like politics. Booklet inside cover – top 5

What’s Wrong Different jobs for voting need different types of voting.
A yes-no vote suits only a simple issue with just two possible answers. When three candidates run for an office, the situation is more complicated. And a simple yes-no vote is no longer suitable.3 We all know how to decide the simplest sort of issue: A question with only two answers is voted ‘yes’ or ‘no’. For such an issue, the yes and no votes are enough. But as soon as three candidates run for one office, the question becomes more complicated. Then the yes-or-no vote is no longer suitable.(3) It's even worse at giving fair shares of council seats, adjusting many budgets, or finding a balanced policy. Our faulty voting rules come from a failure to see this: Different uses for voting need different types of voting. 3) Why do we need new rules? after George H. Hallett Jr. and Clarence Hoag, Proportional Representation, (NYC, The Macmillan Company, 1926). Our defective voting rules come from the failure to realize there are different types of election. And these require different methods of voting. “We try to carry over to more complicated situations a method which is only suitable in deciding the simplest sort of issue, that is, whether a question with only two possible answers shall be answered yes or no. … For such an issue a simple majority election is, of course, sufficient.” As soon as three candidates present themselves for a single office (or three answers to a single question) the situation becomes more complicated. And a simple yes-no vote is no longer suitable. When what we want is not a single officer or decision among alternatives, but a council fit to represent the voters, something quite different is required. What is needed is not a system of dividing the voters into winners and losers but a system of condensing them, in the right proportions, into their chosen leaders. Inside cover - bottom 6

Eras, Voting Rules and Typical Councils
Democracy has developed It continues to improve Some English-speaking nations still count votes by England's old plurality rule. It elects only one rep from each district; and winning it does not require a majority. It merely elects whoever gets the most “yes” votes. Only the biggest group wins, so only the two biggest have good chance.(4) Even worse: a district's bias often makes it a 'safe seat' for one group. So the voters are given either a very limited choice or no real choice.(5) A few who do get choices can make a council swerve from side to side. Its majority (the blue repsabove) sets all policies — another battle of winner take all. 4) Maurice Duverger, "Factors in a Two-Party and Multiparty System," Party Politics and Pressure Groups (NYC: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1972), 23‑32. 5) FairVote, Monopoly Politics 2014 and the Fair Voting Solution, Page 2 Old version: A few English-speaking nations still use the ancient plurality rule. They elect just one person to represent the plurality or largest group in each small district. So only the largest group has the right to representation. This rule tends to produce two political parties; voters get only two options, and politics cover a narrow range of issues and viewpoints. The largest party (blue in picture) rules the council. A small change in one district's popular vote can shift power, making laws and policies swerve from side to side. This is a war of winner take all. [ Minority groups do not have a right to representation. Even a divided majority does not have a right to representation. ] [ A Single-Winner District can be competitive due to its political diversity, or representative due to its uniformity. It can't be both. ] 7

Typical Council Elected By Plurality Rule
In the 19th Century Winner-Take-All Districts = Off-Center Councils A few English-speaking nations still count votes by England's old plurality rule. It elects only one representative from each small district; and winning it does not require a majority. It merely elects whoever gets the most "yes" votes. Where only the largest party in a district wins a rep, only two big parties thrive. So voters get only two real candidates, offering a small choice of issues and opinions. A council majority sets policies. (dark blue in picture) A small change in one district's popular vote can shift all power, making laws and policies swerve from side to side. Plurality politics is a war of winner take all. A few English-speaking nations still use the ancient plurality rule. They elect just one person to represent the plurality or largest group in each small district. So only the largest group has the right to representation. This rule tends to produce two political parties; voters get only two options, and politics cover a narrow range of issues and viewpoints. The largest party (blue in picture) rules the council. A small change in one district's popular vote can shift power, making laws and policies swerve from side to side. This is a war of winner take all. Page 2 $$$ LAWS $$$ Typical Council Elected By Plurality Rule

Plurality rule, Less than a majority
Only one rep => Only two parties Voters get very limited choices5 Power and policies swerve Winners take all Some English-speaking nations still count votes by England's old plurality rule. It elects only one rep from each district; and winning it does not require a majority. It merely elects whoever gets the most “yes” votes. Only the biggest group wins, so only the two biggest have good chance.(4) Even worse: a district's bias often makes it a 'safe seat' for one group. So the voters are given either a very limited choice or no real choice.(5) A few who do get choices can make a council swerve from side to side. Its majority (the blue repsabove) sets all policies — another battle of winner take all. 4) Maurice Duverger, "Factors in a Two-Party and Multiparty System," Party Politics and Pressure Groups (NYC: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1972), 23‑32. 5) FairVote, Monopoly Politics 2014 and the Fair Voting Solution, Page 2 Old version: A few English-speaking nations still use the ancient plurality rule. They elect just one person to represent the plurality or largest group in each small district. So only the largest group has the right to representation. This rule tends to produce two political parties; voters get only two options, and politics cover a narrow range of issues and viewpoints. The largest party (blue in picture) rules the council. A small change in one district's popular vote can shift power, making laws and policies swerve from side to side. This is a war of winner take all. [ Minority groups do not have a right to representation. Even a divided majority does not have a right to representation. ] [ A Single-Winner District can be competitive due to its political diversity, or representative due to its uniformity. It can't be both. ] 9 9

In the 20th Century Fair-Share Elections = One-Sided Majorities
Web version: Fair Representation was invented in the late 1800s to avoid some of the many problems caused by plurality rule. Most democracies have adopted “Fair Rep”. It elects several people to represent each large district. It gives a group that earns, say 10% of the votes, 10% of the seats. Thus Fair Rep always gives large groups their fair shares of representation. It leads to broad representation of issues and views. But usually there is no central party (“C” on the previous slide) and the two biggest parties normally refuse to work together. So the side with the most seats (blue and black in that picture) forms the ruling majority — and tends to enact policies skewed to one side. Page 3 $ $ $ LAWS $ $ $ Typical Council with Fair Representation

Fair Representation Most democracies use “Fair Rep”
Elects several reps. Larger districts. Fair shares.6 Policies still skew to one side. Fair Representation was developed around 1900 to end some major problems caused by plurality rule. Most democracies have adopted “Fair Rep”. It elects several reps from each election district. It gives a group that earns, say 20% of the votes, 20% of the seats. Thus Fair Rep delivers fair shares of representation.6 It leads to broad representation of issues and views. But usually there is no central party (C on previous slide) and the two biggest parties normally refuse to work together. So the side with the most seats (blue and black) forms a ruling majority. Then they enact policies skewed to one side. 6) Arend Lijphart, Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1994) Page 3 11

In the 21st Century Ensemble Councils = Balanced Majorities
Ensemble rules elect most reps by Fair Representation, plus a few by a central rule (C in picture). To win by the central rule on pages 22-25, a candidate must have wide appeal and views near the middle of the electorate, hence at the middle of an Fair Rep council. So they hold a council's decisive swing votes. Their wide constituency demands policies that use the best ideas from each side, not either mechanically averaged or narrowly centrist. Web version 2000s: Ensemble Councils lead to Broad, Centered Majorities. New ensemble councils will have some reps elected by PR, plus others elected by a central voting rule (C in picture). To win by the voting rule explained next, candidates must have broad appeal and views near the middle of the electorate -- and correspondingly near the middle of a council proportional to the electorate. So they hold the council's decisive swing votes. Their broad constituency demands policies balanced with the best ideas from each side, not mechanically averaged or narrowly centrist. Page 4 $ $ $ LAWS $ $ $ Ensemble from Central & Fair-Share Rules

Ensemble councils Elect most reps by Fair Rep.
Add a few by a central rule. They have wide appeal, and Powerful swing votes. New ensemble rules will elect most reps by Fair Representation, plus a few by a central rule (C in picture). Later pages (slides 48 thru 60) show how a central rule picks winners with wide appeal and views near the middle of the voters. Winners are thus near the middle of a Fair Rep council. So they are the council's powerful swing votes. Most voters in that wide base of support don’t want averaged or centrist policies. They want policies to combine the best suggestions from all groups. Page 4 13

Democratic Progress Centrist policy – excludes others.
One-sided policy – ignores rivals. Compromise policy – forced, averaged. Balanced policy – unites the best of all. A centrist policy enacts a narrow point of view. It excludes other opinions and needs. A one-sided policy also ignores rival ideas A compromise policy tries to negotiate rival plans. But contrary plans forced together often work poorly. And so does the average of rival plans. In contrast, a balanced policy unites compatible ideas from all sides. This process needs advocates for diverse ideas. And more than that, it needs powerful moderators. Page 5 Negotiations often inspire exaggerated bargaining positions, time consuming maneuvers, affected poses, and hostile resistance to opponents on every issue to score debating points. 14

Balanced Majority Broad, balanced policies, Maximize happiness.
Inclusive, well centered and decisive council, Avoids tragedies. A broad, balanced majority works to enact broad, balanced policies. These tend to give the greatest chance for happiness to the greatest number of people. Excellent policies are a goal of accurate democracy. Their success is measured in a typical voter's education and income, freedom and safety, health and leisure.(7) Older rules often skew results and hurt democracy. An ensemble is inclusive, yet centered and decisive, to make the council popular, yet stable and quick. We'll see these qualities again in the best ways to set budgets and policies. 7) See the statistics at Page 4 15

Nine voters whose opinions range from left to right.
Let’s think about an election with nine voters whose opinions range from left to right. The figures in this picture mark the positions of voters on the political left, right or center. It is as though we asked them, “If you want high-quality government services and taxes like Norway or Sweden, please stand here. Like Canada? Stand here please. Like the USA? Stand here. Stand over there for Mexico's low taxes and government.” Throughout this primer, we're going to show political positions in this compelling graphical way. Page 6 High taxes buy Low taxes, great gov. services poor services 16

Plurality, the one with the most votes wins.
Plurality Election Plurality, the one with the most votes wins. Three candidates stand for office. A voter likes the candidate whose political position is nearest. So voters on the left favor the candidate on the left. Ms. K is the candidate nearest four voters. L is nearest two and M is nearest three. Candidates L and M split the voters on the right. Does anyone win a majority? Yes, No Who wins the plurality or largest share? K, L, M Who wins the second-largest share of votes? K, L, M A mere plurality gives the winner a weak mandate of authority from voters. Page 7 K is nearest 4 voters. L is nearest 2. M is nearest 3.

Runoff, the top two compete, one against one.
Runoff Election Runoff, the top two compete, one against one. Who wins a runoff between the top two? K, M The two (teal) who had voted for L now vote for M. Do votes that move count more than others? Yes, No This winner has the power of a majority mandate. Only four “wasted votes” fail to elect anyone. Runoffs practically ask, “Which side is stronger?” (Later, these voters will use a rule that asks, “Where is our center?” And a bigger group will use a rule that asks, “Which trio best represents all of us?”) Page 8 Candidate M wins the runoff.

Politics on Two Dimensions
Voting systems behave the same when voters do not fit neatly along a single left-right dimension.1 Voting systems behave the same even when opinions do not fit neatly along a line from left to right. Here a group spreads out on two issue dimensions: left to right and up and down. On the steps of their school, we ask them a second question. It is on an issue apart from taxes and services. “Please take one step up if you want more regulation. Take two steps down if you want much less regulation, and so on.” Which leaves more wasted votes, plurality or runoff? Which gives the winner a stronger mandate? Page 9 Kay wins a plurality Em wins a runoff

A Goal of Instant Runoff Voting is this:
A majority winner, from a single election. Rank your favorite candidates. Your ballot goes to your first choice. Fewest ballots loses. If your favorite lost, your ballot moves to your next choice. We count again. Repeat till one candidate gets a majority. How does it work? You rank your favorite candidates as your first choice, and backups as second choice, third and so on. Then your ballot goes to your first-rank candidate. If no candidate gets a majority, the one with fewest ballots loses. Then there is another round of counting. Your ballot stays with your favorite if she advances. It moves to your next choice if your favorite has lost. This repeats until one candidate gets a majority. Page 10 Did you know that our elected officials can be, and often are, elected without a majority? Have you had enough of negative campaigning? Wouldn’t you like to see elected leaders in office who have the clear mandate of majority support?

Merits of Instant Runoff Voting
A majority winner from 1 election. No drop in voter turnout. Less negative campaigning. No hurting your first choice. No lesser-of-two-evils choice. No split-vote worries for factions. A majority winner from 1 election, so no winners-without-mandates and no costly runoff elections. Less negative campaigning, as a candidate must ask a rival's supporters for their 2nd choice votes. No hurting your first choice by ranking a 2nd, as a 2nd does not count unless the 1st choice has lost. No lesser-of-two-evils choice, as you can mark your true 1st choice without fear of wasting your vote. No spoilers, as votes for minor candidates move to each voter's more popular choices. MORE: IRV saves money over regular runoff elections – in fact the city of San Francisco will save two million dollars by switching to IRV. IRV supports coalition building, so candidates run cleaner campaigns. Lessens impact of campaign spending -- independent expenditures often go up in runoffs. Maximizes voter turnout -- turnout usually drops steeply in runoffs“ Page 10 21

Instant Runoff Voting Patterns
Two liberals faced a dictator’s heir. So the liberal majority was split. The heir won under plurality rule. It elects whoever gets the most votes; 50% is not required. With IRV, ballots for the weaker liberal would transfer to elect the stronger. In a South Korean presidential election (1987), two liberals faced the aid to a military dictator. The liberals got a majority of the votes but split their supporters. So the conservative won by a plurality rule. These rules elect whoever gets the most votes; 50% is not required. The winner claimed a mandate to continue repressive policies. Years later he was convicted of treason in the tragic killing of pro-democracy demonstrators. With Instant Runoff Voting, ballots for the weaker liberal could have transferred to elect the stronger one. The USA too has seen major elections in which two candidates on the left split their voters or two on the right split theirs. Sometimes this increased our national tragedies. Can you name some of these split elections and their tragic results? Page 11 22

From Five Factions to One Majority
Ms. Violet loses. Her ballots go to each voter's next choice. 2) Ms. Blonde loses. Her ballots move. 3) Ms. Green loses. 4) Ms. Carmine loses. Page 11 23

Instant Runoff Review You vote once with a full-choice ballot.
IRV lets you vote for the candidate you really like. And even if that option loses, your vote isn't wasted; it goes to your next choice. IRV elects leaders in more and more cities: London, Melbourne, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Sydney, Brisbane and others. Students use it at Duke, Harvard, Stanford, Rice, Tufts, MIT, Cal Tech, Carlton, Clark, Hendrix, Reed, Vassar, The University of: CA, IL, MD, MN, OK, VA, WA, … “Do we trust in a system of majority-rule or plurality-rule?” Workshop page 8 shows one style for a full-choice ballot. Page 11 24

Single-Winner District Elections
One rep from each of 3 seminar groups. But bluish majorities win in all 3 sections. And other voters get no representation. Fair Representation Election A quarter of the whole class, plus one. So 3 reps get over 3/4; fewer wasted votes. Now bluish voters win two seats, a majority. And yellowish voters win the third seat. Single Winner: A class of 27 wants to elect a planning committee. The first suggestion says, “Elect one person from each of the three seminar groups.” The top group gives Kay 3 votes and Ray 6 votes. Fair Rep: A better suggestion says, “Keep the class whole. Change the definition of victory from half of a small seminar to a quarter of the whole class, plus one.” Pages 12-13 25

Three Single Winner Districts
A class of 27 elects a rep from each seminar group. In the top group, 5 votes elect B as J gets only 4 votes. A minority with 11 voters gets majority power, with 2 reps. (But if it were spread out evenly, it would get none.) Single Winner: A class of 27 wants to elect a planning committee. The first suggestion says, “Elect one person from each of the three seminar groups.” The top group gives Kay 3 votes and Ray 6 votes. Fair Rep: A better suggestion says, “Keep the class whole. Change the definition of victory from half of a small seminar to a quarter of the whole class, plus one.” Pages 12-13

One Election with Fair Representation
Change the definition of victory from 1/2 of each small seminar to 1/4 of the whole class plus one. So 3 reps need 3/4 of the total votes. Now the majority gets 2 reps, and the minority gets 1. Effective votes make a stronger mandate for council decisions. Single Winner: A class of 27 wants to elect a planning committee. The first suggestion says, “Elect one person from each of the three seminar groups.” The top group gives Kay 3 votes and Ray 6 votes. Fair Rep: A better suggestion says, “Keep the class whole. Change the definition of victory from half of a small seminar to a quarter of the whole class, plus one.” Pages 12-13

Single Winner Districts vs. Fair Representation
Single Winner: A class of 27 wants to elect a planning committee. The first suggestion says, “Elect one person from each of the three seminar groups.” The top group gives Kay 3 votes and Ray 6 votes. Fair Rep: A better suggestion says, “Keep the class whole. Change the definition of victory from half of a small seminar to a quarter of the whole class, plus one.” Pages 12-13

The principle of Fair Representation
Majority rule, with representation for political minorities, in proportion to their votes. That means, 60% of the vote gets you 60% of the seats, not all of them. And 10% of the vote gets you 10% of the seats, not none of them. These are fair shares. That is, 60% of the vote gets you 60% of the seats, not all of them. And 10% of the vote gets you 10% of the seats, not none of them. These are fair-shares. How does it work? There are three basic ingredients: We elect more than one rep from a district. You vote for more than one; you vote for a list. Parties offer lists to us, or we each list favorites. The more votes a list gets, the more reps it elects. Page 14 How does it work? Instead of voting for 1 candidate, you vote for a list. In Germany and New Zealand, each party offers its list to the voters. In Australia and Ireland, each voter makes a list by ranking candidates. Either way, the more votes a list gets, the more candidates on it get elected. Thirty out of the worlds forty five full-fledged democracies use forms of full representation to elect one of their national legislatures. 29

How Does It Work? Elect more than 1 rep from each district.
Vote for more than one; vote for a list. Pick a party’s list or list your favorites. The more votes a list gets, the more reps it elects. That is, 60% of the vote gets you 60% of the seats, not all of them. And 10% of the vote gets you 10% of the seats, not none of them. These are fair-shares. How does it work? There are three basic ingredients: We elect more than one rep from a district. You vote for more than one; you vote for a list. Parties offer lists to us, or we each list favorites. The more votes a list gets, the more reps it elects. Page 14 How does it work? Instead of voting for 1 candidate, you vote for a list. In Germany and New Zealand, each party offers its list to the voters. In Australia and Ireland, each voter makes a list by ranking candidates. Either way, the more votes a list gets, the more candidates on it get elected. Thirty out of the worlds forty five full-fledged democracies use forms of full representation to elect one of their national legislatures. 30

Fair Representation Increases:
Fair shares of reps for each group, so Diverse candidates can win, so Close races are on most ballots, so Real choices for the voters & high turnout Women get elected 3 times more often. Majority rule improves – also by few wasted votes, real choices, turnout & equal support. Policies match public opinion better. Health and education often increase. Some Benefits of Fair Representation: It gives each major group a fair share of reps. So it often elects more political minorities. And it elects up to three times more women. That tends to help policies match public opinion; and often raise the quality of health and education. It gives voters real choices, boosting voter turnout. A council must earn many more votes (¾ vs. ½); so Fair Rep can strengthen a council's mandate. Slides 64 and 65 list more benefits. Fewer wasted votes; more effective votes. Richer debates and discourse. More representative policy. Decreases in the impact of campaign spending on outcomes. STV creates opportunities for independent candidates and new parties. It offers individual legislators greater independence from legislative leaders. Both major parties are represented in all regions of the state; Eliminates requirement of jurisdictions to redistrict themselves every 10 years, if the whole jurisdiction is one, multi-winner election district. Allows some candidates to win with less money (campaign spending.) They know which neighborhoods support them and have enough votes for a seat. Increases the potential pool of high-quality candidates, Funding for health and education. Slides 62 and 63 list more benefits. More competitive elections because there can be fewer safe seats. U.S. parties routinely gerrymander a district to heavily favor one party or the other; that creates a non-competitive safe seat. If you are given a safe seat, you might have a mandate from the party bosses, but not from the voters. With STV, many seats still are safe because a party knows it has solid support from at least one quota of a district's voters. But many districts will have one seat which is not safe, so it which changes hands often. Those districts will have genuine electoral contests With Fair Representation and Mixed Member Proportional, the national list makes parties seek supporters in every region. * Matching of policies to public opinions, is closer in countries with Fair Representation than in those with single-winner districts. For example, a Fair Rep council tends to give a bigger share of its budget to health and education, which is what most voters want. See G. Bingham Powell’s Elections as Instruments of Democracy, and Arend Lijphart's Patterns of Democracy . Page 26 Choices for voters and turnout of voters, Electing political minorities and women, Matching policies to public opinions, e.g. funding for health and education. Competitive districts and effective votes, The number of effective votes. Thus it increases a council’s mandate. 31

Fair-Share Elections and Moderate Reps
Chicago’s FR was less polarizing. New Zealand’s FR reps are like voters. Chicago now elects no Republicans to the State Congress, even though they win up to a third of its votes. But for over 100 years both parties elected reps from Chicago. That was because the state used a fair rule to elect three reps from each voting district. Most districts gave the majority party two reps and the minority party one. Those Chicago Republicans were usually moderates. So were Democratic reps from Republican strongholds. Even the majority party in a district tended to elect more independent-minded reps. They could work together better and make state policies more moderate. New Zealand switched in 1996 from Single-Winner Districts to a blend of SWD and Fair Representation. Elections in small, one-winner districts exaggerate local issues and alliances. Fair Rep frees voters from district enclosures to elect some reps with a thin, but widespread appeal. The number of women elected rose from 21 to 35. The number of native Maoris elected rose from 6 to 15, which is almost proportional to the Maori population. Voters also elected 3 Polynesian reps and 1 Asian rep. Fair Representation creates opportunities for independent candidates, and for new parties, particularly regional parties. Some people call this Proportional Representation or Proportional Voting. (Workshop page 4 has more.) Page 15 Shares of votes equal fair shares of seats. 32

Fair-Share Elections Elect More Women
New Zealand & Germany: Use both FR & Single-Member Districts. FR elects 3 times as many women. Swedish women’s party (almost) Other Consequences: Fix the root cause of bad policies. Policies match public opinions better. Does Proportional Representation elect more women? New Zealand and Germany elect half of their MPs by list PR and half of them in single-member districts. Their districts elect few women; but in the same election, the PR lists elect three times more women. In every one-seat district, a party's safest nominee is likely to be a member of the dominant sex, race, etc. That adds up to very poor representation of all others. PR leads each party to nominate a balanced team of candidates to attract voters. This promotes women. A team may have class, ethnic and religious diversity. And that gives us more diverse reps to ask for help. Some leading women spoke of starting a new party in Sweden, which uses Fair Rep. Under plurality rule, a big new party splits their own side, so it loses. But Fair Rep gives every big party its share of seats. This credible threat made some parties decide that job experience was not as important as gender balance. They dropped some experienced men to make more room for women on the party list. And they won.(7) Now they are incumbents with experience, power and allies Page 18 33

Does It Work? If urgent needs overwhelm a group, they neglect their essential needs, the structural roots of their problems. We often get bad results from poor policies due to poor representation growing out of inapt voting rules. The countries with the best voting rules have the best quality of life. That is, 60% of the vote gets you 60% of the seats, not all of them. And 10% of the vote gets you 10% of the seats, not none of them. These are fair-shares. How does it work? There are three basic ingredients: We elect more than one rep from a district. You vote for more than one; you vote for a list. Parties offer lists to us, or we each list favorites. The more votes a list gets, the more reps it elects. Page 14 How does it work? Instead of voting for 1 candidate, you vote for a list. In Germany and New Zealand, each party offers its list to the voters. In Australia and Ireland, each voter makes a list by ranking candidates. Either way, the more votes a list gets, the more candidates on it get elected. Thirty out of the worlds forty five full-fledged democracies use forms of full representation to elect one of their national legislatures. 34

Legislative Voting Rules
Elections are the public face of voting. Rules to set policies and budgets are just as important. In fact, they get used much more than election rules. Electing reps is the most obvious use of voting rules. Rules to set policies and budgets are just as important. In fact, they get used more often than election rules. They might be the only votes in a direct democracy. Fair Representation distributes council seats fairly. In the same way, Fair-share Spending allocates money for optional projects fairly. It is the next logical step. Democratic rights fulfilled through history: Voting rights for rich men, then poor men, then “colored” men, and then women. Full representation for large political minorities. Fair-share spending for them. It's new! Let it help your organization! It carries on the progress of democracy seen in Fair Representation. 35

Fair Shares Buy Public Goods
Fair Rep allocates council seats fairly. Fair Share Voting spreads winning projects fairly. It is the next step. Democratic rights in history: Right to vote. Right to representation. Right to discretionary funds. Electing reps is the most obvious use of voting rules. Rules to set policies and budgets are just as important. They are the only type of voting in a direct democracy. Fair Representation distributes council seats fairly; in the same way, Fair-share Spending allocates money for projects fairly. It is the next logical step. Democratic rights fulfilled through history: Voting rights for rich men, then poor men, then “colored” men, and then women. Full representation for large political minorities. Fair-share spending for them. It's new! Let it help your organization! It carries on the progress of democracy seen in Fair Representation. 36

Fair Shares Buying Public Goods
Fair shares for council seats and projects Page 16 $ $ $ $ LAW $ $ $ $ $ Fair shares give minority voters some power.

Unfair Spending Patterns
Membership groups shirk real elections. Members still compete to fund projects. Sometimes a faction subverts the process, to capture a lot of the budget. Others then grow rebellious, or leave. They need a rule to make funding fair. Membership groups often shirk competitive elections to avoid conflicts and hurt feelings. But members still compete over money to fund projects. Sometimes a group uses tricks to capture a lot of the budget. When that injustice injustice is felt, other groups may grow rebellious, or leave. They need a rule to make funding fair and accurate. ( They minimize the number of candidates, the campaign time, speeches, and money, the ceremony, etc.) They might fear conflicts and hurt feelings. But members will still compete for money to fund projects. Page 17 38

Participatory Budgeting
PB lets neighbors research, talk & vote on how to spend part of a city's budget. PB is a big step up for democracy. But it has 2 flaws. It is not cost aware: A vote for a park was worth $ But given to fund bike racks, that vote was worth only $31. In a city-wide vote, each neighborhood or interest group funds a few school, park or road improvements. The city's taxes then pay for the projects as the School Park and Road Departments administer the contracts. Every neighborhood and interest group controls its share of spending power; no one is shut out. This makes (hidden) empires less profitable. Page 19 A critic asked “Why would anyone want such a non- government?” One might respond "Is federalism a non-government?" It might seem so to dictators, but most people say federalism gives very effective governance. Like federalism, FS helps sub-groups fund their own projects. The sub-groups under federalism are pre-determined geographic areas; under FS they may be any big group, including ad hoc geographic areas. Say a state legislature has 100 reps and a FS quota of meaning a project needs contributions from 20 reps to qualify as a public good. Twenty is a larger number of reps than unanimous support from 2 nine- person city councils. Twenty state reps may represent a larger population and geographic area than 20 city council reps. Thus, like federalism, FS is a tool for responsible and responsive government. 39

FSV Works This Way Interest groups choose improvements. City's taxes pay for projects and city departments manage them. No one is shut out. Each group controls its share of power. It makes (hidden) empires less profitable. In a city-wide vote, each neighborhood or interest group funds a few school, park or road improvements. The city's taxes then pay for the projects as the School Park and Road Departments administer the contracts. Every neighborhood and interest group controls its share of spending power; no one is shut out. This makes (hidden) empires less profitable. Page 19 A critic asked “Why would anyone want such a non- government?” One might respond "Is federalism a non-government?" It might seem so to dictators, but most people say federalism gives very effective governance. Like federalism, FS helps sub-groups fund their own projects. The sub-groups under federalism are pre-determined geographic areas; under FS they may be any big group, including ad hoc geographic areas. Say a state legislature has 100 reps and a FS quota of meaning a project needs contributions from 20 reps to qualify as a public good. Twenty is a larger number of reps than unanimous support from 2 nine- person city councils. Twenty state reps may represent a larger population and geographic area than 20 city council reps. Thus, like federalism, FS is a tool for responsible and responsive government. 40

Fair-Share Voting on Projects
Money clearly shows the difference between fair shares and winner-take-all. A costly winner makes many lose. Page 17 x Many empty hands  Fair shares

Fair Shares or Winner Take All
If a plurality controls all funding, the last thing they buy adds little to their happiness. It is a low priority. But that money could buy the high-priority favorite of a large minority; making them happier. If a plurality controls all funding, their last allocation adds little to their happiness: After they spend $ on favorite items, the next $ funds a low priority. But that same $ could fund the top priority for a large minority – making the minority much happier. Page 19 42

Spread Shares & More Shares raise ‘utility value’ of spending. They spread opportunities & incentives. Results earn wide respect & support. Budgets serve & appeal to more people. Most vote for at least 1 minority project. See the FSV slide show at accuratedemocracy.com/p_intro.htm In economic terms: The social utility of the money and goods tends to rise if we each give out a share. Shares spread out opportunities and incentives too. In political terms: Fair shares earn wide respect, as we are each in a minority wanting some project. Shares spread cooperation and loyalty too. The budget serves and appeals to more people. (Workshop page 5 shows a tally.) Page 19 43

The principle of Fair-share Spending
Spending power for all, in proportion to their votes. Public good worth public money. Limits the fraction a voter may fund. Just rank your favorite projects. Your money moves to your top choices. We drop the weakest items 1 at a time. That is, 60% of the voters spend 60% of the fund, not all of it. A project needs grants from many voters (perhaps 20%) to prove it is a public good worth public money. So we let a voter fund only a fraction of a project. How does it work? Like IRV: Just rank your favorite projects. (And you or the sponsors set each project's budget goal.) Then your money moves to help your top choices. And a tally drops the least-funded project. This repeats until all projects still in the race are fully funded. (Ballots take turns, each giving $1 to its top-ranked, under-funded item.) When the discretionary fund runs out, we drop the least popular item. (If you gave the limit to a project, that is a full vote for it; if you gave half of the limit, that is a half vote.) This tally repeats until all remaining items are fully funded. (FS can set the budgets of departments too. Each funding level of a department must win a quota of support. Limits on grants block free riders and bullet votes.) Fair shares are requirement for any ethical political system Page 18 44

Merits of Fair-share Spending
It lets sub-groups pick projects; it’s like federalism but without new layers of taxes and bureaucracy. And it funds big groups both spread out and local. It lets sub-groups pick projects; it’s like federalism but without new layers of taxes and bureaucracy. And it funds big groups both spread out and local. Page 18 45

A member can waste only her share of the fund. Voters can see the rep’s grants to each project, tax cut or debt reduction. And hold her accountable. A member can waste only her share of the fund. Voters can see the rep’s grants to each project, tax cut or debt reduction and hold her accountable. Page 18 46

It does not hand minorities too much power: The fund is small; it just covers optional projects. The majority spends most of the fair-share fund. It does not hand minorities too much power: The majority spends most of the fair-share fund. The fund is small; it just covers optional projects.* * Fair shares Spending could set the budgets of departments too. Each funding level of a department must win a quota of support. High and low limits on grants limit surprises. (The next rule below lets other voters counteract surprises.) Page 18 47

Merits of Fair Share Votes
Smooth the roller-coaster budgets that hurt efficiency. Stop starvation budgets designed to cause failure. Reduce agenda effects: leaving naught for the last departments or going into debt for them. No roller-coaster budgets hurting efficiency. No starvation budgets calculated to cause failure. No agenda effects such as leaving naught for the last departments or going into debt for them. Split the free-rider or poison-pill items from others. No hidden votes. Page 20 48

Merits of Fair Share Votes
After discussion, one poll quickly sets many budgets. Majorities enact the policies that direct the agencies. They may end any program before voting starts. Fair, transparent rules build trust in group spending and may raise support for more of it. A minority moderates a budget. A majority makes it rise or fall. They enact the program that spends it. Fair, transparent rules build trust in group spending and may raise support for more of it. (Workshop page 6 shows budget-setting math.) page 20 These funding rules avoid both centralized socialism and self- centered capitalism. They organize networks of economic cooperation in ad hoc groups. They make empire building less attractive. The majority lose a fraction of power for every minority annexed. The "in group" in a club, college, coop, condo, or congregation cannot take more than their fair share. They cannot give the “out groups” less than their shares. Each rep’s spending is “transparent”; voters may see how each rep allocated each dollar. Each voter inherently supports the way his share was spent – after all, he spent it. So in that sense the base of support is 100%. “Did you control your fair share of the budget and do you support the way that share was spent? Do you think you should control more than your fair share?” 49

More Merits of Fair Shares
The majority lose a fraction of power for every minority annexed. FS avoids both centralized and self- centered economics. It aids cooperation in ad hoc groups. It keeps high incentives for inventors and investors to increase efficiency. It selects winners on the open market. Soit keeps strong incentives for inventors and investors to raise efficiency. It aids economic co-operation in ad-hoc groups. Soit may reduceextremes of both individual and centralized spending. All voters help fund favorite winners; so all seem effective. (Tho' deleting a ballot does not always change the set of winners.) This can boost the incentive to vote and the turnout of voters. Yet no one can slow or stop the budget process. (California's supermajority rule lets a minority block the budget.) Twin Oaks Community in Virginia has experimented with Participatory Budgeting methods for over 30 years. In 2009 they used Dr. Robert Tupelo- Schneck's new software to tally Movable Money Votes. Fair, transparent rules build trust in group spending and may raise support for more of it. (Workshop page 6 shows budget-setting math.) page 20 These funding rules avoid both centralized socialism and self- centered capitalism. They organize networks of economic cooperation in ad hoc groups. They make empire building less attractive. The majority lose a fraction of power for every minority annexed. The "in group" in a club, college, coop, condo, or congregation cannot take more than their fair share. They cannot give the “out groups” less than their shares. Each rep’s spending is “transparent”; voters may see how each rep allocated each dollar. Each voter inherently supports the way his share was spent – after all, he spent it. So in that sense the base of support is 100%. “Did you control your fair share of the budget and do you support the way that share was spent? Do you think you should control more than your fair share?” 50

Fair-share Spending Picture
“We’ll fund this project.” “We’ll fund “We'll fund this one!” another." It takes more than one voter to select a public good. In practice most voters will contribute to several projects. Page 19 51

Majority rule, within a balance of forces.
Adjusting Budgets Write-in and rank budget levels for items. A voter may rank higher budgets for each. He can afford a share for many high ranks. Paying a full share gives 1 vote. The item with weakest top level loses it. A donor’s money flows to his next choices. This repeats ‘til every top level wins quota. Every “line item” starts with most of its old budget. Voters may write-in and rank higher budgets for the items. Your ballot can afford to pay your fair shares for your top choices. This is how it gives them votes. Each budget level of an item needs a set number of votes, a quota. It gets a vote from each ballot currently paying a full share of the item's cost up to that level or higher. cost / quota = 1 share = 1 vote The item with the fewest votes for its top level, loses that level. Each donor's money flows from it to help his highest choice that lacks his vote. This repeats until the top level of each item is fully funded, by winning the quota of votes. Every line item starts with most of its old budget. Voters write-in and rank higher budgets for the items. A voter's ballot can afford to pay its fair shares, and so vote, for many of its high ranks. To win, each budget level of an item needs to get a number of votes. It gets one from a voter who pays a full share of the item's cost up to that level or higher. Count the votes for each item's highest budget level. The top level with the fewest votes loses. Its money flows to the donor's next rank that needs his vote. This repeats 'til each item has a top level that wins. To give less than 80% to HEW, PHS, EMT, fire, Police, etc. is irresponsible and so is blocked. Each agency starts with [80]% of its current budget. To give less to essential services such as the police and public health would be “taking a free ride.” The principle in OLD Budget Refill Voting: Majority rule, within a balance of forces. So if we all agree, we can alter budgets radically. But if many disagree, they can moderate the changes. Yet a minority cannot slow the budget process. All departments start at 80% of their current budgets. A voter may refill only a limited share of each budget. So it takes many voters to refill one, and more to raise it. You repeatedly adjust your grants, causing and count- ering budget changes, until a timer stops the voting. (Workshop page 6 shows budget- setting math.) Page 20 52

Pairwise Test Number One
The Runoff was a one-against-one or “Pairwise” contest between candidates M and K. Five voters preferred M over K. The Runoff shown on slide 14 was a one-against-one or “Pairwise” contest between candidates M and K. Five voters preferred M over K. Here is a second Pairwise test with the same voters: Candidate K loses this one-against-one test. Candidate L wins by five votes to four. Page 8 K is nearest four voters. L is nearest five voters.

Pairwise Test Number Two
Here is a second Pairwise test with the same voters. Candidate L wins by 5 to 4. Page 22 K is nearest four voters. L is nearest five voters.

Pairwise Test Number Three
Candidate L wins her last 1-on-1 test also. She has won majorities against each rival. She is the Pairwise winner. Candidate L wins her next one-on-one test also. She has won majorities against each of her rivals, so she best represents all the voters. She is the Pairwise winner. Could another person top candidate L? Yes, No Hint: Is anyone closer to the political center? Yes, No The blue-green voter fifth from the left stands nearest the center. Thus Pairwise picks a central chairperson or policy. But it doesn't elect a dynamic CEO, or diverse reps.. Page 23 L is nearest six voters; M is nearest three.

The Goal of the Pairwise Tally
Majority victories, over every single rival. A winner must top every rival, one-on-one. The analogy is a “round robin tournament.” A player has 1 contest with each rival. If she wins all, she wins the tournament. Each voting test sorts ballots into 2 piles. If you rank J higher than D, yours goes to J. The 1 with the most ballots wins that test. If 1 option wins all its tests, it is enacted. The sports analogy is a ‘round-robin tournament.’ A player has one contest with each rival. If she wins all her tests, she wins the tournament. Each voting test sorts all of the ballots into two piles. If you rank option J higher than D, your ballot goes to J. The option with the most ballots wins that test. If an option wins all its tests, it wins the election.* *If 3 or more lose to each other, then IRV can elect 1 of them. Option M tops option K if most voters rank M over K. Each ballot's rank of M relative to K concerns us. Their numbers of first-rank votes do not. The winner must top every rival, one-against-one. If another rule picks a different winner, our “round-robin” tournament, or Condorcet winner ranks higher on most ballots. So she wins a one-against-one majority over that other rule’s winner. Page 24 56

Pairwise Tallies Quickly Pick Balanced Policies.
Full-choice ballots rank all related motions. They simplify the rules of order. That speeds up voting. It cuts agenda effects, poison-pill and free-rider amendments. Full-choice ballots rank related motions all at once. They simplify the rules of order, speed up voting, and cut agenda effects, including poison-pill and free-rider amendments. Policies can be offered and voted on in packages. The most popular package will incorporate vote trades. Page 24 57

Pairwise Tallies Pick Balanced Policies.
Balanced policies avoid erratic or excessive changes. That saves money and builds respect for government. It reduces the game-of-chance and fear in politics. It reduces the payoff from big campaign gifts. Balanced policies avoid erratic or excessive changes. That saves money and builds respect for government. It reduces the game-of-chance and hysteria in politics. It reduces the payoff from big campaign gifts. "Generally, business is very much in favor of a regulatory environment which is predictable. People don't like a regulatory environment which is on the left one day and on the right the next day, and just flip-flops back and forth, because it doesn't provide a context in which you can make 20- and 30-year investments." BP Vice President Paul Willems Page 24 58

Pairwise Tallies quickly pick central leaders.
Pairwise can elect a fairly neutral judge or chief administrator. It also can elect a moderator to be the swing vote for a balanced, “ensemble council.” (See slide 10.) Pairwise can elect a fairly neutral judge or chief administrator. It also can elect a moderator to be the swing vote for a balanced, “ensemble council”. (See slide 10.) Page 24 59

Pairwise Popularity and Balance
Every voter ranks it against other policies. So all voters are valuable. This leads to policies with wide appeal. A Pairwise winner is central and popular: Most centrist and liberal voters prefer it over each conservative policy, while centrist and conservative voters prefer it to each liberal policy. All sides can join to beat a narrow centrist. Every voter can rank it relative to other policies. So all voters are “obtainable” and valuable. This leads to policies with wide appeal. (A plurality or runoff winner gets no votes from the losing side and doesn't need to please them.) The Pairwise winner is central and popular: Most centrist and liberal voters prefer it over each conservative policy. At the same time, centrist and conservative voters prefer it to each liberal policy. All sides can join to beat a narrowly-centrist policy. A policy needs good marks from voters all along the political spectrum, because every voter can rank it relative to other policies. So all voters are “obtainable” and valuable. This leads to policies with wide appeal. (A plurality or runoff winner gets no votes from the losing side and doesn't need to please those voters.) The Pairwise winner is central and popular: Most centrist and liberal voters prefer it over each conservative policy. At the same time, centrist and conservative voters prefer it to each liberal policy. All sides can join to beat a narrowly- centrist policy. Page 25

Chairs with Balanced Support
CT elects a central chairperson and vice chair to hold the powerful swing votes on an Ensemble Council. They compete for support from voters left, right and center. So they have strong incentives to balance a council's process and policies. Proposed policies compete for high ranks from all members, but the votes of the chairs are often key. page 29 NOTES: It's much like the keystone in an arch supporting... Page 25 61

Chair’s Balanced Support
Liberal voters rank Kennedy higher than Clinton. So to win a majority over Kennedy, Clinton must outrank him on ballots from centrists and conservatives. (She will not be a conservative’s first choice though.) Conservative voters rank Bush higher than Clinton. So to win a majority over Bush, Clinton must outrank him on ballots from centrists and liberals. Every candidate needs the centrist voters, of course. But every candidate needs the liberals and conservatives too. When compared with Kennedy, Clinton needs those conservative voters. And when compared with Bush, Clinton needs the liberals. In this Pairwise election of a moderator, a less controversial candidate might top each of these polarizing politicians. Page 25 62

Balanced Pairwise Campaign
“Our center is near me.” “I think it's over here.” “I am the center!" Page 25 (Workshop page 7 shows a tally.) 63

Gerrymander of Plurality Rule
Say M’s party gerrymanders her district. They add neighbors (purple) who vote for her party, and exclude less favorable voters (the yellow voter missing on the left). Candidate M lost the last election by plurality rule. Now let's say her party gerrymanders the borders of her election district. They add neighbors (purple below) who tend to vote for her party, and exclude less favorable voters (the yellow voter missing on the left). The party's nominee is certain to win the new district. Reps will tend to come from the party's activist wing. Page 26 Now K is nearest 3 voters, L is nearest 2, and M is nearest 4.

Resisting Rigged Voters
The old plurality rule is the easiest to manipulate. But the Pairwise winner, L, doesn’t change in this case. And Fair Representation also resists gerrymanders. Bribes can make some reps switch sides on a policy. Pairwise resists well, as bribing a few reps moves the council's middle, and the winning policy, only a little. Visible grants to projects also inhibit corruption. Bribes can make some reps switch sides on a policy. Pairwise resists well, as bribing a few reps moves the council's middle, and the winning policy, only a little. But when telecom or drug companies make payments to a majority of reps, that can move policies far from the needs of voters. Condorcet and Fair Rep. have some merits in common: Both mitigate gerrymanders. Both broaden representation beyond a narrow plurality. Neither punishes voters whose first choice is a loser. Page 26 65

Unstack Agendas Interlocking decisions make later options impossible.
A small group can appear strongest. A balanced idea might get dropped. The best rules avoid all those problems. They rank related motions all at once. Meetings often make interlocking decisions one at a time through yes-no voting, with or without explicit rules of order, agendas, and votes. Proposals decided early can shut out later options. Or people may talk about all options at once but never clearly tell (vote) their second and third choices. So a few people pushing a single idea can appear to be the strongest group. And one person with a balanced idea but no avid supporters might drop it. The best rules avoid all those problems by ranking the rival motions (or budgets) on the same ballot. Page 27 28

Tools Between People Rules deeply affect our quality of life. Practicing winner-take-all or sharing changes how we see the world. Views of voting and government: tools for fighting culture wars or tools supporting diversity and its freedoms. Voting reform opens a door to many popular changes. Voting rules affect our laws – and our views on life. By making us practice winner-take-all or sharing, rules change the way we treat each other and see the world. Fair-share rules can shift our expectations of voting. It can grow from a tool for fighting culture wars, into a tool supporting diversity and its freedoms. Many popular reforms can win after voting reforms. Page 28 Good relationships link strongly to happiness for most people. So a key way to increase happiness is to improve Tools Between People. Politics are more principled and peaceful with fair shares for seats and money, together with real majorities for presidents and policies. These rules boost the voter's power and thus the winner's mandate (the orders and authority that voters give winners). Both win. 67

Steering Analogy Low cost. New, not 1890s technology. Who loses?
Few skills needed. Test drive When choosing a voting rule, a new Mercedes costs little more than an old jalopy. That price is a bargain when the votes steer important budgets or policies. Does your car have an 1890 steering tiller or a new, power-steering wheel? Does your organization have an 1890 voting rule or a new, centrally-balanced rule? Who loses? Those who can manipulate the old system, or who crave its erratic emotional ride. Today's drivers need the skill to use power steering – but they don't need the math or logic to engineer it. Same with voters and voting rules. A group may test drive a new rule in a survey, or by turning into a “committee of the whole” to vote, tally and report its result for adoption by the usual rules. (The call for a survey or report might bar amendments to it, so a majority cannot cut a minority's power.) Booklet inside back cover Turnout is higher and voting is easier with a week-long voting period. A ceremonial figurehead lets policy leaders focus on substance over style. News firms might inform us better if they were ruled by the subscribers’ votes. 68

Benefits to Voters and Reps
Reduce: Wasted votes, Gerrymanders, Safe seats, Negative ads, Polarization, Spoilers, Funding bias. Ensure: Fair shares, Minority rights, Real choices, Wide debate, Voter turnout. Give voters real choices of candidates who can win, by electing fair shares of reps from all major groups. This encourages a wide range of candidates, debate of issues and turnout of voters. Ensure minority rights to voting and representation. Reduce wasted votes and so end weak mandates. Cut the influence of spoilers and gerrymanders. Reduce negative ads and polarization of voters. Reduce the payoffs from private campaign funding. 69

Some Ethical Goals for Legislation
Real majorities. Moderator, central swing vote. Minimize manipulation: Poison-pills and free-riders, Deadlocks and upheavals. Equal funds, visible votes, Accountability. Give fair representation to all major groups. So the council will enact laws with real majorities. Elect a central chairperson with wide appeal. She will be a swing vote between advocate reps from interest groups. Reduce deadlocks and upheavals in budgets and policies. Make shifts in power small, frequent and smooth. Cut the chances for agenda scams. Speed-rank all options at once to detach poison-pill and free-rider amendments. Give all reps equal funds for projects and agencies. And make each rep's spending visible to the voters. Online pages list more benefits of each rule. The workshop shows how they meet those goals. Page 27 Or a Committee of the whole may vote, tally and report its result to enact by the usual rules. 70

Strengthen Votes & Mandates
Expand the vote supporting a: Chairperson from a plurality to a majority; Council from a plurality to three quarters; Budget from a few power blocs to all; Policy from a one-sided majority to an over-all majority. Strengthening Votes and Mandates Better rules strengthen a democracy by expanding its base of power, the voters selecting and supporting: a Chairperson from a plurality to a majority; a Council from a plurality to over three quarters; a Budget from a few power blocs to all members;* a Policy from a splintering sequential agenda to the strongest overall majority. These rules give voters more effective votes. So they give stronger mandates to the winners. Ensemble councils using Pairwise rule follow a more cooperative path than winner take all. And multi-winner funding gives fair shares of power. Neither rule lets anyone dictate or block action. * We can say “all members" because all reps, 100%, allocate their shares just exactly as they choose. so they would not change their allocations. We might ask them, “Did you control your fair share of the budget and do you support the way that share was spent? Do you think you should control more than your fair share?” Booklet back cover More effective votes = stronger mandates. 71

Conclusions Better voting rules are fast, easy & fair. They help in classrooms & countries. Results are well centered & widely popular. Politics are more principled & peaceful with fair shares for representation & money, full majorities for presidents & policies. Politics are more principled & peaceful with fair shares for representation and money, full majorities for presidents and policies. Booklet back cover 72

Next Steps for Groups Steps toward accurate democracy include:
Organize voters with Movable Votes. Represent all with Fair Representation. Empower all with Fair-share Spending. Center policies with Pairwise winners. Steps toward accurate democracy include: Organize voters, with Transferable Votes. Represent everyone, with Proportional Representation. Empower everyone, with Fair-share Spending. Center majorities, with Condorcet winners. Booklet back cover 73

Booklets are available at accuratedemocracy.com
Next Steps Learn more at AccurateDemocracy.com. Play its complimentay software. Give these benefits to your school, club or town with help from FairVote, The Center for Voting and Democracy. Booklet back cover Booklets are available at accuratedemocracy.com © CC BY-SA

Black Page

For Groups of Any Size Secret ballots protect dissidents.
A good tally assures equality. A ballot or survey can educate members. Multi-winner rules can give fair shares. Yet no one can block action. The anonymity of secret ballots protects dissidents. A good tally assures equality; even busy or unassertive people cast a full vote. Pondering a ballot or survey educates members about setting budgets and priorities. Most importantly, some issues allow decisions that are not adversarial or consensual: Multi-winner rules give minorities their fair shares of power – without letting anyone block action. Page 28 Groups with little time or many issues or many members or conflicting interests, usually follow discussions with voting rather than consensus. A straw poll can find the major opinion groups and focus a discussion on the strongest idea from each group or on the most central options. 76

Exit or Power Voting cannot satisfy opposing values.
“Voting with your feet” gets results. Avoid willful authoritarians. Build democracy with egalitarians. Blind faith, obedience and ideology , vs. Rationalism, skepticism and empiricism. Exit or Power Ultimately, voting cannot satisfy two people with opposing values. Leaving or ;voting with your feet; is the surest way to get to the policies you want. When you can’t do that, avoid willful authoritarians; build democratic institutions with open-minded egalitarians. Democracy improves in periods such as The Enlightenment, when many people curb blind faith, obedience and ideology to expand knowledge through rationalism, skepticism and empiricism. 77

Other Election Issues Public campaign funding. Ballot printouts.
Term of office. Initiatives. Public campaign funding, as in Maine, lets reps give less time to corporate lobbyists and more attention to voters. Ballot printouts and _open- source software check fraud by election workers and corporations. A voter-verified printout of each ballot cannot be altered easily with a pencil as most paper ballots can. Long terms in office reward reps for funding long-term projects as voters can see the results before the next election. _Overlapping terms smooth small frequent changes. _Sabbaticals pit returning reps against incumbents. Initiative voters get more choices and power with full- choice ballots and Pairwise tallies. They should set the rules for politicians. But minority rights to voting, representation and funding need constitutional protection from the majority of the day. Booklet inside back cover Turnout is higher and voting is easier with a week-long voting period. A ceremonial figurehead lets policy leaders focus on substance over style. News firms might inform us better if they were ruled by the subscribers’ votes. 78

Black Page Glossary and Index
Accurate democracy gives fair shares of seats and spending. It avoids scams and enacts the one policy that tops all others. Free-riders use goods they did not help buy, or do not waste their votes on a sure winner, Pages or are unpopular amendments to a winning bill. 24, 28 Mandate is the authority votes give to winners , 35 Majority means more than half; vs plurality 12-, 15-, 27-, 53- Multi-candidate election has three or more candidates. 3, 8 Multi-member district has two or more winners , 18 Plurality means the most votes; vs majority 4, 9, 21, 29-, 57 Poison-pill amends a bill to kill it , 28, 34 Quota is the number of votes a rule requires, the threshold of victory, the finish line. 25, 38-40, 46 Single-Member District (SMD) elects one winner. 14, 17 Transferable Vote can move to a backup choice. 12, 38, 46 Wasted votes may include votes for 1) losers, 2) winner's surplus, 3) powerless reps , 25, 42 Acronyms and Synonyms CT Condorcet Tally or PT Pairwise Tally , 43, 52-54 FS Fair-share Spending , 41-42, 50-51 PR Proportional Representation, PV Proportional Voting FR Fair Representation or FV Fair Voting , 46-49 AV Alternative Vote (UK), preferential vote (AU, CA) IRV Instant Runoff Voting (US) , RCV Ranked-Choice Vote, CV Choice Voting (US) STV Single Transferable Vote (Int'l) 40, 62

Unfair Spending System
“...[E]armarks [are] the devices by which individual members of Congress set aside budget resources for pet projects in their districts. ” Reps send “pork” projects to their districts. Voters can't see who funded a project. Omnibus bills have many projects, some good, some bad. “...[E]armarks [are] the devices by which individual members of Congress set aside budget resources for pet projects in their districts. This year House members have requested nearly 19,000 of these programs... If all were approved, the total cost would amount to $279 billion...” Washington Post, July 8, 2001; B6 Under old rules, senior reps give several times more “pork” spending to their districts than junior reps do. Voters can't easily see who's responsible for a project. And reps must vote on omnibus bills that include many projects, some good, some bad. Page 21 80

Black Box Budget Rules Our budget process blurs responsibility. Take deficits. Liberals say… Conservatives say… All claim, “I didn't spend too much.” Protecting the environment is popular. Reps don't dare attack it openly. But some reps starve enforcement. The current budget process blurs responsibility. Take government deficits. Liberals often say the cause is excessive spending on military hardware. Conservatives say it’s excessive spending on health and education. Every rep can claim, “I didn't spend too much.” [ These deficits cause inflation which is a hidden tax because it raises interest rates on homes and cars while it lowers your paycheck's value. ] Protecting the environment is popular with conservative and liberal voters. Reps don't dare attack it openly. So, to pay off some corporate donors, reps slyly starve agencies that enforce environmental laws. Similar cuts hit OHSA, and auditors of corporate tax returns. Page 21 81

Roller-Coaster Budgets
The Super-Conducting Super Collider was funded by a majority in Congress for a few years… then cut. All it left was a “Billion-dollar hole in the ground.” We might be more cautious about starting projects if we could not spend other members' shares. And we need the power to finish projects with our own share. Enthusiasts might be more cautious about starting vast programs if they could not spend the opposition's share of the budget. And they should have the power to continue their programs with their own share. Page 21 The Texas Super-Conducting Super Collider was a controversial, multi-billion dollar project in the 1980s. This effort to build the world's largest cyclotron was supported by a majority in Congress for a few years — then terminated. The only things left are some plans and a huge, “billion-dollar hole in the ground”. 82

Fair Rep, How Does It Work?
Elect more than one person from a district. Vote for more than one; vote for a list. The more votes a list gets, the more reps it elects. How does it work? Instead of voting for 1 candidate, you vote for a list. In Germany and New Zealand, each party offers its list to the voters. In Australia and Ireland, each voter makes a list by ranking candidates. Either way, the more votes a list gets, the more candidates on it get elected. Thirty out of the worlds forty five full-fledged democracies use forms of full representation to elect one of their national legislatures. Page 14 83

Does It Work? More: competition, real choices, effective votes, voter turnout, diverse reps, women reps, stronger mandates, fitting policies Less: monopoly politics, dubious democracy, safe seats, in gerrymandered districts That is, 60% of the vote gets you 60% of the seats, not all of them. And 10% of the vote gets you 10% of the seats, not none of them. These are fair-shares. How does it work? There are three basic ingredients: We elect more than one rep from a district. You vote for more than one; you vote for a list. Parties offer lists to us, or we each list favorites. The more votes a list gets, the more reps it elects. Page 14 How does it work? Instead of voting for 1 candidate, you vote for a list. In Germany and New Zealand, each party offers its list to the voters. In Australia and Ireland, each voter makes a list by ranking candidates. Either way, the more votes a list gets, the more candidates on it get elected. Thirty out of the worlds forty five full-fledged democracies use forms of full representation to elect one of their national legislatures. 84

Everyone will see a rep's Fair Share grants.
New Spending Patterns “We’ll take money from “We’ll reduce agency G.” agency J.” “I'll add to “We'll add to agency L.” agency K.” Everyone will see a rep's Fair Share grants. A member must take money from one department before increasing another department. Page 21 85

Accurate Democracy Primer

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Accurate Democracy Primer"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Accurate Democracy Primer

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Accurate Democracy Primer"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback