Positive politics - changing our voting calculations could show what we really want.

What if we, the people, decided to stop focusing on what we disagree upon and instead focus on what we agree upon?

According to Wikipedia, there are well over 30 different political parties in the United States... yet only 2 of these are well known.

While the various 3rd parties have massive chasms between them and many might be considered quite radical... all of them are almost invariably marginalized because of the way that voting is handled in the USA.

Most 3rd parties vote either Democrat or Republican simply because they know that voting for who they truly favor results in voting against the major party that is closer to their own beliefs.

What if there was a better way?

I'd like to put forth the idea that our system of voting is the worst possible system that we could be using.

Currently, we simply vote for one candidate... who may well not be the one we like the most. If you favor a 3rd party, then you are likely to vote for the major party that is closest to what you support... so as to avoid giving the win to the major party that is furthest from what you believe.

While I don't feel there is a dimes worth of difference between our major parties, I know that most think there is.

In 2016, we had four candidates:

• Hillary Clinton (democrat)
• Donald Trump (republican)
• Jill Stein (green)
• Gary Johnson (libertarian)

Any sane green would likely vote for Hillary simply because failing to do so would amount to voting for Trump.
Any sane libertarian would likely vote for Donald because failing to do so would amount to voting for Hillary.

There is a better way... and it is called Range Voting. please check it out!

Rather than picking one candidate, what if you could score each candidate and/or choose to not score them at all?

For example, under our current (pick one) system, you might well see the following:

Dem: Clinton
Green: Clinton
Rep: Trump
Libertarian: Trump
Communist: Clinton
Constitution: Trump

With range voting, you might instead see:
Dem: Clinton(99), Stein (80), Johnson (0), Trump (0)
Green: Clinton(98), Stein (99), Johnson (1), Trump (0)
Rep: Clinton (0), Stein (0), Johnson(80), Trump (99)
Libertarian: Clinton(0), Stein (10), Johnson (99), Trump(98)
Communist: Clinton(99), Stein (99), Johnson (0), Trump (0)
Constitution: Clinton(0), Stein (0), Johnson(98), Trump(99)

Which would end up taking each candidates non X votes (X means don't know enough), adding them up, and dividing by the number of non X votes.

• Clinton: ( 99 + 98 + 99 ) / 6
• Trump: ( 99 + 98 + 99 ) / 6
• Stein: ( 80 + 99 + 10 + 99 ) / 6
• Johnson: ( 1 + 80 + 99 + 98) / 6

This would result in:

• Clinton: 49.333
• Trump: 49.333
• Stein: 48
• Johnson: 46.333

Notice that this might show that both 3rd parties (while not elected) would be ranked almost as highly as those of the two primary parties rather than making it seem like the 3rd parties are at 1% or so.

---

While our corrupt media might still fail to mention anyone other than the primary parties... any decent news source might sit up and take notice that the 3rd parties are very relevant.

I can understand the two major parties fighting tooth and nail against a voting system that shows more clearly what people want, I really cannot see why anyone that favors a 3rd party would disagree with such a voting system.

Yes, you could rate candidates equally (e.g. you are green and set 99 for both the democrat and the green to avoid diluting the democrats chances).

I realize that some states (like VA and most of the central east coast) are backwards and lack citizen initiatives, referendums, and recalls... it seems like only those who want us to believe that there are only two viable parties would have anything to lose with a better voting system.

---

There are a number of alternative voting systems that are better than what we have (ours is the worst by and large)... so why not demand a better system?

How?

Well... if you live in a state with initiatives then working with all parties to get a better method of voting is well within reason.

Even if you don't have initiatives available, you might consider writing your current representative to tell them that they should introduce a bill to get things fixed... and consider voting against any candidate that refuses to initiate or votes against such a change.

---

It is true that the laws are stacked against such action... but maybe it is time to consider forming a coalition of people that can work for those things that we can all agree upon.

I'd expect that a better voting system is something that most everyone could support... and that there are likely a lot more things that are common ground which could be attempted if most/all states could get at least initiatives (if not referendum - the ability to nix bad law, and recalls - the ability to remove lying politicians) on the board.

---

I'll be the first to admit that I'm an anarchist and I think that once we are ready we could get by with no government (having only leaders that we follow so long as they are honest...), but I'd love to see some of the following considered:

• Transparency in government
• Accountability of police and politicians
• A reduction of national debt
• A living wage for everyone without insane costs
• Real education and/or choice in education
• Elimination of career politicians
• Elimination of limited liability for corporations
• Less war / killing

I think that most people (even those who believe in the major parties) could get behind at least a few of these things.

Of course, getting such might well start with a better system of voting... and require first acquiring tools to get around those that claim to be our rulers (initiatives, referendums, and recall votes at the very least).

---

Why not pursue unity?

Rather than bicker over things we disagree upon, why not...

• Work for what we can mostly agree upon
• Worry about potentially bickering over things we don't agree upon once we have garnered enough power to implement those things that the vast majority of us can agree upon

Personally, I don't see how range voting could hurt any country.

And until we move away from voting for people we don't believe in because we believe in others even less I don't think we will have any meaningful (positive) change.

---

I'm a programmer and web developer and if there is any actual interest in such a change I'd be happy to put together something that we could use to start tackling those things we can agree upon.

Of course, this is more a sounding board to see if most people are actually happy with what is currently going on.

Please note that I think we need to make it easier to get more people on ballots at all levels... but to begin moving towards that I feel that we need to first fix one of the fundamental problems we face... which is how we go about voting.