INTO THE FOREGROUND: Principle-based/Point-based Election
I want to bring into the Foreground, a different method for candidacy election - the idea of principle-based and point-based elections. We've seen the sort of systems that are established among various countries. The binding philosophy behind my proposed election system is "Choosing who is right based on principle alone". We've seen with examples like Estonia, countries that have installed more forward-facing systems by capitalizing on the booming trend of technology - utilizing the Internet as a means of election. I want to extend this idea a bit further. In all cases across the nations, we instill an election system that is based purely on favorability of a candidate founded strongly upon candate personality. Of course, favorability should always be the lowest common denominator when electing governing officials; but as many Americans are suddenly now becoming aware of the flaws of the American election system and forced to vote between candidates that don't quite align with their personal beliefs, values, and ideologies. I want to return to the YouTube video of the Joe Scarborough/Mark Halperin debate at the beginning of this essay. This 2016 election process has brought into the limelight the limitations of the American election system. As Joe Scarborough claims in regards to the democratic presidential primaries where Hillary Clinton loses the popular vote to Bernie Sanders 56% to 44% in Wyoming: "They select somebody by 12 percentage points, and end up letting the other candidate who lost by 12 percentage points, win the most delegates. That, by definition, is voter disenfranchisement." Joe is referring to lack of voter representation as "voter disenfranchisement" - by the Democratic National Convention and the electoral college. It's rather sad to hear Mark Halperin's lethargic response: "These are the rules".
In America, we don't actually have as much control over the selection of our presidential candidates than is generally propagated when we loftily talk about our "model" democracy. This is to say that we talk about our system as being a true democracy yet what we actually have established is more like a governing oligarchy. Our election relies on an electoral college or a representative body to select our presidential candidates. This means we elect representatives - who supposedly have our interests in mind - do our voting for us. It's no surprise that the majority of those in the video are outraged by the misrepresentation of public interest by governing officials. This marks yet another pivotal moment in American voting history as the flaws of the electoral college system is brought to attention in mainstream news.
Now to the Foreground, I want to first propose a principle-and-point-based system to elect our governing officials based on several contributing factors: 1) beliefs, values, ideology, and principle; and 2) experience and credibility. Taking Estonia as an exemplary model toward creating a technological infrastructure, I propose that we move toward an online voting environment. This will negate the inability for voters to fit the act of casting a ballot into their busy schedules and facilitate the voting process by allowing voters to vote virtually anywhere. This infrastructure would require that the government maintain and secure the online infrastructure. I want to focus less on the logistical requirements of this sort of management and instead focus on what the ballot would actually look like.
As I have mentioned earlier, this type of election system should place a strong emphasis on principle-based elections. The ballot, for voters, will take on the appearance of a questionnaire - providing multiple choice or yes/no questions that will be represented by currently trending issues and/or the state of current affairs. With the existence of the online infrastructure, voters should have the option of voting at any time throughout the election year with a designated cutoff date for their votes to count. The integrity of this sort of principle-based system hinges on the mandatory participation of candidates who seek election. Each voter, in this portion of the system, will vote by completing the questionnaire; the votes of the voters are then archived anonymously and compared against the questionnaires of other voters at the cutoff date. Using an algorithm to generate data portraying the areas of greatest public concern as evidenced by the questionnaires, we can use a matching algorithm to determine which governing-official-hopeful most closely resembles the interests of the voters. In order to account for experience and credibility of each candidate, at the end of each voter's questionnaire, there should be presented a series of multiple choice questions asking voters to select among various candidate profiles - profiles that are portrayed anonymously. Voters would analyze these profiles and choose whose profile most closely align with the their views on the qualities and characteristics that an elected official should represent. This sort of system implies a sort of blind voting system with its foundation upon selecting the most electable candidate. In this sort of principle-based system, we are placing high priority on personal/candidate belief systems, principle and value systems, and political ideologies. The questions at the end of the questionnaire are meant to account for particular experience and credibility. Let's now discuss the point system.
The point system is a manifestation of the questionnaire format of my proposed election system. We may look to the methodologies being applied by our American schools and universities to create a standardized pointing system. Each question in the questionnaire could be worth one point. After collecting all of the votes, the answer to each particular question will be determined to be "correct" based upon majority votes. Election candidates, then, must have had chosen that same answer - the majority answer - to score one point. When we get to the the experience and credibility section of the questionnaire, the candidate who earns the majority vote for each candidate-profile question will earn one point. In this proposed system, the question remains: "How should we handle the logistics for planning such a system?"
I turn to you now. What do you think about this principle-point-based system? How many principled questions do you think should be on the questionnaire versus candidate-profile questions? Who should develop the questions for the questionnaire? Do you have any reactions toward Joe Scarborough's use of the word "disenfranchisement" to represent the American electoral system? Were their any government practices around the world that you found to be appealing? Do you have any proposed systems you want to bring to the Foreground? Let me know in the comments below.
