In the American system of government, we tend to have 2 chambers in the legislative branch of the federal and state governments. What is rather ridiculous about the two chambers is they are both selected based on geography, and often mirror one another in representation. This, along with our plurality system has led us to the two party mess we currently enjoy, and which many are dissatisfied with.
A much better alternative to our current geographically chosen House Representation would be to allow people to select a party to vote for, and after all individuals have chosen a party, the number of representatives each party would be given would be assigned based on the proportion of voters who selected that party. The party would then have an opportunity to vote on it's own representative or representatives, possibly according the criteria I posted in my previous post.
The results of this should be dramatic. If you decide that your current party is run and represented by corrupt or incompetent individuals, you could start or join a completely new party. If enough individuals felt the same, a complete overhaul of the party could occur with most of the members vacating a party that only remained because it was slightly better than the worst alternative. The previous party might end as a shell, with entirely new leadership springing up and offering a new vision, and a chance to separate from the fights of previous elections.
If this idea sounds interesting, spread it around, and if it sounds plausible, work to get it implemented at the state. Or see if we can start to progress on a national amendment to move to this system at the national level.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Election adjustment
One of the largest problems we have in American politics is how we go about electing representatives into office. Once upon a time, plurality probably seemed like a good idea, because it was better than what everybody else was using at the time.
Unfortunately, it's turned out to be one of the worst methods of electing somebody that anybody could devise. By running a party primary followed by a plurality election, we eliminate the possibility of individuals voting for their most preferred candidate, in case their second or third preference is beaten by somebody they like even less. And that completely avoids the issue of voter participation because most of the candidates are eliminated long before the electorate has a chance to vote on them or learn about their qualifications.
A well run system should allow any number of candidates to be in the final election, in order to encourage the maximum number of individuals to vote in hopes that their top candidate will have a chance at winning the election and forcing candidates to further differentiate themselves from more candidates instead of pounding on one opponent and his the other half of the electorate who he agrees more with.
To select a wide selection of candidates for this final election, every voter should have the chance to select any candidate for the final election without inhibiting their preferred choice. A good way to do this would be for open primaries, where every voter votes yes for as many candidates to be on the final ballot as they want. Any candidates above a certain threshold (3%, 5%, 10%, ect.), no more than three per party, and between 5-20 candidates would be selected for the final election. This ensures a better quality of choices for all of the electorate, and if one candidate proves to be inferior, the one opposing candidate doesn't win by default.
Once the final field is selected, and an appropriate amount of time has been given for campaigning, the final election would be held. Every voter would then rank all of the final candidates in order of preference. Ranked voting has the advantage of allowing your votes to be counted for 2nd, 3rd, or even lower ranked candidates if your first choices are eliminated by poor performance. At least you then have the opportunity to vote for your most preferred option and still vote for your second option if the first is truly unwanted, and just not voted for based on the the perception that he is unelectable as so often happens with our current system.
Unfortunately, it's turned out to be one of the worst methods of electing somebody that anybody could devise. By running a party primary followed by a plurality election, we eliminate the possibility of individuals voting for their most preferred candidate, in case their second or third preference is beaten by somebody they like even less. And that completely avoids the issue of voter participation because most of the candidates are eliminated long before the electorate has a chance to vote on them or learn about their qualifications.
A well run system should allow any number of candidates to be in the final election, in order to encourage the maximum number of individuals to vote in hopes that their top candidate will have a chance at winning the election and forcing candidates to further differentiate themselves from more candidates instead of pounding on one opponent and his the other half of the electorate who he agrees more with.
To select a wide selection of candidates for this final election, every voter should have the chance to select any candidate for the final election without inhibiting their preferred choice. A good way to do this would be for open primaries, where every voter votes yes for as many candidates to be on the final ballot as they want. Any candidates above a certain threshold (3%, 5%, 10%, ect.), no more than three per party, and between 5-20 candidates would be selected for the final election. This ensures a better quality of choices for all of the electorate, and if one candidate proves to be inferior, the one opposing candidate doesn't win by default.
Once the final field is selected, and an appropriate amount of time has been given for campaigning, the final election would be held. Every voter would then rank all of the final candidates in order of preference. Ranked voting has the advantage of allowing your votes to be counted for 2nd, 3rd, or even lower ranked candidates if your first choices are eliminated by poor performance. At least you then have the opportunity to vote for your most preferred option and still vote for your second option if the first is truly unwanted, and just not voted for based on the the perception that he is unelectable as so often happens with our current system.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Business Basics
Unions and progressive rhetoric claims that business owners oppress and take advantage of poor workers, that working for somebody rich or a large organization is the equivalent of slavery.
But the fact of the matter is that there are two types of individuals involved in running any business enterprise. There are owners and there are workers. In some cases, these are the same people, but I will discuss those situations further in future articles.
Workers are individuals who choose to make one type of trade off, to accept a set wage for the reduced risk of not having a reduced income as long as the business stays afloat. Owners take a completely different trade off. Where the employee can expect to receive a paycheck both when business is good AND slow, the owner risks losing cash, and therefore their income, and even their initial investment during slow times, in exchange for making higher profits in the good times.
Members of unions should recognize that if ownership of the business is so great, the best thing the union could do would be to put the member's dues toward purchasing the company, making the members owners of the company, then de-unionizing the company. The reason this doesn't happen isn't because it isn't good for the employees, but because it isn't good for the union's bosses.
Look at the UAW, which as soon as they were able, divested themselves of ownership of GM in order to cash in the gift the Obama administration made to the union, to prevent the union from appearing to be the antagonist to their usual anti-ownership message. The best thing the union could have done would have been to buy the rest of the company from the government, pay back the bond holders who were robbed of the company, and turned the company over to the workers. The workers would have then been able to share the profits or raise wages without having to fight with shareholders through the representation of the government.
Now, some union supporters claim that the executives that run the companies on behalf of the shareholders are overpaid. I completely agree. The US government should pass legislation that would allow the shareholders to vote on the amount of executive pay through their brokerage or retirement accounts. If we, the individuals that own a company think that tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of value reside in the leadership of a particular individual, then he should make that kind of money. On the other hand, if the owners want to see a much lower level of pay for the executive, supplementing positive performance with appropriate incentives, then the shareholders should have a more direct say in how much their employee, the executive makes.
But the fact of the matter is that there are two types of individuals involved in running any business enterprise. There are owners and there are workers. In some cases, these are the same people, but I will discuss those situations further in future articles.
Workers are individuals who choose to make one type of trade off, to accept a set wage for the reduced risk of not having a reduced income as long as the business stays afloat. Owners take a completely different trade off. Where the employee can expect to receive a paycheck both when business is good AND slow, the owner risks losing cash, and therefore their income, and even their initial investment during slow times, in exchange for making higher profits in the good times.
Members of unions should recognize that if ownership of the business is so great, the best thing the union could do would be to put the member's dues toward purchasing the company, making the members owners of the company, then de-unionizing the company. The reason this doesn't happen isn't because it isn't good for the employees, but because it isn't good for the union's bosses.
Look at the UAW, which as soon as they were able, divested themselves of ownership of GM in order to cash in the gift the Obama administration made to the union, to prevent the union from appearing to be the antagonist to their usual anti-ownership message. The best thing the union could have done would have been to buy the rest of the company from the government, pay back the bond holders who were robbed of the company, and turned the company over to the workers. The workers would have then been able to share the profits or raise wages without having to fight with shareholders through the representation of the government.
Now, some union supporters claim that the executives that run the companies on behalf of the shareholders are overpaid. I completely agree. The US government should pass legislation that would allow the shareholders to vote on the amount of executive pay through their brokerage or retirement accounts. If we, the individuals that own a company think that tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of value reside in the leadership of a particular individual, then he should make that kind of money. On the other hand, if the owners want to see a much lower level of pay for the executive, supplementing positive performance with appropriate incentives, then the shareholders should have a more direct say in how much their employee, the executive makes.
Friday, December 3, 2010
To start
To start, I'm a father of 3 and a college graduate from Kansas State. I'm a socially and fiscally conservative Catholic. Economically, I'm for small business and against large business except when they are necessary for large projects such as for large manufacturing endeavors such as rockets and planes. As for government, all programs should be handled at the lowest level possible to maintain accountability and efficiency.
I look forward to laying out my thoughts, and hearing back what any readers might have to say.
I look forward to laying out my thoughts, and hearing back what any readers might have to say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)