My Scantron Election Ballot

Almost every american has attended some form of education that required them to take a test where they filled in little bubbles for the correct answer. Why is it that the ultimate multiple-choice test of democracy, voting day, we the people thousands of weird and obfuscated ballots and voting machines?

Why not just fill out a scantron ballot?

Its a physical ballot that can be (very) quickly counted electronically or tabulated in person. Each ballot can be uniquely encoded so that a person can double check their results online but maintain the secret ballot. Anyone who's taken a test is familiar with the format of A/B/C/D/E. Its just so obvious! And cheap! And hard to defraud!

Primaries and General Elections Concurrent

Sadly, for much of the United States, one party dominates most of the elected offices. So the only real races are in the primaries... and those have really low turnouts. That just reinforces the notions that elections aren't important.

My solution is to hold primaries and general elections at the same time!

Your first vote would be for which party you want to see in power (for that seat: R/D/L/G/X). Then you vote for a specific candidates name for each party! Yes, I think people should be permitted to vote for candidates in all parties. I think a maximum of five per party (maybe more if they have enough signatures) would be more than enough. I think the order listed should be by number of signatures, since, sadly, most voters would just tick off the first one (if any). That's why the first vote is for party, that's all that many voters are aware of. It would look something like this:

Select Favored Party: Whig, Democrat, Republican

Select Favored Whig Candidate: John Quincy Adams, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler
Select Favored Democrat Candidate: Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, James K. Polk
Select Favored Republican Candidate: Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, James A. Garfield



Splitting party and candidate votes means that, if in your heart of hearts you want the Green Party to win, you can still pick the greenest Democrats (and Republican!) and have a significant impact on the election. Or if you like your party, but can't stand the incumbent, you can toss them out but keep the seat.

This could be done with offices with more than one seat, like a state with 10 seats in the House of Representatives. Party seats would be awarded proportionally. If Democrats won 53% of the vote, then the top five vote-getters (rounding down) from their slate would get seated. If Republicans got 39%, then they would still get three, because they didn't break the voting threshold. Third parties, likely Libertarians and Green Party, would get one each. Unfair, you say? Not so! Everyone gets a say in each party primary! And normally, if every district got 53%, then all of the seats would go to Democrats. These days it is nigh impossible for a third party to eek out a plurality in any one area. This way all the Libertarians in a state can vote for their party (perhaps getting enough % in larger states to get a seat or two) AND still select their favored candidates from the major parties. Much more democratic and representative.

1 seat (7 states): Won by party with most votes, obviously.
2 seats (5 states): One for each of the top two parties.
3 seats (5 states): Second seat for top party if >50% (not hard), otherwise 3rd party.
4 seats (3 states): Two for top party (3 if >75%), and 1 each for 2nd and 3rd parties.
5 seats (4 states): Two for top two parties (3 if >60%), 1 for top 3rd party.

That's half the states, with a maximum of 12 (of 64) seats going to 3rd parties. California, with 52 seats would give out one seat per 2%. Several 3rd parties seated, some might get two!. Big ballot though. That's probably about 40 seats total going to 3rd parties, or about 9% (of 435) total. Which, considering all the citizens that are now independents, seems about right.

The effects of this would be hard to anticipate. Candidates from the same party would have to team up and promote the platform (Vote for R, we're conservatives!) while also promoting themselves ahead of each other (I'm the real conservative, not them!).

Party conventions would be much more important, because the platform would be all that they can agree on. And each candidate would try to hold themselves up as the purest example of that model. Or not, depending on the strategy. Blue Republicans and Red Democrats might very well pop up as spoiler candidates (not enough D's to take the seat, so they all pick the same R).

But our current system of picking the popular candidate just because they are popular (in both primaries and the general elections) just seems so shallow. The lesser evils keep winning, and incumbents stay in because they're the devil you know (to mix my metaphors).

12-year term limits for National Office

People stay in office way too long. Over a hundred members have served for more than thirty-five years, forty members of Congress have served at least FORTY YEARS in their seats, with half a dozen over FIFTY years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_longevity_of_service

Citizens born after they were first elected can have grandchildren in that amount of time.

Likewise, more than a dozen Supreme Court Justices have been in office more than thirty years, with William O. Douglas lasting more than 36! Way, way too long.

Conversely, Presidents (i.e. POTUS) are only elected twice before term limits kick in. This means that for half the time they are in office, they are unaccountable directly to voters. HALF! Think back on the presidencies of Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and Nixon. When they at their worst? Last term. Because they didn't have to worry about being reelected.

So, I propose that, by amending the Constitution, all National Elected Offices be restricted (or in the case of POTUS, extended) to exactly 12 years concurrent. This would ensure much, much more turnover in Congress and the Supreme Court (thereby making them more representational and accountable). Ideally I'd like the Chief Justice to be an elected office as well (as the tie-breaker); the other 8 (12?) Justices would be still appointed for 12 years at a time, but there should be at least some direct representation by the people.

The President would also be more accountable, since we would have two chances to throw him/her out of office instead of just one. They'd only be directly unaccountable for a third of the time, instead of half. I also propose decoupling and staggering the Vice-Presidential election so that if the POTUS is screwing up, we can elect his main rival to VP.

So here's what my election cycle would look like (assuming term limits for all):

Year 00: New POTUS, all new House of Representatives, and 1st third of the Senate up for election.

Year 02: New Vice-President, New Chief Justice, the House, and 2nd third of the Senate.

Year 04: POTUS, the House, last third of the Senate.

Year 06: VP, Chief Justice, the House, and 1st/3rds Senate (last election for them)

Year 08: POTUS (last election), the House, 2nd/3rds Senate (last election for them).

Year 10: VP (last) & Chief Justice (last), the House (last election for '00 class), last 3rd Senate (last).

Year 12: New POTUS, new House and new 1/3 Senate (all from '00 election term limited).

Year 14: New VP, New Chief Justice, House, new 2nd third of the Senate.

Year 16: POTUS, House, new last third of the Senate.

And so on.

This amendment (12 years for all) would make the government more representative, dynamic, and, oddly, more contiguous because the VP and POTUS change power at different times. Seniority as a perk would be all-but-gone, and voters would be more inclined to send the best (or at least the most representative) officials to create laws respecting the will of the people.

Of course, I'd also like all laws to expire after 12 years as well...