The term "democracy" has always been taught in our schools to be the
single most powerful philosophy that makes the United States one of the
greatest countries in history. It's ultimately a majority
rules philosophy that makes life much simpler with the entire
voting process and governmental representation. The big problem
with the majority rules philosophy is that a
minority loses. "What's so bad about that", you ask?
"After all, isn't it fair if the majority has its way?" Well, actually
no. Who defines the majority? What exactly is a majority?
Is a majority over 50% of the population? Or is a majority the
largest number of voters? These are two entirely
Consider this. In the infamous 1998 Minnesota governor election,
the two largest parties, Republican and Democrat, had their usual
representatives with Norm Coleman and Hubert "Skip" Humphrey respectively.
But then, to everyone's surprise, a third party candidate representing the
Reform Party jumped into the scene. Jesse Ventura was merely a joke
and was, in fact, referred to by Hillary Clinton herself as a "side show".
Little did she know the impact he would have on the people of Minnesota and
the future of politics. He slowly crept up in the polls but he still
only maintained a portion of less than 15% of the population as late as a
week before the election. But then, the night of election, something
very odd happened. He started showing very high numbers very early.
Had his "non-partisan" campaign really paid off? Well, he won.
"Wow, he had 50% of the votes", you ask? No, he didn't. He
actually had less than 40% of the votes. Over 60% of the voters did
NOT vote for their new governor. The majority did NOT rule in this
situation. This is the major flaw of "democracy" as we know it.
Now imagine if there had been only two main candidates instead of three.
What if the remaining 60% of the population had all voted for a single
candidate. Then that same 60% would have won, right? Maybe.
But then, 40% of the population didn't vote for the governor, so who really
wins? This is what has drawn me to my own conclusion, a new voting
system I call "New Democracy".
This system, I believe, recognizes that everyone has a degree of
happiness, instead of a love/hate vote. How many people after the
Minnesota election are pleased with the results? Well, six months
later, Ventura's approval rating exceeded 70%, so what happened to the 60%
who didn't vote for him? Most of them are pleased to a degree.
Maybe Ventura wasn't the first choice of the 60%, but would he have been
their second? Or maybe their third or fourth? Or would he have
been their last choice for governor? We'll never know. But that
is exactly what "New Democracy" is all about. I propose that we give
voters a new system of ranking their choices instead of
choosing their single favorite. The sum of the rankings could then be
tallied and a winner chosen based on the "total happiness" of the
population, instead of the 40% who chose the winner as their favorite.
What percentage of the 60% that didn't vote for Ventura would have
preferred him to another candidate? What if the entire 60%
absolutely hated him? Should these preferences
not come out in the polls? Of course they should!
This system also addresses another topic, the idea of wasting
your vote. You can read more about these here: