The Kickstarter Solution to the Two Party System

[CelloX]

I am not sure if this could work, but I think it has potential for breaking down the wall preventing third party, independent, and small main party candidates from winning.

Here is the idea:

Make a website, preferably funded by Kickstarter (to fund the creation of the site and gain press), that any candidate can put their profile on for a small fee (This fee is to fund the site and its owners, but also to prevent dummy or troll candidates from being made).

Anyone can login/sign up as a voter for free. During each election (website might do different levels of elections as well as different nations' elections), the voters can do a ranked vote (basically Single Transferable Vote) where they rank their favorite candidates from 1st to xth (x probably depends on the election). Note that this "vote" is only pledging to vote in the actual election for that candidate IF they pass elimination and are the highest ranked on that voter's ballot after elimination. After a period of time, ending before voting day comes, candidates are eliminated based on not reaching the goal number of voters, which is decided by determining how many votes would be needed to actually win the election on voting day and putting the goal near that.

In the end, only a few candidates, maybe one, two, or three, should be left after elimination. This maximizes the number of people willing to vote for those candidates and maximizes the probability of any of those candidates winning. On voting day, voters will be asked to vote for the candidate that they rank voted for and that survived elimination.

The basic idea is that voters can just vote for the main party candidates if they didn't choose any of the winning candidates by the time voting day comes around. If they do rank vote for a winner, however, than they know that there is enough people willing to vote for that winning candidate to possibly win, thus down playing the fear of taking votes away from a mainstream candidate.

Yes, it essentially depends the honor system to convince people to actually vote for the person they rank voted for, but it might still work if we can defend the site against manipulation and encourage voters to vote honestly.

Any advice for improving this idea? Do you think it could work?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I think this is a good idea. You would need ads out the wazu, and probably a team to help run the site. If successful enough, you could probably host debates, too.

 

[SwimExpert]

I am not sure if this could work, but I think it has potential for breaking down the wall preventing third party, independent, and small main party candidates from winning.

Here is the idea:

Make a website, preferably funded by Kickstarter (to fund the creation of the site and gain press), that any candidate can put their profile on for a small fee (This fee is to fund the site and its owners, but also to prevent dummy or troll candidates from being made).

Anyone can login/sign up as a voter for free. During each election (website might do different levels of elections as well as different nations' elections), the voters can do a ranked vote (basically Single Transferable Vote) where they rank their favorite candidates from 1st to xth (x probably depends on the election). Note that this "vote" is only pledging to vote in the actual election for that candidate IF they pass elimination and are the highest ranked on that voter's ballot after elimination. After a period of time, ending before voting day comes, candidates are eliminated based on not reaching the goal number of voters, which is decided by determining how many votes would be needed to actually win the election on voting day and putting the goal near that.

In the end, only a few candidates, maybe one, two, or three, should be left after elimination. This maximizes the number of people willing to vote for those candidates and maximizes the probability of any of those candidates winning. On voting day, voters will be asked to vote for the candidate that they rank voted for and that survived elimination.

The basic idea is that voters can just vote for the main party candidates if they didn't choose any of the winning candidates by the time voting day comes around. If they do rank vote for a winner, however, than they know that there is enough people willing to vote for that winning candidate to possibly win, thus down playing the fear of taking votes away from a mainstream candidate.

Yes, it essentially depends the honor system to convince people to actually vote for the person they rank voted for, but it might still work if we can defend the site against manipulation and encourage voters to vote honestly.

Any advice for improving this idea? Do you think it could work?

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read on this board. I hope you don't stay around here long.

 

[Saul]

UOTE="CelloX, post: 14652378, member: 57789"]I am not sure if this could work, but I think it has potential for breaking down the wall preventing third party, independent, and small main party candidates from winning.

Here is the idea:

Make a website, preferably funded by Kickstarter (to fund the creation of the site and gain press), that any candidate can put their profile on for a small fee (This fee is to fund the site and its owners, but also to prevent dummy or troll candidates from being made).

Anyone can login/sign up as a voter for free. During each election (website might do different levels of elections as well as different nations' elections), the voters can do a ranked vote (basically Single Transferable Vote) where they rank their favorite candidates from 1st to xth (x probably depends on the election). Note that this "vote" is only pledging to vote in the actual election for that candidate IF they pass elimination and are the highest ranked on that voter's ballot after elimination. After a period of time, ending before voting day comes, candidates are eliminated based on not reaching the goal number of voters, which is decided by determining how many votes would be needed to actually win the election on voting day and putting the goal near that.

In the end, only a few candidates, maybe one, two, or three, should be left after elimination. This maximizes the number of people willing to vote for those candidates and maximizes the probability of any of those candidates winning. On voting day, voters will be asked to vote for the candidate that they rank voted for and that survived elimination.

The basic idea is that voters can just vote for the main party candidates if they didn't choose any of the winning candidates by the time voting day comes around. If they do rank vote for a winner, however, than they know that there is enough people willing to vote for that winning candidate to possibly win, thus down playing the fear of taking votes away from a mainstream candidate.

Yes, it essentially depends the honor system to convince people to actually vote for the person they rank voted for, but it might still work if we can defend the site against manipulation and encourage voters to vote honestly.

Any advice for improving this idea? Do you think it could work?[/QUOTE]
This will come as a shock to you, but I like my system better; change needs to avoid radical change to attract the attention of most people who can't handle radicalism. My idea of a Federal Election Campaign Management Administration (FECMA) would be more appealing. However, getting these systems out to the public depends on the media, and they are not easily attracted to new ideas.
The novel, "The FECMA Conspiracy" by Burton Ridgeway has had no effect, and I doubt any entirely new system is not in the cards.

 

[konradv]

If we had public funding of elections, the parties would have to resort to being idea machines instead of money machines. It's money that's the sand in the machine. If all candidates started out from ground-zero. it's their ideas that would matter, not how many hours of ad time they could buy.

 

[Saul]

If we had public funding of elections, the parties would have to resort to being idea machines instead of money machines. It's money that's the sand in the machine. If all candidates started out from ground-zero. it's their ideas that would matter, not how many hours of ad time they could buy.

Exactly! I wholeheartedly agree. However, there's a consideration to be had here: it will be essential that the style and cost of elections be restrained if it is to be successful as publically financed, and the organization of it must be detached from political machinations. My idea takes this into consideration. My novel does that: "The FECMA Conspiracy", by Burton Ridgway. See also Website: sites.google.com/site/tbepporg.