This is an idea for a set up of a "peoples house" (which would be balanced out by other houses, of course). I'm going to be using America as representative, for an "extreme" implementation of the system. Time is given as Month+x, given after the start of the election cycle, to be date indifferent of when in the year this process starts, since I haven't even begun to consider weather in any of this.
Month +0: election of electors.
Election of the electors is handled on the county level. In each county, the top 10 signature getters in the County get on, with only some restrictions as necessary to prevent excessive "gaming" of the system. The elector can be either an individual or group. So, for example, the voting options for a given County may look like such: the bellow is ranked most signatures to least signatures. Which seems fair.
1) Republican Party
2) Democratic Party
3) John Murry (R)
4) kate Hoppe (D)
5) Carl Flink (D)
6) NRA
7) Greenpeace
8) Fredrick Joshua (L)
9) Carl Daton (i)
10) Raza Unida Party
These entries naturally get their votes, with each having an assigned number of votes. Lets say the county had 10,000 votes, for ease or math. Those might have fallen like so:
1) Republican Party - 3,000
2) Democratic Party - 2,000
3) John Murry (R) - 1,000
4) kate Hoppe (D) - 1,000
5) Carl Flink (D) - 500
6) NRA - 500
7) Greenpeace - 500
8) Fredrick Joshua (L) - 500
9) Carl Daton (i) - 500
10) Raza Unida Party - 500
Given these votes, these individuals and organizations, or their representatives, then go to the "electors convention". This may be at one location, or split up across several different ones. At these conventions, the electors then get to "spend" their votes to "elect" the actual representative, who will be courting the electors. The elector has complete freedom of how to divide up their vote, including not spending it at all. For example, Carl Daton could have been a protest vote, or Carl simply wasn't that serious, and doesn't bother to show up to the Elector's Convention, wasting those votes.
Now, given the 3,000 counties, this system does mean there may be up to 30,000 or so electors. Which is a lot, but 1) this does give a fairly wide variety of viewpoints, 2) there's not going to be nearly that many in practice, since a lot of counties will have the same organizations/individuals running in them, and 3) my current idea is that the Convention lasts three months, meaning all electors are unlikely to be at the Convention at the same time anyways.
The electors are of course free to spend their votes on themselves if they are individuals. So for example, the four individual party members are likely running as electors to vote themselves in as representatives. A representative is "purchased" based on a fixed number of votes, my preference is something like a 100,000. So, if the electors represent 103 million votes, they are electing some 1,030 representatives, assuming all of them get spent. Naturally, this does mean that the exact number of representatives is not fixed, and varies with each election.
At month+3, the final tallies are made and the 1,000 odd new (though most are probably not so new) representatives are sworn in. Then they are given 3 months to negotiate amounts themselves and settle in to their new role. Meanwhile, the next three months are spent collecting signatures to determine who will be on next years ballot, now that the electors have completed their work for this year.
At month+6, the representatives are assembled for their 3 month legislative session for the year, and the signatures have been collected to determine who will be on the ballot next year, save for any legal problems with signatures, which there are now several months of leeway to sort through.
At Month+9, the legislative season has ended. Now, both the electors and Representatives (who are sometimes one in the same) have the last three months to campaign (or not) for the electing of the electors in 3 months at Month+12, starting the cycle back at Month+0.
So, that's an elective system I've had bouncing around in my head for a while, and I'm glad I finally got around to writing it out. So, what do people think?
Month +0: election of electors.
Election of the electors is handled on the county level. In each county, the top 10 signature getters in the County get on, with only some restrictions as necessary to prevent excessive "gaming" of the system. The elector can be either an individual or group. So, for example, the voting options for a given County may look like such: the bellow is ranked most signatures to least signatures. Which seems fair.
1) Republican Party
2) Democratic Party
3) John Murry (R)
4) kate Hoppe (D)
5) Carl Flink (D)
6) NRA
7) Greenpeace
8) Fredrick Joshua (L)
9) Carl Daton (i)
10) Raza Unida Party
These entries naturally get their votes, with each having an assigned number of votes. Lets say the county had 10,000 votes, for ease or math. Those might have fallen like so:
1) Republican Party - 3,000
2) Democratic Party - 2,000
3) John Murry (R) - 1,000
4) kate Hoppe (D) - 1,000
5) Carl Flink (D) - 500
6) NRA - 500
7) Greenpeace - 500
8) Fredrick Joshua (L) - 500
9) Carl Daton (i) - 500
10) Raza Unida Party - 500
Given these votes, these individuals and organizations, or their representatives, then go to the "electors convention". This may be at one location, or split up across several different ones. At these conventions, the electors then get to "spend" their votes to "elect" the actual representative, who will be courting the electors. The elector has complete freedom of how to divide up their vote, including not spending it at all. For example, Carl Daton could have been a protest vote, or Carl simply wasn't that serious, and doesn't bother to show up to the Elector's Convention, wasting those votes.
Now, given the 3,000 counties, this system does mean there may be up to 30,000 or so electors. Which is a lot, but 1) this does give a fairly wide variety of viewpoints, 2) there's not going to be nearly that many in practice, since a lot of counties will have the same organizations/individuals running in them, and 3) my current idea is that the Convention lasts three months, meaning all electors are unlikely to be at the Convention at the same time anyways.
The electors are of course free to spend their votes on themselves if they are individuals. So for example, the four individual party members are likely running as electors to vote themselves in as representatives. A representative is "purchased" based on a fixed number of votes, my preference is something like a 100,000. So, if the electors represent 103 million votes, they are electing some 1,030 representatives, assuming all of them get spent. Naturally, this does mean that the exact number of representatives is not fixed, and varies with each election.
At month+3, the final tallies are made and the 1,000 odd new (though most are probably not so new) representatives are sworn in. Then they are given 3 months to negotiate amounts themselves and settle in to their new role. Meanwhile, the next three months are spent collecting signatures to determine who will be on next years ballot, now that the electors have completed their work for this year.
At month+6, the representatives are assembled for their 3 month legislative session for the year, and the signatures have been collected to determine who will be on the ballot next year, save for any legal problems with signatures, which there are now several months of leeway to sort through.
At Month+9, the legislative season has ended. Now, both the electors and Representatives (who are sometimes one in the same) have the last three months to campaign (or not) for the electing of the electors in 3 months at Month+12, starting the cycle back at Month+0.
So, that's an elective system I've had bouncing around in my head for a while, and I'm glad I finally got around to writing it out. So, what do people think?