I thought this could be posted here instead of TNZ, in that it's not really intended to be a heated controversial discussion, but rather a fun thought exercise, where a solid collective of sci-fi minded folks can ponder the possibilities.
My proposal would be a randomized voting system. Polling places would be open at all times & whatever the term limit of the government office is (hopefully universal) each registered voter has any time during that term to vote once on whether that official should be removed or kept.
If at any time during the term, the electorate has amassed enough votes to tip the balance against them holding office another term, they then become a lame duck, which results in replacement candidates campaigning, at that time, who are then voted on by those who have yet to vote. If the ideally shorter full term (maybe 2 years for everybody) is completed, without passing the 50% voter rejection mark, it's assumed the incumbent has a majority support, & no other candidates will be offered, & the incumbent simply retains their office another term.
This system would eliminate the popularity contest nonsense of standard elections, & make it more of a meritocracy. Plus, each voter's vote would now have more intrinsic worth, like a currency, to be spent in more than one way. You can vote to fire someone, or hold off, & if the official faces being fired, you can use your vote to hire a new one. Plus, if you're registered but don't vote, you still count in presumed support for the incumbent.
The only drawback, is a possible influx of rejections near the end of the term, causing a limited replacement campaign process, before the incumbent is ousted, (as if a shorter campaign season is all that terrible). The upside is that the incumbent doesn't campaign against anybody but their own performance, & the candidates don't campaign against the current administration, but against one another, again... on their own merits.
Primaries/caucuses would remain pretty much the same. Each of the hopefully more than 2 parties would have a potential candidate in the pipeline, awaiting the possibility of running, (including the current party in power) but it would be illegal to campaign or campaign for them, for the actual office, until after the incumbent's rejection tally passes 50%. (It would probably be more like 55% or whatever, when you account for potential new voter registrations that could occur)
Even the electoral college could stick around for the protection of states' autonomy if so desired. We'd just change the process of voting, for the people. Their votes would mean more the whole time, & they'd be involved throughout. The process would be more at their discretion, & better reflect their will.
My proposal would be a randomized voting system. Polling places would be open at all times & whatever the term limit of the government office is (hopefully universal) each registered voter has any time during that term to vote once on whether that official should be removed or kept.
If at any time during the term, the electorate has amassed enough votes to tip the balance against them holding office another term, they then become a lame duck, which results in replacement candidates campaigning, at that time, who are then voted on by those who have yet to vote. If the ideally shorter full term (maybe 2 years for everybody) is completed, without passing the 50% voter rejection mark, it's assumed the incumbent has a majority support, & no other candidates will be offered, & the incumbent simply retains their office another term.
This system would eliminate the popularity contest nonsense of standard elections, & make it more of a meritocracy. Plus, each voter's vote would now have more intrinsic worth, like a currency, to be spent in more than one way. You can vote to fire someone, or hold off, & if the official faces being fired, you can use your vote to hire a new one. Plus, if you're registered but don't vote, you still count in presumed support for the incumbent.
The only drawback, is a possible influx of rejections near the end of the term, causing a limited replacement campaign process, before the incumbent is ousted, (as if a shorter campaign season is all that terrible). The upside is that the incumbent doesn't campaign against anybody but their own performance, & the candidates don't campaign against the current administration, but against one another, again... on their own merits.
Primaries/caucuses would remain pretty much the same. Each of the hopefully more than 2 parties would have a potential candidate in the pipeline, awaiting the possibility of running, (including the current party in power) but it would be illegal to campaign or campaign for them, for the actual office, until after the incumbent's rejection tally passes 50%. (It would probably be more like 55% or whatever, when you account for potential new voter registrations that could occur)
Even the electoral college could stick around for the protection of states' autonomy if so desired. We'd just change the process of voting, for the people. Their votes would mean more the whole time, & they'd be involved throughout. The process would be more at their discretion, & better reflect their will.
