Index
“The cure for the common citizen.”
Forenote:
I know that the Constitution of the United States is the law and it defines when, what and how we vote; I am
going to try to change it anyway. The dawn of one man, one vote was revolutionary and needed. The thing is
that I believe it is now passé. We all know that there are smart people and there are stupid people. Why
should the stupid have as equal a say in society as the smart? The stupid have no idea as to what the hell
they are doing when it comes to the government and voting it is beyond their comprehension. So to set the
evolution of government into the next era it would take a revolutionary move in our current government to
ratify that change. I doubt this would happen, people are always too happy to protect the status quo. Anyway,
here is the idea:
Too many problems stem from voter ignorance. This is why the 2000 election was so close and why the
Republicans sent forth their goons to rip Florida from the Democrats and send turn it to our current
administrations favor. A representative democracy like the United States in its current electorate form is
grossly inadequate. Ideally the system is to have the people elect our best and brightest to do what is best
for everyone. In reality while in Washington politicians try to appeal to the lowest common denominator in
order to get elected, and by doing to we get politicians from the lowest common denominator. Our current
form of election allows the stupid, the naïve, the careless and the ignorant to have too much power over the
smart, informed, attentive and involved.
Places that are more involved by ratio of voter turnout vs. population registered to vote should be rewarded
during the election cycle over places that have low rate of voter turnout. I think it is obvious that areas of
population that are historically and statistically less involved and informed on issues have a lower rate of
voter turnout during elections. So, why should we have these areas choosing our leaders? There are more
areas that have a low voter turnout than there are areas that have high voter turnout.
Thus, I have decided to perfect an idea given to me by my friend Nicholas Heppenstall to reward those that
bother to be involved during an election. His idea is mostly modeled for nation-wide presidential
elections/parliamentary elections but can be scaled down to work on elections as tiny as that of city council
races in the smallest of towns.
The idea goes as such:
At the end of an election, after all of the votes have been tallied, a number is given as to the percentage of
people that voted compared to the number of people that are registered to vote. The idea is to divide the
public into districts (not too unlike current congressional districts) based on population and/or number of
registered voters. Then, at the end of an election take the percentage of those that voted in said districts
and multiply it by the election results giving it a number. The voter index.
Let me give you an example:
Example #1
Districts A, B & C both have 150,000 people
The districts all have 90,000 voting age residents each.
The districts are to vote on issue(X), to approve(yes) or disapprove(no).
At the end of election these are the results:
District A District B District C Totals
A B C Total
Yes 15,960; 15,561; 10,946; 42,467
No 9,144; 25,441; 7,551; 42,136
# of votes 24,834; 41,002; 18,497; 84,603
Turnout 27.6%; 45.6%; 20.6%; 31.3%
Voter Index:
District A
Yes = 15,690(0.276) = 4404.96 No = 9,144(0.276) = 2523.74
District B
Yes = 15,561(0.456) = 7095.816 No = 25,441(0.456) = 11601.096
District C
Yes = 10,946(0.206) = 2254.876 No = 7,551(0.206) = 1555.506
Totals
Yes = 13755.652 No = 15680.342*
*winner of election
In a traditional election the “yes” voters would have approved issue(X) by little more than 300 votes, but in
the new Voter Index election the “no” voters win by a large margin of an index difference of 1924.69 over the
“yes(s)”. This happened because the voters in District B had a much higher rate of voter turnout than that of
Districts A & C. Thus, having a higher Voter Index making their votes more valued than that of either A or C
rewarded the voters of District B.
I understand that this is a small example so let me elaborate with a more complex example to demonstrate the
potential power of the Voter Index.
Example #2
This example divides fictitious Washington State into 10 voting districts of about 400,000 people.
Candidate(X) and Candidate(Y).
Number of voting age residents per district
A 270,000
B 240,000
C 310,000
D 260,000
E 360,000
F 250,000
G 230,000
H 280,000
I 240,000
J 290,000
Total 2,730,000
Election Results:
District A
X = 35,000 Y = 53,000 Total = 88,000 Turnout = 32.6%
District B
X = 22,500 Y = 44,000 Total = 66,600 Turnout = 27.7%
District C
X = 97,300 Y = 78,200 Total = 175,500 Turnout = 56.6%
District D
X = 75,600 Y = 59,400 Total = 135,000 Turnout = 51.9%
District E
X = 202,640 Y = 66,160 Total = 268,800 Turnout = 74.7%
District F
X = 43,750 Y = 86,250 Total = 130,000 Turnout = 52.0%
District G
X = 38,700 Y = 52,300 Total = 91,000 Turnout = 39.6%
District H
X = 42,000 Y = 87,000 Total = 129,000 Turnout = 46.1%
District I
X = 12,400 Y = 71,600 Total = 84,000 Turnout = 35.0%
District J
X = 71,775 Y = 64,725 Total = 136,500 Turnout = 47.1%
Totals
X = 641,665 Y = 662,635 Total = 1,304,300 Turnout = 47.7%
Voter Index figures:
District A
X = 35,000(0.326) = 11410 Y = 53,000(0.326) = 17278
District B
X = 22,500(0.277) = 6232.5 Y = 44,000(0.277) = 12188
District C
X = 97,300(0.566) = 55071.8 Y = 78,200(0.566) = 44261.2
District D
X = 75,600(0.519) = 39236.4 Y = 59,400(0.519) = 30828.5
District E
X = 202640(0.747) = 151372.08 Y = 66,160(0.747) = 49421.52
District F
X = 43,750(0.520) = 22750 Y = 86,250(0.520) = 44850
District G
X = 38,700(0.396) = 14280.3 Y = 52,300(0.396) = 20710.8
District H
X = 42,000(0.461) = 19362 Y = 87,000(0.461) = 40107
District I
X = 12,400(0.350) = 4340 Y = 71,600(0.350) = 25060
District J
X = 71,775(0.471) = 33806.025 Y = 64,725(0.471) = 30485.475
Total
X = 357861.105 Voter Index* Y = 315190.0485 Voter Index
*winner of election
As you can see by the math above the outcome of the election is drastically different when using the Wade-
Heppenstall Voter Index vs. utilizing only traditional methods. By rewarding the segment of the population that
is more involved one can change the political arena in a major way.
The Voter Index System is, for the most part, designed for use on a national level replacing the current
version of the Electoral College. As we all know the Electoral College needs to change as to what happened
in Florida in the past presidential race (2000). I propose we keep an electoral college but use it in a different
way; divide the country into about 600 districts of about 500,000 people per district, even crossing state lines
when necessary. At the end of an election when the vote totals have been tallied figure the Voter Index for
each individual district and compare it against the total Voter Index for the nation as a whole. Then assign the
percentage of Electoral Votes to the district as to its percentage of the total Voter Index. It would look like this:
[(Individual Voter index):divided by: (National voter index)] :multiplied by: (535) = Number of electoral votes
for the district
This method would prevent states like Texas who have a large population and a lot of Electoral Votes but a
dismal voter turnout at election time from having as much power as it does. If the state of Michigan were to
have 75% voter turnout in the next election there would be almost 6,000,000 votes. If Texas were to have
25% voter turnout in the next election they would have 4,000,000 votes. Why should Texas be allowed to
have almost twice the number of electoral votes as Michigan in the current system of the Electoral College? It
seams to me Michigan should be rewarded because Texas just takes their Electoral Votes for granted. In the
past election New York had more voters and a higher percentage of turnout than Texas yet in the coming
years Texas will have 34 Electoral Votes compared to New York’s 31. Voting should be treated like a
currency, the more votes a district has the more electoral votes that can be bought with them. Supply and
demand. In the 2000 election Washington State should have had about 14 Electoral Votes while West
Virginia should have had only 2.5 electoral votes. If less people vote in states like West Virginia why should
their votes be more powerful than that of Washington in respect to number of Electoral Votes per voter?
Well, I hope I painted a decent, convincing picture in my brief explanation of the Wade-Heppenstall Voter
Index for now. Maybe someday I will have the drive to write a giant book detailing its benefits beyond a
shadow of a doubt. I envision this writing more as a brochure than end work.
Houston Wade
Thank You.