Although our votes are required to carry equal weight, they don't. It's time for real democracy. Join us!

Friend of the Court

Advocates for the rights of independent voters in New Jersey are taking a different approach to reform of the electoral process. Instead of working to change the law by petition or legislative action, they're suing the state in Federal Court for depriving voters not affiliated with a major party equal access to the voting franchise. Since we're sort of into that whole "equal voting" thing, we submitted an Amicus Curiae (literally "friend of the court") filing advocating the court adopt a simple test to determine whether the franchise provides all voters equal weight. You can read the full brief here or the summary of the argument below:


The Supreme Court of the United States has underscored the requirement of equality in our voting franchise, but little attention has been focused on the judicial tests for measuring that standard.  The present New Jersey closed primary system violates the equal vote weight standard and impermissibly underwrites an official state process that ratifies oligarchic control of voter selections.

Amicus argues for articulation of a judicial test that is consistent with underlying democratic theory and which will insure that voters are equal to each other in exercising the franchise that is part of their entitlement under the Constitution.

Showing 1 reaction

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • commented 2016-07-31 06:18:30 -0700
    Explaining Choice of Representation

    (Choice of Representation is a voting type included in the BRVE: bill of Rights for Voting Equality) good for congress. We recommend “APPROVAL” voting for the Presidential race.

    Districting is done to satisfy the “one man, one vote” concept. It makes the representatives equal but makes the citizens unequal-some have the representation of their choice and most do not. The theory is that because the population in each district is nearly equal then each person has the same proportionate share of a representative (a representative that they may have voted against and vehemently dislike).

    Gerrymandering aside, great expense and effort goes into making legislative districts as close to equal in size of population as possible. The result is that many counties and municipalities are divided up into more than one, sometimes several districts. This creates more work and expense for the Election Officials in printing notices and ballots, setting up the machines, etc. The existence of districts makes campaigning more expensive by dividing up media markets into several districts or having a district span parts of several markets.

    So all of this work goes into making them equal and what is the first thing that they do? They give up a lot of their power by electing a leader who gets to decide a myriad of details including who is on what committees, which offices legislators are assigned to and what legislation will be scheduled for a vote and which bills will die without being voted on. In our relatively free market system people obtain the goods and services of their choice that they can afford to purchase or retain. Representation (Attorney, Personal Representative, Executor, Proxy, Agent, Guardian) involves the agent being legally bound to conduct themselves in the best interest of the client. In our election system, the government designates people as representatives even though the client (voter) is certain that the “representative” will not act in his or her best interest and will use force if necessary in order to prevent the other candidates from representing the people who voted for them.

    That’s Forced Representation.

    By declaring that people have the Right to CHOICE OF REPRESENTATION, we establish a principle which people can aspire to, we expand the number of people who care about the outcome of elections and we show that this is not a partisan effort.

    CHOICE OF REPRESENTATION makes the voters equal. They all get the Representation of their Choice and make the representatives unequal by assigning them voting power equal to the number of people who voted for them.

    In discussions of CHOICE OF REPRESENTATION, we use the term Representative Denied Office (RDO) for those people who have run for office, received votes and have been denied the opportunity to effectively represent the people who voted for them. The RPO’s (Representatives Permitted Office) are sworn in.

    Personally I think that having a representative of your choice is much more important than having the same number of people in each district.

Democracy in Under Five Minutes!

Voting Methods Animated