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


Handout.pdf - two handouts on one double-sided page. The ballots can be torn off and filled out for running mock elections using SRV.
Main Poster.pdf - An informational poster of the SRV ballot for public display.
Two Pager.pdf - A two page executive summary of the Equal Vote campaign and Score Runoff Voting.
Posters.pdf - Informational posters for public display.

This GitHub repository is where we store all the revisions and source files for our informational material.

Showing 4 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • commented 2017-11-04 05:05:26 -0700
    The best way to contact us directly is at our Facebook Page, but we will soon have individual email addresses, so if you can wait ‘til Monday, that’ll be faster?
  • commented 2017-11-04 05:03:38 -0700
    Henry, thanks for checking in! The major difference between STAR and Top Two is that Top Two requires two elections. I.e. the voters have to be asked twice who they want to get the job of representing the voters for each elected job. In reality, this sucks. Two elections means a long time process — which means the voters have forgotten about it and need to be reminded about who you are as a candidate again, at great cost, which means raising money from people who don’t really want to give you money to say mean things about the other candidate who made it into the top two but do it anyway so that you pick up the phone when they call you on speed dial. But we digress. Two elections to produce a less representative outcome (Top Two) vs. STAR Voting in one election to produce a more representative outcome seems like no contest to us.
  • commented 2017-11-04 02:45:38 -0700
    I think where STAR might run into resistance is that it seems almost identical to top two runoff that has had arguably bad outcomes in both California and Washington State. How does it differ from Top Two and why is it better? How can I contact someone directly? I would like to add something like this in our Platform as a Legislative Action Item.
  • commented 2017-08-13 20:27:28 -0700
    There is one reform I would like you to add to this brilliant system. I call it the “Proxy Vote” or “Elector Vote”. It directly responds to complaints that this system is too complex for voters by allowing them to only score as many candidates as they want (including none of them) and simply select a candidate as their “Proxy” or “Elector”.
    All candidates would be required, by law, to publish scores for all the other candidates on the ballot (they can include write-ins if they choose) ahead of the election, possibly at several points, with enough time for people to see the scores, and ask the candidates questions about their reasoning for giving the scores they did.
    This would solve the problem of complexity, since voters could simply do as they do now and select the candidate they most trust to represent their interests, but instead of having to find one that has a chance at winning they can just support whoever they trust/like and leave it to them to give scores that do exactly that.
    It would give bargaining power to candidates with committed supporters but little chance of winning out.
    It also gives stronger and better known candidates a chance to highlight lesser known/more fringe candidates they consider to be really great, and deserving of more attention.
    Finally it gives voters more information about the candidates, since it is a vitally impactful quantifiable action that indicates who they really think is suited to the position for which they are running (and therefore presumably think they are the best/among the best potential options). If a candidate gives an unusually high or low score from an ideological standpoint it might well be strong evidence that they really consider someone to be of high or low moral character/ability, since they are to some degree potentially hurting their own chances/helping the chances of their ideological opposition by giving such a score, and the only definite effect is helping or hurting the chances of that candidate’s election, which is a particularly strong (and thus unlikely to be false) statement from the candidate.
    Altogether I feel it adds a level of simplicity, and a layer of complexity, to the process that makes it stronger and more enjoyable. It also makes candidates more accountable for their “statements” since they are now quantifiable and impactful, so they can’t claim they were misinterpreted or try to dodge.

Democracy in Under Five Minutes!

Voting Methods Animated