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 11 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Marcia Everett
    commented 2018-07-05 13:38:04 -0700
    I want you to tell me which option GUARANTEES that I will have the REPRESENTATIVE of MY CHOICE, AT ALL TIMES. Direct Representation that’s which. Why would you accept anything less?
  • William Kwan
    commented 2018-06-28 15:19:36 -0700
    Mark, Isn’t Top Two also significantly different from STAR in that it forces to choose? In this most recent California Top 2 “primary,” Democrats were in danger of going into the general election with no candidates on the ballot for many offices. The reason for this was that there were so many Democratic candidates on the ballot that they might have watered down the votes between themselves. The STAR system is way better since voters would, ideally, score all of the candidates, thus keeping all strong candidates viable.
  • Marcia Everett
    commented 2018-02-16 10:16:18 -0800
    The vote counting for Executive branch (SINGLE SEAT) should be different from Legislative branch (MULTI SEAT) Citizens CAN NOT AFFORD TO LOSE A LEGISLATIVE ELECTION!!!. You can not have a UNION TABLE MEETING without a REPRESENTATIVE FOR EVERYONE AT THE TABLE. We can not continue to wait two years, and then another two years to get REPRESENTATION!!! WE have the RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED AT ALL TIMES!!!! ( BTW The Judicial branch should be picked like a jury.)
  • Marcia Everett
    commented 2018-02-16 10:12:11 -0800

    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.


    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.

    I believe this is the quickest way to get THIRD parties and UNAFFILIATED persons IN the legislative bodies around the country.

    I believe SELLING this idea is a matter of letting people know that this kind of voting means that YOU NEVER LOSE. If you vote for someone THAT WILL BE YOUR REPRESENTATIVE.

    Which also means if they do not represent you well, and you say you will not vote for them the next time. IT WILL MEAN SOMETHING. Money from outsiders (should that still be a thing) will not mean anything compared to the votes going to another candidate. And the official WILL KNOW that rhose votes are going and it WILL AFFECT THEM.

    The constitution says we will have representatives. The constitution says we will have elections every two years. It does not answer the question of HOW the election is to be decided. It DID SAY however that there should be a LOT MORE representatives than we now have. 1:30,000. So i ask you to read this once again and stand for your RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PERSON OF YOUR CHOICE.


    see facebook page Choice of Representation by Jim Mueller

    Direct Representation

    And lastly think about how many times we have gone to the constitution to fix voting. Perhaps a comprehensive fix is in order.
  • Peter Ouellette
    commented 2018-02-08 06:07:06 -0800
    Mark, we spoke briefly at Unrig about the developing situation in Pennsylvania. We have a major campaign for a Citizens Committee for Redistricting, and legislation that would reduce the size of the legislature. Legislators want to save their jobs, and the reduction means that some WILL have to go. In this moment there may be an opportunity to introduce STAR voting in this state. You mentioned that there is model legislation available. Where can I find that?
  • Peter Ouellette
    posted about this on Facebook 2018-02-07 07:33:21 -0800
    Resources: Equal Vote, please check this out
  • Peter Ouellette
    @RepresentNEPA tweeted link to this page. 2018-02-07 07:33:14 -0800
    Resources: Equal Vote, please check this out
  • Mark Frohnmayer
    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?
  • Mark Frohnmayer
    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.
  • Henry Ex
    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.
  • Jeff Trechter
    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.