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 25 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Anonymous
    commented 2019-09-29 05:48:19 -0700
    Are there any resources that explain how to proceed when ties occur at different steps of the algorithm?
    Granted, it would be an unlikely scenario in an county election, but still, to implement this voting system in different use cases it would be helpful to know what to do in special cases.
    For example: More than 2 canditates have the highest score or 2 candidates have the second highest score, how would the runoff work in that case?
  • Marcia Everett
    commented 2019-01-09 10:00:26 -0800
    Everyone should be able to say for themselves whether or not they agree with a bill. Bt because sometimes bills are written in a way that makes it difficult to understand what is being said, and because sometimes people do not have enough time to spend on bills when you know LIFE, and because in the PAST we were not able to count the votes from a billion or more people or get feedback from a billion people without chaos- we have representatives.

    The question now is how best to assign these representatives. Our current system is a sort of lottery. You might get the representative you want, you might not. Many people are advocating for systems that basically allow you to TELL everyone you wanted a different represntative, but you still might not get the one you want, you just got to tell people you wanted something else.

    I found a friend who thought it would be best if you got the representtive you want. ALWAYS No if ands or buts. Now if you think there is something better than that, I can not imagine what that could be.

    How does one get the representative they want guaranteed no, if, ands, or buts? By considering the election as if it were a SELECTION. And putting to work anyone who reeived votes. There representatives would be on different levels of power based upon how many people voted for them.

    And they would need to band together with other to support or denote a bill. So If candidate A got 100 votes, they would have 100 points. Candidate B has 75 votes, they would have 75 points C has 50 D has 25. And when the bill says we shall legalize marijuana A,B,C,D, will cast their points for or against the bill. We will add up the points and see which way the vote goes. (I don’t think the likelihood of a tie is as probable as it is in this example) But I’m sure we can come up wth a rule for what to do in case of a tie.

    Counting the results for the executive branc are an entirely different matter, since there can be only one. The use of SCORE/RANGE voting will produce the person liked by the most people.

    Please feel free to read the Bill of Rights for Voting Equality.
    htt:// also at

    As far as secure technology that is included in the BRVE Also money put of politics. I’m about to change the RIGHT to vote to MANDATORY voting. I think too many people take this country for granted and do not realise that their participation is what makes this country function. ANd if we don;t want battles in the street, then we neec to vote on the issues.
  • Marcia Everett
    commented 2018-10-29 17:20:44 -0700
    Direct Representation CAN LEAD to Direct Democracy. Everything I advocate is at This page is yo debate STAR, I only bring up counter points from the BRVE that correspond to this voting count method.
  • William Kwan
    commented 2018-10-29 17:02:37 -0700
    (coninuation). You’re essentially arguing for a direct democracy. Everyone would be able to declare oneself a candidate and vote for oneself, to become a candidate. One would have the option of choosing to give someone else the power to vote for them. There would likely be millions of representatives. I’m all for that in theory. But we don’t have secure technology for that.

    I think a simple amendment would be insufficient. The Constitution would need to be completely revamped. Would you do away with Congress entirely? The balance of powers would be fundamentally changed. Who would draft legislation? How would each legislator have time to review the bills? How would the executive be held accountable? What would the Supreme Court turn to when deciding what the intent of a law was?
  • William Kwan
    commented 2018-10-29 16:50:33 -0700
    You’re essentially arguing for a direct democracy.
  • Marcia Everett
    commented 2018-10-29 14:53:20 -0700
    One other thing In reference to this statement. >>> I’m all in favor of that. If a party has enough voters in a territory to claim a representative, I think those voters should have a representative.<<<< The reason we who like the rule I include, is that we answer, WHAT HAPPENS IF A PARTY DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH? we believe that citizens are entitled to the representative that they choose/want no matter what FULL STOP.

    Having a small party should not preclude you from representation. Being UNAFFILIATED should not preclude you from having a representative. This is the country to which you have agreed to obey the laws. You MUST have a say in what those laws will be AT ALL TIMES, This system is the only one that GUARANTEES that the person you want to represent you will be there at the legislative table/meetings.

    All other systems ALLOW you to LOSE an election and not be represented. UNACCEPTABLE.
  • Marcia Everett
    commented 2018-10-29 14:46:26 -0700
    It moght be easier if you watched the videos. You describe one way of proportional representation. I am in favor of another kind.

    The kind I agree with for the US legislature is one without districts. Reason: laws passed in the US legislature are for the entire country, not just a district within a state.

    Candidates would indicate that they wish to be repreentatives. People in the state would vote for whom they wish. Those who receive votes would then BE representatives. They would have voting power equal to the amount of votes they received.

    This power they would then put in favor or against bills.

    So there might be candidates from political parties, there might be candidates who are unaffiliated.
    The amount of representatives should be 1:30,000 For my state that is upwards of 200 representatives. (state population divided by 30,000) These 200 rep would receive any numerous amount of votes.

    One might get 1,000 vote one might get 100 That would be their power in congress.

    Coupled with the other rules in the BRVE we would have an extremely fAIR SYSTEM That represents all people more accurately. please read thoroughly. please watch all instructional videos included.
  • William Kwan
    commented 2018-10-22 21:28:42 -0700
    Marcia, I’m not quite sure what you mean. If you’re proposing proportional representation in legislatures, where more parties would be represented, I’m all in favor of that. If a party has enough voters in a territory to claim a representative, I think those voters should have a representative. Take the House of Representatives, under the current system of districts, in a state allotted 10 representatives, a party that gets 10% of the votes won’t get a single representative. They wouldn’t all be in one district. Heck, even a party with 51% of the vote may get less than 5 representatives, considering what the party in party can do when they gerrymander districts, packing and cracking voters from the opposition party into districts that practically guarantee the party in power continues to be in power, disenfranchising a wide swathe of voters.
  • Marcia Everett
    commented 2018-10-22 13:18:09 -0700
    Another isue that may not be so obvious, is that the Executive branch has complete authority to make its own decisions. Whereas the legislative branch has to take a vote in order to make policy. Therefore these elections should be counted differently.

    In the case of the executive, there will be only one. In the case of the legislature it should be looked at as there being one for everyone.

    Please review The Bill of Rights for Voting Equality for videos and reasons behind each rule. It is very important that we have a COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE to ALL of the voting issues.
  • Aaron Wolf
    commented 2018-10-15 21:24:42 -0700
    Like most things in STAR, strategies are unreliable. A party running multiple candidates in order to capture both spots in a run-off also risks undermining themselves as people express differences anyway. While it’s true that the best gaming of STAR is to run multiple candidates and get supporters to give them all 5s and 0s to everyone else, that’s a nuclear option. It’s costly and risky. It could backfire if less partisan voters resent the idea of people being told to vote strategically like that.

    Furthermore, if partisan voters give both Rs (in the example below) a 5, then they are expressing no difference between the two. There’s thus a strong incentive for those voters to say “well, I not only want an R, I want this one” and want to be counted for that. So, there’s a built-in disincentive to just max all votes 0 or 5.

    Voters in STAR who try to be strategic always have to think “do I care more about blocking the worst candidate or about showing my preference for my favorite?” and so on… and the reasonable conclusion is: “screw it, I can’t figure out what’s some optimal way to strategize, I’ll just score what I actually think.”
  • Liberal Arts and Crafts
    commented 2018-10-15 16:43:34 -0700
    @Patrick Cyr.
    This is indeed technically possible, if half of voters max the scores of multiple candidates while the other half split their max scores among several similar candidates 2 candidates could advance, neither of whom are the ideal candidate. However I think you are assuming greater partisanship than really exists. Yes under FPTP people are (increasingly) staunch partisans, but when you actually talk to most voters, they don’t really think of themselves as such, they have qualms with the party they vote for consistently, and many voters dislike BOTH parties quite a lot, even those who vote for one party regularly. Under STAR we would expect both greater flexibility among voters (not simply falling in line behind a single party, all others be damned) and greater engagement from people who currently don’t vote. So while this doesn’t completely eliminate strategic voting, it reduces it by enough that most voters don’t have a huge incentive to participate in it. If a district is pretty evenly split between (current) D and R voters, it’s quite likely that a moderate candidate who currently can’t win either a D or R primary would run, and a lot of both D AND R voters would give them high, if not top, scores, so even if a sizable proportion of one “side” voted strategically max score for 2 candidates from “their” party, it’s very unlikely that proportion would be anything like 50% in a district that is currently quite split.
  • Patrick Cyr
    commented 2018-10-15 03:26:49 -0700
    Hmm…I’m wondering if STAR is vulnerable to partisan strategic voting. Imagine an election with 2 D candidates, 2 R candidates, maybe some 3rd party candidates, and roughly equal numbers of D and R voters. Let’s say the D voters vote honestly: they give a 5 to their favorite D (roughly evenly split), and a 4 to their 2nd favorite. Let’s also say the R voters give 5s to both of their candidates. Both R candidates would have a higher score than either of the D candidates, so both would make it to the runoff, guaranteeing an R voter would win the election. In this case, STAR would be rewarding not really the candidate with broadest appeal, or the one people are most passionate about, but rather the party with the most partisan voters. Of course, if this happened, you can be sure the D voters would do the same thing in the next election, which would lead to a world where voters would have to give up their ability to choose between candidates in primaries simply to have a chance for their party to win.

    I don’t think my scenario is an edge case. There are a lot of very close districts in the US, and partisanship right now is through the roof. I would love to change our voting system more than anything, but I’m legitimately afraid that STAR could actually result in fewer realistic options for voters.
  • Marcia Everett
    commented 2018-09-30 10:48:12 -0700
    Personally, I’m in the Green party. For over 10 years now. In North arolina the access to get onto the ballot was extremey high. We had to collect over 80,000. And then after Obama won, it went up to 100,000. Needless to say we could not acheive that. Then through action from the Constitution party, the Libertarian Party, and the Green party, (after a failed lawsuit) we finally got the legislature to lower the amount.

    However I still d not have a representative that speaks for me. Imagine being at a jobe with union representation. Every department is supposed to have a rep but yours doesn’t. The group passes something thatis easy for all of them to do except your department. Which they would have known had you had a rep at the table/meetings.

    That is what it is like when your rep/candidate loses an election. That is why Republicans were so mad and why now Democrats are so frustrated.

    The Constitution says we have to have an election every two years. It says the representatives must be in proportion to the population. It says there should be a minimum of one representative to every 30,000 citizens. IT DOES NOT SAY HOW WE ARE TO DETERMINE WHOWINS”.

    Up to now we have looked at things in a very linear way. one direction, whomever gets there first wins. But we need to look at this as a circle that includes everyone like a Venn diagram. EVERYONE who receives votes to be a representative from a citizen, should “WIN
    Those candidates would then have"power" equal to the amount of votes they received.

    This is all included in the Bill of Rights for Voting Equality. And there are videos which explain further. I tink ALL citizens need to get on board with a comprehensive solution that will solve the voting problems ONCE AND FOR ALL (or until the next 5 generations come along. you know what I mean)

    Take a look

    Thank You for your time.
  • Ariel Adams
    commented 2018-09-30 07:29:12 -0700
    Is this committee funded by the Democratic Party? Just curious if we’re all leaning toward The Dem Side?
  • 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.