A proposed reformed electoral system

In the past day or two, there has been a lot of noise about whether or not the Electoral College is the best system for electing our representatives. Opponents argue it gives certain votes a greater value than others, which is does. Proponents argue a "one person-one vote" popular vote lends itself to a "tyranny of the majority" because the areas with the greatest population will usually dominate, which it does.
Following is a proposed framework for a reformed electoral system. I'm sure there are holes in it, but I think it offers a better system for a fair playing field while maintaining the protections of the old system. It also allows for a disruption of a two-party dominated system and incentivizes voter participation.
It would of course require a large grassroots effort to codify it, or something like it into law, but if there is one thing we can agree on as a nation at this tumultuous time, it is we are not happy with the way our political system is currently working.
I welcome your feedback.

•Electoral delegates to be replaced by electoral points system.

The formula should be determined by an appointed non-partisan committee of statisticians in order to assign each state a number derived by population and weighted to prevent any candidate from running the board by appealing to isolated demographics. This replaces the function of the Electoral College in protecting against a “tyranny of the majority”. The number of points should be a high one, probably in the thousands, as will be made clear. The number of points shall be revised according to the formula during the first non-election year following a new census.

•Constitutionally provisioned open primaries.

(I'm not totally sure about this format. Might need some tweaking)

All primary elections to be held on the same day, as elections are now, including early voting and mail-in ballots. Ideally on a Monday or a Friday and made a national holiday. Any political party that meets required criteria shall be placed on a single, standardized ballot. All registered voters may participate and vote for a candidate in any party. Voters may cast for multiple candidates, but may only vote for one candidate per party and must do so in a “ranked choice” manner,

i.e. 1st choice, Kang-D, second choice: Kodos-L, third choice Wiggins-R, et cetera. 

Winners in each party to be determined by a weighted addition of votes, with 1st choice given highest weight, et cetera. Winner from each party to be granted all of each state’s electoral points to be applied to national  tally toward nomination. i.e.: if a state is worth 1,000 electoral points, the winner of each party to be granted 1,000 points toward national tally. Greatest point holder in each party to move forward to general election.

This simplifies the primary process, avoids confusion and evens the playing field as states are not vying for an earlier place in line to have a greater influence upon the primary.

•General election to follow “ranked choice” format

Voters able to select any number of candidates and rank them in order of preference, as in the example above. Tabulation to follow “instant runoff” protocol to eliminate candidates from the least popular up to the winner.

•Electoral points to be allotted on a proportional basis and according to voter turnout.

Electoral points are awarded on a state by state basis, but proportional to the number of votes each candidate received. Points are also awarded based on voter turnout. i.e. if a state is worth 2,000 points, but only 50% of registered voters cast a ballot, only 1,000 points are divided up among candidates according to the percentage of votes they received. This is why it’s important that point values be high, as to be easily divided among multiple candidates after being adjusted for voter turnout.

This eliminates “safe states” and “swing states”, forces candidates to court votes in all areas and incentivizes voter participation. Minority voters in what were formally “Red” or “Blue” states are encouraged to vote as all votes count toward their preferred candidate. Voters as a whole are encouraged to vote as the only way candidates can benefit from the full electoral value of a state is if all registered voters participate. The end is simple, the candidate with the most points wins.

The 100-meter progressive footrace

A 100-meter progressive foot race was organized by five sports fans and ten men signed up to compete. The race was set up so all ten members would start at the starting line and race to the finish line. The race would be run again the next day and the first place winner would be awarded a ten-meter head start for winning the day before, second place would be awarded five meters and so on down the line until last place, who would again start at the start. Once someone was within one meter of the finish, if he were to win again, his bonus would be taken out of the remaining racers head start until they were back at the finish line, at which time they would be eliminated. At the end of each race, winners would be awarded prizes proportional to their finishing order. The prizes were paid for from ticket revenue, which spectators paid in advance.
On the first day, the men lined up and prepared to race. The starter pistol was fired and they began to sprint. The runners were fairly evenly matched, within a few paces of each other. The spectators cheered, willing their favorites to win. Toward the finish line, two leaders inched ahead of the pack. Nearing the finish line, one man produced a handful of marbles and tossed them under the feet of the second leader, causing him to slow just enough to give the first man the win.
A disagreement erupted among the organizers. Some felt it was unfair for the first man to use the marbles to win the race. They wanted to make a rule against it and strip the winner of his bonus. Others accused them of wanting to punish him for being more clever than his opponents. After all, they could have just as easily thought of the same idea and there were no rules against it when he did it. It was his ingenuity that gave him the edge. They decided to put it to a vote. Each runner promised to give one percent of his winnings to the organizers if they would vote his way. The sports fans understood math and voted the marbles were allowed.
The next day the race was run again with the staggered starts. The runners again ran at nearly the same speed, but the previous day's winner was five meters ahead of his nearest rival and won easily. The runners in the  midldle of the pack threw marbles, elbows and anything else they could think of to pull ahead of each other, hoping to gain enough ground to get to the front of the pack. This continued day after day, the runners changing places but never catching the leader. One runner noticed there was a slope to the track and all the debris thrown by the other runners collected in his lane, slowing him down. He appealed to the organizers that it was unfair, that it didn't give him a chance to catch up. The organizers knew he didn't have any winnings to offer them if they intervened in his favor and ignored him. They told him sports were not fair and if he had just worked harder on the first day he could be at the front and not a lazy loser at the back of the pack.
The races went on day after day until the man in first place was started one meter from the finish line. He loped across the line and won. The next race all the other racers' head start was reduced by half and the man with the debris in his lane was eliminated. Day after day the leader won, the others were pushed back and the last place runner was eliminated. The spectators grew bored of the races, but they had bought their tickets so they watched anyway. On the last day the leader won again and the last racer was eliminated. He raised his arms in victory but nobody cheered. He looked up into the crowd and saw that no one looked happy. Except in the glass booth where the five sports fans were celebrating, so he went to join them. The six people had all the prizes bought with all the ticket money. in the booth. They had jewlery, games, music and more fine food and drink than they could possibly consume.
Outside, the spectators began to become angry. They saw that the race was set up from the very beginning to end up this way and they felt ripped off. They began to knock on the glass booth, demanding their money back. Inside, the six turned up the music and lowered the curtains. They ate, drank and celebrated until they all became very fat and sick and they all died. The spectators all left. They wanted to get the prizes bought with their ticket money out of the glass booth, but the doors were locked and the glass was too thick to break. It remained locked in the room with the six bodies and gathered dust.
This was the last 100-meter progressive foot race.

The government of the LDS libertarian

A recent internet debate with a Mormon libertarian left me thinking about the relationship between Christianity, particularly the LDS variety, and libertarianism. I have known many Mormons who proclaim to be Libertarian in their views. I find this odd, as it is very apparent they fully believe in government. Socialist, totalitarian, unelected and unaccountable government. They believe we are all subject to this government. We don't get to vote on it, criticize it or petition it for a redress of grievances. They hold contempt for the American form of government, in which people are free to have their own thoughts and opinions. This is a government that prosecutes thoughtcrime.

The LDS church is a socialist organization. There is no question about this. Its members are required to surrender ten percent of their income to the church, with which it does as it sees fit. This ranges from welfare for the poor to the building of high-end shopping malls for the continued profit of the prophets. Members might claim this redistribution of weatlh (a term defined by my opponent as " requir[ing] theft from one person and an unearned gift to another") is given by their own free will and differs from taxation in that it is not compulsory. Any Saint who has ever opted out of the full tithe knows this is nonsense. Not tithing is a sure way to lose one's temple recommend, which means demotion to a lower kingdom of Heaven. Not paying taxes in the U.S. might result in incarceration, which is continued existence  with reduced freedom and pleasure, for a finite time. Not paying taxes in the LDS world results in eternal incarceration.

The faithful might next argue that this form of taxation is justified as it comes from a perfect and moral divine authority. This would charge them with demonstrating the perfect morality of a being who thinks its fun to command his faithful follower to kill his beloved son, only to call "just kidding" at the last moment. A being who feels rubbernecking at a rain of fire upon ones own house to be worthy of the death penalty. A being who feels just fine killing babies. Not to leave out the New Testament, a being who shows his perfect love by creating an entire race of beings programed to fail, the only way they can can escape failure is to become sycophants to him and his son, whom he demanded be tortured to death as some sort of primitive blood sacrifice. So I guess the perfect morality argument is out.

So what's left? Personal revelation. "Just knowing" the presence and intent of God. Nevermind the contradictory accounts of all those who claim to have had such revelations. Nevermind those who tried with all their heart to experience such revelation, only to kneel in punishing silence with hands folded. Nevermind the testimony of those who have had such experiences and later conceded they were more likely a product of their own biology. Nevermind scientific experiments which replicate these mystical experiences with electromagnetic stimulation of the brain and psychoactive chemicals. They are right. Their beliefs are true and we need to accept them. We are all subject to the regulations of their dictatorship, we know it, and we are just too stupid/stubborn/selfish to admit it.

At the end of this all I must doff my cap to my rhetorical adversary. What started out as a knife fight was transformed, through civility and a sense of humor, into a table tennis match. He may not have been able to keep up with my volleys, but at the end of the day you put down your paddle and have a beer. Or a Diet Coke. Whatever quenches your thirst.

The invisible benevolent hand.

We're hearing a lot of talk about the free market these days. It's a touchstone for the tea party movement and is trotted out as the solution to all the monetary woes this country faces. Far right candidates like Sharron Angle think it is the fix for everything. As she said in her recent debate with Harry Reid: "The solutions to the health care cost of insurance – are free market."
Free marketeers like Angle and Rand Paul differ from the old Ayn Rand-style libertarian free marketeers in one important aspect. They are also religious extremists. This might seem inconsequential, but one informs the other. Randians (not to be confused with Raelians) see the market as the vehicle in which the cream will rise to its deserved position at the top of society and the milk remains just to hold it up. The religious free marketeer cannot help but feel Adam Smith's invisible hand is attached to the all-loving arm of Almighty God, who will ensure his faithful will be rewarded. It's the starry-eyed idealism of those who believe in a free market anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and become a tycoon. They forget there is not much real estate at the top and the path up is littered with corpses.
The fact is the market does not have a mind. There is no intent behind it and it is brutal. It rewards ruthlessness and punishes selflessness. It might give you the keys to the Bentley, but it might leave you battered and bloody on the side of the road. And when that happens in a world ruled by the free market, don't expect to hear any sirens coming your way.
The middle-class hoards waving flags and unread Constitutions at tea party rallies shout for free market because they think if the government would just get their hands off of everything they'll all be much richer. They can't fathom the idea that they would be left unprotected and at the mercy of the oligarchs who are funding their little movement. One only need to look at the social structure of the gilded age to see what unbridled capitalism looks like.
The market will take care of it? Oh yes it will. It always has. It's just a violent game and most of us are bound to lose.

Please, let's nip this in the bud

I just saw this video for the first time and I hope it does not catch on.

While anyone reading this blog for more than four seconds will know my position on gay marriage, I think this is an incredibly stupid tactic. Almost to the point that it seems like it could be a reverse tactic from the right. At least I wish it was.
The whole point of this movement is to show people that gays are not after all degenerates polluting society with their immoral ways. That they are fully capable of raising good upstanding children. That gay marriage is good for society. This video portrays gays and their supporters as snotty pricks who are fully aware their existence is offensive and relish rubbing it in your face. People who raise children to think 'fuck you you fucking fuck' is a good way to win an argument.
I understand the frustration. I'm frustrated myself. But this low-road approach is not only a poor way to win hearts and minds, but an excellent fundraising tool for the culture warriors. I realize by embedding this video I'm (very slightly) upping its hit count, but I hope I can at least neutralize it with my condemnation of it. Vinegar and honey people. You can do better.

There's only one catch...

An LDS friend from high school recently posted this article from an LDS PR site. In light of the recent debacle starring Elder Packer with his embarrassingly anti-gay talk - and subsequent backpeddaling- during General Conference last week, this seems like a desperate swipe at saving face. Michael Otterson, representing the LDS church in response to a petition from the Human Rights Campaign, summed up the church's position:

As a church, our doctrinal position is clear: any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, and we define marriage as between a man and a woman. However, that should never, ever be used as justification for unkindness

and:

The Church recognizes that those of its members who are attracted to others of the same sex experience deep emotional, social and physical feelings. The Church distinguishes between feelings or inclinations on the one hand and behavior on the other. It’s not a sin to have feelings, only in yielding to temptation.

The PR statement is a response to anti-gay bullying and attempts to paint the church as the good guy, admonishing such behavior. Admirable as that may be, the press release stands in opposition to Elder Packers own recent and past statments, and one is left with a quandry: Should one adhere to the advice of a public relations specialist, charged with making the church look good to the general populace, or one of the twelve men at the very top of the hierarchy, purportedly on the receiving end of God's own broadband connection?
Even the warm, fuzzy, what-would-Jesus-do option is not as friendly as it claims to be. According to Otterson, the church fully believes that gay people are just that and cannot help the way they are born, yet still must pay a price for it. Like the airmen in Joseph Heller's iconic novel, homosexual Mormons are trapped in a cruel Catch-22: The only way to fulfill their desires without sin is to be married, but by the church's definition they cannot be married to those they love. This circular dictate is far worse than Packer's old school demonization. At least with the latter young gay Mormons have cold hard bigotry as a solid rock to push away from the religion's swirling undercurrent. The former's false embrace draws them back as they try to swim away, only to  bash them again and again against the jagged rocks beneath the placid surface.

Hateful old men

This weekend was General Conference, the quarterly gathering of Mormons to listen to the church elders here in Salt Lake City. What did God say through his starched-collared, flappy-skinned mouthpieces on Earth? We still hate those gays.  Boyd K. Packer, President of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, informed the gathered faithful that

“There are those today who not only tolerate but advocate voting to change laws that would legalize immorality, as if a vote would somehow alter the designs of God’s laws and nature,”

Packer, like the Pope, speaks with all the authority of a man who has no true authority.  He and his fellow Mr. Mac clones are doing their best to keep the LDS church an active hate organization and a tax-dodging Political Action Commitee. He's not a scientist, psychologist or a contributor to a better society. Yet he claims to know with certainty that all the people in the world who are attracted to members of their own sex are just faking it.

Some argue that “they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural,” he said. “Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember he is our father.”

Indeed, Boyd, why would your Heavenly Father do that to anyone? While we're at it, why would he give anyone cancer, cerebral palsy or cleft pallets? Why would he cause earthquakes, hurricanes and Justin Bieber? It's almost as if he's not really paying attention, or is not really there at all, or, to quote a man far wiser than me and certainly wiser than all twelve of you put together, a malign thug.

Packer may be a hateful old man, but his co-apostle Dallin H. Oaks would be hilariously inept if he wasn't at the top of a culture of lock-step authoritarianism. He advised the gathered Saints how to make personal decisions:

“Some seek to have their priesthood leaders make personal decisions for them,” said Elder Dallin H. Oaks, also of the quorum. Instead, when it comes to personal decisions, individuals should be praying for answers themselves.

However, if the response to prayer they’re getting is in opposition to the statements of church leaders, their answer is not coming from God, he said.

Brilliant! Don't do what I tell you, do what God tells you. But if God disagrees with me, he's not God. World class delusional arrogance.

I rode the train downtown this weekend and saw all the white shirts and dresses filing into the Conference Center. I wished I could grab the three young brothers on the seats in front of me by their ties and say "You know they are going to lie to you in there, right?" Of course I said nothing to them. Maybe they are lucky enough not to be gay in the ranks of the psychologically abusive Mormon church. Maybe they aren't.