Representative Democratic Model-Electable Office Part Forty-Four Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(Referendums) Session Eight

Representative Democratic Model-Electable Office Part Forty-Four

Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(Referendums) Session Eight

A locality referendum proposer should not be allowed to propose more than two referendums in a year's time. They should be required to propose at least one.

However, any proposal on their part has to be earlier signed by registered voters of that locality who comprise of two percent of its population, rounded up the nearest thousand. In other words, assuming a locality has a population of 15,000, then a proposed referendum would have to be signed by a 1000 registered voters. If a locality has a population of 150,000, then a proposed referendum would have to be signed by 3000 registered voters. If a locality has a population of 1,560,000, then a proposed referendum would have to be signed by 32,000 registered voters.

Obviously smaller localities will find it more difficult to pass referendums than larger localities. The reason for this is smaller localities are more homogeneous and are generally less diverse. A referendum passed in a smaller locality therefore would have greater impact than a larger region because it would be more polarized.

Cliff Notes Version: Locality referendum proposers should propose one to two referendums per year.

All proposals for referendums have to first be signed by 2% of the locality's population who are also registered voters.

The collection of signatures for approval of referendums at election time is essential.

It is harder to propose referendums in smaller localities because its level of impact is higher.

Representative Democratic Model-Electable Offices Part Forty-Four Dividing the Role Of Legislator- (Referendums) Session Seven

Representative Democratic Model-Electable Offices Part Forty-Four

Dividing the Role Of Legislator- (Referendums) Session Seven

Just like there are legislative proposers, there should be referendum proposers.

Since eligible citizens will be voting on referendum measures, does it really make sense for the executive or legislative branches to make referendum proposals?

At the same time, the choosing of Referendum Proposers has to be a very careful and weighted decision. It is also important that these functionaries are limited in the number of referendums that they propose to the electorate. 

Cliff Notes Version: Someone has to decide what will be voted on by the eligible voters. That official is a referendum proposer.

Representative Democratic Model-Electable Offices Part Forty-Four Dividing the Role Of Legislator- (Referendums) Session Five

Representative Democratic Model-Electable Offices   Part Forty-Four

Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(Referendums) Session Five

At the federal level, there never has been a national referendum. Since the U.S Constitution does not specify ballot initiatives, this practice has to be considered banned. Considering the scope and magnitude of the federal government, it is obvious why this is banned.

Article One, Section One of the U.S. Constitution clearly states that only Congress (House and Senate) can make laws. This would have to be changed for referendums to be instituted at the federal level. A national initiative could only be used to change the form of government. It should never be used to enact policy.

State Constitutions should only allow referendums only after the federal government does the same. All states are supposed to have the same type of government as the federal government. This means they are not supposed to do things differently than the federal government. Since legislating is purely the domain of the legislature at the federal level, it should be the same at the state level. 

Representative Democratic Model-Electable Offices Part Forty-Four Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(Referendums) Session Four

Representative Democratic Model-Electable Offices Part Forty-Four

Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(Referendums) Session Four

For local referendums, only registered voters who are 22 years of age and older should be allowed to vote. Direct popular vote should be utilized so that every vote is counted in the final tally.

For state referendums, only registered voters who are 25 years of age and older should be allowed to vote. Registered voters who are heads of household(house or apartment) should have their votes counted twice, provided they are 25 years of age and older.

For state referendums, all state delegate districts, based on the highest number of popular votes, cast its decision. The majority of all state delegate districts then decides whether or not the state referendum is approved. 

Cliff Notes Version: Registered voters who are 22 years of age or older should be permitted to vote for local referendums.

Registered voters who are 25 years of age or older should be permitted to vote for state referendums. Heads of households have their votes counted twice.

For state referendums, the majority of all state delegate districts, based on most popular votes, cast its decision.

Representative Democratic Model-Electable Offices Part Forty-Four Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(Referendums) Session Three

Representative Democratic Model-Electable Offices Part Forty-Four

Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(Referendums) Session Three

As cited earlier, referendums should be mainly used locally. However, for referendums at all levels, not all eligible adult citizens should be allowed to vote. There should be a three tiered structure on the eligibility of the electorate.

The eligibility of the electorate should be more restrictive for the voting of referendums than for the voting of public officeholders. Referendums carry more weight and have more gravity than the

choosing of public officeholders.



Cliff Notes Version: In regards to referendums,there should be a three-tiered structure for voters based on age. Voting for referendums should be more restrictive than voting for officeholders.

Representative Democratic Model-Electable Offices Part Forty-Four Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(Referendums) Session Two

Representative Democratic Model-Electable Offices Part Forty-Four

Dividing the Role Of Legislator- (Referendums) Session Two

Referendum is a "Nuke Option" and it should be used seldomly. However, as an insurance policy, it can be quite effective in correcting institutionalized mal-governance and tyranny.

Considering the magnitude of this measure, Referendums should be used the most on a local level. On a local level, governmental authority is not nearly as significant as it is on a state and especially federal level. Therefore, the impact of a referendum will not be as aggressive and severe when issued locally.

Cliff Notes Version: Referendums are a "Nuke Option" and is to be used as a last resort. They are an essential option but only as the last Democratic Republic mode option. They are to be most often used on a local level.

Representative Democratic Model-Electable Offices Part Forty-Five Dividing the Role Of Legislator- Terms and Vacancies (Federal and State)

Representative Democratic Model-Electable Offices  Part Forty-Five Dividing the Role Of Legislator- Terms and Vacancies (Federal and State) 

The Official Legislative Proposers in their specific legislative house are to serve the same term as their legislative counterparts who vote on legislation. Their vacancies are to be treated the same as their counterparts' who vote in and who belong to the same legislative body.

Legislative Proposers and Legislative Voters are to be named as such. For example, there would be U.S. Senator Proposers and U.S. Senator Voters in the federal upper house and state senate proposers and state senate voters in the state upper house. In the federal lower house, there would be U.S. Representative Proposers and U.S. Representative Voters. In the state lower house, there would be state delegate/assembly proposers and state delegate/assembly voters. 

No Official Legislative Proposer can be a participant and/or member in any branch of government for at least three years prior to their election and for at least three years after their departure from that specific position. He/she cannot be a participant and/or member in any branch of government in any capacity other than that specific capacity in which he/she is serving during the time he/she is serving.  

No Official Legislative Proposer can belong to any group, entity, or organization, in which a majority of its members are participants and/or members in any branch of government, for at least three years prior to their election, during his/her time of service, and for at least three years after his/her departure from that specific position. 

Furthermore, no Official Legislative Proposer can belong to any group, entity, or organization which affects law and regulations outside their scope of official duties for at least three years prior to their election, during his/her time of service, and for at least three years after his/her departure from that specific position. 

Cliff Notes Version: Proposers serve same term as voters. The vacancies of proposers and voters are to be handled the same. 

It is totally essential that proposers and voters have no attachment and connection with any branch of government other than what their specific duties entails. 

Representative Democratic Model-Electable Offices Part Forty-Four Dividing the Role Of Legislator- (Referendums) Session One

Representative Democratic Model-Electable Offices    Part Forty-Four

Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(Referendums) Session One

Referendums are the Most Aggressive Form Of Direct Democracy. It can be used but only in a limited manner. 

Referendums give people the authority to serve as legislators. Therefore, it is a powerful measure that will be needed but only in certain guarded situations.

My next posts will explain when this potent legislative weapon can be used and why. 

Cliff Notes Version: Referendums are the Most Aggressive Form Of Direct Democracy. It is for limited use.

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty-Three Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(Local)

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices   Part Forty-Three

Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(Local)

Local government is government in its simplest form. In the USA, local government really has no authority and sovereignty. State and especially federal laws supersede local ordinances.

In lieu of the preceding, there is no need for a separate Official Legislative Proposer at the local level. The same people who propose ordinances can also vote on those ordinances. 

The states' legislatures need this division in order to prevent direct democratic mode. The federal legislature needs this division in order to prevent Imperial Democratic mode. Both result in tyranny.

However, local government and its legislature is in no need for this as it is not nearly as complex as state and federal government.



Cliff Notes Version: Since local governance is supposed to be the simplest, there is no need for a separate Official Legislative Proposer.

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty-One Dividing the Role Of Legislator- (State)- Session Nine

 

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty-One Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(State)-Session Nine

There are reasons why the Governor should unilaterally choose Official Assistant Legislative Proposers in the state senate while the President should not in the U.S. Senate. In each state senate, there would be only one set of electors for its Official Legislative Proposer and there would be only one Official Legislative Proposer. In the U.S. Senate, there would be 50 Official Legislative Proposers from each state who each would have been chosen by each state's own different set of electors.

One set of electors in each state senate chooses its Official Legislative Proposer. Because there is only one official legislative proposer in the state senate means the state head executive has to serve as a counterweight. 50 different sets of electors for Official Legislative Proposer in the U.S. Senate and 50 Official Legislative Proposers also in the U.S. Senate mean the federal head executive does not have to serve as a counterweight. These set of electors and these Official Legislative Proposers from each state serve as counterweights to each other on the federal level. 

Cliff Notes Version: Governors, as state head executive, have to appoint Official Assistant Legislative Proposers in the state senate while the President, as federal head executive, does not have to do the same in the U.S. Senate.

The reason for this simple. In each state senate, there is only one Official Legislative Proposer chosen by one set of electors. In the US Senate, there are fifty Official Legislative Proposers chosen by fifty sets of electors. Since the Official Legislative Proposer in each state senate is much more homogeneously chosen than they are chosen in the US Senate, the Governor must intervene in the legislative proposing process. The Governor in each state must choose unilaterally the Official Assistants Legislative Proposers in the state senate.  

Representative Democratic Model-Electable Offices Part Forty-Two Voter Eligibility And Duties (Session Three)

Representative Democratic Model-Electable Offices

Part Forty-Two Voter Eligibility And Duties (Session Three)

I was eighteen once. I was filled with idealism back then. It is widely accepted by me that as an individual ages, that individual is able to balance idealism with pragmatism with maturity and objectivity.

Please read the following.

1. Citizens ages 18-21 must be allowed to vote for all local officeholders only. Local government is government in its simplest form. Since it directly deals most closely to the people, all adult citizen input is needed to choose proper local officeholders.

2. Citizens ages 22-24 must be allowed to vote for all local officeholders as well as for all state and federal lawmakers. They should not be allowed to vote for executive branch officeholders at that state and federal level.

Lawmakers at the state and federal level have certain responsibilities as they use their discretion to pass or repeal laws. Allowing citizens under age 22 to choose these officeholders would be irresponsible. It would serve a greater purpose to allow only a more mature electorate to do this choosing.

3. Citizens 25 and older should be allowed to vote for all officeholder at all levels. Unlike those adult citizens younger, they should be allowed to vote for executive branch officeholders at that state and federal level.

Executive branch officeholders, while using less amount of discretion than legislators, have the most amount of responsibilities in administrating, carrying out, and executing the law. Their duties entail the most amount of complexities of the three branches of government since they administer the entire bureaucracy. They also have the final say by making the final determination as to which laws should and should not be executed. The final responsibility of carrying out the laws lies with the heads of the executive branch of both state and federal government.

Therefore, due to the enormity of the challenges faced by these heads of the executive branches at the state and federal levels, it is warranted to have only those eligible citizens 25 and older choose these officeholders. 

Cliff Notes Version: Citizens ages 18-21 should vote for local officeholders only because local government is government in its simplest form. Since America is a Top-Down society in terms of governance, local governments have the least amount of authority and power. Therefore, it is permissible for this age group to vote for local officeholders.

Citizens ages 22-24 should be allowed to vote not just for local officeholders. They should be allowed to vote for state and federal legislators. Since those officeholders have more responsibilities than local officeholders, it is permissible for this age group to choose state and federal lawmakers.

Only citizens 25 and older should choose heads of the executive branch since their positions carry the most amount of authority and entail the most amount of complexities. They should be allowed to choose all other officeholders as well.

Representative Democratic Model-Electable Offices Part Forty-Two Voter Eligibility And Duties (Session Two)

 

Representative Democratic Model-Electable Offices Part Forty-Two Voter Eligibility And Duties (Session Two)

As cited earlier, certain offices should be publicly voted on by all eligible voters regardless of age, provided the voter is of adult age. 

There is a reason why sixteen and seventeen year olds are not allowed to vote. They largely do not have the maturity or ability to cast informed decisions on who should serve as a public officeholder. Due to this logic and reasoning, then allowing eighteen year olds to help choose all officeholders for public office makes no sense.  

I frankly know many eighteen year olds who have more maturity, knowledge, and understanding than many eighty year olds ever had. However that is really not the relevant point. Certain responsibilities can only be conferred based on age. For example, no citizen can run for President if that citizen is under age 35. Also according to the US Constitution, no citizen can serve as federal senator if he/she is under the age of 30 and no citizen can do the same as federal congressman if that citizen is under age 25.

Then why should voters and their duties be different? If the elected federal government officeholders have a three tiered structure pertaining to age, then the electorate should also have a three tiered structure in regards to their voting privileges based on age. 

Cliff Notes Version: There are age restrictions for everything. Voting should be no different. The authority of the voters should be phased in. There should be a 7 year transition period before voters are given full authority to choose all elected officeholders.

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty-Two Voter Eligibility And Duties (Session One)

 

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty-Two Voter Eligibility And Duties (Session One)

The U.S. Constitution, when originally written, never made mention about voters and voting. This was by design because the Founding Fathers realized that governance is only as good as its electorate. They realized that that not all citizens, while entitled to basic rights listed in the Bill Of Rights, are entitled to vote. 

Rights listed in the Amendments will never be considered unalienable rights. They will be deemed as "Civil Rights". Civil Rights come from the government and it can be taken away.

The U.S. Constitution never prohibited public balloting. In fact until 1896, public balloting was utilized in the casting of ballots. Ballot secrecy was never cited in the nation's charter. 

The Twenty-Sixth Amendment set the legal voting age at eighteen in 1971. This is a recent amendment. It reads as follows:

[The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age] 

This is an amendment that should be repealed and modified. A common argument is if an individual is old enough to die fighting for the nation in a military conflict, that individual is old enough to vote for a public official. 

While it is true that anyone under the age of twenty-five and above the age of seventeen should be allowed to vote for certain position in public office, there needs to be restrictions on who can vote for certain positions based on age. My next post will explain these certain restrictions and also the reasons why these restrictions must be implemented.  

Cliff Notes Version: Voting is a civil right. It is not an unalienable right.

While an eighteen year old can serve in the military, that individual cannot become a commissioned officer or even a non-commissioned officer until he/she reaches a certain age. 

The 26th Amendment must be repealed and modified. There needs to be restrictions on who can vote for certain positions based on age.

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty-One Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(State)-Session Eight

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty-One
Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(State)-Session Eight

The number of  Electors for Official Legislative Proposers  in the state house of delegates/assembly should be the same as the number of state delegate/assembly districts in each state.

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty-One Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(State)-Session Seven

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices  Part Forty-One  Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(State)-Session Seven

Each state should have two Assistant Official Legislative Proposers in their state senate to help the Chief Official Legislative Proposer. The Chief Official Legislative Proposer is required to propose 60% to 75% of all bills in the state upper house body. The Assistant Official Legislative Proposers are required to propose a minimum of 25% and a maximum of 40% of all legislation in that same body. The Chief Official Legislative Proposer takes decision as to the percentage of proposed bills by him/her and by each of these Assistants, provided both assistants are allowed to propose at least one bill. 

The Assistant Official Legislative Proposers should be unilaterally chosen by the Governor. All interested applicants for this position need to approach the Governor's Office through written request. 

The House Of Delegates/Assembly should not be involved in this selection as their interference in another legislative body would be considered tyrannical and a violation of the doctrines of Separation Of Power/Checks and Balances. The State Senate should not be involved for the same reasons.

There needs to be a balance of authority between the electors of the state legislative proposers and the state head executive. Unilateral appointment by the Governor for these assistants are it.  

Cliff Notes Version: Each state should have two Assistant Official Legislative Proposers in their state senate to help the Chief Official Legislative Proposer. These assistants propose 25%-40% of the legislation. 

These two assistants need to be chosen by the governor solely. Balance of authority must exist between the electors of the state legislative proposers and the state head executive.

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty-One Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(State)-Session Six

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices

Part Forty-One Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(State)-Session Six

When the electors for the Official Legislative Proposer in the State House Of Delegates/Assembly convene in the state capitol within twenty days after the election, each elector casts his/her votes for vacant State's Official Legislative Proposers in the State House Of Delegates/Assembly. 

By law, each state has to have a specific number of Official Legislative Proposers. That number should be one-tenth the number of that state's representatives in the state lower house rounded up to the nearest whole value. 

The electors would cast ballots for the candidates of Official Legislative Proposers who are contesting for the vacant positions. The number of candidates. equal to the number of vacant Official Legislative Proposers positions, who receive the highest number of votes from their electors becomes the Official Legislative Proposers. 

Cliff Notes Version: Electors for the Official Legislative Proposer in the State House Of Delegates/Assembly each cast their votes for all vacant seats. 

The number of Official Legislative Proposers should be one-tenth that of state's representatives in the state lower house rounded up to the nearest whole value.

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty-One Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(State)-Session Five

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices  Part Forty-One Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(State)-Session Five

When the electors for the Chief Official Legislative Proposer in the State Senate convene in the state capitol within twenty days after the election, each elector casts their vote(choice) for the Chief Official Legislative Proposer in the State Senate. Each elector is allowed to cast votes for his/her 2nd and 3rd preferences.

If a choice of theirs receives a majority vote by them(electors), that choice becomes the Chief Official Legislative Proposer in the State Senate. If no majority is achieved, the electors' choice with the fewest first preference votes is eliminated. The second preference choices of the first preference votes for the eliminated candidate(s) should be distributed to the remaining candidates until a majority is achieved. 

Cliff Notes Version: Electors for The Chief Official Legislative Proposer in the State Senate each cast his/her choice for candidates vying for this position.

A majority choice becomes The Chief Official Legislative Proposer in the State Senate. If no choice achieves the majority, then the second preferences choices of the first preferences votes for the eliminated candidate are distributed to the remaining candidates in the field. The candidate(s) who are first eliminated are those who have the fewest number of first preference votes.

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty-One Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(State)-Session Four

 Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices  Part Forty-One Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(State)-Session Four 

The Official Legislative Proposer electors meet in their respective state capitols. These two groups of electors separately decide who their choice will be through simple majority. If simple majority cannot be achieved, then the Single Transferable Vote Process is utilized in the upper house of the state legislature. That process will be explained in the next post. 

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty-One Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(State)-Session Three

 Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty-One   Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(State)-Session Three

The choosing of the Official Legislative Proposer in the State Senate should be by electors only. They need to be more insulated from the People than the official legislative voters in that upper state house.

The State Senate Official Legislative Proposer elector candidate who receives the highest number of popular and publicly casted votes in a locality's ward/district wins that wards/districts' electoral vote. The State Senate Official Legislative Proposer elector candidate who wins the highest number of electoral votes in that state senate district wins that election as that elector.

If there is a tie, then the tying candidates for State Senate Official Legislative Proposer electors who each won the highest number of locality's ward/districts are then subject to the precincts' vote results. The candidate for State Senate Official Legislative Proposer elector who wins the highest number of precincts becomes this elector for that state senate district.

For a candidate of State Senate Official Legislative Proposer elector to win a precinct, he/she must receive the highest number of popular votes which are all publicly cast in that precinct.

If there is still more than one of these elector candidates who has won the highest number of precincts, then the tying elector candidates are subject to the popular vote results of the entire state senate district. The elector candidate who has received the highest number of popular votes in the contested state senate district becomes the State Senate Official Legislative Proposer elector for that State Senate district. 

Cliff Notes Version: The choosing of the Official Legislative Proposer in the State Senate should be by electors only. 

The candidate who wins the highest number of electoral votes in that state senate district wins that election as that elector. An electoral vote goes to the candidate who wins the direct popular and publicly casted votes from the electorate in the ward/district.

Read the lengthened version to determine what happens if there are ties between the candidates in getting the highest number of votes.

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Office Part Forty-One Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(State)-Session Two

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Office Part Forty-One

Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(State)-Session Two

The choosing of the official legislative proposer in the state House Of Delegates/Assembly should be by electors only. They need to be more insulated from the People than the official legislative voters in that lower state house.

The House Of Delegates/Assembly' Official Legislative Proposer elector candidate who receives the highest number of popular and publicly casted votes in that state delegate/assembly district becomes the elector for that state delegate/assembly district. 



Cliff Notes Version: Electors choose the official legislative proposers in the state lower house. These electors are chosen on a state delegate/assembly district basis with popular and publicly casted votes by the electorate.

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty-One Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(State)-Session One

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty-One

Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(State)-Session One

Official Legislative Proposers: 

Each state should have one official legislative proposer in their State Senate. In the House Of Delegates/Assembly, each state should have one-tenth of its number of state lower house members rounded up to the nearest whole numeric value as its number of official legislative proposers.

In other words, Virginia would have one legislative proposer in their State Senate. So would California and other states. However, in their House Of Delegates, Virginia would have 10 legislative proposers since it has 100 members in its state lower house. 



Cliff Notes Version: One legislative proposer per State Senate. In the state lower house, the number of legislative proposer is one-tenth the number of state delegates/assembly persons rounded up to the nearest whole value.

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty Dividing the Role Of Legislator- (Federal) -Session Nine

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty

Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(Federal)-Session Nine

When the electors of each state for the Official Legislative Proposer in the United States House Of Representatives convene in the state capitol within twenty days after the election, each elector casts their choice(s) for the vacant state's Official Legislative Proposer seats in the United States House Of Representatives.

By law, each state has to have a specific number of Official Legislative Proposers in the U.S. House Of Representatives. That number should be one-tenth the number of that state's representatives in the federal lower house rounded up to the nearest whole value. West Virginia would have one while California would have six legislative proposers in the U.S. House of Representatives.

All Official Legislative Proposers of each state in the federal lower house are to be chosen based on their receipt of the highest number of elector votes. If a state has a certain number of seats for this position, then the electors of that state chooses that same certain number of Official Legislative Proposers. That same certain number of candidates who receive that same certain number of highest elector votes become the Official Legislative Proposer of each state. 

Cliff Notes Version: Electors for The Chief Official Legislative Proposer in the United States House Of Representatives cast their choices for this position. That same certain number of candidates who receive that same certain number of highest elector votes become the Official Legislative Proposer of each state. 

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Office Part Forty Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(Federal)-Session Eight

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(Federal)-Session Eight

When the electors for the Official Legislative Proposer in the United States Senate convene in the state capitol within twenty days after the election, each elector casts their first preference choice for the State's Official Legislative Proposer in the United States Senate. Each elector also casts his/her second and third preference choices as well. 

If a choice of theirs receives a majority vote by them(electors), that choice becomes the State's Official Legislative Proposer in the United States Senate. If no majority is still not achieved, then the choice with the fewest first preference votes is eliminated. All his/her first preference votes will distribute its second preferences choices to the remaining candidates. This process will continue until a simple majority is achieved. 

Cliff Notes Version: Electors for The Chief Official Legislative Proposer in the United States Senate cast their First, Second, and Third preference choices for this position.

A majority choice becomes The Chief Official Legislative Proposer in the U.S. Senate. If no choice achieves the majority, then the second preferences of the eliminated candidate are distributed to the remaining candidates. The candidate(s) who are first eliminated are those who have the fewest number of first preference votes.  

This process continues until a majority of votes is allocated to a specific choice.

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(Federal)-Session Seven

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty   Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(Federal)-Session Seven

The Official Legislative Proposer electors meet in their respective state capitols. These two groups of electors separately decide who their choice will be through simple majority balloting for the federal upper house candidates and for the federal lower house candidates who are vying for the vacant positions. 

If no majority is achieved in the federal upper house, then the Single Transferable Vote Process is utilized.

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(Federal)-Session Six

 

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(Federal)-Session Six 

The choosing of the Official Legislative Proposer in the U.S. Senate should be by electors only. They need to be more insulated from the People than the official legislative voters in that upper federal house.

The United States Senate Official Legislative Proposer elector candidate who receives the highest number of popular and publicly casted votes in a ward/district wins that wards/districts' electoral vote. The U.S. Senate Official Legislative Proposer elector candidate who wins the highest number of electoral votes in that congressional district wins that election as that elector.

If there is a tie, then the tying candidates for U.S. Senate Official Legislative Proposer electors who each won the same highest number of locality's ward/districts are then subject to the precincts' electoral vote results. The candidate for United States Senate Official Legislative Proposer elector who wins the highest number of precincts' electoral votes becomes this elector for that federal congressional district.

For a candidate of United States Senate Official Legislative Proposer elector to win a precinct, he/she must receive the highest number of popular votes which are all publicly cast in that precinct.

If there is still more than one of these elector candidates who have won the same highest number of precincts, then the tying elector candidates are subject to the popular vote results of the entire federal congressional district.

The elector candidate who then has received the highest number of popular votes in the contested federal congressional district becomes the United States Senate Official Legislative Proposer elector for that district.  

Cliff Notes Version: The choosing of the Official Legislative Proposer in the U.S. Senate should be by electors only. 

The candidate who wins the highest number of electoral votes in that federal congressional district wins that election as that elector. An electoral vote goes to the candidate who wins the direct popular and publicly casted votes from the electorate in that ward/district. 

Read the lengthened version to determine what happens if there are ties between the candidates in getting the highest number of votes.

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(Federal)-Session Five

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty

Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(Federal)-Session Five

The choosing of the official legislative proposer in the U.S. House Of Representatives should be by electors only. They need to be more insulated from the People than the official legislative voters in that lower federal house.

The House Of Representatives' Official Legislative Proposer elector candidate who receives the highest number of popular and publicly casted votes in a precinct wins that precinct. The House Of Representatives' Official Legislative Proposer elector candidate who wins the highest number of precincts in that federal congressional district becomes the elector for that federal congressional district.

If there is a tie, then the tying candidates for these positions of elector who each won the highest number of precincts are then subject to the direct popular vote results. The candidate for these positions of elector who wins the highest number of popular votes in that federal congressional district becomes the House Of Representatives' Official Legislative Proposer elector for that federal congressional district. 

Cliff Notes Version: The choosing of the Official Legislative Proposer in the U.S. House Of Representatives should be by electors only. 

These electors are chosen to represent a federal congressional district. The elector candidate who wins the highest number of electoral votes becomes the elector. An electoral vote is received by a candidate who gets the most popular and publicly casted votes by the electorate in a precinct. 

If there is a tie between the candidates in getting the highest number of electoral votes, then the direct popular vote results of that entire federal congressional district should decide who the House Of Representatives' Official Legislative Proposer elector will be.

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty- Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(Federal)-Session Four

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices

Part Forty- Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(Federal)-Session Four

Official Legislative Proposers:

Each state should have one official legislative proposer in the U.S. Senate. In the House Of Representatives, each state should have one-tenth of its number of federal lower house members rounded up to the nearest whole numeric value as its number of official legislative proposers.

In other words, Virginia would have one legislative proposer in the U.S. Senate. So would California. However, in the U.S. House Of Representatives, Virginia would have two legislative proposers since it has 11 members in that federal lower house. California would have six since it has 53 members in that federal lower house.

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty- Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(Federal)-Session Three

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices

Part Forty- Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(Federal)-Session Three

In parliamentary democracies such as the type of governance that India has, a minority of its legislators(10%-15%) proposes as well as votes on the bills. The remainder of the legislative body only is allowed to vote on the bills. 

Really, this is Imperially Democratic as there are certain federal legislators who are allowed to do both while most federal legislators are only allowed to vote.

The current House Of Representatives and the US Senate should have its members serve as official legislative voters only. The next post will explain how the official legislative proposers should be chosen.

Presently, it is Imperially Democratic for federal legislators who propose the law to also vote on the law. It represents tyranny. 



Cliff Notes Version: It is Imperially Democratic for federal legislators who propose the law to also vote on the law. It is also Imperially Democratic for certain federal legislators to do both.

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty- Dividing the Role Of Legislator- (Federal)- Session Two

 

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty- Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(Federal)-Session Two

While committees should be banned as it confers different status to different legislators, it is impossible for all 534 lawmakers in both houses of U.S. Congress to each propose bills. Even if congressional sessions were non-stop, there is no way this could take place. The practical difficulties would be too overwhelming to overcome.

It is obvious that since the American nation and its governance has changed, the original role that was given to the federal legislators by the Founding Fathers should also change. There should be two groups in each federal legislative house. The smaller group should propose the law. The larger group, which is distinctly separate from the other group, should only vote on the proposed law. 

Cliff Notes Version: All lawmakers cannot each propose bills. There simply is not enough time!

There should be two separate groups in the federal legislature. Those who propose the law and those who vote on the law.

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices Part Forty- Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(Federal)-Session One

Representative Democratic Model- Electable Offices

Part Forty- Dividing the Role Of Legislator-(Federal)-Session One

When the American Constitution was drafted and made into law, the federal government was supposed to have only a limited role in the governance of the nation. The Civil War changed all that. The Founding Fathers did not foresee the Federal Government being as authoritative as it is now.

They also did not expect the amount of tyrannical power brokering conducted by so many authoritarian committees. The US Constitution made it clear that this was not supposed to happen in the passing of laws. These "filters" (committees) are really an anathema and contradiction in the preservation of a Republican Democratic Republic. 



Cliff Notes Version: Federal Government is now sovereign and the authoritative government power. The rise of authoritarian committees in the federal legislature are an anathema to the ideals of the Republican Democratic Republic. This filtration by these committees erodes such ideals instead because it causes certain legislators to have more authority and different responsibilities than others.

President nominates federal judges. The VP nominates chief justices. Selection filters are needed for both!

 

The President should still continue to nominate United States District Court Judges(federal trial court judges) and United States Circuit Court judges (federal intermediary appellate judges). However, only the Vice-President should be allowed to nominate chief justices.

However, the President should be provided selection filters by federal legislative entities before he nominates these judges. The Vice-President should be provided selection filters by federal legislative entities before he nominates these chief justices.

Representative Democratic Model- Selectable Offices Part Thirty-Nine Chief Justice Of United States Intermediary Appellate Courts

Representative Democratic Model- Selectable Offices Part Thirty-Nine Chief Justice Of United States Intermediary Appellate Courts 

The Chief Justice of an United States Intermediary Appellate Court should be nominated by the Vice-President. However, the members of the House of Representatives who represent the particular state that the specific intermediary appellate court is located should submit the three bids for the Vice-President to choose from.

Once the Vice-President nominates his/her choice for this chief justice, the members of the U.S. Senate who represent the particular state that the specific intermediary appellate court is located confirms that choice via majority selection. If there is a tie, the Vice-President has to cast the deciding vote.

If a majority of these U.S. senators are unable to confirm the nominee, the process of bid submittal by the specific members of the House Of Representatives who represent the state that the federal appellate court is located again commences. 

These specific House members again submits his/her fresh top three bids and the Vice-President chooses his/her nominee from that new submittal along with the two other bids who were not earlier nominated. 

Cliff Notes Version: The Chief Justice of an United States Intermediary Appellate Court should be nominated by the Vice-President.Bids are to be submitted to the VP by U.S. House members who represent the state that the US Intermediary Appellate Court belongs.

The majority of the US Senators who represent the particular state that the specific intermediary appellate court is located confirms that choice via majority selection. If there is a tie, the Vice-President has to cast the deciding vote to confirm the nominee. If they are unable to confirm the nominee, the process again starts over with submittal of fresh bids.

Representative Democratic Model- Selectable Offices Part Thirty-Nine Chief Justice Of United States Intermediary Appellate Courts

Representative Democratic Model- Selectable Offices   Part Thirty-Nine Chief Justice Of United States Intermediary Appellate Courts 

The Chief Justice of an United States Intermediary Appellate Court should be nominated by the Vice-President. However, the members of the House of Representatives who represent the particular state that the specific intermediary appellate court is located should submit the three bids for the Vice-President to choose from.

Once the Vice-President nominates his/her choice for this chief justice, the members of the U.S. Senate who represent the particular state that the specific intermediary appellate court is located confirms that choice.

If the majority of all its members approve. If there is a tie, the Vice-President has to cast the deciding vote. If a majority of these U.S. senators are unable to confirm the nominee, the process of bid submittal by these specific members of the House Of Representatives who represent the state that the federal appellate court is located again commences.

These specific House members again submits his/her three top bids and the Vice-President chooses his/her nominee from that new submittal along with the two other bids who were not earlier nominated. 

Cliff Notes Version: The Chief Justice of an United States Intermediary Appellate Court should be nominated by the Vice-President. House members. Bids are to be submitted to the VP by U.S. House members who represent the state that the US Intermediary Appellate Court belongs.

The majority of the US Senate, provided quorum limits are met, confirms the nominee that the Vice-President submits. If they are unable to confirm the nominee, the process again starts over.