You have the right to vote, but not the right to be represented!

More than 99% of the voters can directly point to the person they voted for in nations with proportional representation. In the United States, however, only about 60% of all voters can point to the specific representative they voted for themselves — 40% of the voters cannot, because on average that's how many people vote for a loser. In our nation, it is considered okay for 2 out of every 5 voters not be represented by their own choice.

The 14th Amendment of our Constitution prescribes equality before the law, yet our voting system is not based on equality. As the words winner-takes-all clearly show, your personal choice who should represent you is far less important than what the collective in your district decides. We should have proportional elections based on equality before the law, yet the elections both for the Federal and the State levels are also prescribed in the Constitution in such a manner that they do not have to provide equality. Still, for the local levels of City and County no such restriction of our rights is given. From this, it logically follows that we should have local elections with each person casting one vote for a single representative for the entire board or council.

Read more about this visual. We believe the local levels of City and County must already be organized according to the Constitutional prescription of equality before the law. At our page about the historical document signed on June 15, 2008 in San Francisco you can read more on the reasons why, and what you can do. This document may change the way local officials are selected throughout the entire nation.

"Two very different ideas are usually confounded under the name democracy. The pure idea of democracy, according to its definition, is the government of the whole people by the whole people, equally represented. Democracy as commonly conceived and hitherto practised is the government of the whole people by a mere majority of the people, exclusively represented. The former is synonymous with the equality of all citizens; the latter, strangely confounded with it, is a government of privilege, in favour of the numerical majority, who alone possess practically any voice in the State. This is the inevitable consequence of the manner in which the votes are now taken, to the complete disfranchisement of minorities."

—John Stuart Mill, Representative Government, 1861

Proportional elections

In nations with the other electoral system there are no losers, and all voters have the political freedom to choose and be represented by the specific person and party of their own choice; freedom of choice is what makes their politicians listen much better to the voters. We on the other hand select together — collectively — between winner and runner up, and a person more accurately described as an ambassador becomes our representative. The other voters from around the world can vote based on their individual wishes and beliefs; we vote in a district as a collective. Didn't we learn in school that our nation was the most individualistic in the world!

A system of proportional representation, established by lawyer/mathematician Victor D'Hondt in 1882, realized proposals already made by Thomas Jefferson in 1792. The calculations are based on a simple algorithm that dispenses seats according to the voters' wishes. Others in other nations enjoy these fruits of labor, but we are kept from truly all getting our own representatives in California or the United States. A basic color copier contains more colors already than our political system.

The system to the left is the one we use to select our representatives, and while it may be strong in some respects, it delivers tell-tale shortfalls in other specific fields that do get addressed in other nations using the system of full representation to the right; we therefore invite you to join us in making our politicians work for all of us again. Proportional elections in specific make equality go hand in hand with our own democratic ideals, something currently not available to us. Isn't it true that many of us, and not just the more outspoken parts of our nation, but also the silent majority, have voiced dissatisfaction with the political outcomes — even when our own candidates won the elections? Many people realize that, despite the world famous economic freedoms of the United States, we are stuck in a political two-dimensional system with a limited choice. Just red and blue may appear colorful and special together, but just two colors never deliver the real full-color prints.

Were you aware that so many voters receive nothing after they cast their vote? Even people voting for second best all end up empty-handed. Also, no practical alternatives are available in the voting booth next to the two top candidates because it takes a majority — often translating into obstacles such as money and influence — to win a seat. After the election the single winner takes all. The difference could not be more obvious: in winner-takes-all the pie is dvvied up beforehand and you get to fight over a single piece of the pie, but in proportional elections you get to fight over how to divvy up the entire pie.

Local situation is worse

Locally, our choice is worse, for a true political monopoly exists all across the nation with only one of the two parties in control of the city or county for many years in a row. Have a look at Local Party's Political Tour to find out more about the peculiar outcomes of political systems, and read about the three basic differences in democracies: 2 party systems, 3 to 5 party systems, and fully proportional systems.

In California, when no longer satisfied with the local political outcomes, the only way out is to pack up your things and move to a place where you can be in the majority. To make matters worse, third parties are actually very active in our system: they are the many groups of special interests of well-off entrepreneurs and strong local ad hoc grassroots movements that seem to not have a problem getting our politicians' attention. Special interest groups have taken over the role we — the people — were supposed to play in our democracy. Our organization, LocalParty.Org, delivers various ways out and helps us voters get back in the political seat. The latest step is the request citizens made on June 15, 2008 in San Francisco.

Are you politically dissatisfied? Well — join the club!

The headquarters of this political movement — LocalParty.Org — has three goals. The first goal is to create successful independent local parties that immediately compete with the party that is in control right now by cleverly mimicking their agenda, making the politicians pay more attention because an alternative party now exists. The second goal is to improve representation at the local level for all by changing the local system as soon as we can: when we achieve the majority of seats on city council or board of supervisors. And the third goal is to educate all Californians about the severe restrictions and limitations of the current winner-takes-all system, and especially its monopolizing effects at the local level, because did you ever read in a paper or heard on tv why the other systems are better? Have you ever received fair information comparing our system to the various other ones? If you did, you will not be amazed for one second about the electoral information we offer on this site. Finally, joining the club does not cost you a dime: LocalParty.Org does not charge you any fee because this is only the overall organization. Local parties — and there may be one in your city or county already — are happy to get your help, financially or otherwise. Take the Tour to discover what LocalParty.Org has to offer, or find out by clicking the Engine button how our district system of winner-takes-all diminishes the voters' importance in the outcome. We are a democracy, but our color prints are red and blue only.

Join us for equal representation at the local level!