HISTORY OF THE BARNES THEORY OF VOTING
The Full Story
The first pang of birth for the Barnes Theory of Voting (BTV) came 35 years ago as Bill Barnes listened to his friends and family talk about politics.
All conversations followed the same course ...
“Politicians don’t care about us!”
“Those baby-kissers say what they know we want to hear prior to elections, then do whatever they want afterwards."
“Next election, I am voting for the other guys. That will show the current group of bums they can’t treat us this way.”
But Bill wondered, does the rejection of the ruling party actually chastise that group to better serve the people after the next election? Or is this powerless merry-go-round attempt to discipline politicians, in truth, inspired by those self-same politicians, because they know it will fail? Bill could see that this vicious cycle of hot and cold politics showed nothing but contempt by politicians for both the voter and the true meaning of democracy.
After much thought and due process, the birth was finally given to the Value Vote Ballot. It embraces all the concepts which are found in the Barnes Theory of Voting, the BTV; concepts that ensure voter dignity and a better democracy. First and foremost it will put honesty in vote counting while enabling voters to accurately state their opinion while choosing the extent of support they will give to the party of their choice. All this without having to jump ship. It also adds dignity to the voter by keeping intact the integrity of the voter's opinions and values. No longer does the voter have to vote for a party that does not line up with their personal values when they want to inform their preferred party that they are not happy with their performance.
Only politicians think it is acceptable for leopards to change their spots (by their own free will), the voter may be forced to vote against their conscience but their true spots remain hidden behind the illiterate X of our impaired voting system.
How horrible this world would be if all marriages were unions held together by blind obedience and which lasted until the abuse became so severe that the only option left was divorce. Marriages and democracy have much in common and therefore, must ensure the members of each are able to express their opinion and when necessary, have available, tools that enable them to work on conflicts. But currently, the political marriage between the party and their supporters is an abusive and controlling reality that serves only the abuser.