First off, Dave, your system is not dissimilar to what we have now: a single representative for a local community. Enlarge this to a state, and we have many single positions spread out over the map.
That means your structure uses the Egyptian pyramid with a single point in top at the local level. Whoever climbs that pyramid encounters reasons to either fall off or succeed.
As such, you have a binary system in place. One person gets the seat, all others do not.
That this is a system of elimination is not very difficult to understand. Yet you blanketed it with good intentions, so the structure of the system is not too visible to you or those that like the way it is presented.
You reformed the winner-take-all system into something you accept will function better than winner-take-all. Yet the structure is ultimately the same in that it rejects representation that is good for all voters.
--
I know you have good intentions, Dave. Yet you believe that the setup you created is not guided by its structure.
--
Only the Mexican pyramid is good enough in my eyes. From four sides, people can rise to the top platform where the leaders of these groups communicate with one another to find solutions how to move forward for society.
The haves in your system are the kings and queens, and therefore I do not believe it to be a functional system, better than winner-take-all.
The have-nots are all those that find that the seat is preoccupied, unavailable for minorities. Like children, they must appease their 'father' before they can get anything done that they desire. They are not allowed to stand on their own, be represented at the table as they consider themselves represented.
No, your system is majority ruled, so the minority is not represented. Only when the ones in the seats are indeed good at heart, only then will all in society be fine. That is a big if or when, Dave.
I am going to stick to the system that Thomas Jefferson already devised. He was brilliant, but he also realized that a large nation does not need twenty parties (or 20 political tugs, whatever you want to call it). Yet they described it for the Federal government only. They did not describe it for any other governmental level, while they did write that the government is not allowed to deny or disparage rights retained by the people.
Retained meaning that after the US Constitution was said and done, there are rights that are retained by the people. The US Constitution took some powers away, and the remaining ones cannot be touched by government.
No government is allowed to tinker with these rights, as was for instance quite obvious in the separate-but-equal cases. The States and the local governments involved in this were reprimanded for taking the freedom to regulate society in inhumane manners, denying and disparaging the rights of the people. These cases did not change the US Constitution. No lawyer can change the US Constitution. Yet it told States and local governments to back off and stay away from rights retained by the people. They were reprimanded.
