The invention herein relates to methods for fair elections, games, show-games and lottery. In one method, secret selection from a set of choices divides the set of choices into small set and large set, which precedes a mandatory single selection. Such division of choices makes it more probable that the sought-after choice may be found among the large set of choices, whereupon, election between the two choices that had survived elimination could be based on mathematical logic. In another method, there is a division of the set of choices into two sets of choices, of which one set may be chosen for division of its choices into a small group of choices and a large group of choices, in order to provide sensible basis for related decisions.
The present invention is novel in that it provides methods for fair chance of winning. Further, the present invention is also practical because its methods could be used to supplement, complement and improve many existing games, show-games, lottery and elections, where selections are paramount, by converting senseless selections into sensible selections.
The present invention relates to games, shows, lottery and elections where a player, contestant, candidate, or a voter, may be required to make selections from a group of individually labeled choices. The choices may represent, among other things, safes, cases, values, numbered tickets, or persons. The invention introduces novel methods, not utilized to this day. In one method, a ticket holder, a player, a contestant, or a candidate has fair odds in selecting and electing a sought-after choice from given choices. Another method lets a voter in en election to divide a group of candidates in two groups and vote for each of the candidates in one of the groups, so as to make certain that the winning candidate received the majority of the votes.
A simple version of the present invention, shown in
In another version of this invention is a game that may involve more than three safes and more than one player. Each player could, therefore, make more than one undisclosed selections before making the single mandatory selection, shown in
In a game intended primarily for Internet users,
In still another version, among others, of the invention is a show-game that involves a host, a contestant, a set of numbered cases and varying values in each case, as shown in
Each game-play version seen in
The beauty of the present invention is that in the version shown in
Another beauty of the invention is the fact that it could supplement, compliment and improve any game-play, show-game, lottery, or election system, which is lacking the mathematical logic upon which a player, a contestant, a ticket holder, or a candidate, may base the critical move when deciding between given choices.
In
Accordingly, it is an object of the present invention to provide games in which a participant has unlimited options and to make sure that each election shall have logical basis. Another object of the invention is to open vast opportunities for variety of games, shows and other social activities where the choices are unlimited. Furthermore, my invention includes, also, a method for letting each voter in election systems to divide the candidates in two groups and vote for every candidate in the chosen group. In selection by vote shows a candidate may also divide the voters in a process similar to the process used in
In an election, a registered voter should have the right to cast his single ballot or vote for any number of candidates running for Office. Furthermore, candidates should have the right to receive all the votes they are entitled to receive. The Constitution of the United States guarantees free and fair elections, which could be achieved only when each registered voter is allowed to vote for one or more candidates running for the same single Office. In a general election, for example, a register voter should be free to vote for any number of the Presidential candidates, whether there are two, three, or more running for the Office of President. That is to say, one ballot for each candidate he or she chooses to vote for. The same should apply to all elective offices, referendum, or selection by vote.
The unfair results of past elections make it clear that the Framers of the United States Constitution envisioned true equality in the exercise of the right to vote. This is what the 14th, 15th and the 19th Amendments to the Constitution have guaranteed, namely, free and fair elections.
It is obvious that elected and appointed officials, have prevented citizens of the United States, by means of statutory enactments, regulations and rules promulgations, from exercising their Constitutional rights to vote in free and fair elections, which prevented candidates, who could have received the majority of the votes, from being elected. Many candidates, who did not have the support of the majority of the people, were elected.
The two-party system, for example, may still be preserved. However, even in such a system, the right to vote shall not be “abridged” by the states. The states must let each voter vote for any number of the democratic presidential hopefuls, or for any number of the republican presidential hopefuls, as the case maybe. A substantial number of voters are prevented from voting for the candidates of their preferred choices. This is because their preferred choices may have already been eliminated by means of unfair election practices. The rights of all voters to vote in free and fair elections have been abridged. Many potential voters may have even decided not to vote at all after concluding that their votes will have no real meaning or impact on the election. The current election practices are inherently unfair because votes have unequal effect on elections. It is also true that virtually all candidates were deprived of votes they could have received had the present invention has been implemented. The fundamental concept here is that injustices to voters and candidates can be addressed by simply letting voters vote for all the candidates of their choice, no matter what election structure is in place. It can easily be demonstrated that the present invention is feasible and practical because the only change it causes is in the number of ballots to be counted. Then, it will be up to each state whether to maintain the entire election structure as it has been, or to do away with unnecessary processes like the runoff elections. Four Amendments, which refer directly to voting rights, say that the right to vote “. . . shall not be denied or abridged . . . ” The meaning of these words “denied or abridged” is that the right to vote must not only be denied completely but also it must not be curtailed, in any way.
Under the current election system, it is inevitable that the elected President is not necessarily the majority choice of the Electoral College or the majority of the people, when there is a third party candidate. On the other hand, the method in the present invention, which is constitutionally imperative, will guarantee that the President will always have the majority of the votes, or the majority of the Electoral College.
The states may have not denied the people the right to vote, in a technical sense. However, the states have abridged that right. It is inherent in the method presented by my invention, as well as in the Constitution that an elected candidate should always be chosen by the majority of the voters, or the majority of the Electoral College. The states should not interpret the terms “denied” as a license to give the people “some” rights to vote. The inherent interest of democracy is that the majority must rule. Many controversial issues, which have evolved under the current unfair election practices may never be solved, no matter how much legislative effort are expanded, unless my method for election is implemented.
For an election to be free and fair there must be a choice between two candidates, two sides, two groups, or two parties. This was the idea behind the two-party system. In reality it is impossible to limit the number of candidates to two for any specific office. Yet, in past elections the notion of free and fair election has been ignored and the practice of choosing one candidate from three or more candidates was forced on the people.
In a presidential election, for instance, when there is a choice between two candidates running for President, it is similar to a choice between two sides, or two groups of candidates. In a case where there are three presidential candidates, a voter should have the right to divide the candidates in two groups—one group of one candidate and the other group of two candidates. This way, a vote for the group of one would have the same quality and equality as a vote for the group of two. The significance of such practice is that by voting for one side of this equation a voter is authorizing—under Constitutional mandated understanding—the votes that would be cast for the other candidate, or candidates, on the other side of the equation. Therefore, each voter may be regarded as having voted for the President-elect, whether or not he or she actually voted for him.
In past elections, when there were three or more presidential candidates, the votes cast for candidates other than for the President-elect have not authorized the votes cast for the President-elect. Therefore, such votes may not be regarded as votes for the President. That is why citizens could have refused to accept the President-elect as their President.
It is possible, under this two-group method, that with a third party presidential candidate, each of the three candidates for President would receive about one-third of the votes. Yet, even in such a case, the candidate receiving the most votes should be considered as having been elected by all the voters, even though only about one-third actually voted for him. Each voter would know that even if he or she did not actually vote for all of his or her preferred candidates, because of the way he or she has divided the candidates in two groups and the choice that has been made, he or she has authorized the election of the President-elect, even if in fact he or she did not vote for him. Therefore, it is highly probable that in a general election, where there is a third party candidate for President, the voters would more likely focus their attention on whether not to vote for their last choice than on whether to vote for their first choice. In other words, most voters will probably choose to vote for their two preferred choices rather than for their first choice and the President-elect would, in fact, be of the majority and also would be regarded as President of the people and by the people. This would render any thoughts of safeguard, such as “super-delegates”, against any undesirable winner, unnecessary. This is because there would be no reasonable risk, under the method in the present invention, of electing a candidate who is an extremist and undesirable by the great majority of the people.
Although the foregoing invention has been described in some detail by way of illustration and example for purposes of clarity and understanding, it will be readily apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the teaching of this invention, that certain changes and modifications may be made thereto without departing from the spirit or scope of the appended claims.