Thank you for all of your effort explaining that.

My first thought is this is interesting, and it took me three full reads to understand it. I do feel we need to move beyond our 2-party system. But what does that look like — British Parliamentary system? Israelli Knesset system? Your idea is interesting and worth some cycles.

My second thought is this gives a LOT of power to the Election Commission, and there can/will be enormous lobbying on the part of corporations, unions, demographic interest groups, etc., to align the categories in their interests. (There is a BIG difference, say a slate of 5 seats, between a “Black-Latino-LGBTQIA+-Socialist-Conservative” ticket, vs a “ProLife-2ndAmendment-Business-NeoCon-Minority/Gay” ticket.) I can just imagine the fights that would break out in New York City over this.

My third thought…any system can result in underrepresentation including this one. If you have a city hell bent on say Gun Control, and “Gun Control” gets just one bracket, but is overwhelmingly of priority for the city… maybe two Gun Control candidates will be elected. Because all of the other interests must be prioritized and candidates that are too “Gun Control” will be competing amongst themselves, whereas other categories will have much easier times getting quorums to vote for them — say, an NRA candidate even if 75% of the populace abhors the NRA but the 25% is well organized. My point is this can/will lead to more Nigel Farage disrupters. And more Le Pens.

Not trying to be pessimistic. I do think this puts a huge amount of power over the process to the Election Commission. And I don’t see a simple yet effective system to prevent Pharma lobby, gun lobby, teachers union lobby, etc. from having disproportional influence on the process.