<P> Lessig favors systems that share as broadly as possible the decisions about which candidates or initiatives get the funding needed to get their message to the voters . Following Bruce Ackerman, Lessig recommends giving each eligible voter a "Democracy voucher" worth, e.g., $100 each election year that can only be spent on political candidates or issues . The amount would be fixed at roughly double the amount of private money spent in the previous election cycle . Unlike the current Presidential election campaign fund checkoff, the decisions regarding who gets that money would be made by individual citizens . </P> <P> Lessig also supports systems to provide tax rebates for such contributions or to match small dollar contributions such as the system in New York City that provides a 5 - to - 1 match for contributions up to $250 . To be eligible for money from vouchers, rebates or matching funds, candidates must accept certain limits on the amounts of money raised from individual contributors . </P> <P> Vouchers, tax rebates, and small dollar matching are called "citizen funding" as opposed to more traditional "public funding", which tasks a public agency with deciding how much money each candidate receives from the government . While the Supreme Court of the United States has already struck down many forms of public funding of political campaigns, there are forms of public and especially citizen financing that seem consistent with the constitution as so far interpreted by the courts and could therefore be secured by standard legislative processes not requiring amending the constitution . </P> <P> One bill that proposes such a system for U.S. congressional elections is "The Grassroots Democracy Act". It was introduced 14, 2012, by U.S. Representative John Sarbanes as H.R. 6426 and reintroduced on Jan 15, 2013 as H.R. 268 . </P>

What recent election resulted in a variety of proposals to change the voting system