Real Voting Reform

POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Saturday, July 2, 2005 23:34
VIEWED: 3376
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SERGEANTX

Sunday, June 26, 2005 5:32 AM

I tried bringing this up during the last election, but everyone was so busy cheering for their version of the 'lesser-of-two-evils' that they didn't seem interested.

The current voting laws, in pretty much every state that I know of, utilize the simplistic winner-take-all plurality to determine a winner. This pretty much guarantees that there will only ever be two viable candidates. Other nations have moved beyond this limited system of voting. Why can't we?

There are lots of viable options, all of them with their quirks and problems, but all of them miles better than what we've got. What do you all think of pushing for some changes that will allow for something like REAL representative government?

Here's a link that outlines some of the different options.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system

My favorite is "Approval Voting".

http://www.approvalvoting.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

The biggest reason these advanced voting systems aren't considered is that they give third parties a real chance. So naturally the republicrats do everything in their power to protect the status quo. Well, for my money the status quo sucks ass. Let's make things better, whatdya say?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 26, 2005 6:04 AM

Wow. It's going to take me a while to digest all of that! But I see what you mean- our system is primitive.

Aside from the algorithm problem, I can think of other things to improve our voting:

Give people the day off to vote. At our local hardware store the clerk had to vote on his lunch half-hour. That works great if you have short lines and lots of booths, but...

Get rid of proprietary electronic vote-counting machines. I don't need to bring up the fact that the big discrepancies between the exit polls and the vote only occurred in e-voting counties, do I? Vote counting MUST be fully secure and fully auditable. (When an e-voting expert asked to run "dummy" votes thru some suspect machines to check the tallies, the company refused to let her because the machines were "proprietary"!)

Have redistricting done by non-politicians: the Census Bureau or a consortium of universities.

Require TV and radio, as part of their FCC licenses, to provide free time to every viable candidate.

Require that all counties supply a at least a minimum per capita number of voting booths.

If any county or state fails to meet requirements, they must hold another vote. (That would be so painful, it would be cheaper to do it right the first time.)

RUE

Sunday, June 26, 2005 6:47 AM

Forget registration - it's too easy to manipulate, and the whole notion that you have to vote in a particular place is just stooopid. People just need to bring a VOTER ID card* (or birth certificate or naturalization papers), vote and dip that little finger into ninhydrin.

PS I think another problem with the US is that it doesn't have a parliamentary system of government. (And I see term limits as one flawed attempt to fix that situation that somehow just doesn't seem right.) Short of impeachment you can't get the buggers out of office. They know they can say anything to get elected then do whatever they want afterward, without having to answer to the people. They'll clean up their resume for a few months to get reelected, then go back to the same-old same-old. I think it breeds cynicism and futility in the voters and actually promotes disinterest. That's why (I think) the US politcial attention span is so darn short. What does it matter anyway, if nothing you can do will change anything? Like Dulcinea signing "It's all the same, it's all the same"...

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 6:14 AM

The main problem that pretty much all of these alternatives attempt to address is that real preferences aren't accurately reflected in the common plurality voting scheme. Voters in the current system are often just voting against a particular candidate. I was sorely tempted to do it in the last election.

John Kerry was pretty weak tea in my book, but I saw Bush as a leader poised to do major harm to our nation. The thing is, both Michael Badnarick ( the Libertarian candidate ) and Ralph Nader were more intelligent and had more integrity than either Bush or Kerry, IMHO.

We're all trapped by the same dilemma, do you vote for the candidate you really prefer, or do you vote for the candidate that can defeat the candidate you really can't stand? With the alternative voting methods, that dilemma goes away. You can actually vote for the candidate you like the most, while still expressing relative preferences for the remaining candidates. There are no 'wasted' votes.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

G1223

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 6:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
We're all trapped by the same dilemma, do you vote for the candidate you really prefer, or do you vote for the candidate that can defeat the candidate you really can't stand?

SergeantX

Heinlein said it best you can always find something to vote against. The idea is nice the reality is that voting reform must pass in each of the states. I think the phrase "When Pig have wings" is understated for when this would happen.

At the national level congress (A organization controlled by the two parties)is going to need to do this and I do not see it happening.

TANSTAAFL

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 6:34 AM

Actually, the technical side of voting is purely a state matter. This would be easier than most realize. The constitution in no way dictates how a state casts its electoral votes. A grass roots campaign could actually make progress fairly quickly. Its not like we'd need a nationwide ammendment or anything.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

G1223

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 1:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Its not like we'd need a nationwide ammendment or anything.

SergeantX

The two parties have done a great deal to remain in power at the state level.A movement like this will be played off by the two parties. What I mean is a local canidate will appear to support the cause and will milk it to build a voting block. Then s/he will then point out how they are our only voice in government and then go back to the party.

Trying to make a canidate out of the core group will get that canidate if seen as a real threat offered a seat at the big table. And if that does not work wait till they can dig up dirt and smear our guy will the illusion having done something later.

The reality is the two parties are well dug into grass roots. And they have learned the lesson of the 1994 Contract with America campaign plan.

TANSTAAFL

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 7:14 PM

Opus posted this on another thread, but rather than distract from that topic, I am replying here:

Quote:
Originally posted by Opus:
As I'm doing this before work I'll just address your favorite method, Approval Voting.
It still has the problem of possibly creating a low percentage winner. It also is subject to the same "interpretation" of the ballots as happened in the 2000 Florida election.
While on one level I agree with the idea of seeing exactly how much approval some third party candidates may have, it would mean more if they could draw the attention and be able to get on a ballot under the current system. The fact that they can't get on the ballot now shows how much support they don't have.

Your second point first, getting on the ballot isn't much of a problem, the Greens and the Libertarians are on the ballot in most states, most of the time. The problem is, the system makes it so that the only sensible thing to do is vote against someone. Pick the candidate you least like and vote for the candidate mostly likely to defeat them. Real preferences are lost.

As far as the low percentage candidate, lets look at an example. Let's say candidate A is the first choice of 45% of the voters, candidate B is the first choice of 40% of the voters. Candidate C is the first choice of only 10%. But, when asked to rank their preferences, a large majority of both A's voters and B's voters prefer C to the leading opposition. Isn't C the logical choice? This is the problem Approval voting and ranked voting systems are addressing.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

OPUS

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 12:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
As far as the low percentage candidate, lets look at an example. Let's say candidate A is the first choice of 45% of the voters, candidate B is the first choice of 40% of the voters. Candidate C is the first choice of only 10%. But, when asked to rank their preferences, a large majority of both A's voters and B's voters prefer C to the leading opposition. Isn't C the logical choice? This is the problem Approval voting and ranked voting systems are addressing.

A couple things, first the ballot doesn't require you vote for multiple candidates so there's no guarentee of a "second choice" with a majority of votes, which would likely occur in a very polarized or one issue election.
Also increase the number of candidates, the more fractured and polarized the electorate will be.
On the surface I think it sounds logical, but, IMHO we'd end up with even more infighting and posturizing than we do now.
Second, it would be a second choice candidate.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 12:22 AM

The general consensus is that the effect would be the opposite, simply because a 'second choice' winner would likely be the candidate with broader, if not stronger, support with the electorate. Also for that reason, candidates would have incentive to be less polarizing and seek to more broadly represent the population.

Would you rather have your second choice, or your last choice?

To put it another way, is it better for 45% of the voters to have their first choice, -OR- for 75% of the voters to have their second choice?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE