The Answer to America's two party BS

Discussion in 'Politics' started by wesmorris, Oct 7, 2006.

  1. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    It's about voting, and the voting system.

    Right now, you go vote for one person for each position available. This is problematic, because you end up "throwing away your vote" in favor of the "lesser of evils". Say there's a libertarian or progressive party dude you like on the ticket for whatever but the two major parties will get the most votes as usual. If you cast your vote for the "alternative" candidate, it's a vote taken away from the 'lesser of two evils' in the two major parties. This could lead to the "greater of two evils" winning, and you can't risk it, so perhaps you cast your vote where you might not otherwise prefer to do so.

    IMO, that is a huge frickin problem.

    The resolution is to rank/order the candidates deemed qualified.

    I think it solves a LOT of problems, and allows the potential for a third or who knows how many parties to have a real chance in elections.

    Sciam did a study on this in the last few years, and it was obvious from the article that this is the better way.

    I really, really think this should be seriously considered, but believe the existing fucks would resist it to their last breath.

    Comments?

    EDIT:

    I found relevant articles posted below, but thought I'd ammend the OP with them as they are highly relevant:

    I found a link to the article, but only a snippet is visible, then they want money.

    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ch...90A83414B7F0123

    "the fairest vote of all"

    and here is a paper by one of the authors that can actually be read, though it looks boring as hell:

    http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/faculty/d...a voting% 22

    I see, there are points/candidate. If there are 3 candidates, top choice gets 3, second gets 2, last gets 1. Pretty simple.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2006
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Aren't you forgetting about all the shit that leads up to the voting process? I mean, in many elections, there are many people stumping for votes, but in the end, they have to drop out because no one votes for them ....no one gives a shit enough to even see them on the election ballot.

    No, Wes, you've completely ignored the PRE-election processes. Take some time and study it thoroughly, then come back with your suggestions and comments.

    Baron Max
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Voting for a third-party candidate is not a wasted vote. Both Conferences of the Republocrat League pay very close attention to the growing strength of potential competitors for their power and make whatever concessions are necessary to keep them out of the mainstream.

    In the 1920s the American Communist Party wasn't close to making an impact on national or state elections. But they had won a few seats on city councils and were being taken seriously by the press. The Demoblicans don't really care about the economy, wars, health care, education, or the people. All they care about is hanging onto their cozy little duopoly of power that changes hands regularly in a gentleman's agreement. So they took notice and began co-opting the Communists' positions. By the mid-1950s both major parties had completely adopted the 1929 Communist Party platform. It was Eisenhower, a Republican, who established the friggin' Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the golden spike in America's glorious new Socialist Nanny State Worker's Paradise.

    The Green Party is now on the same track. It has no big national profile, but it's making inroads in local elections, particularly in the West. The city council of Arcata, California, the intellectual, cultural and political center of the water-rich northwestern region of the state with all those electoral votes, has a Green Party majority. The major parties are starting to take grudging notice of the environmental movement.

    If enough people would vote for the Libertarians, who knows. The Democrats and Republicans might dig out and dust off their old copies of the Constitution and start abiding by a few of its provisions to keep us from siphoning off too many of their votes.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    How would ranking work, precisely?

    Let's say candidates A, B and C are running, A&B representing the two major parties and C as an independents.

    10 people vote.
    How would they vote for the people?
    C, if not C, then B?

    Why would "if not C" occur, and how?

    I guess what I'm asking is, you already vote for one guy, how could you possibly vote for another one? What circumstances would lead to your vote going to your second or third choice candidates?
     
  8. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    no you order them. you say, okay a, b and c are running, you put them in order of preference. not exactly sure how the weighting works out, but they had the math about that all worked out in the article I read. I just don't remember what it was called.

    thus, if you actually prefer c, but a over b, you could say:

    1) c
    2) a
    3) b
     
  9. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Oh. Weights and math.
    Hrm. I'd like to see how they do it.

    Since the two party system benefits the two parties that control the system, I don't see voting reform happening anytime soon.
     
  10. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    I found a link to the article, but only a snippet is visible, then they want money.

    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000637A4-DDB5-101E-990A83414B7F0123

    "the fairest vote of all"

    and here is a paper by one of the authors that can actually be read, though it looks boring as hell:

    http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/faculty/dasgupta/MajRuVot.pdf#search="Partha Dasgupta voting"

    I see, there are points/candidate. If there are 3 candidates, top choice gets 3, second gets 2, last gets 1. Pretty simple.
     
  11. cato less hate, more science Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    that is nonsense. you would get an alliance between one of the two main parties and the third party, so that you would end up with 2 republican or democratic parties, just under different names. the third party would just swing the direction that gave it the most money.

    think about it, this shit is already happening. some groups that would normally support republicans were giving money to Nader's campaign because they knew it would hurt Democrats more than Republicans. now imagine you implemented this system, you would switch it up, now democrats would give money to Nader because people would rank Nader-Dem-Rep, and the green party would just become a subsidiary of the democratic party.
     
  12. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    You're right baron, but please, I beg of you... read the section of the paper that talks about "majority rule vs. rank order voting".
     
  13. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    I fail to see the problem with voters getting to vote for the candidates they actually want to represent them, rather than choosing the not so shitty candidate as opposed to the shittier candidate..
     
  14. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Dude, read the thing with an open mind and get back to this please.
     
  15. cato less hate, more science Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    you don't think it would just lead to one of the major parties subsidizing the other parties so that they will pull punches and throw votes to whoever give them the most money? that seems pretty obvious to me, as it is already happening.

    the evidence of this method's validity has already been tested. the green party can pull votes away from democrats, so republicans funnel money to them. with this new method, it would just be giving votes instead of taking them away. however, it would be a much more widespread problem because more people would be inclined to vote for the other parties because they could always fall back to the lesser of two evils.

    I hate to be a pessimist, but I see no reason to believe politicians would not buy/sell votes to/from each other.

    why don't we just give people the right to vote for legislation? give democracy back to the people. allow people to vote online, under extremely secure conditions, and have their votes count as 1 thousandth or millionth of a senator's vote (for example)
     
  16. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Except that this makes it so voting for a third party is actually worthwhile. Giving money to the Greens works against the Democrats because of the way the system is set up. If you change the system, now voting for the greens isn't actually throwing away your vote.
     
  17. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    You hate to be yourself eh?

    and no, I don't want the tyranny of the majority, thank you very much.

    I think that the ranking system would convolute the efforts to hedge votes so much that it would be damned hard to buy votes at all, and perhaps not possible. You aren't even seriously considering anything. You're just venting it seems.
     
  18. cato less hate, more science Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    maybe not the greens, but there will always be parties that have too small of a share of the population to take the election, but would be able to buy/sell votes nonetheless.

    if you limit the number of candidates to 3, then you solve that problem, but what happens if you have right, left and middle parties and the middle shifts either way? you will get either a left or right party with supreme control because some people vote party line no matter how moderate or extreme the party is.
     
  19. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    The current system limits the number of candidates to two, and we already have a party with supreme control.

    I still fail to see how this new method could at all make matter worse.
     
  20. cato less hate, more science Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    don't get me wrong guys, I want our system to be better, but I feel it is my duty to try my hardest to find flaws in people's theories. to not entertain the other guy's argument and just say "quit being a pessimist" is no way to solve problems.

    a good debate will always allow the better idea to win. I have poked holes in your idea, now you need to convince me that votes can't be bought/sold. if you can do that, then your idea wins.
     
  21. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    How are votes being bought or sold?
    Who's selling their votes?
    If a majority ranks Green-Democrats, then the Greens will be in power, regardless of who funded them.
     
  22. cato less hate, more science Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    ok, lets run a little gandanken here:

    lets say its a month before election day, democrats, republicans, and a third party each have 25% of the vote, leaving 25% to be split up among 10 smaller parties. each smaller party has 2.5%, and thus no chance to win outright, but can still effect the election if they bash/support one of the main parties.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^perfectly possible right?

    this is what I see happening:

    a smaller party (party X) can just take bids from the 3 main parties, and the one who pledges to give the most in campaign contributions will get the support of party X, and the others receive attack adds from party X. therefore, whichever main party gives the most money to the little X party can get an advantage by being #2 on the list of party X's voters.

    do you guys not see this as a problem?
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2006
  23. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    In the rank-order system, no I don't think so. I don't think that's remotely the way you frame it. It's not such a clear cut thing. There is no "2.5%" in the way you seem to be framing it. It's "points" for one thing, and if the smaller party gets on the ballot and ranks last in all voting, they'd have (given three) 1/6 of all the points.

    The thing is, they most likely won't have that.

    Because most people would probably have ranks of their own.

    Read the example vote she gives regarding the 2000 election.

    You seem fixated on vote-buying, and further seem to fail to consider the ramifications of rank-order voting.

    this is what I see happening:

    No. That's because if 50% of voters split on the #1 ranked person, but ranked the other guy 2nd every time, the guy ranked second every time wins the election.
     

Share This Page