Not necessarily true. If the 51% voted green dems, but everyone voted someone else rank 2, the green dems lose.
*sigh* I know my model is improbable, but it was just an assumed state of voter interest so that I could prove my point. let me tweak it so that you don't complain: ok, lets run a little gedanken here: lets say its a month before election day, democrats, republicans, and a third party each have 25% of the POINTS, ACCORDING TO SURVEYS, leaving 25% to be split up among SOME NUMBER of smaller parties. each smaller party has A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE POINTS, 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.
Hmm, so if I'm to understand this ...they want to make the whole election process even more complex than it is now?! And with so few Americans actually understanding it as it is, they want to make it even worse? Hmmm, we have a damned tough time voting between two parties, can you imagine the chaos if......??? Baron Max
Read the study. Corruption is possible in any scenario. The thing is, regardless of who is corrupt, rank-order voting reflects what people want much more clearly than majority rule.
corruption in the current system is checked by the fact that there are two parties, and neither will give votes to the other. the system you propose has all of the same possibilities for corruption with an added ability to buy votes. just imagine an extremely close presidential race, do you have any idea what campaigns would pay to have the support of the 10% points holder? it would be incredible. there is also the added possibility for mass unrest when the 3rd place candidate wins because his name was alphabetically first and people didn't care who got the #2 spot but gave them points anyway. I think that is a huge problem. people hardly know what the number 1 and 2 parties stand for, if you have a 4 way race, people are just going to pick the 1 or maybe 2 they like, and just pick the last ones wily-nilly. the whole idea requires and more educated and active public than there already is, and I don't think that will happen.
Is it checked? Wesmorris I see your concern and the idea seems to produce a more realistic reproduction of the voting behaviour of the people. Or should I say that the voting behaviour is probably less dominated by the pitfalls of the voting system as is currently in place in the USA. That said, I think you are quite right when you say that the existing fucks will have none of it.
Yeah, I wonder if Wes has thought of that issue ....with so few people voting, and with such lack of knowledge of national and world politics, what will be the affects on his "brave, new voting"? Seriously, however ....do y'all really and truly think that "the people" know enough to actually have a say in national and world politics??? I mean, ain't that a bit scary to y'all??? Ain't it something like having the elementary kids in schools vote on how their schools are operated?? Baron Max
perhaps not overall, but the vote buying is not as bad. I think one major step that could be taken is to make candidates sign a sort of letter of intent, where there are some specific questions on which they must give a straight answer. like "given the ability to make gay marriage legal or illegal, which way would you vote" and breaking that contract would be an impeachable offense unless 2/3 of congress gave them permission. so when bush said "I will not support nation building" he could be impeached for his lie. why don't we hold their feet to the fire?
Because each and every person/citizen has his/her own agenda ....and no one on Earth could live up to those requirements. People, humans, simply can't be permitted too much freedom ...they don't know how to control themselves or how to tolerate or to interact with others without demanding their own agendas. I.e., humans need to be lead around by the nose, or things really get all fucked up ...as it is now in many parts of the world that claim "freedoms" for its people. Baron Max
As a matter of fact, why do we have "parties" at all? Why don't we just select the right people for the job, without any concern for "party"? Do people actually vote for the "party", even if he's he worse man for the job? Naw, that can't be ...people really ain't that fuckin' stupid ......are they??? Baron Max
heh, yes they are that stupid, and the party structure is so they can pool resources. otherwise only super rich could run... like Ros Perot. (sp?)
wesmorris, A few years ago, I posted what I thought would be a better election system. Here's a part of my post: "Let's say your going to the polls to vote for the president of your country. There are twenty candidates running for office. Instead of voting for the candidate that you want, you would place the number 1 next to that candidate. You would then place a number 2 next to the candidate you would want, if choice 1 didn't win. You would continue numbering all the candidates, from one to twenty, until they are all numbered. When the polls are closed this is how the votes would be counted: All the "first choice" votes would be counted. All other numbers from 2 to 20 would be ignored. If after the "first choice" votes are counted, a candidate has the majority of the votes, he/she shall become president. If no candidate has the majority vote, then the candidate with the least amount of votes will be eliminated from the election. Everyone who placed the "eliminated candidate" as "first choice", will have their first choice eliminated and their "second choice" would then become their "first choice". All the "first choice" votes would be counted again. If a candidate has a majority, he/she shall be president. If no one gets the majority, another candidate would be eliminated and the votes would get shifted again. This whole process would repeat itself until a candidate gets the majority vote." from : http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6170 Note: That's back when my nick was Joeblow93132.
Seems to me that rank-order is a bit more efficient than that, in that you don't have to vote so many times. Anyway, I do think this is "an answer to america's two party BS". That of course, assume you think the two party system is BS - which is another discussion entirely.
wesmorris, You misunderstood the system I was suggesting. The person would only vote once, but instead of selecting a single candidate they would select numerous candidates in the order that they desire. It would be like having several run-off elections with only one vote.
Here's a radical idea, but I'll propose it since I hate party politics. Prohibit national political parties. All national political parties. Hooray! Now we have an aristocracy again. Seriously though, I have some pretty extensive reforms that I'd make to the Federal Government if I could get my hands on the Constitution... I wouldn't even say calling them "reforms" does it justice. Think more of a complete restructuring of the Federal Government.
Exactly. The better even to have 4-5 real parties, let's say: - Rich people's party : Republicrats - Farmer's party - Labor party - Liberals - Religious bullshit party (why not?) - Greens -etc.etc. There is nothing wrong if a few of these make alliances with each other for power. After all that's how it works in real democracies. Let's throw in a political IQ question: What is the minimum % in the American presidential election system with what a candidate still can win the presidency???
