ABB v nABB demonstrates the need for election reform

[kiahzero]

If anything, this debate demonstrates just how badly we need to do away with First Past the Post voting. If we had the best method of voting (Condorcet), the idea of "strategic voting" would be eliminated. Everyone would be free to vote their preference, without the worry of 'spoilers.'

So, after election 2004, pressure your Representatives and Senators to work for a sane voting system, so we don't have to have this debate again. Even if your reps are Republican, you can convince them - who wants to face a challenge from a strong Libertarian, Constitution, or Right to Life candidate?

[ShimokitaJer]

1. I'd settle for campaign finance reform

I agree that the big debate demonstrates the need for reform, but I doubt it would be possible to convince anyone who actually has the power to make policy decisions to take action on it. The current system is full of problems for voters, but it works very well for letting the Republicans and the Democrats hold onto the power they wield over other parties. Even if some individuals within the parties were willing to act altruistically for change, the self-interest of the parties to hold onto power is systemic.

We will never see election reform without pressure from outside the parties, and pressure exerted AFTER the election is meaningless. Right now, when they need our votes, is the only time they will bother to listen.

[kiahzero]

2. Campaign Finance Reform doesn't solve the problem

The problem is not the financing of the parties. The problem is that, right now, you cannot vote for a third party without exiting the major battle between the two primary parties. This means that a third party vote is not in one's best interest - one lowers the probability of getting a positive result.

Until this changes, third parties remain unviable.

[tobius]

3. yea, let's keep those pesky other parties outta the way! </sarc> nt

[kiahzero]

4. Clearly you haven't read my post

The point is that with a sane voting system, third parties can run without having a spoiler effect. Under the Condorcet system, you rank the candidates in order of preference. Those leaning Green could vote:

1) Green
2) Democrat
3) Republican

They would not help the Republican candidate win against the Democratic candidate, but would help the Green candidate win against both. This is beneficial for everyone, and a more rational voting system. It eliminates strategic voting, and allows for more representative elections - voters are more fully able to express their preference.

Perhaps you should educate yourself about an issue before you make sarcastic comments about it?

[tobius]

13. clearly your post was too vague.

here is a good link-- http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/politics/condorcet.html

A new voting system may be something to debate, but with statements like these -
"who wants to face a challenge from a strong Libertarian, Constitution, or Right to Life candidate?" substitute green, socialist,commmunist etc... it sounds as if you are advocating protecting the two parties from challenge.

Your post does not do a good job of relating your position, before you look down upon us commoners you may want to look at your communication skills.

[kiahzero]

15. OK, maybe it wasn't quite clear enough

I'm a bit tired - so sorry about the terse reply.

:slaps self about the face with a large trout:

The point is that they no longer have to fear spoiler effects.

[tobius]

17. Peace. no problem, I had never heard of the method,

thanks for bringing it to my attention.

[kiahzero]

18. In that case:

Election reform is my pet issue.

http://www.electionmethods.org

I still feel bad about being so snide earlier... I'm just a little cranky from the flamewar, and it being 2:30 in the morning. Perhaps sleep might not be a bad idea... :D

[DaisyUCSB]

5. Only way a 3rd party could win a national election is if they're centrist

Teddy Roosevelt demonstrated that, and Ross Perot demonstrated that.

Otherwise you're just a spoiler. They came as close as they did by drawing from both partys substantially and the independant middle(which is a thousand times bigger than the independant right or left)

So McCain could arguably beat 2 so-so candidates if he went independant, particularly if he had a democrat or liberal runningmate. Donald Trump could(before or after the apprentice).

Jesse Ventura couldn't, because he isn't smart enough, but he'd make an impact.

[scarletwoman]

6. I think you're missing the point

The poster is talking about a different voting system -- like instant runoff voting, for instance -- where you COULD vote for 3rd party (or 4th or 5th) candidates without that candidate being a "spoiler".

European parliamentary elections are done this way, there are multiple parties with proportional representation based on percentage of votes.

Our two-party system is highly dysfunctional in terms of the People TRULY having representation.

sw

[AmyStrange]

8. sorry sw

you beat me to the punch - touche


Dave (AmyStrange.com) Ayotte
Please, regularly check the One Missing Person (is one person too many) searchable website for the latest (and archived) missing person news stories:

http://NEWS.OneMissingPerson.org/




Serious Serial Killer discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SK-Cafe/

[DaisyUCSB]

9. Well, wouldn't one have to throw out the electoral college to do that?

We may be upset that Gore won the popular and not electoral vote, but it (the electoral college) is still the constitutional thing to have, and really the fair thing to have, otherwise we'd just have candidates campaiging in LA, NYC, Chicago, Pheonix, Dallas-Ft. Worth, and a few other cities

[kiahzero]

11. Nope

Electoral delegates still given to the winners of a state. It's just that the winners are determined more democratically.

[kiahzero]

12. PR isn't really what I'm talking about

Condorcet (Acceptance voting also, but it's not quite as good) could simply be swapped in for the method we currently use for selecting our representatives, without needing to change districts. PR requires multi-member districts. It also requires (in most systems) that the voter vote for party, rather than individual.

[AmyStrange]

7. instant run-off voting

that'll much more easily bring in 3rd Party Candidates... or so I've heard,

Dave (AmyStrange.com) Ayotte
Please, regularly check the One Missing Person (is one person too many) searchable website for the latest (and archived) missing person news stories:

http://NEWS.OneMissingPerson.org/




Serious Serial Killer discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SK-Cafe/

[mohc]

10. Condorcet is very similar

To IRV, it just solves some of the problems inherent to IRV. The main disadvantage of Condorcet as compared to IRV is the perceived complexity. Just as a simple example of how the two systems differ.

4 Voters vote Green, Democrat, Republican
2 Voters vote Democrat, Green, Republican
4 Voters vote Republican, Democrat, Green

In IRV, the 2 voters that went D-G-R have their first choice thrown out, and their next choice gives Green the win 6-4.

In Condorcet, you compare each of the three head to head scenarios.
Green vs Democrat would be 4-6 (The second choice of the Republicans was Democrat)
Green vs Republican would be 6-4 (The second choice of Democrats was Green)
Democrat vs Republican would be 6-4 (The second choice of Greens was Democrat)

Since the Democrat one both of its head to head matches, they win. Things get more complicated when no candidate wins all their matches, and there are different systems used to resolve it (throw out the smallest victory first, or throw out any victory that conflicts with a greater victory.)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. Won't happen.

Most people can't understand it, and of those who do, there is hardly a consensus that it is a good idea.

[kiahzero]

16. Give people more credit

Condorcet voting requires knowledge of addition, and the concept of transitivity, easily expressed:

"A weightlifter is stronger than me. I am stronger than an ant. I therefore know that the weightlifter is stronger than the ant."

These are not difficult concepts to explain to people. If the two parties in power see it in their best interest to change (and it is in their best interest in the short term - no more worries of spoilers), they can convince people that it's a good idea (which it is).

I've never seen an informed person attack Condorcet voting on any grounds other than "It's too complex."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. I'm not convinced it is a good idea.

I'm simply not convinced that the basic paradigm involved - that voters should 'rank' candidates, instead of declaring for a candidate - makes political sense. I'm not convinced that it would result in better leaders being chosen. I certainly don't want to have choose a second, third, or fourth candidate when I vote. Sometimes it's hard enough finding one person to support.

And no, I'm not willing to give people more credit than they deserve.

[shance]

19. Thank you Kiah**** This is the wheel surrounding the spokes.

We can talk, debate, argue all we want about candidates, etc.

However, if we do not have a fair election system with paper ballots, along with an equitable primary, we essentially have no Democracy.

I would add that we all become more active on a state level as well.

Blackboxvoting.org is I believe the best place to become more informed and active.

This should be everyones top priority.

If our vote doesnt matter, neither does our voice.

[zoeyfong]

21. I agree.