So, it's not important you could put a vote that could give a third party a win, and put a vote that favours a major party at the same time?
It's not at the same time. For it to be the same time, you would need to give someone more than one vote. Your vote only ever counts for one party at a time, ultimately switching to a later party. The only effective difference between voting for a third party and then having it switch to a main party, or just voting for the main party because the main party is actually competitive is that there are more steps involved. You've taken up more time. That's it.
That is just untrue. Because, as I just pointed out, third parties do actually win. Your vote will not always go the major party. You are ignoring the fact that in the situation where the third party could actually win, the preference vote does not need to change. What you are saying here is absurd. The whole structure of the preferential voting system is based around giving support to multiple candidates.
It absolutely matters, including to elections, that you can put a third party first then a major party later.
And it's also not important to put a vote for a third party to make a statement and try to pressure the major parties, even if it doesn't affect the election.
They do that here as well. Again, no effective difference. No difference in the ultimate outcome.
Yes, Highroller they do that in the US. But they can't do that and express a preference about the major parties. So are you admitting the primary vote for a third party does actually matter in that it's comparable to the US, and that therefore this is something to be said about being able to do that and make a compromise vote on the major parties?
You're talking about how you don't like that people have to choose between supporting a third party or voting for an actual viable party in a race in which a third party isn't competitive, because then it's a choice between voting for the party or having to compromise and vote for a candidate who might not fit your ideals as closely as the first candidate. Except your proposed solution doesn't really solve that problem. You've just made the people who voted for their party ALSO people who compromise on their vote to support the viable candidate
Highroller, did you not just say a vote for a third party in the preferential system is like a vote for a third party in the US? Indicating that in fact, my solution actually does everything it claims to do?
Stop saying the primary vote doesn't matter, because it does. I have given you multiple reasons for this, to which you have given very limited responses, and it really shouldn't be hard to accept.
Can we please move on from debating whether a fundamental point of how preferential voting works is actually how preferential voting works?
You're talking about how you don't like that people have to choose between supporting a third party or voting for an actual viable party in a race in which a third party isn't competitive, because then it's a choice between voting for the party or having to compromise and vote for a candidate who might not fit your ideals as closely as the first candidate. Except your proposed solution doesn't really solve that problem. You've just made the people who voted for their party ALSO people who compromise on their vote to support the viable candidate
Highroller, did you not just say a vote for a third party in the preferential system is like a vote for a third party in the US? Indicating that in fact, my solution actually does everything it claims to do?
Stop saying the primary vote doesn't matter, because it does. I have given you multiple reasons for this, to which you have given very limited responses, and it really shouldn't be hard to accept.
Can we please move on from debating whether a fundamental point of how preferential voting works is actually how preferential voting works?
No you have given multiple theoretical reasons for your case. But you have kept running into the same cold hard realities of the US situation. That being the minor parties are going to be the ones eliminated early so a vote for them will end up being a vote for the major party most likely ensuring that one of them gets more than 50% of the vote.
This is what Alternative vote aka Instant run-off is designed to do. Gradually weed out the smaller parties until you have 1 party that secures a majority and do it in a single visit to the ballot box.
Could this result in a smaller party gaining a seat in parliment that would other wise go to a larger party. Yes if they are fortunate enough to get enough votes in the first round to not be eliminated and then pick up enough second/third preference votes from the people who voted for those eliminated parties. Yes but if that happens it is a happy accident.
You are arguing that this side effect is the main reason for implenting Instant run off voting. I hate to tell you this but you are wrong it isn't. It is designed to make more people feel like they had an effect on the election with out changing the result to much. Unless the 3rd party/independant candidate is very well liked or is the incumbant one of the 2 major parties is most likely going to get the seat the only difference is that in picking up second and third preferences they are guarenteed 51% of the vote.
If you truely want to boost 3rd party results purely by changing what happens at the ballot box you need to have some form of proportional representation. Either full proportional representation where you vote for a party list and they work out which people gets the seats or some kind of mixed member representation.
Otherwise you are just going to get into a similar situation where very little has changed. Independants/Small parties will still be picking up the odd seat here and there where they have good representation but the major parties will still take the majority of the seats.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Instead I would like to see the US institute mandatory voter ID at the polls
Okay, can we also institute mandatory voter registration from birth that lasts until death or uncleared felony conviction, and voter IDs provided at no particular cost to any individual citizen with enough regularity that there is no conceivable way that any American citizen will show up to vote without their ID, even if they are homeless and penniless, and there's no conceivable way that any American citizen will not know that they have the option to show up to vote? Because most people who support voter ID laws appear to support them while not considering or while hoping for the huge disenfranchisement of a massive number of American citizens. I'm not saying that is the case for you, but common sense should be applied when making laws.
Some very good points. I obviously didn't opt to lay out a bulleted plan for voter ID implementation.
1) I think all adult (18+) legal US citizens should have a photo ID that is beyond a simple drivers license. A DL alone does not cover everyone. And the ID should be updated in a regular incremental basis with a current photo, living address, and other pertinent information. This could serve multiple purposes, as it gets the homeless into the system and makes them easier to locate and assist.
2) I don't think we need to register voters at birth. Voting is a choice, at 18 years old I think every US citizen should register for the draft, mandatory, (men and women), and register to vote (optional). Tracking anything before that is a waste of time and money.
3) The job of tracking and removing deceased from the voting registrar should be done as a part of the verification of the death certificate by the city/county clerks office. Where they notify financial institutions, the social security office, etc of the deceased. They should in turn, remove you from voter registry and flag your social security number in the system so that it wont let another person register to vote using that same social security number in the future.
4) I cannot solve the homeless problem, nor can anyone on this forum. Whether they are homeless and penniless through circumstance, bad breaks, or poor life choices their vote is no less valuable than mine or yours. That said, educating the homeless on their voting rights, times, and dates, and candidates is probably less important to them than helping them get education in general, food, work, or a place to stay. I would hope that in the process of providing them the bare necessities of life, that would provide an opportunity to introduce politics, as a way of voicing their plight to leaders to try and help their situations. I cannot speak for them.
That is just untrue. Because, as I just pointed out, third parties do actually win. Your vote will not always go the major party. You are ignoring the fact that in the situation where the third party could actually win, the preference vote does not need to change.
I'm ignoring this because it's not the situation you're talking about. You're criticizing the US system based on the situation third party voters find themselves in when they are not competitive, which is that they must choose between voting for their preferred party or voting for a party that is actually competitive and compromising.
To say "third parties might win" is meaningless. Yes, they do win. They also win here. And it's the same damn thing when a third party or independent actually is competitive over here, so once again you've not changed anything.
What you are saying here is absurd. The whole structure of the preferential voting system is based around giving support to multiple candidates.
It absolutely matters, including to elections, that you can put a third party first then a major party later.
Which ultimately plays out exactly the same way as the scenario in our system that you're complaining about when the third party isn't competitive - that you end up switching your vote for the competitive party.
So are you admitting the primary vote for a third party does actually matter
Of course not. I'm saying the primary vote doesn't matter, it's a superficial distinction, as perfunctory as someone saying, "Your call is important to us," while putting you on hold.
Highroller, did you not just say a vote for a third party in the preferential system is like a vote for a third party in the US? Indicating that in fact, my solution actually does everything it claims to do?
You're saying that the current situation has problems, and you have a solution to those problems because you have a system that works differently. I'm saying that your proposed system is ultimately the exact same thing as our current system - the very thing you were objecting to. Now you're trying to argue that the fact that your system ultimately results in the exact same thing is a positive thing?
Stop saying the primary vote doesn't matter, because it does. I have given you multiple reasons for this,
You've given nothing more than a repetition that it does matter with no justification.
Ultimately, the result is exactly the same. Ultimately your vote still gets changed. So you're complaining about people changing their vote because their party isn't competitive, and your proposed solution is something that not only doesn't actually solve this, it's entirely framed around
Once again:
It's like saying, "I hate the fact that people have to either choose to order a blue shoe in this store and then be told they don't have any, or order a green or red shoe because that's what they actually have, even though it's not the color they wanted. To remedy this, I will have a system in which people will order a blue shoe, and then be told that they don't have any, but then be asked what their second preference is, green or red, and then they will end up being sold the green or the red shoe. THIS IS SO MUCH BETTER!" It's not any better, it's ultimately the same damn thing. (If anything, it's probably worse at communicating the need for a blue shoe, because at least in the original situation, those would be lost sales.)
You're framing this as some sort of solution when the whole system is based on doing the exact same thing you object to. And in fact, it actually lessens the effectiveness of grievances or protests, because it actually removes incentive for the major parties to give concessions to third party voters.
That is just untrue. Because, as I just pointed out, third parties do actually win. Your vote will not always go the major party. You are ignoring the fact that in the situation where the third party could actually win, the preference vote does not need to change.
I'm ignoring this because it's not the situation you're talking about. You're criticizing the US system based on the situation third party voters find themselves in when they are not competitive, which is that they must choose between voting for their preferred party or voting for a party that is actually competitive and compromising.
To say "third parties might win" is meaningless. Yes, they do win. They also win here. And it's the same damn thing when a third party or independent actually is competitive over here, so once again you've not changed anything.
.
Yes, I have. Yes, they are different situations so you could change to do the same thing in the US system, but then the voter has to figure out whether they think the third party will win or not, and because that's not likely, a lot of people are just going to decide no in almost every case, so it accentuates itself.
Under the preferential voting system, the voter doesn't have to try to figure out whether it's worth voting third party if they prefer them, they just put them high on the preference list. Therefore importantly here, you don't get third parties losing elections they could have won because voters were scared of wasting their votes. Because your vote doesn't get wasted.
What you are saying here is absurd. The whole structure of the preferential voting system is based around giving support to multiple candidates.
It absolutely matters, including to elections, that you can put a third party first then a major party later.
Which ultimately plays out exactly the same way as the scenario in our system that you're complaining about when the third party isn't competitive - that you end up switching your vote for the competitive party.
I have told you repeatedly, explicitly, that I am not complaining that people switch their votes to a major party. Repeating that I am is only weakening your argument. So don't.
What I am complaining about is that compromise votes don't give you any room to show support for a third party at the same time. Preferential voting definitively solves that issue. Not to say there aren't potential downsides, talking about major party dominance and whether preferential voting will actually increase that, that's a valid concern. But this point matters to people, whether you think it does or not. If voting is about the people getting what they want, then surely this is valuable?
So are you admitting the primary vote for a third party does actually matter
Of course not. I'm saying the primary vote doesn't matter, it's a superficial distinction, as perfunctory as someone saying, "Your call is important to us," while putting you on hold.
So
They do that here as well
is unimportant then. Third party votes are a complete waste unless the third party could realistically win?
Because if they are not, then my point applies- and I'll tell you that there are definitely plenty of people who find third party votes even when they won't win to be worthwhile. So I advocate giving these people the ability to express a major party preference as well as their ideological statement.
Highroller, did you not just say a vote for a third party in the preferential system is like a vote for a third party in the US? Indicating that in fact, my solution actually does everything it claims to do?
You're saying that the current situation has problems, and you have a solution to those problems because you have a system that works differently. I'm saying that your proposed system is ultimately the exact same thing as our current system - the very thing you were objecting to. Now you're trying to argue that the fact that your system ultimately results in the exact same thing is a positive thing?
Because I was talking about the third party vote as a statement and you said you can do the same in the US. Well you can do that in Australia alongside a compromise vote as well, which is exactly what I have been saying.
Stop saying the primary vote doesn't matter, because it does. I have given you multiple reasons for this,
You've given nothing more than a repetition that it does matter with no justification
Oh really?
For the last time, the primary vote of a preferential voting system matters because
1. It actually can determine elections, third parties do actually win.
2. It makes a statement
3. It gets publicity for the third party
What does that look like to you? I'm calling you on this.
And to reiterate, it does all these things while allowing you to put down a compromise vote alongside it.
You're talking about how you don't like that people have to choose between supporting a third party or voting for an actual viable party in a race in which a third party isn't competitive, because then it's a choice between voting for the party or having to compromise and vote for a candidate who might not fit your ideals as closely as the first candidate. Except your proposed solution doesn't really solve that problem. You've just made the people who voted for their party ALSO people who compromise on their vote to support the viable candidate
Highroller, did you not just say a vote for a third party in the preferential system is like a vote for a third party in the US? Indicating that in fact, my solution actually does everything it claims to do?
Stop saying the primary vote doesn't matter, because it does. I have given you multiple reasons for this, to which you have given very limited responses, and it really shouldn't be hard to accept.
Can we please move on from debating whether a fundamental point of how preferential voting works is actually how preferential voting works?
No you have given multiple theoretical reasons for your case. But you have kept running into the same cold hard realities of the US situation. That being the minor parties are going to be the ones eliminated early so a vote for them will end up being a vote for the major party most likely ensuring that one of them gets more than 50% of the vote.
This is what Alternative vote aka Instant run-off is designed to do. Gradually weed out the smaller parties until you have 1 party that secures a majority and do it in a single visit to the ballot box
I don't mind that. It's not like third party are winning all these elections in the US that they will now lose. It's maybe not ideal, but the system is not really ever going to be.
Could this result in a smaller party gaining a seat in parliment that would other wise go to a larger party. Yes if they are fortunate enough to get enough votes in the first round to not be eliminated and then pick up enough second/third preference votes from the people who voted for those eliminated parties. Yes but if that happens it is a happy accident.
You are arguing that this side effect is the main reason for implenting Instant run off voting.
No, I'm not. I am arguing the main reason for implementing a preferential vote (note that instant run off isn't necessarily the system I am suggesting should be put in place, but one that uses preferential voting of some kind, instant run off being a main way of doing that), is to give people the freedom to express a more sophisticated preference. Namely, not having to compromise being showing support for a third party and providing a compromise vote. That in and of itself is my main argument.
If you truely want to boost 3rd party results purely by changing what happens at the ballot box
Boosting 3rd party results for the sake of it is unethical and not what I am arguing.
Otherwise you are just going to get into a similar situation where very little has changed. Independants/Small parties will still be picking up the odd seat here and there where they have good representation but the major parties will still take the majority of the seats.
I'd argue preferential voting helps third party in that
1. They get a greater show of election support and therefore publicity, because more people will generally show support for them even if secondary to other parties
2. More third party supporters will actually put a vote supporting a third party because their votes will not wasted
3. Preference deals help compensate for spoiler effect in US
4. It is shown to the people and parties more clearly where the major parties are getting third party support from
You trumpet this system as a great alternative to the current system because, in the instances in which the third party is not competitive, their votes get shifted over to one of the main parties, and what a wonderful thing this is, so much better than the US, in which... people shift their votes over to one of the main parties. Your position is: "I disagree with people shifting their votes, so I'm going to solve this problem... By having other people shift their votes for them."
And that's just being asinine.
But yes, your actual preference gets noted down. Which makes ultimately makes no difference whatsoever. I guess that does something for you, but what, exactly, is the profound difference in the end result? Answer: there isn't one!
I really don't want a second flame warning (which I earned the first), but no one shifts a vote where a voter themselves does not indicate on a ballot and saying otherwise is at best a strawman attack. If I want to vote for the Green Party and no one else, then I mark Green, then don't rank anyone else on the ballot. If I want to vote for a third party because I want to support their party but at the same time don't want the Democrats to win, then I rank all the other parties. If I want to Democrats to be my second choice, then I mark it as such. Under ranked voting (or instant runoff), I have complete control of what happens to my ballot. In fact, I have more control over it than I do now with first past the post voting.
I fail to see the "asinine"ness of this.
Furthermore, the immediate difference is 3rd Parties can grow. For example, if Ranked choice voting had existed in 2000, the Green Party would be a nationally recognized party right now, the Libertarian Party would likely be nationally recognized right now, the Reform Party may not have fallen to the wayside after Ross Perot's second run, and Donald Trump would not have won the presidential nomination in the 2016 Republican presidential primary.
The point being that being able to present a preference lets support for third parties to build up (without being a giant spoiler), and potentially flip around what the strongest two parties are in an area.
Except there are areas in which the race is going to be between a Republican/Democrat and an Independent, with the Democrat/Republican candidate being a cypher. That happens at the local level, and at the Senate/House level.
The point I'm trying to make is there's no real effective difference here between the preferential voting and the US voting, and that DJK is complaining about certain realities about voting in the US that don't end up really changing under preferential voting.
Specifically, DJK is complaining about how people who are voting for a third party candidate in a situation in which the two major parties end up being overwhelmingly dominant must either vote for the third party and get blown out, or vote for one of the two major parties because those two are actually popular, and in so doing not vote for the party that's actually idealistically closer to them.
The problem with this is this situation is not at all solved by preferential voting, because the same damn thing happens. The only difference is both scenarios happen at the same time, so you still end up ultimately voting for the person whom you weren't really a match for idealistically. And he's trumpeting this like it's some great triumph. Yes, congratulations, instead of switching your vote to Joe Candidate as opposed to Third Party Option, someone else switched it for you. Boy, you sure beat the system there.
It's a completely baffling mindset to me, because he's expressing that it's a problem that people end up voting the candidate they don't really want, but his proposed solution is to make them have to do it anyway. It's like when someone tells a character in a sitcom to do something, and then the character does it, but retorts, "Alright, I'm doing it, BUT NOT BECAUSE YOU WANT ME TO!" And that's funny, but it's funny specifically because he's treating it like a victory when it isn't. He's still done the thing that the person asked him to do. The same result ended up happening. Yes, he expressed his grievance, but no one gives a damn. That's why it's comedy. Yet DJK doesn't get the joke.[/quote]
Ranked choice voting makes "the spoiler effect" impossible. In combination with my point that there's no requirement to rank candidates above, I fail to see how you are not on board with this.
1. Ballots are a more accurate expression of preference by including people are willing to settle on, allowing minor parties to gain support without eating into major party totals.
2. Multiple parties don't have to jab elbows out of fear of spoilers and can focus on jabbing elbows over issues.
3. The population as a whole picks a majority candidate, not just a candidate that got the most [electoral] votes (yes there's a difference, even Hillary Clinton could have still lost in 2016 under instant runoff system because she only won 48% of the vote, requiring an instant runoff of ranked votes).
1. They get a greater show of election support and therefore publicity, because more people will generally show support for them even if secondary to other parties
This only happens if people put them down as their first preference. And then they get knocked out in the first round. If they are any further down the preference scale then the additional vote for them does not matter and won't be counted either because they are already knocked out or because the voter had one of the two major parties as their first preference so any remaining preference votes are pointless as they won't ever be counted.
3. Preference deals help compensate for spoiler effect in US
Which actively hurts the parties you are professing to help by making it even less likely that they will get the seat as in most cases any vote for them is going to be given to another party.
4. It is shown to the people and parties more clearly where the major parties are getting third party support from
Again only if it is shown in the first preference votes. If the minor parties are buried further down the preference scale they will get eliminated early and any 2nd/3rd preferences they might have picked up aren't going to be looked at.
Again to boost the third parties or to get them more visibility, changing what happens in the voting booth is the last thing you should do. There are a hell of a lot of other issues that need to be sorted out first.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Also, let me take this moment to address yet another thing that I think is a problem with your voting system.
Let's say there are, I don't know, 16 candidates running for an office. I decide that I'm going to do the classic "child pushing every button in an elevator" play and fill in every single bubble, because weeeeeee! Bubbles! So I've cast a vote for all 16 candidates. So I've voted 16 times.
Let's say a second person, he's just doesn't give a crap about the election. This one seems ok. This one seems ok. This other person's alright. He just says screw it, can't be bothered, so he votes for all three. So he's voted 3 times.
Then the third person comes in, registered party member, very much ideologically in line with one of the parties, this candidate is perfect, exactly what he/she has been waiting to come along, and that person votes for that one candidate and no others. So he/she has voted once.
So, I get 16 votes for being an ********, someone gets three votes for being apathetic, and the third person who actually cares and exhibits a strong preference gets 1 vote.
He can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of DJK's suggestion is that you don't say "Fill in the bubble for 16 people~!", but rather "Candidate B gets first, candidate P gets second, candidate A gets third, candidate H gets fourth..." Getting ranked first is worth more than getting ranked 16th, but getting ranked 16th is still worth something.
That system isn't without problems. For example, if you can omit voting for someone, is that better or worse than getting ranked last? If you have to rank them all, the candidates the voter doesn't care or know about will likely be ranked in whatever order they're listed on the ballot, and it's hardly fair for Senator Aardvark to get higher ranking in the polls than Representative Zyzzyx simply due to listing order.
Listing order is easy-ish to fix. You can randomise once (which gives an advantage but at random) or you can have multiple sets of ballot papers where each candidate gets to be first once and yo get a random one. The later can obviously get expensive if you have a large N of candidates, but is doable.
1. They get a greater show of election support and therefore publicity, because more people will generally show support for them even if secondary to other parties
This only happens if people put them down as their first preference. And then they get knocked out in the first round. If they are any further down the preference scale then the additional vote for them does not matter and won't be counted either because they are already knocked out or because the voter had one of the two major parties as their first preference so any remaining preference votes are pointless as they won't ever be counted.
I am talking about publicity, no it doesn't matter whether it's first preference. It doesn't matter whether they lose and get their votes transferred early, because they still get votes for them on record. As long as they have any real amount of first preference votes, they will still get a show of support that's from a diverse group. The preferential voting shows broad reaching support not just strong supporters or protest voters.
2. More third party supporters will actually put a vote supporting a third party because their votes will not wasted
Again only actually matters if it is the first preference of the voter. Anywhere else and it is a feel good sop that won;t actually be counted.
If you were considering voting for third party under US system, you are very likely to put a third party as your first preference. And even if it isn't firs preference it still does have an impact as per other reasons. Even if that impact isn't very big, or is unreliable, it's still there.
3. Preference deals help compensate for spoiler effect in US
Which actively hurts the parties you are professing to help by making it even less likely that they will get the seat as in most cases any vote for them is going to be given to another party.
Preference deals aren't done unless it's in both parties interest. A third party isn't required to be involved in them, and a major party can't make it so.
(Before someone points it out, the spoiler effect was probably not the phrase I was looking for, in retrospect)
4. It is shown to the people and parties more clearly where the major parties are getting third party support from
Again only if it is shown in the first preference votes. If the minor parties are buried further down the preference scale they will get eliminated early and any 2nd/3rd preferences they might have picked up aren't going to be looked at.
As long as there is sufficient first preference for them to make any real showing, secondary preference come into significance because people do hear about them (again, not big differences, but they matter- hitting a critical threshold of publicity is going to be what usually makes a difference; just getting recognition out there).
Again to boost the third parties or to get them more visibility, changing what happens in the voting booth is the last thing you should do. There are a hell of a lot of other issues that need to be sorted out first.
I repeat, my priority is not to help third parties in any way. That's a consideration, not a crucial point here.
1. They get a greater show of election support and therefore publicity, because more people will generally show support for them even if secondary to other parties
This only happens if people put them down as their first preference. And then they get knocked out in the first round. If they are any further down the preference scale then the additional vote for them does not matter and won't be counted either because they are already knocked out or because the voter had one of the two major parties as their first preference so any remaining preference votes are pointless as they won't ever be counted.
I am talking about publicity, no it doesn't matter whether it's first preference. It doesn't matter whether they lose and get their votes transferred early, because they still get votes for them on record. As long as they have any real amount of first preference votes, they will still get a show of support that's from a diverse group. The preferential voting shows broad reaching support not just strong supporters or protest voters.
Again only if they have not put their first preference as a major party as if your chosen party is not eliminated your vote is not touched again.
2. More third party supporters will actually put a vote supporting a third party because their votes will not wasted
Again only actually matters if it is the first preference of the voter. Anywhere else and it is a feel good sop that won;t actually be counted.
If you were considering voting for third party under US system, you are very likely to put a third party as your first preference. And even if it isn't firs preference it still does have an impact as per other reasons. Even if that impact isn't very big, or is unreliable, it's still there.
The only way it has an impact is if your first preference is for a party that got eliminated in the first round and there is another minor party that you had as your second preference.
If your first vote is for one of the major parties your second and subsequent preferences are irelevant as no one is going to look at them. Your vote is going to be put into the pile for the major party and just left there.
3. Preference deals help compensate for spoiler effect in US
Which actively hurts the parties you are professing to help by making it even less likely that they will get the seat as in most cases any vote for them is going to be given to another party.
Preference deals aren't done unless it's in both parties interest. A third party isn't required to be involved in them, and a major party can't make it so.
(Before someone points it out, the spoiler effect was probably not the phrase I was looking for, in retrospect)
What preference deal? No one has mentioned anything about deals between the parties. This is something you have conconected out of thin air.
What I am saying here is by the rules of the voting system you have said will magically fix all issues surrounding third parties that if a voters first preference is eliminated their second preference is going to be looked at and given to that party and again in a third round until a candidate gets 51% of the vote. This actively hurts the smaller parties as if they had a plurality but not a majority under the current system they get the seat. Under your proposed system one of the other parties could pick up enough second and third preferance votes to steal the seat off them.
4. It is shown to the people and parties more clearly where the major parties are getting third party support from
Again only if it is shown in the first preference votes. If the minor parties are buried further down the preference scale they will get eliminated early and any 2nd/3rd preferences they might have picked up aren't going to be looked at.
As long as there is sufficient first preference for them to make any real showing, secondary preference come into significance because people do hear about them (again, not big differences, but they matter- hitting a critical threshold of publicity is going to be what usually makes a difference; just getting recognition out there).
And this happens under the current system where you also don't have that pesky eliminated at the first round problem making your brand look worse.
Again to boost the third parties or to get them more visibility, changing what happens in the voting booth is the last thing you should do. There are a hell of a lot of other issues that need to be sorted out first.
I repeat, my priority is not to help third parties in any way. That's a consideration, not a crucial point here.
Then what is your crucial point? If it isn't ensure that each candidate gets 51% of the vote you are arguing for the wrong voting system cause that is what Alternative Vote/Instant Run off is designed to give you. Not increase the exposure of the minor parties in any way shape or form.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
1. They get a greater show of election support and therefore publicity, because more people will generally show support for them even if secondary to other parties
This only happens if people put them down as their first preference. And then they get knocked out in the first round. If they are any further down the preference scale then the additional vote for them does not matter and won't be counted either because they are already knocked out or because the voter had one of the two major parties as their first preference so any remaining preference votes are pointless as they won't ever be counted.
I am talking about publicity, no it doesn't matter whether it's first preference. It doesn't matter whether they lose and get their votes transferred early, because they still get votes for them on record. As long as they have any real amount of first preference votes, they will still get a show of support that's from a diverse group. The preferential voting shows broad reaching support not just strong supporters or protest voters.
Again only if they have not put their first preference as a major party as if your chosen party is not eliminated your vote is not touched again.
2. More third party supporters will actually put a vote supporting a third party because their votes will not wasted
Again only actually matters if it is the first preference of the voter. Anywhere else and it is a feel good sop that won;t actually be counted.
If you were considering voting for third party under US system, you are very likely to put a third party as your first preference. And even if it isn't firs preference it still does have an impact as per other reasons. Even if that impact isn't very big, or is unreliable, it's still there.
The only way it has an impact is if your first preference is for a party that got eliminated in the first round and there is another minor party that you had as your second preference.
If your first vote is for one of the major parties your second and subsequent preferences are irelevant as no one is going to look at them. Your vote is going to be put into the pile for the major party and just left there.
3. Preference deals help compensate for spoiler effect in US
Which actively hurts the parties you are professing to help by making it even less likely that they will get the seat as in most cases any vote for them is going to be given to another party.
Preference deals aren't done unless it's in both parties interest. A third party isn't required to be involved in them, and a major party can't make it so.
(Before someone points it out, the spoiler effect was probably not the phrase I was looking for, in retrospect)
What preference deal? No one has mentioned anything about deals between the parties. This is something you have conconected out of thin air.
What I am saying here is by the rules of the voting system you have said will magically fix all issues surrounding third parties that if a voters first preference is eliminated their second preference is going to be looked at and given to that party and again in a third round until a candidate gets 51% of the vote. This actively hurts the smaller parties as if they had a plurality but not a majority under the current system they get the seat. Under your proposed system one of the other parties could pick up enough second and third preferance votes to steal the seat off them.
4. It is shown to the people and parties more clearly where the major parties are getting third party support from
Again only if it is shown in the first preference votes. If the minor parties are buried further down the preference scale they will get eliminated early and any 2nd/3rd preferences they might have picked up aren't going to be looked at.
As long as there is sufficient first preference for them to make any real showing, secondary preference come into significance because people do hear about them (again, not big differences, but they matter- hitting a critical threshold of publicity is going to be what usually makes a difference; just getting recognition out there).
And this happens under the current system where you also don't have that pesky eliminated at the first round problem making your brand look worse.
Again to boost the third parties or to get them more visibility, changing what happens in the voting booth is the last thing you should do. There are a hell of a lot of other issues that need to be sorted out first.
I repeat, my priority is not to help third parties in any way. That's a consideration, not a crucial point here.
Then what is your crucial point? If it isn't ensure that each candidate gets 51% of the vote you are arguing for the wrong voting system cause that is what Alternative Vote/Instant Run off is designed to give you. Not increase the exposure of the minor parties in any way shape or form.
1. They get a greater show of election support and therefore publicity, because more people will generally show support for them even if secondary to other parties
This only happens if people put them down as their first preference. And then they get knocked out in the first round. If they are any further down the preference scale then the additional vote for them does not matter and won't be counted either because they are already knocked out or because the voter had one of the two major parties as their first preference so any remaining preference votes are pointless as they won't ever be counted.
I am talking about publicity, no it doesn't matter whether it's first preference. It doesn't matter whether they lose and get their votes transferred early, because they still get votes for them on record. As long as they have any real amount of first preference votes, they will still get a show of support that's from a diverse group. The preferential voting shows broad reaching support not just strong supporters or protest voters.
Again only if they have not put their first preference as a major party as if your chosen party is not eliminated your vote is not touched again.
That's just a repetition of what you said earlier. No, it doesn't matter, as long as they get a significant amount of primary votes from other people, your secondary votes still make a difference because it generates publicity and being pushed to vote in a preference list like this encourages the voters providing those secondary votes to engage with third parties on some level.
2. More third party supporters will actually put a vote supporting a third party because their votes will not wasted
Again only actually matters if it is the first preference of the voter. Anywhere else and it is a feel good sop that won;t actually be counted.
If you were considering voting for third party under US system, you are very likely to put a third party as your first preference. And even if it isn't firs preference it still does have an impact as per other reasons. Even if that impact isn't very big, or is unreliable, it's still there.
The only way it has an impact is if your first preference is for a party that got eliminated in the first round and there is another minor party that you had as your second preference.
If your first vote is for one of the major parties your second and subsequent preferences are irelevant as no one is going to look at them. Your vote is going to be put into the pile for the major party and just left there.
You have said that many times already. I have made it clear I am aware that if your primary vote is for a main party it's just going to stay there, and that if it's for a third party it's likely to end up going to be a major party. I am arguing there is more to it than it. Address those impacts directly, don't just repeat that major party often end up with all the votes.
3. Preference deals help compensate for spoiler effect in US
Which actively hurts the parties you are professing to help by making it even less likely that they will get the seat as in most cases any vote for them is going to be given to another party.
Preference deals aren't done unless it's in both parties interest. A third party isn't required to be involved in them, and a major party can't make it so.
(Before someone points it out, the spoiler effect was probably not the phrase I was looking for, in retrospect)
What preference deal? No one has mentioned anything about deals between the parties. This is something you have conconected out of thin air.
My initial point, right up there in your quote is explicitly talking about preference deals. It what way have preference deals not been mentioned? This particular chain of responses here is about them. What are you talking about?
What I am saying here is by the rules of the voting system you have said will magically fix all issues surrounding third parties
1. Pretty dishonest to portray my argument as proposing 'magically fixing' issues. I have provided clearly stated reasons, which you have so far barely addressed.
2. I am not proposing fixing 'all issues surrounding third parties'
3. I repeat that I am not proposing this system around the idea of benefiting third parties but you continuously make it at least look like that's what I am arguing.
. This actively hurts the smaller parties as if they had a plurality but not a majority under the current system they get the seat. Under your proposed system one of the other parties could pick up enough second and third preferance votes to steal the seat off them.
That's pretty much the entire premise of this set of points I provided that we are discussing- that there are what can be seen as potential disadvantages surrounding third parties, and I am arguing why there are other factors that actually benefit third parties to at least roughly compensate.
4. It is shown to the people and parties more clearly where the major parties are getting third party support from
Again only if it is shown in the first preference votes. If the minor parties are buried further down the preference scale they will get eliminated early and any 2nd/3rd preferences they might have picked up aren't going to be looked at.
As long as there is sufficient first preference for them to make any real showing, secondary preference come into significance because people do hear about them (again, not big differences, but they matter- hitting a critical threshold of publicity is going to be what usually makes a difference; just getting recognition out there).
And this happens under the current system where you also don't have that pesky eliminated at the first round problem making your brand look worse.
But, as the original point for this line of responses states, the major party voters and the major parties themselves also express preferences about third parties, which means a third party can get publicity of good reputation with major parties in order to build their own dedicated supporter base. It's a valuable entry point for third parties.
I think I see the problem here. Everyone is focusing on the actual results of the Election, ie. Representatives in the Government. While it seems DJK3654 isn't talking about that at all, and trying to get others to move on from there to address their point. DJK3654 wants the election to function not just as a tool for the purpose of electing individuals but also as an official poll of their ideals. With this information it would inform not just the major parties but the nation of where the majority of individuals stood on certain subjects, though then the whole party system obscures that quite a bit. The point isn't to give third parties any more support, it is just to show how much actual support they have. So while in the American 2016 election, Gary Johnson won 3.3 percent of the national popular vote, and Jill Stein 1.0 percent. DJK3654's problem is that this isn't reflective of their actual support, though we can't know how much they would have actually gotten if individuals didn't fear their votes 'not counting'. DJK3654 is saying that regardless of whether it would change things for worse, better or at all; the system would be 'better' if we could accurately gauge their popularity. Everyone talking about results is missing the point, because as far as results are concerned there is a minor difference between the current system and the preferential voting.
If I have misrepresented what you intended I apologize, I've been trying to make sense of what is actually being argued here and it seems like everyone is talking past one another with everyone so ingrained into their argument they aren't seeing what one another are talking about. That or I've completely missed what is going on and this distinction is only in my head.(it happens sometimes)
This only happens if people put them down as their first preference. And then they get knocked out in the first round. If they are any further down the preference scale then the additional vote for them does not matter and won't be counted either because they are already knocked out or because the voter had one of the two major parties as their first preference so any remaining preference votes are pointless as they won't ever be counted.
I am talking about publicity, no it doesn't matter whether it's first preference. It doesn't matter whether they lose and get their votes transferred early, because they still get votes for them on record. As long as they have any real amount of first preference votes, they will still get a show of support that's from a diverse group. The preferential voting shows broad reaching support not just strong supporters or protest voters.
Again only if they have not put their first preference as a major party as if your chosen party is not eliminated your vote is not touched again.
That's just a repetition of what you said earlier. No, it doesn't matter, as long as they get a significant amount of primary votes from other people, your secondary votes still make a difference because it generates publicity and being pushed to vote in a preference list like this encourages the voters providing those secondary votes to engage with third parties on some level.
Yes I have repeated my self. You want to know why? It is still because you have not addressed the fact that unless your first preference party is eliminated your vote is not touched again.
If it is just chucked into a big pile of votes for the major party and no one bothers to look at the second or third preferences let alone record them how do you work out the support of the minor parties. Answer you can't beyond those who used their first preference to vote for them.
Again the only thing Instant run off is designed to do and does is make sure the eventual winner has 51%+ of the vote. It does not actively help Third Parties get seats and it sure as hell does not act as a grand opinion pool to find out the 2nd and 3rd preferences of those who voted for a major party as a first preference.
If you want to find that out commission an Opinion poll to expressly find that information out. Or institute some form of Proportional representation. Don't claim that something designed so it can't provide the information you want is going to do so.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
I think that one thing that would also help is if we established what happens in an ranked choice election. Let's actually put this process into (hypothetical) action. For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to say 1,000 people voted in the 2016 election, then say the results lined up closely to the popular vote for the 6 candidates listed in this table for this thought experiment. Of the 1000 voters let's Democrats got 480 votes on the top line of the ballot, Republicans received 460 votes, Libertarians received 30 votes, Greens got 15 votes, McMullin earned 10 votes, and the Constitution Party received 5 votes.
We all know what happened in the Electoral college results. In a straight popular vote election, the Democrats would win. The first difference to establish is in a ranked choice election, no one would be declared the winner... yet. The goal of a ranked choice election is not to win the most votes. The goal is that no winner is declared until a candidate has won the majority of the overall vote: in this particular case no one will be declared the winner because no one earned 501 votes for this election. If someone had met that threshold, what's about to happen would not happen. But since that threshold was not met, pollsters start running instant runoffs.
When each person filled out their ballot, they ranked the six candidates they wanted to win followed by who they were willing to settle for as the victor. Each runoff, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated, and the voter's next preference is moved to the top line they indicated. This continues until someone has passed the threshold and earned a majority of the votes through these instant runoffs.
The first thing that happens is Darrell Castle is eliminated from the running because he had the least votes overall, so the five people who chose the CP now have their second option added to the vote total. We'll say three picked Trump as their second choice (making his vote total now 463) and two to Evan McMullin (making his vote total 12).
There is still no one with 501 votes, so now Evan McMullin is eliminated from the race. Evan McMullin's 12 votes will now go to his voters' second choice as they indicated on the ballot. I'll say 4 to Trump (now 467), 4 to Gary Johnson (now 34), and four to the Darrell Castle...? Wait, didn't I already eliminate him? What now? Simple, because Darrell Castle and the Constitution party were already eliminated, these voters' third option down is now considered their first, which I will say are all for Trump (vote count now 471).
None of the remaining candidates have reached 501 votes yet, so now Jill Stein is eliminated. For this wrinkle, five of the people that voted for Jill Stein did not rank anyone else in the election and instead chose to leave their ballot blank beyond voting for Jill Stein. What now? Now the threshold number to win changes because their ballots cannot continue in the process and are removed from consideration. There are now only 995 ballots from this point forward and the new threshold to be declared the winner is 498. Of the remaining ballots, 6 transfer to Clinton (now 486), 3 transfer to Trump (now 474), and 1 transfers to Gary Johnson (now 35).
So final round, and Gary Johnson is eliminated because no one has reached the current threshold of 498. So after eliminating already eliminated candidates from down the ranks like done previously with Darrell Castle, let's say that Hillary Clinton earns 10 more votes (now 496), Donald Trump earns 23 (Now 497) and the last two did not have an option that could be applied to either Clinton or Trump, so their votes are eliminated altogether, bring the victory threshold down to 497. Donald Trump meets the threshold and wins the election with just over half the vote.
First, let me not that in practice this process would probably not be spread out this long. Johnson, Stein, McMullin, and Castle would likely be eliminated at the same time because even if Johnson gained every vote below him, he'd still not come close to taking on a major party candidate. Second, there is a little quirk I'd like to point out: if every Clinton voter and every Trump voter picked we'll say Evan McMullin as their second choice, McMullin would win the popular vote if everyone's first choice was eliminated instead of those who do not have a chance of catching a majority. I'm not sure how big of deal that is, but my preemptive response is McMullin ran probably a good campaign for that to happen, but not good enough. He should, however, probably run again in the next election.
Third, and now getting to why I ran the numbers the way I did, Donald Trump won in this scenario anyway. Here's what changed though from how our election turned out in reality:
1.) Even if Hillary Clinton won a popular vote election, she'd still be facing badgering for being a "minority president." Under this system, even though Donald Trump is not the most popular candidate, he is the candidate that the majority of the whole is willing to settle for taking the job. Ergo, the "spoiler effect" has been eliminated.
2.) Democrats cannot pin this loss on the system... well, they can try, but there's a more pressing question they can't dodge now: why didn't more people put Democrat on their ballot or higher on the ballot?
3.) Post election, there's the possibility of the parties bleeding support. We'll stick with Democrats bleeding to Greens for this. If the Democrats start bleeding support to the Greens in a first past the post election, Democrats get weaker to the Republicans benefit until either the Green defectors retreat back to the Democrats or the Greens overtake the Republicans. In a ranked choice voting system, Democrats bleed support Greens, but neither party cedes power to the Republicans so long as those new Greens continue to include Democrats on their ballots and in a higher position than Republicans. Democrats still have to worry because now if they don't shore up their base, they risk being overtaken by the Green Party, and since the spoiler effect has been eliminated, Democrats can't say that voting for Greens will put Republicans in power as a reason to come back to the party. The focus remains on swaying on policy rather than a hang up in the voting system.
The whole point of the ranked-choice voting system is to eliminate voting out of fear. Which, to be honest, drives a substantial amount of the vote. A lot of people voted for Trump not because they liked Trump, but simply because they feared Clinton, and vice versa.
This game theory incentivizes the major parties to run subpar candidates instead of good ones, knowing that people are going to hold their nose and vote for the bad candidate.
The whole point of the ranked-choice voting system is to eliminate voting out of fear. Which, to be honest, drives a substantial amount of the vote. A lot of people voted for Trump not because they liked Trump, but simply because they feared Clinton, and vice versa.
This game theory incentivizes the major parties to run subpar candidates instead of good ones, knowing that people are going to hold their nose and vote for the bad candidate.
That's something that has been bothering me for a while with a lot of elections, not all, but quite a lot of them. It really shouldn't come down to the lesser of two evils as it were when it comes to political voting. As you said though, the current system doesn't really hold the major parties feet to the fire as it were enough to get them to put out better candidates. I wish it did, and I wish I could see elections on a more regular basis that were more about the best of the best, rather than the less worse of the worst. I hope this last election will get both major parties to realize something needs to change, and I hope that the third party candidates can step it up given what happened and start giving the major parties even more reason to do better if they want to be able to win in the end (with the current system we have anyway). And who knows perhaps this last election could be the beginning of a push that will start getting those third party candidates some more coverage and attention and we might actually see some Perot-like numbers again for a third party candidate to really get things going.
I do think it would be interesting to find out how people would have voted if they voted only based on ideology and who they honestly felt the best candidate would be for the political position being voted on, I agree with the OP and others in that area that inevitably with that in mind I think you would certainly see the numbers for the third party candidates rise as a result of that, but how much it actually would rise is the question, and I'm just not sure we've seen the right person come along for that in the third party ranks to be able to give the other two parties a run for their money even in such a situation.
That's something that has been bothering me for a while with a lot of elections, not all, but quite a lot of them. It really shouldn't come down to the lesser of two evils as it were when it comes to political voting. As you said though, the current system doesn't really hold the major parties feet to the fire as it were enough to get them to put out better candidates. I wish it did, and I wish I could see elections on a more regular basis that were more about the best of the best, rather than the less worse of the worst. I hope this last election will get both major parties to realize something needs to change, and I hope that the third party candidates can step it up given what happened and start giving the major parties even more reason to do better if they want to be able to win in the end (with the current system we have anyway). And who knows perhaps this last election could be the beginning of a push that will start getting those third party candidates some more coverage and attention and we might actually see some Perot-like numbers again for a third party candidate to really get things going.
I do think it would be interesting to find out how people would have voted if they voted only based on ideology and who they honestly felt the best candidate would be for the political position being voted on, I agree with the OP and others in that area that inevitably with that in mind I think you would certainly see the numbers for the third party candidates rise as a result of that, but how much it actually would rise is the question, and I'm just not sure we've seen the right person come along for that in the third party ranks to be able to give the other two parties a run for their money even in such a situation.
I don't see the major parties changing much after this election, mostly because of how polarization drives politics in today's world.
Decades ago, when a major party ran a bad candidate, they would get destroyed in the general election. See: Barry Goldwater in 1964, George McGovern in 1972, and Walter Mondale in 1984. Those guys suffered horrific defeats because people didn't hold their nose to vote for "their guy". So many Democrats crossed the aisle to vote for Reagan that there is actually a political term coined for the phenomenon, Reagan Democrats. Today, the party affiliation is so ingrained in most individuals that it's almost equivalent to your gender or race. People don't split their tickets because they believe voting for the other party is like committing treason.
I agree that voter fraud is a very small amount. But, that shouldn't mean we pretend it doesn't exist. But, please try to realize that it's not just the Right that believes in the existence of voter fraud. Jill Stein, a Leftist-Socialist alleged voter fraud in 3 states last year.
Circling back to this. The voter fraud that that Jill Stein was worrying about in the latest go round is a vastly different beast to the demon that gets raised by the Republican party.
Jill was echoing a concern that some voting machines were not fit for purpose and were hacked by parties unknown. With the knowledge that some of the machines are known to be insecure and have been rejected by other jursisticions that could be seen as a valid concern.
The Demon that Republicans like to raise is hordes of illegal voters piling in and voting 'wrong'. This is a fig leaf designed to provide cover for the fact that people are voting 'wrong' (for people other than the Republican party) and the Voter Id laws are put in place to stop people who make a habit of voting 'wrong' from voting. The threat of large scale In Person Voter fraud has been proved to be nonexistent yet keeps being treated like it is the apocalypse.
Other than the fact that both raise the concern about Fraud there is nothing that links the 2 sides together.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Let's say in a given election, the majority of voters are going to vote for Candidate A or Candidate B. There are other candidates, but it's mostly either going to be Candidate A or Candidate B. None of the other candidates will get enough votes to be in the running to win by simple majority.
What if I object to both of them? What if I don't want Candidate A or Candidate B to take power? Maybe I might prefer one or the other, but what if the answer is, "It doesn't matter, either one of them would be legitimate disaster"? Hell, let's just call them Kang and Kodos for the sake of convenience. What if I don't want to vote for Kang or Kodos? What if I, given a choice between them, would choose neither, because I wouldn't want either one?
If the system requires me to end up voting for one or the other after my candidate is eliminated, even if I don't want to do so, then the system cannot be considered a free election, because you're forcing me to vote against my own will.
If the system allows me to not vote for either party, but then decides it's going to discard my vote - because all of the people I've actually stated preferences for have been eliminated, and I haven't stated a preference for either of the candidates that have yet to be eliminated - this is also unfair. This is no different from a system in which a person were only given the choice to vote for one of the two parties or not vote at all, as all of the votes otherwise are treated as not counting.
So the only way the system can be argued to be fair is if the system were to allow me to not vote for either party, but still have the vote count in any meaningful way. Our current system does this. I'm not sure preferential voting would.
Highroller you only have the option of voting for other parties in Instant roll off voting. If you only want to vote for a single party you can mark them down to have your first preference then leave the rest of the ballot blank.
If your party is then knocked out in one of the early rounds your vote is then just discarded then total pool of votes and therefore the target number of votes needed to win goes down.
This is part of what both Blinking_spirit and I meant when we said when each of the voting methods has there own issues.
In the method that both the US and the UK use for the house of representatives you can have a Representative get the seat with a plurality of the votes but not a majority, with instant run off you are guaranteed to get the 51% of the vote but it throughs up other issues.
It really is a case of you pays your money you takes your choice of system along with its range of issues.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
If the system allows me to not vote for either party, but then decides it's going to discard my vote - because all of the people I've actually stated preferences for have been eliminated, and I haven't stated a preference for either of the candidates that have yet to be eliminated - this is also unfair. This is no different from a system in which a person were only given the choice to vote for one of the two parties or not vote at all, as all of the votes otherwise are treated as not counting.
That is the equivalent of you staying home and not voting. All the candidates in the election either are not to your liking or they lack the support to get elected. Your preferences are simply not shared by enough of your fellow voters which is a natural occurrence in a democracy. I really do not see what is unfair about it. Your opinions is simply too unpopular in the community you live in and does not have a significant impact on the results of the election. Your vote really does not matter but at least it has been definitely proven that it does not matter.
Highroller you only have the option of voting for other parties in Instant roll off voting. If you only want to vote for a single party you can mark them down to have your first preference then leave the rest of the ballot blank.
If your party is then knocked out in one of the early rounds your vote is then just discarded then total pool of votes and therefore the target number of votes needed to win goes down.
Right, which is why I don't think this is preferable to our current system. In our current system, third party votes do not get bumped out, they still continue to remain relevant because their votes are still counted in the total votes, and there is the possibility of the spoiler effect. Whereas the preferential vote system removes this.
It's been suggested that this system might be better for third parties, or more representative. It seems neither is true.
This is part of what both Blinking_spirit and I meant when we said when each of the voting methods has there own issues.
Agreed. I'm just saying I don't see this preferential voting system as being obviously superior to the US.
That is just untrue. Because, as I just pointed out, third parties do actually win. Your vote will not always go the major party. You are ignoring the fact that in the situation where the third party could actually win, the preference vote does not need to change. What you are saying here is absurd. The whole structure of the preferential voting system is based around giving support to multiple candidates.
It absolutely matters, including to elections, that you can put a third party first then a major party later.
Yes, Highroller they do that in the US. But they can't do that and express a preference about the major parties. So are you admitting the primary vote for a third party does actually matter in that it's comparable to the US, and that therefore this is something to be said about being able to do that and make a compromise vote on the major parties?
Highroller, did you not just say a vote for a third party in the preferential system is like a vote for a third party in the US? Indicating that in fact, my solution actually does everything it claims to do?
Stop saying the primary vote doesn't matter, because it does. I have given you multiple reasons for this, to which you have given very limited responses, and it really shouldn't be hard to accept.
Can we please move on from debating whether a fundamental point of how preferential voting works is actually how preferential voting works?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
The word 'rarely' does indicate that it happens.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
No you have given multiple theoretical reasons for your case. But you have kept running into the same cold hard realities of the US situation. That being the minor parties are going to be the ones eliminated early so a vote for them will end up being a vote for the major party most likely ensuring that one of them gets more than 50% of the vote.
This is what Alternative vote aka Instant run-off is designed to do. Gradually weed out the smaller parties until you have 1 party that secures a majority and do it in a single visit to the ballot box.
Could this result in a smaller party gaining a seat in parliment that would other wise go to a larger party. Yes if they are fortunate enough to get enough votes in the first round to not be eliminated and then pick up enough second/third preference votes from the people who voted for those eliminated parties. Yes but if that happens it is a happy accident.
You are arguing that this side effect is the main reason for implenting Instant run off voting. I hate to tell you this but you are wrong it isn't. It is designed to make more people feel like they had an effect on the election with out changing the result to much. Unless the 3rd party/independant candidate is very well liked or is the incumbant one of the 2 major parties is most likely going to get the seat the only difference is that in picking up second and third preferences they are guarenteed 51% of the vote.
If you truely want to boost 3rd party results purely by changing what happens at the ballot box you need to have some form of proportional representation. Either full proportional representation where you vote for a party list and they work out which people gets the seats or some kind of mixed member representation.
Otherwise you are just going to get into a similar situation where very little has changed. Independants/Small parties will still be picking up the odd seat here and there where they have good representation but the major parties will still take the majority of the seats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Some very good points. I obviously didn't opt to lay out a bulleted plan for voter ID implementation.
1) I think all adult (18+) legal US citizens should have a photo ID that is beyond a simple drivers license. A DL alone does not cover everyone. And the ID should be updated in a regular incremental basis with a current photo, living address, and other pertinent information. This could serve multiple purposes, as it gets the homeless into the system and makes them easier to locate and assist.
2) I don't think we need to register voters at birth. Voting is a choice, at 18 years old I think every US citizen should register for the draft, mandatory, (men and women), and register to vote (optional). Tracking anything before that is a waste of time and money.
3) The job of tracking and removing deceased from the voting registrar should be done as a part of the verification of the death certificate by the city/county clerks office. Where they notify financial institutions, the social security office, etc of the deceased. They should in turn, remove you from voter registry and flag your social security number in the system so that it wont let another person register to vote using that same social security number in the future.
4) I cannot solve the homeless problem, nor can anyone on this forum. Whether they are homeless and penniless through circumstance, bad breaks, or poor life choices their vote is no less valuable than mine or yours. That said, educating the homeless on their voting rights, times, and dates, and candidates is probably less important to them than helping them get education in general, food, work, or a place to stay. I would hope that in the process of providing them the bare necessities of life, that would provide an opportunity to introduce politics, as a way of voicing their plight to leaders to try and help their situations. I cannot speak for them.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
To say "third parties might win" is meaningless. Yes, they do win. They also win here. And it's the same damn thing when a third party or independent actually is competitive over here, so once again you've not changed anything.
Which ultimately plays out exactly the same way as the scenario in our system that you're complaining about when the third party isn't competitive - that you end up switching your vote for the competitive party.
Of course not. I'm saying the primary vote doesn't matter, it's a superficial distinction, as perfunctory as someone saying, "Your call is important to us," while putting you on hold.
You've given nothing more than a repetition that it does matter with no justification.
Ultimately, the result is exactly the same. Ultimately your vote still gets changed. So you're complaining about people changing their vote because their party isn't competitive, and your proposed solution is something that not only doesn't actually solve this, it's entirely framed around
Once again:
You're framing this as some sort of solution when the whole system is based on doing the exact same thing you object to. And in fact, it actually lessens the effectiveness of grievances or protests, because it actually removes incentive for the major parties to give concessions to third party voters.
Yes, I have. Yes, they are different situations so you could change to do the same thing in the US system, but then the voter has to figure out whether they think the third party will win or not, and because that's not likely, a lot of people are just going to decide no in almost every case, so it accentuates itself.
Under the preferential voting system, the voter doesn't have to try to figure out whether it's worth voting third party if they prefer them, they just put them high on the preference list. Therefore importantly here, you don't get third parties losing elections they could have won because voters were scared of wasting their votes. Because your vote doesn't get wasted.
I have told you repeatedly, explicitly, that I am not complaining that people switch their votes to a major party. Repeating that I am is only weakening your argument. So don't.
What I am complaining about is that compromise votes don't give you any room to show support for a third party at the same time. Preferential voting definitively solves that issue. Not to say there aren't potential downsides, talking about major party dominance and whether preferential voting will actually increase that, that's a valid concern. But this point matters to people, whether you think it does or not. If voting is about the people getting what they want, then surely this is valuable?
So is unimportant then. Third party votes are a complete waste unless the third party could realistically win?
Because if they are not, then my point applies- and I'll tell you that there are definitely plenty of people who find third party votes even when they won't win to be worthwhile. So I advocate giving these people the ability to express a major party preference as well as their ideological statement.
Because I was talking about the third party vote as a statement and you said you can do the same in the US. Well you can do that in Australia alongside a compromise vote as well, which is exactly what I have been saying.
Oh really?
What does that look like to you? I'm calling you on this.
And to reiterate, it does all these things while allowing you to put down a compromise vote alongside it.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I don't mind that. It's not like third party are winning all these elections in the US that they will now lose. It's maybe not ideal, but the system is not really ever going to be.
No, I'm not. I am arguing the main reason for implementing a preferential vote (note that instant run off isn't necessarily the system I am suggesting should be put in place, but one that uses preferential voting of some kind, instant run off being a main way of doing that), is to give people the freedom to express a more sophisticated preference. Namely, not having to compromise being showing support for a third party and providing a compromise vote. That in and of itself is my main argument.
Boosting 3rd party results for the sake of it is unethical and not what I am arguing.
I'd argue preferential voting helps third party in that
1. They get a greater show of election support and therefore publicity, because more people will generally show support for them even if secondary to other parties
2. More third party supporters will actually put a vote supporting a third party because their votes will not wasted
3. Preference deals help compensate for spoiler effect in US
4. It is shown to the people and parties more clearly where the major parties are getting third party support from
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I really don't want a second flame warning (which I earned the first), but no one shifts a vote where a voter themselves does not indicate on a ballot and saying otherwise is at best a strawman attack. If I want to vote for the Green Party and no one else, then I mark Green, then don't rank anyone else on the ballot. If I want to vote for a third party because I want to support their party but at the same time don't want the Democrats to win, then I rank all the other parties. If I want to Democrats to be my second choice, then I mark it as such. Under ranked voting (or instant runoff), I have complete control of what happens to my ballot. In fact, I have more control over it than I do now with first past the post voting.
I fail to see the "asinine"ness of this.
Furthermore, the immediate difference is 3rd Parties can grow. For example, if Ranked choice voting had existed in 2000, the Green Party would be a nationally recognized party right now, the Libertarian Party would likely be nationally recognized right now, the Reform Party may not have fallen to the wayside after Ross Perot's second run, and Donald Trump would not have won the presidential nomination in the 2016 Republican presidential primary.
Except there are areas in which the race is going to be between a Republican/Democrat and an Independent, with the Democrat/Republican candidate being a cypher. That happens at the local level, and at the Senate/House level.
The point I'm trying to make is there's no real effective difference here between the preferential voting and the US voting, and that DJK is complaining about certain realities about voting in the US that don't end up really changing under preferential voting.
Specifically, DJK is complaining about how people who are voting for a third party candidate in a situation in which the two major parties end up being overwhelmingly dominant must either vote for the third party and get blown out, or vote for one of the two major parties because those two are actually popular, and in so doing not vote for the party that's actually idealistically closer to them.
The problem with this is this situation is not at all solved by preferential voting, because the same damn thing happens. The only difference is both scenarios happen at the same time, so you still end up ultimately voting for the person whom you weren't really a match for idealistically. And he's trumpeting this like it's some great triumph. Yes, congratulations, instead of switching your vote to Joe Candidate as opposed to Third Party Option, someone else switched it for you. Boy, you sure beat the system there.
It's a completely baffling mindset to me, because he's expressing that it's a problem that people end up voting the candidate they don't really want, but his proposed solution is to make them have to do it anyway. It's like when someone tells a character in a sitcom to do something, and then the character does it, but retorts, "Alright, I'm doing it, BUT NOT BECAUSE YOU WANT ME TO!" And that's funny, but it's funny specifically because he's treating it like a victory when it isn't. He's still done the thing that the person asked him to do. The same result ended up happening. Yes, he expressed his grievance, but no one gives a damn. That's why it's comedy. Yet DJK doesn't get the joke.[/quote]
Ranked choice voting makes "the spoiler effect" impossible. In combination with my point that there's no requirement to rank candidates above, I fail to see how you are not on board with this.
1. Ballots are a more accurate expression of preference by including people are willing to settle on, allowing minor parties to gain support without eating into major party totals.
2. Multiple parties don't have to jab elbows out of fear of spoilers and can focus on jabbing elbows over issues.
3. The population as a whole picks a majority candidate, not just a candidate that got the most [electoral] votes (yes there's a difference, even Hillary Clinton could have still lost in 2016 under instant runoff system because she only won 48% of the vote, requiring an instant runoff of ranked votes).
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
This only happens if people put them down as their first preference. And then they get knocked out in the first round. If they are any further down the preference scale then the additional vote for them does not matter and won't be counted either because they are already knocked out or because the voter had one of the two major parties as their first preference so any remaining preference votes are pointless as they won't ever be counted.
Again only actually matters if it is the first preference of the voter. Anywhere else and it is a feel good sop that won;t actually be counted.
Which actively hurts the parties you are professing to help by making it even less likely that they will get the seat as in most cases any vote for them is going to be given to another party.
Again only if it is shown in the first preference votes. If the minor parties are buried further down the preference scale they will get eliminated early and any 2nd/3rd preferences they might have picked up aren't going to be looked at.
Again to boost the third parties or to get them more visibility, changing what happens in the voting booth is the last thing you should do. There are a hell of a lot of other issues that need to be sorted out first.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Listing order is easy-ish to fix. You can randomise once (which gives an advantage but at random) or you can have multiple sets of ballot papers where each candidate gets to be first once and yo get a random one. The later can obviously get expensive if you have a large N of candidates, but is doable.
I am talking about publicity, no it doesn't matter whether it's first preference. It doesn't matter whether they lose and get their votes transferred early, because they still get votes for them on record. As long as they have any real amount of first preference votes, they will still get a show of support that's from a diverse group. The preferential voting shows broad reaching support not just strong supporters or protest voters.
If you were considering voting for third party under US system, you are very likely to put a third party as your first preference. And even if it isn't firs preference it still does have an impact as per other reasons. Even if that impact isn't very big, or is unreliable, it's still there.
Preference deals aren't done unless it's in both parties interest. A third party isn't required to be involved in them, and a major party can't make it so.
(Before someone points it out, the spoiler effect was probably not the phrase I was looking for, in retrospect)
As long as there is sufficient first preference for them to make any real showing, secondary preference come into significance because people do hear about them (again, not big differences, but they matter- hitting a critical threshold of publicity is going to be what usually makes a difference; just getting recognition out there).
I repeat, my priority is not to help third parties in any way. That's a consideration, not a crucial point here.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Again only if they have not put their first preference as a major party as if your chosen party is not eliminated your vote is not touched again.
The only way it has an impact is if your first preference is for a party that got eliminated in the first round and there is another minor party that you had as your second preference.
If your first vote is for one of the major parties your second and subsequent preferences are irelevant as no one is going to look at them. Your vote is going to be put into the pile for the major party and just left there.
What preference deal? No one has mentioned anything about deals between the parties. This is something you have conconected out of thin air.
What I am saying here is by the rules of the voting system you have said will magically fix all issues surrounding third parties that if a voters first preference is eliminated their second preference is going to be looked at and given to that party and again in a third round until a candidate gets 51% of the vote. This actively hurts the smaller parties as if they had a plurality but not a majority under the current system they get the seat. Under your proposed system one of the other parties could pick up enough second and third preferance votes to steal the seat off them.
And this happens under the current system where you also don't have that pesky eliminated at the first round problem making your brand look worse.
Then what is your crucial point? If it isn't ensure that each candidate gets 51% of the vote you are arguing for the wrong voting system cause that is what Alternative Vote/Instant Run off is designed to give you. Not increase the exposure of the minor parties in any way shape or form.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
That's just a repetition of what you said earlier. No, it doesn't matter, as long as they get a significant amount of primary votes from other people, your secondary votes still make a difference because it generates publicity and being pushed to vote in a preference list like this encourages the voters providing those secondary votes to engage with third parties on some level.
You have said that many times already. I have made it clear I am aware that if your primary vote is for a main party it's just going to stay there, and that if it's for a third party it's likely to end up going to be a major party. I am arguing there is more to it than it. Address those impacts directly, don't just repeat that major party often end up with all the votes.
My initial point, right up there in your quote is explicitly talking about preference deals. It what way have preference deals not been mentioned? This particular chain of responses here is about them. What are you talking about?
1. Pretty dishonest to portray my argument as proposing 'magically fixing' issues. I have provided clearly stated reasons, which you have so far barely addressed.
2. I am not proposing fixing 'all issues surrounding third parties'
3. I repeat that I am not proposing this system around the idea of benefiting third parties but you continuously make it at least look like that's what I am arguing.
That's pretty much the entire premise of this set of points I provided that we are discussing- that there are what can be seen as potential disadvantages surrounding third parties, and I am arguing why there are other factors that actually benefit third parties to at least roughly compensate.
But, as the original point for this line of responses states, the major party voters and the major parties themselves also express preferences about third parties, which means a third party can get publicity of good reputation with major parties in order to build their own dedicated supporter base. It's a valuable entry point for third parties.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
If I have misrepresented what you intended I apologize, I've been trying to make sense of what is actually being argued here and it seems like everyone is talking past one another with everyone so ingrained into their argument they aren't seeing what one another are talking about. That or I've completely missed what is going on and this distinction is only in my head.(it happens sometimes)
Yes I have repeated my self. You want to know why? It is still because you have not addressed the fact that unless your first preference party is eliminated your vote is not touched again.
If it is just chucked into a big pile of votes for the major party and no one bothers to look at the second or third preferences let alone record them how do you work out the support of the minor parties. Answer you can't beyond those who used their first preference to vote for them.
Again the only thing Instant run off is designed to do and does is make sure the eventual winner has 51%+ of the vote. It does not actively help Third Parties get seats and it sure as hell does not act as a grand opinion pool to find out the 2nd and 3rd preferences of those who voted for a major party as a first preference.
If you want to find that out commission an Opinion poll to expressly find that information out. Or institute some form of Proportional representation. Don't claim that something designed so it can't provide the information you want is going to do so.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
We all know what happened in the Electoral college results. In a straight popular vote election, the Democrats would win. The first difference to establish is in a ranked choice election, no one would be declared the winner... yet. The goal of a ranked choice election is not to win the most votes. The goal is that no winner is declared until a candidate has won the majority of the overall vote: in this particular case no one will be declared the winner because no one earned 501 votes for this election. If someone had met that threshold, what's about to happen would not happen. But since that threshold was not met, pollsters start running instant runoffs.
When each person filled out their ballot, they ranked the six candidates they wanted to win followed by who they were willing to settle for as the victor. Each runoff, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated, and the voter's next preference is moved to the top line they indicated. This continues until someone has passed the threshold and earned a majority of the votes through these instant runoffs.
The first thing that happens is Darrell Castle is eliminated from the running because he had the least votes overall, so the five people who chose the CP now have their second option added to the vote total. We'll say three picked Trump as their second choice (making his vote total now 463) and two to Evan McMullin (making his vote total 12).
There is still no one with 501 votes, so now Evan McMullin is eliminated from the race. Evan McMullin's 12 votes will now go to his voters' second choice as they indicated on the ballot. I'll say 4 to Trump (now 467), 4 to Gary Johnson (now 34), and four to the Darrell Castle...? Wait, didn't I already eliminate him? What now? Simple, because Darrell Castle and the Constitution party were already eliminated, these voters' third option down is now considered their first, which I will say are all for Trump (vote count now 471).
None of the remaining candidates have reached 501 votes yet, so now Jill Stein is eliminated. For this wrinkle, five of the people that voted for Jill Stein did not rank anyone else in the election and instead chose to leave their ballot blank beyond voting for Jill Stein. What now? Now the threshold number to win changes because their ballots cannot continue in the process and are removed from consideration. There are now only 995 ballots from this point forward and the new threshold to be declared the winner is 498. Of the remaining ballots, 6 transfer to Clinton (now 486), 3 transfer to Trump (now 474), and 1 transfers to Gary Johnson (now 35).
So final round, and Gary Johnson is eliminated because no one has reached the current threshold of 498. So after eliminating already eliminated candidates from down the ranks like done previously with Darrell Castle, let's say that Hillary Clinton earns 10 more votes (now 496), Donald Trump earns 23 (Now 497) and the last two did not have an option that could be applied to either Clinton or Trump, so their votes are eliminated altogether, bring the victory threshold down to 497. Donald Trump meets the threshold and wins the election with just over half the vote.
First, let me not that in practice this process would probably not be spread out this long. Johnson, Stein, McMullin, and Castle would likely be eliminated at the same time because even if Johnson gained every vote below him, he'd still not come close to taking on a major party candidate. Second, there is a little quirk I'd like to point out: if every Clinton voter and every Trump voter picked we'll say Evan McMullin as their second choice, McMullin would win the popular vote if everyone's first choice was eliminated instead of those who do not have a chance of catching a majority. I'm not sure how big of deal that is, but my preemptive response is McMullin ran probably a good campaign for that to happen, but not good enough. He should, however, probably run again in the next election.
Third, and now getting to why I ran the numbers the way I did, Donald Trump won in this scenario anyway. Here's what changed though from how our election turned out in reality:
1.) Even if Hillary Clinton won a popular vote election, she'd still be facing badgering for being a "minority president." Under this system, even though Donald Trump is not the most popular candidate, he is the candidate that the majority of the whole is willing to settle for taking the job. Ergo, the "spoiler effect" has been eliminated.
2.) Democrats cannot pin this loss on the system... well, they can try, but there's a more pressing question they can't dodge now: why didn't more people put Democrat on their ballot or higher on the ballot?
3.) Post election, there's the possibility of the parties bleeding support. We'll stick with Democrats bleeding to Greens for this. If the Democrats start bleeding support to the Greens in a first past the post election, Democrats get weaker to the Republicans benefit until either the Green defectors retreat back to the Democrats or the Greens overtake the Republicans. In a ranked choice voting system, Democrats bleed support Greens, but neither party cedes power to the Republicans so long as those new Greens continue to include Democrats on their ballots and in a higher position than Republicans. Democrats still have to worry because now if they don't shore up their base, they risk being overtaken by the Green Party, and since the spoiler effect has been eliminated, Democrats can't say that voting for Greens will put Republicans in power as a reason to come back to the party. The focus remains on swaying on policy rather than a hang up in the voting system.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
This game theory incentivizes the major parties to run subpar candidates instead of good ones, knowing that people are going to hold their nose and vote for the bad candidate.
That's something that has been bothering me for a while with a lot of elections, not all, but quite a lot of them. It really shouldn't come down to the lesser of two evils as it were when it comes to political voting. As you said though, the current system doesn't really hold the major parties feet to the fire as it were enough to get them to put out better candidates. I wish it did, and I wish I could see elections on a more regular basis that were more about the best of the best, rather than the less worse of the worst. I hope this last election will get both major parties to realize something needs to change, and I hope that the third party candidates can step it up given what happened and start giving the major parties even more reason to do better if they want to be able to win in the end (with the current system we have anyway). And who knows perhaps this last election could be the beginning of a push that will start getting those third party candidates some more coverage and attention and we might actually see some Perot-like numbers again for a third party candidate to really get things going.
I do think it would be interesting to find out how people would have voted if they voted only based on ideology and who they honestly felt the best candidate would be for the political position being voted on, I agree with the OP and others in that area that inevitably with that in mind I think you would certainly see the numbers for the third party candidates rise as a result of that, but how much it actually would rise is the question, and I'm just not sure we've seen the right person come along for that in the third party ranks to be able to give the other two parties a run for their money even in such a situation.
I don't see the major parties changing much after this election, mostly because of how polarization drives politics in today's world.
Decades ago, when a major party ran a bad candidate, they would get destroyed in the general election. See: Barry Goldwater in 1964, George McGovern in 1972, and Walter Mondale in 1984. Those guys suffered horrific defeats because people didn't hold their nose to vote for "their guy". So many Democrats crossed the aisle to vote for Reagan that there is actually a political term coined for the phenomenon, Reagan Democrats. Today, the party affiliation is so ingrained in most individuals that it's almost equivalent to your gender or race. People don't split their tickets because they believe voting for the other party is like committing treason.
Circling back to this. The voter fraud that that Jill Stein was worrying about in the latest go round is a vastly different beast to the demon that gets raised by the Republican party.
Jill was echoing a concern that some voting machines were not fit for purpose and were hacked by parties unknown. With the knowledge that some of the machines are known to be insecure and have been rejected by other jursisticions that could be seen as a valid concern.
The Demon that Republicans like to raise is hordes of illegal voters piling in and voting 'wrong'. This is a fig leaf designed to provide cover for the fact that people are voting 'wrong' (for people other than the Republican party) and the Voter Id laws are put in place to stop people who make a habit of voting 'wrong' from voting. The threat of large scale In Person Voter fraud has been proved to be nonexistent yet keeps being treated like it is the apocalypse.
Other than the fact that both raise the concern about Fraud there is nothing that links the 2 sides together.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Let's say in a given election, the majority of voters are going to vote for Candidate A or Candidate B. There are other candidates, but it's mostly either going to be Candidate A or Candidate B. None of the other candidates will get enough votes to be in the running to win by simple majority.
What if I object to both of them? What if I don't want Candidate A or Candidate B to take power? Maybe I might prefer one or the other, but what if the answer is, "It doesn't matter, either one of them would be legitimate disaster"? Hell, let's just call them Kang and Kodos for the sake of convenience. What if I don't want to vote for Kang or Kodos? What if I, given a choice between them, would choose neither, because I wouldn't want either one?
If the system requires me to end up voting for one or the other after my candidate is eliminated, even if I don't want to do so, then the system cannot be considered a free election, because you're forcing me to vote against my own will.
If the system allows me to not vote for either party, but then decides it's going to discard my vote - because all of the people I've actually stated preferences for have been eliminated, and I haven't stated a preference for either of the candidates that have yet to be eliminated - this is also unfair. This is no different from a system in which a person were only given the choice to vote for one of the two parties or not vote at all, as all of the votes otherwise are treated as not counting.
So the only way the system can be argued to be fair is if the system were to allow me to not vote for either party, but still have the vote count in any meaningful way. Our current system does this. I'm not sure preferential voting would.
If your party is then knocked out in one of the early rounds your vote is then just discarded then total pool of votes and therefore the target number of votes needed to win goes down.
This is part of what both Blinking_spirit and I meant when we said when each of the voting methods has there own issues.
In the method that both the US and the UK use for the house of representatives you can have a Representative get the seat with a plurality of the votes but not a majority, with instant run off you are guaranteed to get the 51% of the vote but it throughs up other issues.
It really is a case of you pays your money you takes your choice of system along with its range of issues.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
That is the equivalent of you staying home and not voting. All the candidates in the election either are not to your liking or they lack the support to get elected. Your preferences are simply not shared by enough of your fellow voters which is a natural occurrence in a democracy. I really do not see what is unfair about it. Your opinions is simply too unpopular in the community you live in and does not have a significant impact on the results of the election. Your vote really does not matter but at least it has been definitely proven that it does not matter.
It's been suggested that this system might be better for third parties, or more representative. It seems neither is true.
Agreed. I'm just saying I don't see this preferential voting system as being obviously superior to the US.
So anyone who doesn't vote for the two dominant candidates is effectively disenfranchised? Cool.
No, not all of them, the two major ones are not to my liking. I may like a candidate or several, but all of them were removed from the race.