posted
What, a dem from a state unlikely to swing swaps with a rep from a swing state? I'm too lazy to paste your URL. But it's the only thing that makes sense. Why on Earth would anyone do that?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, Nader votes for Kerry votes. I get it. After all the tricks dems have played to keep Nader off ballots, there is no way I would trust such a system from the dem side. It might work on the republican side, though. Hey, Shigosei!
posted
I also noticed the little "blurb" at the bottom where a Republican member of the Electoral College would refrain from voting for Bush if Bush won the state because he opposes the war.
posted
Umm, yeah, whatever. It was sure nice knowing that guy, whoever he is. That, to me, is like the pharmacist who won't prescribe the pill. Why participate in a system if you don't like the rules? And if that was the express reason for participating, then that delegate sucks.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just one more reason the electoral college needs to be broken up into smaller chunks. I mean, if you have small regions of about half a million people instead of states, wouldn't it be a more correct assessment of the general population's desire for a president? I mean, I know for sure there are Republican parts of California who's votes don't really ammount to anything in the electoral college, since Cali is a predominantly democratic state. And I know there are parts of North Carolina that are Democratic. I don't know. Just something I've been thinking about lately. I think the Electoral college is stupid the way it is.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's to stop people from saying that they are trading their vote, and then lying about who they will vote for?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not only is the electoral college stupid, the one-vote system is stupid. The one-vote system necessarily instigates this two-party system we seem to be stuck with. There are fascinating other voting systems that could be put in place and offer many more benefits with fewer cons.
Unfortunately, I doubt the US population is ready for such schemes.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not sure about the electoral college being stupid, but our one-vote system certainly is. I'm a fan of approval voting, though instant runoff voting is also a good alternative. Of course this will never be implemented for the presidential election. At least not in my lifetime.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like instant runoff voting. The possibility that some voters placing a particular candidate lower on their list might increase the chance of that candidate winning than if they placed the candidate higher seems like a gaping flaw in the system to me.
posted
Dag, that worry I think comes from trying to apply current voting system assumptions as to what a vote is to the run-off system, which, while not perfect, has fewer paradoxes than our current.
I think the best way to look at run-off votes is to think of them as preferences, ranked most preferable to least. In a way, this MORE reflects reality, since most people don't completely agree with any one candidate. To me a runoff vote says that for the president of the USA (for example) I most strongly PREFER Candidate X, then Y, then Z is the one a prefer least.
One amend ment may be to allow people to only list who they actually would prefer; though the problem here is that it could just devolve into what we currently have.
Psst, Dag, am I your minion yet? I applied in the "Chad" thread. Let me know the initiation rites, okay?
posted
Yeah. Which is why I prefer approval voting. Though there are some problems with that also. For one, there is no way to distinguish between the candidate you really want and the candidate who is merely ok. Also, the winner of an approval election is the candidate whom most people can tolerate, not necessarily their first choice. This last is not necessarily a bad thing.
It'd be interesting to see polls based on these voting systems.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know what would be cool is if people's issues records could be converted into a battle bot or a Pokemon and then they could duke it out in the ring. Welfare could be the claws. Military spending could be the shell. Pro life would be wheels and Pro choice would be tracs. Debt would be the flamethrower potential.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Psst, Dag, am I your minion yet? I applied in the "Chad" thread. Let me know the initiation rites, okay?
You posted that after I gave up on that thread.
So far the only duty for Dag-minions I can think of is to steadfastly maintain that Bruce Campbell is the awesome, and that Ash is far superior to Jack Burton as a hero when monsters are on the loose.
I'm sure more will occur to me as my plans for world domination coalesce.
quote: Not sure about the electoral college being stupid, but our one-vote system certainly is.
Absolutely. I think that those who agree with me should get 2 votes, and those that disagree should get 1.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was an important reason women got the vote out west before most of the rest of the country - it gave families more electoral power against the large number of single males.
posted
Actually, Dag, women got the vote in New Jersey from the get go, but then "messed up" several elections, so far as the men were concerned, and had the vote taken from them.
Of course, this *is* according to one of those Reader's Digest "Little Known Facts in American History" books, so who knows if it's actually true?
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh. How exactly would the men do that? I guess not by a vote.
You want a real change in our voting system, that would do away with voting for people at all, while preserving the spirit of a representative democracy? check out my website at
I'm strongly in favor of the basic idea, although most of the essays, and all of the graphics, are about two-and-a-half years old (sorry), and I'm still working especially on the mathematical aspect of it...I've moved away from the naive "exponential" algorithm used there as an example, due to some social choice theory I've been reading.
I'll start a thread on histocracy sometime, I guess.
Posts: 535 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing that really caused the creation of the two party system is the fact that almost every issue the government deals with has two sides. Yes and no. A third party really only acts as a swing vote for any matter before the body of government. This is one reason most politicians don't choose to go independant, if you're independant, you can choose more easilly, but your voice isn't often as loud. On Highly partisan matters, where one political party is hard nosed on a yes and the other is saying no way, that's about the only time the independant vote matters, and that's the only time the independant representatives actually get a loud voice. I seriously doubt that a change in the voting system that would allow a multiple parties in election would get much support from our current government. Most of them are so concerned for their jobs that they wouldn't pass such a radical change. What I think we NEED is a way to reform the voting system that makes the voice of individuals heard better. I think it's important we take small steps rather than jump into something. That's why I suggested the idea of keeping the electoral college, but making it so the representatives of a certain area within a state could vote the way their constituents vote, rather than voting the way the state voted. But anyway. Yeah. Uhh. I'm done now Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Absolutely. I think that those who agree with me should get 2 votes, and those that disagree should get 1.
quote:What's to stop people from saying that they are trading their vote, and then lying about who they will vote for?
Porter, I guess your system could only work if you take your position after the election and double the votes Long live Portergual!
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember reading an analysis that if electoral votes had been assigned 2 per statewide win and 1 per congressional district win that Bush would have won even if the 3 counties at the heart of the Florida dispute had gone to Gore, tilting Florida as a whole to Gore.
posted
The point is, using the current makeup of the House as one guideline, this hypothesis makes sense enough that someone advocating for change mmust take it into account.
If it's true, it means that going to a district-level allocation of electoral votes does not necessarily prevent mismatched popular and electoral results.
Were I advcating a particular position fully, I'd do the research. For now, I throw it out there for anyone interested in doing so.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Long live Portergual!
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
