Election Process Reform

[MrEgo]

Short and simple.. what if we changed the election process to a bracket-style election, where Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, etc, would be in a bracket like the NCAA tournament for basketball?

That way, you wouldn't have the Ralph Naders making it easy for Republicans, and you wouldn't have the Ross Perots making it easy for Democrats.

I also think this would give more exposure to the 3rd parties in this country, because many people do not vote for them simply because they feel as though they are throwing away their vote, or they are indirectly voting for the party that they oppose.

Sup?

 

[bamacre]

Doesn't matter. Those who have power over Congress won't give it up.

 

[Moonbeam]

Doesn't matter. Those who have power over Congress won't give it up.

Ever put gas on a tick?

 

[bamacre]

Ever put gas on a tick?

In this case, you need the tick's permission to cover it with gas. Not gonna happen.

 

[werepossum]

Short and simple.. what if we changed the election process to a bracket-style election, where Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, etc, would be in a bracket like the NCAA tournament for basketball?

That way, you wouldn't have the Ralph Naders making it easy for Republicans, and you wouldn't have the Ross Perots making it easy for Democrats.

I also think this would give more exposure to the 3rd parties in this country, because many people do not vote for them simply because they feel as though they are throwing away their vote, or they are indirectly voting for the party that they oppose.

Sup?

I read a very interesting paper a couple decades back about this same general issue. The authors' basic gist was that third parties, independents and underdogs tend to under perform because people naturally don't want to waste their vote. Their recommendation was a point system where each voter would assign points to three to five candidates, the winner being the candidate with the most points overall. Your first choice would be worth five points, your last worth one. You could therefore vote for a candidate unlikely to win but closer to your ideal candidate without losing all your voting power, and weighted those you don't support to distinguish between those you REALLY don't want in power versus those you might like, just not as much as another candidate. Personally I loved it.

However, we've already seen that Florida Democrats are unable (or at least claim to be unable) to correctly read a ballot designed by Florida Democrats and successfully cast a vote for one person. I can't imagine how those people could possibly handle such complicated voting schemes as these.

 

[Craig234]

The improvemet isn't bracketed voting, it isn't 'point' voting.

It's ranked voting. You vote for whoever you want, ranked.

If you vote for the Green guy as your first choice, your vote counts for him. If he isn't in the top two counting first votes, he drops out and your second choice vote is counted instead, and so on.

You can vote for whoever you like - if you put Gore fourth and Bush sixth and they're the finalists, you still get to vote for Gore ovcer Bush.

 

[ElFenix]

would you require that all candidates be ranked by the voter?


edit: i guess as a preliminary question, are you thinking of an AP football poll style rank?

 

[MrEgo]

The improvemet isn't bracketed voting, it isn't 'point' voting.

It's ranked voting. You vote for whoever you want, ranked.

If you vote for the Green guy as your first choice, your vote counts for him. If he isn't in the top two counting first votes, he drops out and your second choice vote is counted instead, and so on.

You can vote for whoever you like - if you put Gore fourth and Bush sixth and they're the finalists, you still get to vote for Gore ovcer Bush.

Hm.. not bad.

 

[Craig234]

would you require that all candidates be ranked by the voter?


edit: i guess as a preliminary question, are you thinking of an AP football poll style rank?

No, I'd say voters can vote for as few or many as they like - just the first is choice #1, the second #2 etc.

I don't follow sports so I'm not familiar with the other method you listed.

I'll illustrate more fully:

Say it's 2012 and Obama (D), JoethePlumber (R), and Ron Paul (L).

On the first counting of 20 ballots, 8 are for Obama, 7 for Joe, and 5 for Paul.

Now, this new ranked system will only increase the votes for Paul, since no one is throwing away their vote and can vote for who they really want first.

Based on that, Paul is out - sorry. But he had a better chance. Now, the five Paul votes are looked at to see if they voted for Obama or Joe - and their vote still counts.

If 4 of the 5 Paul voters ranked Joe first, the vote comes out Joe 11, Obama 9.

This change does nothing but let people vote for who they want, reducing the monopoly of the two parties, where any third party challenge just tends to split the vote.

 

[Moonbeam]

Maybe the real problem is that the people who vote are voting for people just like them so that our government is a reflection of who we are.

In that case if we want better government we need only improve ourselves and the only one of ourselves I can improve is me.

What is all dissatisfaction with government is just an expression of the fact that we are helpless and clueless as to how to personally evolve.

Maybe we are a bunch of idiots trying to punch our way out of a paper bag.

If so I guess we're in real trouble because I don't see anybody here who looks first at himself.

 

[Jaskalas]

It's ranked voting. You vote for whoever you want, ranked.

I really like this one.

 

[werepossum]

I really like this one.

Me too. The question remains though as to how you handle the hundreds of thousands of Democrat ballots with Obama checked for every choice. Democrat voters in large numbers will "disenfranchised" by any voting scheme requiring intelligence above sponge level.

 

[ElFenix]

No, I'd say voters can vote for as few or many as they like - just the first is choice #1, the second #2 etc.

I don't follow sports so I'm not familiar with the other method you listed.

I'll illustrate more fully:

Say it's 2012 and Obama (D), JoethePlumber (R), and Ron Paul (L).

On the first counting of 20 ballots, 8 are for Obama, 7 for Joe, and 5 for Paul.

Now, this new ranked system will only increase the votes for Paul, since no one is throwing away their vote and can vote for who they really want first.

Based on that, Paul is out - sorry. But he had a better chance. Now, the five Paul votes are looked at to see if they voted for Obama or Joe - and their vote still counts.

If 4 of the 5 Paul voters ranked Joe first, the vote comes out Joe 11, Obama 9.

This change does nothing but let people vote for who they want, reducing the monopoly of the two parties, where any third party challenge just tends to split the vote.

that's instant run off.

the way the football poll works is that teams are ranked by voters. the ranks convert to points, 25 points for first place votes, 24 for second, all the way to 1 point for the 25th ranked team. one of the benefits of this system to instant run off is that it comes closer to a condorcet winner. say there is disagreement between the pollsters as to who the number 1 team is, USC, Alabama, or Florida. but all of them think Texas is number 2. if the votes for the first three teams are split somewhat equally, Texas will be the number 1 team in the poll, despite not having a single first place vote, because it is preferred by most voters more than the other two teams they didn't put number 1.

the issue with it is that it requires all the ranks to be filled. that can obviously be lower than the total number of competitors.

with instant runoff you may have a middle candidate that is preferred better to most people than the left or right candidate, but ends up losing in the first round because the middle candidate garnered the lowest number of first place votes.

there's a lot of game theory about preference ranking. fun class.

 

[werepossum]

that's instant run off.

the way the football poll works is that teams are ranked by voters. the ranks convert to points, 25 points for first place votes, 24 for second, all the way to 1 point for the 25th ranked team. one of the benefits of this system to instant run off is that it comes closer to a condorcet winner. say there is disagreement between the pollsters as to who the number 1 team is, USC, Alabama, or Florida. but all of them think Texas is number 2. if the votes for the first three teams are split somewhat equally, Texas will be the number 1 team in the poll, despite not having a single first place vote, because it is preferred by most voters more than the other two teams they didn't put number 1.

the issue with it is that it requires all the ranks to be filled. that can obviously be lower than the total number of competitors.


there's a lot of game theory about preference ranking. fun class.

That's pretty much the system I described, and not that far from what Craig described (just a different mechanism to do the same thing, allow you to vote for whom you wish without your vote being wasted.) Still, when a relatively large number of voters can't handle the system we have in place, how could we implement such as system without every election being adjudicated in court?

Of course, this is also like the FairTax in that Congress is never going to implement something that reduces its power and chances of re-election, so it's a moot point anyway.

 

[ElFenix]

That's pretty much the system I described, and not that far from what Craig described (just a different mechanism to do the same thing, allow you to vote for whom you wish without your vote being wasted.) Still, when a relatively large number of voters can't handle the system we have in place, how could we implement such as system without every election being adjudicated in court?

Of course, this is also like the FairTax in that Congress is never going to implement something that reduces its power and chances of re-election, so it's a moot point anyway.

australia has a two party system and they use instant run off. there is more opportunity for 3rd parties in IRF voting but that isn't much of a guarantee.

frankly third parties weren't as necessary here because the parties weren't all that zealous. they'd freely take whatever good ideas third parties have and at least address them, if not outright incorporate them. and they were big-tent enough to have disagreement amongst members and plenty of voting with the other side.

the republicans lately are almost like proportional representation systems where voting against the party is likely to lose you your seat.

 

[cubby1223]

No, I'd say voters can vote for as few or many as they like - just the first is choice #1, the second #2 etc.

There would be no end to the legal challenges

The butterfly ballot was confusing enough to seniors, they certainly cannot grasp the concept of ranking candidates... well the losing side will always cry this over the loss.

Don't get me wrong, it's a good idea, and I want there to be some sort of runoff elections, but this is America where even the losers can claim victory!

 

[Sinsear]

Me too. The question remains though as to how you handle the hundreds of thousands of Democrat ballots with Obama checked for every choice. Democrat voters in large numbers will "disenfranchised" by any voting scheme requiring intelligence above sponge level.

HAHAHA.....and god forbid they should have to have ID to vote.

 

[Anarchist420]

No, I'd say voters can vote for as few or many as they like - just the first is choice #1, the second #2 etc.

I don't follow sports so I'm not familiar with the other method you listed.

I'll illustrate more fully:

Say it's 2012 and Obama (D), JoethePlumber (R), and Ron Paul (L).

On the first counting of 20 ballots, 8 are for Obama, 7 for Joe, and 5 for Paul.

Now, this new ranked system will only increase the votes for Paul, since no one is throwing away their vote and can vote for who they really want first.

Based on that, Paul is out - sorry. But he had a better chance. Now, the five Paul votes are looked at to see if they voted for Obama or Joe - and their vote still counts.

If 4 of the 5 Paul voters ranked Joe first, the vote comes out Joe 11, Obama 9.

This change does nothing but let people vote for who they want, reducing the monopoly of the two parties, where any third party challenge just tends to split the vote.

Ron Paul would be (C), even though he's the truest Republican. Make Joe the Plumber (I) and Dr. Paul (R).

On topic, though, I think it's a pretty good idea. If the Republican candidate isn't a Ron Paul Republican, then I'd vote for the Constitution Party candidate as my first choice, pretty much always.

This would change the outcome of a lot of elections. The thing that's good about it, is that it can be done at the State level. Congress doesn't Constitutionally have a say about it.

 

[MrEgo]

Congress doesn't Constitutionally have a say about it.

Heh, I'm not sure Congress cares what that piece of paper says.

 

[Anarchist420]

True.

 

[Craig234]

that's instant run off.

the way the football poll works is that teams are ranked by voters. the ranks convert to points, 25 points for first place votes, 24 for second, all the way to 1 point for the 25th ranked team. one of the benefits of this system to instant run off is that it comes closer to a condorcet winner. say there is disagreement between the pollsters as to who the number 1 team is, USC, Alabama, or Florida. but all of them think Texas is number 2. if the votes for the first three teams are split somewhat equally, Texas will be the number 1 team in the poll, despite not having a single first place vote, because it is preferred by most voters more than the other two teams they didn't put number 1.

the issue with it is that it requires all the ranks to be filled. that can obviously be lower than the total number of competitors.

with instant runoff you may have a middle candidate that is preferred better to most people than the left or right candidate, but ends up losing in the first round because the middle candidate garnered the lowest number of first place votes.

there's a lot of game theory about preference ranking. fun class.

Yes, I'm less concerned about which of the choices are used - mine or yours - for the details, than the basic principle of ranking to allow voting for who you want.

Two advantage to my system are that it seems less of a change to the current - concentrating on the two top #1 choices - and simplicity. But either is ok.

 

[ElFenix]

Yes, I'm less concerned about which of the choices are used - mine or yours - for the details, than the basic principle of ranking to allow voting for who you want.

Two advantage to my system are that it seems less of a change to the current - concentrating on the two top #1 choices - and simplicity. But either is ok.

yeah it's probably easier for voters to figure out that the rules of instant runoff are "rank the people you like in the order you like them, don't rank the people you don't like." like i said, there are big time college football fans who have not the first idea how the polls work.

 

[werepossum]

HAHAHA.....and god forbid they should have to have ID to vote.

Quite true.

 

[BoberFett]

The improvemet isn't bracketed voting, it isn't 'point' voting.

It's ranked voting. You vote for whoever you want, ranked.

If you vote for the Green guy as your first choice, your vote counts for him. If he isn't in the top two counting first votes, he drops out and your second choice vote is counted instead, and so on.

You can vote for whoever you like - if you put Gore fourth and Bush sixth and they're the finalists, you still get to vote for Gore ovcer Bush.

It's called instant runoff, and I'd be 100% in favor of such a system.

Edit: And I see I'm late to the party, this has been discussed.

 

[ProfJohn]

Read up on approval voting, it is a good system and it is not as complicated at rated voting where people have to pick 1st 2nd 3rd etc etc.

Essentially, instead of picking the one candidate you like you pick any candidate that you approve of and the person with the most approval votes wins.

This would work really good in our primaries because it stops similar candidates from splitting votes and thus allowing weaker or less supported candidates from winning.

The big advantage of such a system is that the winner is the person approved by the majority of party voters instead of the person who sticks around the longest. And more importantly it stops niche candidates who win large portions of on voting block but none of the other blocks from stealing support from candidates who would otherwise get that blocks vote.

Think of a three way battle for best sci-fi franchise of all time. Star Wars v Star Trek v Dr Who.

40% of voters are die hard Dr Who fans who only like Dr Who and nothing else. While the other 60% are fine with either Star Wars or Star Trek, but since they have to pick one they split their vote. Thus Dr Who wins the poll despite the fact that the vast majority of people like something other than Dr Who.

Under an approval voting system the 60% majority pick both Star Trek and Star Wars and thus one of them wins. Such a system more accurately reflects the opinion of the masses.