Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Dec 26, 2008 21:30:26 GMT -6
Methinks you misunderstand the meaning of "instantaneous."
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2008 22:07:11 GMT -6
You're suggesting the process of fair government should be, effectively, a competitive sport. Or possibly Highlander. If I think A and B are both more competent than C, and most people where I live agree, and C gets in because A and B don't unite because they, yknow, think diversity in politics is healthy... ...then the majority of the people where I live will have had our votes and opinions discounted because we chose to support a variety of opinions represented by admirable candidates. And we'll be living under a candidate who the majority of people categorically do not support. This isn't a prize to be won, this is the happiness and good governance of the people. If it isn't a prize to be won, perhaps we shouldn't have a first, second and third place. If we want a system of primaries, wonderful. But here's an interesting question. What if only two candidates run? If we have me versus Mick, does each citizen still need to grade us on a scale of 1 to 10? Or do we still need to get through a system of primaries?
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Dec 26, 2008 23:05:14 GMT -6
You're suggesting the process of fair government should be, effectively, a competitive sport. Or possibly Highlander. If I think A and B are both more competent than C, and most people where I live agree, and C gets in because A and B don't unite because they, yknow, think diversity in politics is healthy... ...then the majority of the people where I live will have had our votes and opinions discounted because we chose to support a variety of opinions represented by admirable candidates. And we'll be living under a candidate who the majority of people categorically do not support. This isn't a prize to be won, this is the happiness and good governance of the people. If it isn't a prize to be won, perhaps we shouldn't have a first, second and third place. If we want a system of primaries, wonderful. But here's an interesting question. What if only two candidates run? If we have me versus Mick, does each citizen still need to grade us on a scale of 1 to 10? Or do we still need to get through a system of primaries? Watch. They'd all give us 5's , just to piss us pff.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Dec 27, 2008 11:34:33 GMT -6
Mick:
As Cresti points out, it's instantaneous because the second preference votes are already recorded (if the voter chooses to give a second preference) on the MAIN BALLOT.
STV would be:
VOTER: Owen Edwards CANDIDATES: Preston 3RD CHOICE Asmourescu Siervicul Hand Ups 1ST CHOICE Madison 2ND CHOICE
In this instance I'm assuming one can mark up to three preferences. In the London mayoral election, it was two choices (and the election had still finished by midnight of the day of the election).
So if my 1st and 2nd choices are eliminated in run-off calculations IMMEDIATELY AFTER the main election finishes. The SoS, good soul that he is, perhaps with double-checking from his assistant, will tally the additional votes, eliminating one candidate at a time - or, as in the case of London, eliminate all those below a certain a threshold (say, the top two immediately go into a runoff situation, with the second preference vote being added THEN and THERE).
This isn't the same as US Senate runoffs. This all happens on election day.
If only two candidates ran, you could mark a second preference, but given that the first preference would still be in the top two, that vote would never "activate".
TIM: And in a Senats race, it hardly matters who comes 2nd and 3rd, as they won't be the public servant. The only way in which it would matter is as a barometer of public opinion regarding candidates and policies...it's not like the losers should get silver and bronze medals. And should a Senats candidate go into the race on the basis of wanting to win a prize? No, they should seek to represent their entire constituency in their interests, not just the biggest individual group.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Dec 27, 2008 11:51:11 GMT -6
The problem with this beauty pageant contest that Dreu is advocating, we'd be forced to vote for all candidates.
I doubt any SoS would look forward to the Math Problem that this creates. It's cumbersome and unwieldy for the current format we have for conducting Elections.
It's also not needed, in that it's addressing a problem that does not exist.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Dec 27, 2008 12:09:49 GMT -6
As Cresti said, if we move past bitching about Dreu's (very messy) solution, it's not like there aren't other options to discuss. I'm suffering a single transferable vote on a preferential system.
And that system, whilst a little more complex than the current system, is quicker than a runoff and more democratic than simple plurality. As current SoS, estimating the problems in execution is your job, but surely you'd agree a public duty to more democracy is worth a little bit more effort?
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Dec 27, 2008 12:18:32 GMT -6
In that I think the system is fine now, I do not feel that any extra effort is needed. I still firmly believe that "one person, one vote" is preferential to a "beauty queen election", and I always will.
Democracy has nothing to do with it- I don't like gimmicks when I select who I want to represent me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2008 12:22:28 GMT -6
As Cresti said, if we move past bitching about Dreu's (very messy) solution, it's not like there aren't other options to discuss. I'm suffering a single transferable vote on a preferential system. And that system, whilst a little more complex than the current system, is quicker than a runoff and more democratic than simple plurality. As current SoS, estimating the problems in execution is your job, but surely you'd agree a public duty to more democracy is worth a little bit more effort? Problem is, that all of these proposed solutions are very messy solutions for a problem that is not going to happen in the foreseeable future. Easy solution, you win the election if you take 51% of the votes cast. If less than that then we go to a runoff. Or, we could use an algorithm that Dreu picked up from a way cool book or systems that only make sense if we have three or more candidates (which we don't always have). I'm not saying not to change things that need changing, Owen. I'm saying this is a very simple problem that Dreu has pointed out and we've overcomplicated the ever living hell out of it by proposing multiple votes, beauty contests and maybe a urine sample from each candidate. If you win by less than 51%, we go into a runoff election between the candidates who took the highest percentages.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Dec 27, 2008 12:49:58 GMT -6
Mick, I'm not actually suggesting Dreu's solution here, I think it's overcomplex and ineffective. I'm suggesting a way that means the maximum number of people's voices are heard, rather than the biggest of, say, 6 minority groups getting a monopoly on a seat despite the fact it may not represent the wishes of 80% of the overall constituents.
Tim, completely agree on most of that - but a transferable vote situation just engenders an instant runoff, with what is likely to amount to a higher turnout, gets things done straight off, and is relatively simple to administrate. You just note your 2nd choice as well as your 1st choice, all but the top two get eliminated after the first round, and the 2nd choices of those eliminated get counted (if they count towards the top two). It's not a perfect solution, but it does get more people's votes counted in the end situation.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Dec 27, 2008 12:59:18 GMT -6
P.S. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_mayoral_election_2008The winner went from having 42% of the total vote to more like an absolute plurality. If his opponent in the 2nd round (finished on the same day as the 1st) had won more second preferences - and therefore been preferred by most voters to the eventuall winner - he would have won, having broader support and a broader mandate.
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Dec 27, 2008 14:07:10 GMT -6
P.S. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_mayoral_election_2008The winner went from having 42% of the total vote to more like an absolute plurality. If his opponent in the 2nd round (finished on the same day as the 1st) had won more second preferences - and therefore been preferred by most voters to the eventuall winner - he would have won, having broader support and a broader mandate. Exactly the way it should be.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2008 14:29:47 GMT -6
Let's think about America for a second. A person runs for office on the Democratic ticket, another on the Republican, a Livertarian and finally, there is a Green Party candidate.
Let's say that the Green candidate draws votes away from the Democratic candidate because, in some respects, the parties share some similar platforms. The result is the Republican takes 33%, the Democrat takes 25% and the Green takes 25% and the Libertarian 15% with the remaining votes going for various independent candidates.
Now, the position of those familiar and friendly with the U.S. system is that, each person has one vote, if you win the simple majority, you win, it doesn't matter if your overall take in the election is only 33%
Those familiar with the British system, forgive me on this if I'm wrong, Owen I'm still new to the whole idea, is the people who voted for the Green candidate might have made the Democratic candidate their second choice, and vice versa. The result would be either the democratic or green candidate winning because, overall, they have more support than the Republican candidate.
Am I right?
Now, as I see it, we have a few ways to resolve the issue.
One, we say, this isn't really an issue.
Two, we have a runoff. The advantage to the runoff being the elections are straight forward, one person, one vote. Only in the cases where a candidate fails to take more than 50% will the election be any different. The disadvantage would be a whole new election would follow, that could be timely and depending on the situation, the second election might get more or less turnout than the first.
Three, Owen's proposed system. The advantage being we don't need a contingency, i.e. a runoff election. From the very beginning we can chart who has the most support. The disadvantage is that in a race with only two candidates, things could get hairy, especially if people feel they are obligated to put a second choice.
Something else to consider...
Let me suggest that if we are amending the OrgLaw regarding Senators, what if we make it so that you have to be a citizen of the Province you are running for office in? The present system, while considerate of the fact that some provinces have more active participants than others, basically puts us in a system where a Senator has no connection to their constituents.
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Dec 27, 2008 14:38:39 GMT -6
I would support both Owen ans Tim's measures here.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Dec 27, 2008 15:05:09 GMT -6
P.S. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_mayoral_election_2008The winner went from having 42% of the total vote to more like an absolute plurality. If his opponent in the 2nd round (finished on the same day as the 1st) had won more second preferences - and therefore been preferred by most voters to the eventuall winner - he would have won, having broader support and a broader mandate. Exactly the way it should be. Exactly why this is wrong. Do we hold the talent competition before, or after the swimsuit competition? Can we throw out the Japanese and Russian judge's score?
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Dec 27, 2008 15:50:18 GMT -6
Mick, could we have a slightly more academic discussion of what's wrong with a number of people suggesting that the sort of government a nation should have should be one the majority of the population support (or at least as large a group as possible without making a system meaningless)?
In Tim's example, where the Republicans take 33% and the Democrats 25%, but the voters who would rather have a Democratic than a Republican government is 50% (in the example) compared to, say, 48%. But the Republicans will be in power...(Florida '00 anyone? ASSUMING the "official" figures are accurate to begin with, the Green voting bloc was very significant. But expressing their democratic right led to Bush abandoning Kyoto, etc. Ah, the will of the people.)
That'd be a leeeetle unrepresentative of the people.
Now let's make it more extreme. Let's say there are 5 parties. One gets 21%, three get 20%, one gets 19%. Party #1 is a communist party, the other four are centrist or right-of-centre. Party #1 wins the seat despite something like 80% of the population preferring any of the others to the mad bad Reds.
And no, this isn't some great hypothetical. One can find examples of candidates and parties with tiny advantages, and no real mandate, getting in because they've managed to unite a big enough bloc behind them whilst the opposition has split its vote.
|
|