|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 4, 2009 10:08:49 GMT -6
WHEREAS a plurality voting system is unfair when there are more than two candidates because it forces all parties towards the center and takes away votes from parties that are more to the right or more to the left as can be seen in the classic lemonade stand example where it was hypothesized that the fairest place for two lemonade vendors ("parties") on the boardwalk of a beach to stand would be one inch away from each other, that way, although on any given day there could be more people on the left or right side, the right guy could draw people ("votes") from the left side if the left guy's line was too long and vice versa. The example continues to explain that a third lemonade stand that opens up all the way on the left will get many fewer customers because he cannot draw from the center or right. This is a perfect analogy to plurality voting, which gives centre parties an unfair advantage, and WHEREAS other systems like the Borda count are unfair because they lead to a process called "burying," where a voter puts a candidate he doesn't like as much further up the list than a candidate he likes more (but who is his preferred candidates rival) which could actually contribute to that candidate who he didn't like winning, and WHEREAS range voting seems too time-consuming, complicated, and involved, and WHEREAS instant runoff voting seems like the best solution for Talossa, now THEREFORE be it resolved that: 1. Article IV, Section 6 be rewritten to read:
The candidate that is the winner after an Instant Runoff Vote shall be declared the winner. On the ballot, voters should mark a '1' beside the most preferred candidate, a '2' beside the second-most preferred, and so forth, using an 'ascending' system. In the first round all first preference votes must be counted. If, in the first round one candidate holds the majority of the first preference votes, that candidate shall be declared the winner. If that does not happen, the candidate who holds the least number of first preference votes is eliminated and the second round begins. In the second round, all the second preference votes on the ballots where the first preference vote was for the eliminated candidate must be counted and are added to the total number of first preference votes of each respective candidate. If no one candidate holds the majority in the second round, the candidate who holds the lowest number of votes is eliminated. The next preference of the votes from this candidate shall then be counted and distributed to the respective candidates. This continues until all candidates but one are eliminated. That candidate is declared the winner. 2. An Article IV, Section 12 shall be created to read:
In the event of a tie for least number of votes, the next preference votes of those who are tied are counted and the candidate who has the least is eliminated. If there is still a tie the next preference votes are counted and the candidate who has the least is eliminated. This continues until one candidate is eliminated. 3. Article IV, Section 8 shall be rewritten to read:
If a voter returns more than one ballot, the first one cast is counted and the others are ignored. A voter may choose not to rank some candidates, but a ballot returned with multiple rankings per candidate will be considered invalid and will not be counted. Noi urent q'estadra sa: Alexandreu Gavárþic'h (MC-CRO) Breneir Tzaracomprada (MC-PP)
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 4, 2009 11:18:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2009 14:30:00 GMT -6
Voting theory, along with economic theory, bore me to tears. However, the psychological aspect of the moment of casting a vote is intriguing to me. At that moment when an individual voter is deciding where to place their single vote in a simple majority system, what is happening in their minds? If their opinion isn't 100% black-and-white in favor of one over the others, then they're having to turn their "grey" opinions into black-and-white in order to cast a vote. The IRV system seems to allow a person to record their "grey" thoughts directly into the voting system.
I have read (okay, skimmed) the major arguments against IRV, and I find them unconvincing. Part of that is because I prefer a sprinkling of chaos on top of my organization, and IRV seems to add just a touch of that.
As for the wording of this proposal as it stands, I don't know that the reference to the Borda system is needed to make the case for this, however.
|
|
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 Feb 4, 2009 14:36:24 GMT -6
I'm still against Beauty Pageant Voting (IRV).
I'm still for the 1 man, 1 vote concept.
I'm still against changing a perfectly good system that we have now.
I will heartily oppose this Amendment, as strongly as I opposed the first attempt.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 4, 2009 14:52:33 GMT -6
As for the wording of this proposal as it stands, I don't know that the reference to the Borda system is needed to make the case for this, however. There's no real need for it to be in there. However, I thought it only fair that if I was going to make the case against plurality voting, I might as well explain why other "alternative" voting systems are not fair/won't work. Glad to have your support Danihél. I'm still for the 1 man, 1 vote concept. I'm still against changing a perfectly good system that we have now. What you're not understanding is that we don't have a "perfectly good system" right now. If 3 people run for senate and two of them have pretty similar views. Although together they have 60% of the support the other person will win because they both ran. How is that fair? 40% is a pretty small percent that actually support the senator. That means that 60% of people are going to feel like they weren't represented just because they voted with their heart. It also would force the two candidates (who may be on the far right or far left) into the middle and to compromise their values in order to "steal" votes from the other candidate.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2009 14:53:59 GMT -6
I'm still against Beauty Pageant Voting (IRV). As opposed to American Idol style voting like the system we have now?
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Feb 4, 2009 14:54:40 GMT -6
In the last Scottish Parliament Elections, they used a STV system (single transferable vote), from what I can make of the IRV system it's pretty much the same thing.
IT WAS A DISASTER. It caused more than just a sprinkling of chaos amongst the electorate as mass confusion about the system caused around 150,000 spoilt balllot papers.
It is also a complex system when it comes to counting (or it seems complex to someone who does not understand the counting process). In Scotland this led to a lot of people feeling disenfranchised from the political system as they could not understand HOW members were elected. Not sure, but isn't it a super difficult system to count by hand, ie: requires computer counting?
Since that day, I have been a complete disbeliever in the system. I know I am only a prospective citizen but I wanted to share my views.
PS: I have no idea how well the system has worked in other parts of the world, For all I know it probably worked out all right. Just didn't work over here.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 4, 2009 14:59:23 GMT -6
I'm still against Beauty Pageant Voting (IRV). As opposed to American Idol style voting like the system we have now? This is perfect. Now, let's say we have three singers: Kelly, Ruben, and Clay. Kelly and Clay both have "pop" voices, while having pretty equal talent and Ruben has more of a "soul" voice. Now, 30 million people vote for Clay and 30mil vote for Kelly. 40mil vote for Ruben under the plurality system and, though it seems that the people like candidates with pop voices more. Ruben wins because the "pop" vote was divided. Is this really fair? This means that if Clay or Kelly had dropped out the other would have won. How can we really say that Ruben is the "American" idol-or best singer if more people would have voted against him in a one-on-one between him and Kelly or him and Clay.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 4, 2009 15:04:36 GMT -6
Not really. Especially when you have less than 200 people voting.
It seems to work fine in the following places:
Countries: Australia Bosnia Fiji Papua New Guinea Ireland Malta Sri Lanka India
US States: Arkansas Louisiana North Carolina South Carolina
Cities: London San Francisco Burlington Cambridge Cary Hendersonville Springfield Aspen Berkeley Ferndale Minneapolis Oakland Pierce County
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Feb 4, 2009 15:12:42 GMT -6
I concede to that point. Like I already said, I didn't know how well it works elsewhere in the world. I was only pointing out that the flaws brought chaos to one country. That is not to say, however, that in 2011 the same would happen again, perhaps people have learned from the mistakes. On the same, if the reason things went wrong was due to teething problems, so to speak, would you concur that it would be unrealistic to assume the system be implemented in Talossa without a single problem?
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 4, 2009 15:15:44 GMT -6
Of course there will be problems. Just as there are problems when people vote in Talossa for the first time (people voting "RUMP" for the senate, etc.) But the system really is simple enough to have minimal problems. All the voter has to do is rank the candidates-it's that easy.
|
|
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 Feb 4, 2009 15:18:10 GMT -6
You make the grand assumption that if one dropped out, the vast majority of that person's backers would vote for the second place person, thus putting them over the top.
Ruben had 10 million more votes than any other candidate. Who is to say that if clay dropped out, those 30 million would go to Kelly?
What if 15 Million went to Ruben (40+15 = 55) and 15 Million went to Kelly? (30+15 = 45) . No change.
What if it was a 10/20 split. Then Ruben has 50m and Kelly has 50 m. Yay. Tied vote. Rewind, and restart. Delay.
You scenario would need more that 66% of people who were going to vote for Clay , to instead vote for Kelly. Otherwise, the outcome does not change.
You can make countless new scenarios, but I still feel that this system is not for Talossa.
I will not change my stance on this.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 4, 2009 15:30:33 GMT -6
You have missed the point. The idea is that people who like Clay would like Kelly second because she is also a pop-singer. Some of them will like Ruben but they are in the very small minority. Similarly, a socialist candidates' votes are probably not going to go to Republicans and a Green party voter is probably not going to turn around and vote Nazi party.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Feb 4, 2009 15:30:41 GMT -6
Of course there will be problems. Just as there are problems when people vote in Talossa for the first time (people voting "RUMP" for the senate, etc.) But the system really is simple enough to have minimal problems. All the voter has to do is rank the candidates-it's that easy. Yes, easy, perhaps. The results, complex. As is said in the Clay/Kelly/Ruben argument, how do you know FOR SURE, what way the votes would have been cast if the candidate list was different. This actually happened in the constituency here (4 members are elected to each consituency), where candidate A, B and C all got the required number of votes to be elected, but as the final votes were being counted, Candidate D was seen not be getting the required number of votes in the choice 4 box thus all his votes dropped off to candidate E, who was elected. All the remaining candidates argued that they COULD have been elected if the drop off was counted a different way. The scottish election resulted in parties gaining seats that NOBODY would ever have beleived in getting seats and the leading parties (up to that day) being shrunk down in seat numbers. Also every single fringe party, and independant was squeezed out COMPLETLEY. Not a fair system for the fringe candidates at all. This leads to both the electorate and the failed parties arguing in the legitimacy of the election. I think you underestimate the problems that you may end up with.
|
|
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 Feb 4, 2009 15:50:37 GMT -6
I have not "missed" your point, Dreu. Please don't suggest I did.
I am stating that I disagree with your point. You are making the assumption that everyone who likes the Pop music of Clay will naturally and logically like the pop music of Kelly. Maybe so, but maybe 50 % think Kelly stinks, and would never vote for her. A Fascist may not want to vote for a Totalitarian. They may want to vote Fascist, or not vote at all.
Let's add Sanjay to your scenario. Let's say, And let's he's he's NO ONES first pick. None. Nada. You may very well get 2 large groups that say, we want Kelly or Clay - but if they don't win, we want Sanjay - and enough vote for him that he has 49 million votes. out of the 100 million voters, which beats Ruben's Clay's, AND Kelly's 2nd most favorist voters. 49 million have decided that Sanjay is the winner, with your logic. Now, 51 Million just got hosed out of their 1st AND 2nd picks.
Beauty Pageant voting mucks up a system that is working fine now. Please review the arguments that Capt Tim, myself, and others made in the first attempt to change the voting system. They haven't changed.
This is not the right system or method for Talossa.
Edit: to correct typos'
|
|