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 7, 2009 8:35:17 GMT -6
He didn't say that, Dreu. Wow....
|
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Feb 7, 2009 10:26:22 GMT -6
My rebuttal to Cap Asmourescu's arguments:
"My response is that the present system is used in the U.S. and works well..."
Talossa is different from the US and not its carbon copy.
"Which system has more potential for abuse or mistakes? IRV."
It may be a little bit complicated at first sight, but it's more reasonable and fair.
"What is the primary argument against our system? Well, a person can technically win an election with less than a majority of the votes."
That is a shame.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 7, 2009 11:27:13 GMT -6
Owen, While I'm not a fan of excessive attitude here, let's look at this whole system for what it really is... we're playing a math game with votes. Your argument is that our present system is broken and this one works well in London. My response is that the present system is used in the U.S. and works well, the proposed system is broken. Which system has more potential for abuse or mistakes? IRV What is the primary argument against our system? Well, a person can technically win an election with less than a majority of the votes. But that still happens here, we just cover up the fact by saying "Oh...well, the guy who won was actually my third choice, so it's OK." I don't mind revealing my votes in the bogus election. I placed you third on the ballot (nothing personal mind you). To me, your winning the election already runs contrary to what I wanted, whether I would have preferred you over the person I put in the 4th spot is irrelevant. The person I wanted to win didn't win. So, I'm sorry to say that this brings "overkill" to a new level. Mick, we're not in the Ziu here, we're in the Hopper. Key difference. And Tim: well done for, somehow, I think I missed it, proving the FPTP system (as it works in the Home of the Brave) is better than that used in London (which is broken, evidently). IRV and similar systems are about creating the best consensus possible - so if 60% of voters would be happier with anybody but candidate #1, it allows them to vote that way. (As it happens, I think this system isn't necessarily needed in Talossan Senatorial elections, given our current status, though IRV does assist in consensus. I'm not convinced that I'd vote for this measure. I just think the responses, in differing ways, from Mick, Brad and yourself have ranged from baffling to frankly offensive.)
|
|
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 7, 2009 11:34:03 GMT -6
Owen, with all due respect -
There is no need to refer to another citizen in that manner anywhere on Witt.
You may not understand why we have our individual reactions to the Amendment, but I would hope you can discuss it without using profanity.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2009 15:31:52 GMT -6
Umm... so if it were just Mick vs. Owen in a majority vote and you voted for Mick would you have felt the election "bogus" just because the person you picked didn't win? Wow... No....I'd call it "bogus" because it is not a real election you frickin idiot.
|
|
|
Post by Cody Ellsworth on Feb 7, 2009 16:05:30 GMT -6
Why can't we all just get along? *Braces for attacks*
|
|
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 7, 2009 21:26:35 GMT -6
Ok, if you won't listen to my arguments, will you listen to the Wall Street Journal? online.wsj.com/article/SB123388752673155403.html"Academy Award nominees and winners are selected using two different voting systems that are, according to some political mathematicians, the worst way to convert voters' preferences into an election outcome. The nominees are selected using a system called instant runoff, which has been adopted in some municipal and state elections. Out of last year's 281 eligible films, each voter selects five nominees in order of preference for, say, best picture. All movies without any first-place votes are eliminated. The votes for those films with the least first-place votes are re-assigned until five nominees have enough. One problem with that system is a kind of squeaky-wheel phenomenon: A movie that is second place on every ballot will lose out to one that ranks first on only 20% of ballots but is hated by everyone else. Then, in another upside-down outcome, a movie can win for best picture even if 79% of voters hated it so long as they split their votes evenly among the losing films. This isn't as unfamiliar as it sounds: Some people think Al Gore would have won the Electoral College in 2000 if Ralph Nader hadn't diverted more votes from him than he took from former President George W. Bush." "It's crazy," says Michel Balinski, professor of research at École Polytechnique in Palaiseau, France. The nomination system's properties are "truly perverse and antithetical to the idea of democracy," says Steven Brams, professor of politics at New York University. He thinks the final vote for the Oscar winner may be even worse than the selection of nominees." "It's called instant runoff because it is used in political elections in lieu of a two-stage vote in which top candidates compete again if none receives a majority of the vote. Among the potential problems, showing up to vote for your favorite candidate may create a worse outcome than not showing up at all. For example, your vote could change the order in which candidates are eliminated, and the next-in-line candidate on the ballot for the newly eliminated film may be a film you loathe." The article goes on to cover other methods of voting, and the pros and con's of each. It also allows the proponents of IRV to reply. No system is perfect. Some are less perfect than others. We don't need to swap out a system we have now that is currently working , and some may consider flawed, for one that is untested by us, unneeded by us, and some may considered flawed.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2009 22:36:55 GMT -6
My rebuttal to Cap Asmourescu's arguments: "My response is that the present system is used in the U.S. and works well..." Talossa is different from the US and not its carbon copy."Which system has more potential for abuse or mistakes? IRV." It may be a little bit complicated at first sight, but it's more reasonable and fair."What is the primary argument against our system? Well, a person can technically win an election with less than a majority of the votes." That is a shame.I never said this was a carbon copy of the U.S., but that doesn't mean we need to be different from the U.S. simply for the sake of being different. Regarding IRV being more reasonable and fair, I think Mick's article answers that objection.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2009 8:24:40 GMT -6
I must say, the example IRV vote in the article provides a compelling scenario against the system, and gives me pause. But one question about that example: in step 1, why doesn't "A" simply win?
|
|
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 8, 2009 10:04:14 GMT -6
Because in round 1, even though Candidate A had the five 1st place votes total, the didn't have a majority of 1st place votes.
Notice, D had , by far, the majority of 2nd place votes- and was eliminated in the first round.
edit: spellcheck can be your friend, too
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2009 12:35:40 GMT -6
Owen, While I'm not a fan of excessive attitude here, let's look at this whole system for what it really is... we're playing a math game with votes. Your argument is that our present system is broken and this one works well in London. My response is that the present system is used in the U.S. and works well, the proposed system is broken. Which system has more potential for abuse or mistakes? IRV What is the primary argument against our system? Well, a person can technically win an election with less than a majority of the votes. But that still happens here, we just cover up the fact by saying "Oh...well, the guy who won was actually my third choice, so it's OK." I don't mind revealing my votes in the bogus election. I placed you third on the ballot (nothing personal mind you). To me, your winning the election already runs contrary to what I wanted, whether I would have preferred you over the person I put in the 4th spot is irrelevant. The person I wanted to win didn't win. So, I'm sorry to say that this brings "overkill" to a new level. Mick, we're not in the Ziu here, we're in the Hopper. Key difference. And Tim: well done for, somehow, I think I missed it, proving the FPTP system (as it works in the Home of the Brave) is better than that used in London (which is broken, evidently). IRV and similar systems are about creating the best consensus possible - so if 60% of voters would be happier with anybody but candidate #1, it allows them to vote that way. (As it happens, I think this system isn't necessarily needed in Talossan Senatorial elections, given our current status, though IRV does assist in consensus. I'm not convinced that I'd vote for this measure. I just think the responses, in differing ways, from Mick, Brad and yourself have ranged from baffling to frankly offensive.) No Owen, well done. You have proven that the flawless system used in London (it MUST be better than the one in the U.S., after all) is clearly superior to the direct voting system used by the stupid colonists. Though, when Dreu tried it out to prove to us how great it is, he screwed up the results and even if the results were accurate, the people whose first choice candidate wasn't elected weren't happy, even if their third choice took the cake. But hey, I'm just ignorant like that, in that I don't run out and change things because they work in London. If it was a system employed by everyone EXCEPT for the US I'd think you have a point, but don't try and pull the "ignorant Americans trying to impose their will on everyone" shtick on me, it is very unbecoming.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 8, 2009 14:20:45 GMT -6
Interestingly Tim. Both Obama and McCain endorse IRV. Something to think about.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2009 16:46:59 GMT -6
Interestingly, Dreu. You didn't respond to Mick's post regarding the Wall Street Journal article or any of the other objections.
Since it is endorsed by Obama should I run out and buy it like a box of Wheaties?
We aren't talking about who supports it, we are talking about what problems exist within the system and whether it should be employed in the Kingdom.
|
|
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 8, 2009 17:00:23 GMT -6
Dreu -
Just because 2 other people endorse IRV, doesn't mean I have to , I don't care how famous they are, or what they do. That doesn't sway my beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 8, 2009 17:42:48 GMT -6
First of all, I am deeply disappointed in those legislators - so respected - who have begun to use crude language and blatant insults within this debate. That is something to be frowned upon ordinarily, but when it comes from lawmakers trying to discuss an important issue in a bill? It is entirely out of order, and saddens me.
Secondly, the matter of the mock election is an illustrative one. Naturally we cannot judge the whole merits of the system based on this single mock election, but the fact that it is complicated and difficult did result in errors in presenting the results. And even more importantly, unless I am mistaken it appears that the result was identical to what it would have been using our regular electoral system.
I'm not saying that this mock election means we should discard the whole idea, but it does mean I cannot possibly vote for this bill. When an inconsequential practice vote doesn't work properly, then either the process is flawed or a better practice needs to be done. I am willing to see the latter at some point, but since I am aware of the former I cannot vote for this.
|
|