Voting, Some thoughts on new methods for an old problem.

This is in response to a side comment by Holmes on
http://EvC Forum: Eliminating the State's Role in Marriage -->EvC Forum: Eliminating the State's Role in Marriage I think it needs multiple systems to work best.Some thoughts were given on {A Voting Declaration of Rights}
http://EvC Forum: A Voting Declaration of Rights -->EvC Forum: A Voting Declaration of Rights
but not strictly on preferred voting systems.Some other thoughts were given on {VOTE reform ...}
http://EvC Forum: VOTE reform ... -->EvC Forum: VOTE reform ...
but this is more about processing votes.My basic position has been that voting needs to be able to select the best candidates to run and then to select the most suitable candidate as the winner.To do this, any system that only allows one vote when there are more than two candidates cannot be used as it does not allow any ranking of 2nd or 3rd places, and because it can be shown mathematically that this can result in a 3rd or 4th place candidate winning.Thus there must be a ranking method of voting, of which there are a number of systems available. One of them is multiple head-to-head, and I gave an example of this on another board: Obviously this gets cumbersome with large numbers of candidates (example California Governor "election" where there were 135 candidates), as the number of head-to-head votes grows exponentially with the number of candidates, but this is probably (imho) the best way to vote when there is a small (six or less?) group of equally qualified candidates.So how do you winnow a large list (say 135) down to a reasonable number (like 5 or 6)?Primaries do not accomplish this because they are no different from general elections, just limited to members of one party or the other. Primaries also tend to eliminate candidates that are more acceptable to people outside the party, if the last several elections are any indication. This is also why you can end up with an election between two main parties ... both with 2nd or 3rd rate candidates.One way to winnow a large list is to give a rank vote to candidates, where you pick your {top ten} and rank them from 1 to 10 (no ties but you can have as many zero ranked candidates as you want) and they get an (11-rank) value.I think this is valid for picking the best 5 or 6, but not for selecting an {overall best} because the numbers can be skewed by people voting for only one candidate or just by skipping some ranks, whether intentional or not.I also have talked (semi-joking) about using an "American Idol" model, where a large group is winnowed based on performances at a series of highly publicized events where you let the candidates talk on any topic they wish to talk on, followed by voting on their performance.I would like to see decisions based on issues, not smears or campaigns of lies, and this would be one way to bring that into the picture. Another is to specifically empower the press to point out every single invalid claim made by a candidate, with no need to "balance" it by finding equally invalid claims by others (invalid is invalid).Thus I would envisage a series of 5 or 6 nation-wide "primary" elections with all candidates involved equally at the start, irrespective of political, economic or other background, with 1-10 rank voting after each one and progressively dropping the bottom 50% or so, with the percentage based on the original number of candidates and ending up at 5 or 6. (135 becomes 68 becomes 34 becomes 17 becomes 9 becomes 5) or (20 becomes 16 becomes 13 becomes 10 becomes 8 becomes 6).Or a series of "primaries" with no elimination until the final selection, so that the ranking votes from each session are additive (sort of like a tour-de-france ranking).Followed by one head-to-head vote of the final group.Thoughts?

A friend of mine suggests that all of these differnt voting methods are fraught with many of the same problems.Her suggestion?Use a method just like jury selection. Draw randomly from the voter's list -- allow a single 4 or 5 year term and draw again.My first reaction was not postitive but when you think about it a bit...

I think it should be by lottery. The number drawn must serve a minimum term but may have his or her enlistment extended by a popular vote method. Every adult's name should go in the pot, random drawing to pick the designated person.To try to minimize hardships of serving, there should be some method of compensation for the family of the selected person if needed.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

by using this method to pick moderators?

Works for me. I am totally convinced that anyone that wants such a position is unlikely to be able to fulfill it. I can tell you that TTBOMK every Admin here was drafted.This message has been edited by jar, 07-10-2005 09:11 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I was bribed...and I haven't received payment yet!!

this is a system that i thought up to try to modify the current system to eliminate the swing vote problems (that repress third parties), but without going to a complete restructurization, like a plurality system.basically, you'd still choose a single candidate for president, but you'd also choose a group of parties, right or left. the votes for "right" would be tallied against the votes for "left" to determine the winning set of parties. then the individual votes for the winning set would be tallied, and the person with the most votes there would win. that way, if you vote left, you can vote for whoever you want and not worry about it benefitting the major party of the opposition.

---

אָרַח

that kind of eliminates the center from consideration doesn't it?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Very much like the Parlimentary system?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't think that would eliminate the center, though it does seem to reinforce only a two party system, which I myself am interested in doing away with.I think centrist candidates would be selected under Arach's proposal, indeed might be preferred, since center candidates will get more votes within either left or right. Thus it'll push center-right vs center-left candidates over the others.One trouble I had with your proposed system, the multiple primaries, is that it seems a bit overburdensome. It may even result in voter burnout.I liked the idea of a contestant form of trying out candidates. That was an idea I had for a short movie.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

We have multiple primaries now, just ones that don't allow everyone to vote.You could have one primary on each major political concern for a different focus each time. balanced budget, foreign policies domestic policies, trade, etc.who knows, you might even generate some good ideas even if candidates that first express them don't get elected. well it does seem like one way to capture the american attention....

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Ok, we have a parlimentary democracy vs the democratic republic the US has, but surely there are some ideas that could be borrowed..Anyway, we have a system called Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) which basically works like this: Every person gets 2 votes - one 'list' vote and one 'member' vote. The list votes are for the parties (eg National, Labour, Green etc.) and they get totalled up and every party gets a proportion of the seats relative to the proportion of the list vote they got (a 5% cutoff threshold is used - if you don't get above that you don't get any seats from here). The second vote is for your local MP (member of parliment) and this is determined by where you are living. Your MP vote does not have to be for a MP from the same party as your list vote. The MP who wins in your region gets a seat.The end result of this is that a party can get both list and member seats, or just one or the other. A small party can get a seat through strong local support despite not getting a list seat, or alternatively (as long as they poll above %) get list seats without having to have a majority of the votes in any one region. This has meant that the last few elections we've had a minority government - no one party holds enough seats to really do anything, so they have to compromise. In the past this has meant Labour making a coallition with the Greens and United Future - the smaller parties supporting Labour on issues of "supply and confidence", with Labour putting through some of the smaller parties' concerns in return.This replaced the First Past the Post system, which is similar to the US system, where each region just elects a local MP. This pretty much led to the large parties always winning every seat with smaller parties shut out.

sort of, minus the teaming-up (i forget the correct term for that).

no, they'd just have to pick a side, either slightly left or slightly right. is anyone actually dead center?the reason i didn't suggest three party groupings is obvious: we're back to the swing vote problem. a vote for the center might cause the right to win if it attracts votes away from the left and vice versa.

---

אָרַח

think about it a little more. i think it would actually support third parties, because you could "safely" vote for one. it screws the "lesser of two evils" philosophy, which is the primary reason we only have two major parties.for instance, in the last election, i could have voted for whichever third party candidate i wanted, comfortable in the knowledge that it would not essentially be a vote for bush.[abe]in turn, this would actually promote thrid parties, since people would feel more free to vote for them. it might not be a BIG rise, but it would be the opportunity third parties need.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 07-12-2005 01:36 AM

---

אָרַח