Breaking News: Preferential Voting is Unconstitutional

[Keystone Phil]

Personally, we need to stop getting bogged down in technicalities. The bill passed. We are in fantasy elections, not the AG's office.

But this could mean a lot, plus StevenNick and Harry could request a revote since they lost because of the preferential voting system.

I was elected to the Senate due to Pref. Voting, I like it the way it is.

Funny. That same election is why I am so opposed to preferential voting. I wonder why....

As for this issue, I'm not sure how we should pursue it. Having SteveNick and Harry challenge the results, in my opinion, would be a bad idea. Right now I would say that we let the results of past elections stand and dedicate our time to Constitutional Convention. We obviously have some real problems that need fixing before the next election.

[Keystone Phil]

Personally, we need to stop getting bogged down in technicalities. The bill passed. We are in fantasy elections, not the AG's office.

But this could mean a lot, plus StevenNick and Harry could request a revote since they lost because of the preferential voting system.

I was elected to the Senate due to Pref. Voting, I like it the way it is.

Funny. That same election is why I am so opposed to preferential voting. I wonder why....

Keystone, 63% of the voters strongly opposed you getting in the Senate. That's why you lost. You had more 4th Preference Votes (Or no vote) than everything else combined.

Akno, did I not receive more votes to begin with? Direct popular vote for Senators, in my opinion, is the best way to go.

[Keystone Phil]

Personally, we need to stop getting bogged down in technicalities. The bill passed. We are in fantasy elections, not the AG's office.

But this could mean a lot, plus StevenNick and Harry could request a revote since they lost because of the preferential voting system.

I was elected to the Senate due to Pref. Voting, I like it the way it is.

Funny. That same election is why I am so opposed to preferential voting. I wonder why....

Keystone, 63% of the voters strongly opposed you getting in the Senate. That's why you lost. You had more 4th Preference Votes (Or no vote) than everything else combined.

Akno, did I not receive more votes to begin with? Direct popular vote for Senators, in my opinion, is the best way to go.

Yes, you did, although if there hadn't been Preferntial Voting, I would have dropped out, and Nick would have gotten my first preferences, and thus gotten more than you.

Ok well I don't play the "Well I would have done this..." game.

[Keystone Phil]

Personally, we need to stop getting bogged down in technicalities. The bill passed. We are in fantasy elections, not the AG's office.

But this could mean a lot, plus StevenNick and Harry could request a revote since they lost because of the preferential voting system.

I was elected to the Senate due to Pref. Voting, I like it the way it is.

Funny. That same election is why I am so opposed to preferential voting. I wonder why....

Keystone, 63% of the voters strongly opposed you getting in the Senate. That's why you lost. You had more 4th Preference Votes (Or no vote) than everything else combined.

Akno, did I not receive more votes to begin with? Direct popular vote for Senators, in my opinion, is the best way to go.

Yes, you did, although if there hadn't been Preferntial Voting, I would have dropped out, and Nick would have gotten my first preferences, and thus gotten more than you.

Ok well I don't play the "Well I would have done this..." game.

It's not a game, it's realism. You seem to think you would have won using "American" voting, and while based on votes only, that is true, I was pointing out that when other factors are taken into consideration, you would not have won.

Well that is the way I would prefer we vote, Akno - by votes only. I think this whole "Well if your first and second choice doesn't work out, you can always have the person you wanted third beat the current vote leader" idea is ridiculous. One voter, one vote.

My opinion won't change, your opinion probably won't change. We've debated this time and time again, Akno, and we're really just wasting our time. Let's just try to find a way to solve these electoral problems without saying "Back in July, I would have done this..." I honestly don't care. All I said was because of that election, I came out opposed to the system and because of that same election, you now have a favorable feeling towards the system. That's it.

[Keystone Phil]

Personally, we need to stop getting bogged down in technicalities. The bill passed. We are in fantasy elections, not the AG's office.

But this could mean a lot, plus StevenNick and Harry could request a revote since they lost because of the preferential voting system.

I was elected to the Senate due to Pref. Voting, I like it the way it is.

Funny. That same election is why I am so opposed to preferential voting. I wonder why....

Keystone, 63% of the voters strongly opposed you getting in the Senate. That's why you lost. You had more 4th Preference Votes (Or no vote) than everything else combined.

Akno, did I not receive more votes to begin with? Direct popular vote for Senators, in my opinion, is the best way to go.

Yes, you did, although if there hadn't been Preferntial Voting, I would have dropped out, and Nick would have gotten my first preferences, and thus gotten more than you.

Ok well I don't play the "Well I would have done this..." game.

It's not a game, it's realism. You seem to think you would have won using "American" voting, and while based on votes only, that is true, I was pointing out that when other factors are taken into consideration, you would not have won.

Well that is the way I would prefer we vote, Akno - by votes only. I think this whole "Well if your first and second choice doesn't work out, you can always have the person you wanted third beat the current vote leader" idea is ridiculous. One voter, one vote.

My opinion won't change, your opinion probably won't change. We've debated this time and time again, Akno, and we're really just wasting our time. Let's just try to find a way to solve these electoral problems without saying "Back in July, I would have done this..." I honestly don't care. All I said was because of that election, I came out opposed to the system and because of that same election, you now have a favorable feeling towards the system. That's it.

Obviously you would prefer to consider it by votes only and not realism, you win that way.

Anyway, I agree, there's no use debating an election that happened almost half a year ago. Let's get back on topic.

Akno, I'm over the race. I've been over the race since July. I lost. I found the system to be unfair. Now I stand by Democrats, Republicans, Independents and members of every party when I challenge the Preferential voting system. Nothing can go back and change the July results. I can't "win that way." I've actually already won "your" way and I still stand up to the system of voting.

 And I love this "realism." What's realism? Let's say someone votes, goes home, watches the results and their candidate loses. Now they want to go back and say "Ehhhhh I really don't like who I'm stuck with now, can I vote for another candidate besides the one that just lost?" Is that your realism, Akno?

[Keystone Phil]

I certainly oppose a change to our current preferential system, because if we go back to casting a single vote, our winners will either not have a majority, or we'll have to spend time on a runoff, which could have already been settled by PV.

Preferential voting also ensures that a candidate cannot win simply with a small base of very committed supporters; they must appeal to a broader range of voters in order to win.

Which is precisely what the VP dislikes about it.

What I dislike is that a person with an even smaller base to start out with can win. It's unfair and should be done away with.

[Keystone Phil]

I certainly oppose a change to our current preferential system, because if we go back to casting a single vote, our winners will either not have a majority, or we'll have to spend time on a runoff, which could have already been settled by PV.

Preferential voting also ensures that a candidate cannot win simply with a small base of very committed supporters; they must appeal to a broader range of voters in order to win.

Which is precisely what the VP dislikes about it.

What I dislike is that a person with an even smaller base to start out with can win. It's unfair and should be done away with.

It's unfair that a person rejected by 63% of the voters should win.

And it's still unfair that the person who voters might have overwhelmingly rejected in the first place win the election. We campaign to get the vote of the voters. We don't make up signs that say "District 1 Wants So and So For Senator....that is, if candidate A and B don't have enough votes to win..."

[Keystone Phil]

I certainly oppose a change to our current preferential system, because if we go back to casting a single vote, our winners will either not have a majority, or we'll have to spend time on a runoff, which could have already been settled by PV.

Preferential voting also ensures that a candidate cannot win simply with a small base of very committed supporters; they must appeal to a broader range of voters in order to win.

Which is precisely what the VP dislikes about it.

What I dislike is that a person with an even smaller base to start out with can win. It's unfair and should be done away with.

It's unfair that a person rejected by 63% of the voters should win.

And it's still unfair that the person who voters might have overwhelmingly rejected in the first place win the election. We campaign to get the vote of the voters. We don't make up signs that say "District 1 Wants So and So For Senator....that is, if candidate A and B don't have enough votes to win..."

If they overwhelmingly rejected him they would place him last or not place him at all. We campaign to get people's vote, and in many cases hope they will say, "Well, he's not my first choice, but if placing him 2nd will prevent a radical from winning, I'll do it".

Well nice jab at me, Akno. "...Prevent a radical from winning..." I am not a radical and you were probably one of the most liberal members of the Senate. So much for stopping a radical...

Anyway, it's my opinion that allowing someone to say "Well he's not my first choice but here's my three candidate back up plan..." is unfair.

You then say it encourages people to run? How? If there are three people in a race, how is it encouraging more to join? If anything, people stay away. It's hard, in that situation, to get a majority of the vote so someone will say to themselves "Well there are already three people running and I while I believe I can get the most votes, it's going to be nearly impossible for me to get over 50%."

[Keystone Phil]

I certainly oppose a change to our current preferential system, because if we go back to casting a single vote, our winners will either not have a majority, or we'll have to spend time on a runoff, which could have already been settled by PV.

Preferential voting also ensures that a candidate cannot win simply with a small base of very committed supporters; they must appeal to a broader range of voters in order to win.

Which is precisely what the VP dislikes about it.

What I dislike is that a person with an even smaller base to start out with can win. It's unfair and should be done away with.

It's unfair that a person rejected by 63% of the voters should win.

And it's still unfair that the person who voters might have overwhelmingly rejected in the first place win the election. We campaign to get the vote of the voters. We don't make up signs that say "District 1 Wants So and So For Senator....that is, if candidate A and B don't have enough votes to win..."

If they overwhelmingly rejected him they would place him last or not place him at all. We campaign to get people's vote, and in many cases hope they will say, "Well, he's not my first choice, but if placing him 2nd will prevent a radical from winning, I'll do it".

Well nice jab at me, Akno. "...Prevent a radical from winning..." I am not a radical and you were probably one of the most liberal members of the Senate. So much for stopping a radical...

Anyway, it's my opinion that allowing someone to say "Well he's not my first choice but here's my three candidate back up plan..." is unfair.

You then say it encourages people to run? How? If there are three people in a race, how is it encouraging more to join? If anything, people stay away. It's hard, in that situation, to get a majority of the vote so someone will say to themselves "Well there are already three people running and I while I believe I can get the most votes, it's going to be nearly impossible for me to get over 50%."

Had you been elected you would have been the third-most Conservative member of the Senate.

I don't see how that is unfair.

It encourages people to run because they know they can at least take a stab at it, without putting the bigger name from their party or at least general side of the spectrum at risk of losing. Running for office is fun, even if you don't win. Did you enjoy running for office, even if you lost? I know I did.

Third most conservative out of three conservative Senators. So what's your point...?

People can "take a stab at it" in the popular vote system, too, Akno. Your theory isn't making sense.

Yes I did have fun running for office but let's not change the subject. People don't run for the purpose of "having fun." You don't use the reason "Well atleast they had fun." to defend a voting system.

[Keystone Phil]

I certainly oppose a change to our current preferential system, because if we go back to casting a single vote, our winners will either not have a majority, or we'll have to spend time on a runoff, which could have already been settled by PV.

Preferential voting also ensures that a candidate cannot win simply with a small base of very committed supporters; they must appeal to a broader range of voters in order to win.

Which is precisely what the VP dislikes about it.

What I dislike is that a person with an even smaller base to start out with can win. It's unfair and should be done away with.

It's unfair that a person rejected by 63% of the voters should win.

And it's still unfair that the person who voters might have overwhelmingly rejected in the first place win the election. We campaign to get the vote of the voters. We don't make up signs that say "District 1 Wants So and So For Senator....that is, if candidate A and B don't have enough votes to win..."

If they overwhelmingly rejected him they would place him last or not place him at all. We campaign to get people's vote, and in many cases hope they will say, "Well, he's not my first choice, but if placing him 2nd will prevent a radical from winning, I'll do it".

Well nice jab at me, Akno. "...Prevent a radical from winning..." I am not a radical and you were probably one of the most liberal members of the Senate. So much for stopping a radical...

Anyway, it's my opinion that allowing someone to say "Well he's not my first choice but here's my three candidate back up plan..." is unfair.

You then say it encourages people to run? How? If there are three people in a race, how is it encouraging more to join? If anything, people stay away. It's hard, in that situation, to get a majority of the vote so someone will say to themselves "Well there are already three people running and I while I believe I can get the most votes, it's going to be nearly impossible for me to get over 50%."

Had you been elected you would have been the third-most Conservative member of the Senate.

I don't see how that is unfair.

It encourages people to run because they know they can at least take a stab at it, without putting the bigger name from their party or at least general side of the spectrum at risk of losing. Running for office is fun, even if you don't win. Did you enjoy running for office, even if you lost? I know I did.

Third most conservative out of three conservative Senators. So what's your point...?

People can "take a stab at it" in the popular vote system, too, Akno. Your theory isn't making sense.

Yes I did have fun running for office but let's not change the subject. People don't run for the purpose of "having fun." You don't use the reason "Well atleast they had fun." to defend a voting system.

But you can't take a stab at it without risking defeat for your general political side in an election using the USA voting system.

Actually, in fantasy elections, I can defend a system by saying that. The point of this is to have fun in politics. It's to act like your idol, barnstorming, proposing bills, GOTV, etc.

You take risks when you run for office, Akno.

My point is that if you feel the system is unfair, someone shouldn't be telling you "Well it's just for fun."

[Keystone Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A very polarizing person can still win with the Preferential voting system. In ways, it can actually help win them the election...

Candidate A - 25%
Candidate B - 49%
Candidate C - 26%

Candidate A is now gone

Candidate B - 49%
Candidate C - 51%

Candidat C seems pretty polarizing but thanks to this system, he just won the election. Still seem unfair?

[Keystone Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A very polarizing person can still win with the Preferential voting system. In ways, it can actually help win them the election...

Candidate A - 25%
Candidate B - 49%
Candidate C - 26%

Candidate A is now gone

Candidate B - 49%
Candidate C - 51%

Candidat C seems pretty polarizing but thanks to this system, he just won the election. Still seem unfair?

If were polarizing he wouldn't have gotten all of A's second preferences.

True. I guess my example wasn't that good 

However, Jake provided an example earlier. Maybe you can address his point.

[Keystone Phil]

They still rejected him. If they wanted him, they would've voted for him.

Placing someone as your second preference isn't "rejecting" that person.  It's just saying that you don't quite like that candidate enough to place him first.

You're rejecting him for the job by not placing him first.

Is the silver medallist in Olympic gymnastics "rejected" by the judges?

Well if you want to use that type of example, what are the losing candidates rewarded with?

[Keystone Phil]

They still rejected him. If they wanted him, they would've voted for him.

Placing someone as your second preference isn't "rejecting" that person.  It's just saying that you don't quite like that candidate enough to place him first.

You're rejecting him for the job by not placing him first.

Is the silver medallist in Olympic gymnastics "rejected" by the judges?

Well if you want to use that type of example, what are the losing candidates rewarded with?

I'm not sure what you mean.

You were going to bring up that gymnasts who don't receive gold medals aren't rejected but actually rewarded. I thought it was a poor example since a losing candidate is not rewarded when they don't win the top prize.

I'll be very honest with everyone right now: I'm at the point where it's too annoying to even look at this subject. I mean you have Gabu giving the example of gymnasts not getting the gold medal comparing it to the voting system, then I respond and I probably understood it differently...it's just becoming a mess.