Voting System Reform Commission: Part 2

[Joe Republic]

Blah blah blah

That's range voting.

Ah yes.  That piece of knowledge could have saved me some time and typing.

[Sam Spade]

I oppose approval voting for use in national elections, especially Presidential.  I'm fine with it in the Southeast.

[Bono]

I oppose approval voting for use in national elections, especially Presidential.  I'm fine with it in the Southeast.

What's the difference?

[Bono]

Blah blah blah

That's range voting.

Ah yes.  That piece of knowledge could have saved me some time and typing.

Ah-ha don't worry. BTW, that's also my supported voting system.

[Colin]

I don't really like approval voting, though it is better than most of the other systems that will be discussed. It seems, however, to make an election more a factor of the least hated candidate winning instead of the candidate who supports libertarian/conservative/moderate/leftist values and so on and so forth. I believe Emsworth has said this before but it creates a much more non-partisan atmosphere than in other systems because it is much more focused on just getting people to "approve" of you instead of an actual partisan political race. This will lead to elections being fought through popularity and likeability rather than political positions and issues. In the current system we often voted in a mixture. We vote for someone after taking a look at both their positions as well as their personality, although their is more of an emphasis upon issues. Although this can sometimes bit you in the ass, like when I third preferenced Siege and then after the election he chose the most leftist cabinet since Nym, although it didn't account for much in the long run. In closing approval voting would be concentrated to much upon likeability and personality instead of on issues and would lead to less ideological and less partisan races as well as less politically astute people possibly winning due to popularity of character.

[Emsworth]

I believe Emsworth has said this before but it creates a much more non-partisan atmosphere than in other systems because it is much more focused on just getting people to "approve" of you instead of an actual partisan political race.

Yes, I did argue that. I would agree with the President pro tempore that approval voting makes the atmosphere of the election much less exciting. The election just boils down to popularity and likability; the candidate's actual views and policies become much less important. A combination of the two is, I think, best, but approval voting only promotes the former.

[Bono]

Once again, Imust bump this, since it has become particulary relevant.

[Peter]

Once again, Imust bump this, since it has become particulary relevant.

Well, I think our mandate was to decide which electoral system to use, not how to reform the kinks of the present ones.

Also, I frankly got tired of doing this considering the first report which did obviously take an amount of work, got totally ignored.

[Bono]

Once again, Imust bump this, since it has become particulary relevant.

Well, I think our mandate was to decide which electoral system to use, not how to reform the kinks of the present ones.

Also, I frankly got tired of doing this considering the first report which did obviously take an amount of work, got totally ignored.

The problem is this idiot voting system. All else can never change the basic problem.

[The Duke]

Can I throw one thing out there on coting reform, considering that FPTP w/ runoff was considered, but the flaw was the fear that we'd have two extreme candidates in the final?

Why not have a runoff with the top three candidates?

We'd have our election, and the final three would run against each other in a runoff where plurality, not majority, is required.

Just a thought, there amy turn out to be perfectly good reasons not to do this.

[Gabu]

Can I throw one thing out there on coting reform, considering that FPTP w/ runoff was considered, but the flaw was the fear that we'd have two extreme candidates in the final?

Why not have a runoff with the top three candidates?

We'd have our election, and the final three would run against each other in a runoff where plurality, not majority, is required.

Just a thought, there amy turn out to be perfectly good reasons not to do this.

I have another idea that I've been mulling over, although it certainly needs to be refined since it would make elections take a very long time in very close races between many candidates.

The basic idea is that, in a race with n candidates, anyone who gets a percent of the vote greater than 100/n proceeds to the runoff .  So, in a 3-candidate race, you'd need more than 33.3% of the vote, or in a 4-candidate race, you'd need more than 25% of the vote, etc.  The reason to do this is to make it so that we still have FPTP in the end, but so that candidates with a substantial amount of support who just fall a little short of the top two (or whatever) don't get excluded.  The percentage requirement is such that there must be at least one candidate eliminated in each round, unless there is an exact n-way tie, which I realize I haven't accounted for.

Ideally, to fully achieve the desire of the people, the new runoff would also go into a runoff if still no one receives a majority of the vote, but if we take it down that path we could have an awful lot of runoffs.

I still haven't quite figured out if this idea is worth pursuing, so I thought I'd get someone else's take on it.

[Bono]

Can I throw one thing out there on coting reform, considering that FPTP w/ runoff was considered, but the flaw was the fear that we'd have two extreme candidates in the final?

Why not have a runoff with the top three candidates?

We'd have our election, and the final three would run against each other in a runoff where plurality, not majority, is required.

Just a thought, there amy turn out to be perfectly good reasons not to do this.

I have another idea that I've been mulling over, although it certainly needs to be refined since it would make elections take a very long time in very close races between many candidates.

The basic idea is that, in a race with n candidates, anyone who gets a percent of the vote greater than 100/n proceeds to the runoff .  So, in a 3-candidate race, you'd need more than 33.3% of the vote, or in a 4-candidate race, you'd need more than 25% of the vote, etc.  The reason to do this is to make it so that we still have FPTP in the end, but so that candidates with a substantial amount of support who just fall a little short of the top two (or whatever) don't get excluded.  The percentage requirement is such that there must be at least one candidate eliminated in each round, unless there is an exact n-way tie, which I realize I haven't accounted for.

Ideally, to fully achieve the desire of the people, the new runoff would also go into a runoff if still no one receives a majority of the vote, but if we take it down that path we could have an awful lot of runoffs.

I still haven't quite figured out if this idea is worth pursuing, so I thought I'd get someone else's take on it.

That's how france's assembly elections work' (or is it regionals? or both?)

[Brandon H]

I never saw this thread until today. And I just started a thread for a new SIG in the other board.

I like Gabu's idea.

I also read today about a mix of condorcet & IRV. http://accuratedemocracy.com/c_anti.htm A candidate would need 10% of the first choice votes before doing the head to head comparisons. The main thing supporting this would be a weak candidate getting by because the least amout of people object to him. I think for that a formula would be needed to base the percentage required and possibly the number of how far down the choices would go to count.

Another system that I think would make sure Bush and Kerry never got elected but would not work for us (because we have good candidates and a multi-party system) is Survival voting.

There is also IRV + FPTP. Users would fill out the ballot like IRV. If no one has more than 50% of the first round votes, then only the top two are taken and all other ballots are checked to see who prefrences which of the top two candidates higher. This could probably lead to the same problem though. Actually any election method is open to tactical voting as long as the voting is public.

[Platypus]

FPTP is a stupid system. I'm not prepared to work with any proposal that uses it as a basis, with or without runoff.

Preferntial voting really does work. The problems are 1) Write-ins. Should never have been allowed; should be scrapped now. 2) People not ranking all candidates.

If each ticket on the ballot is listed in order of preference, and there are no write-in candidates, it's a simple, trouble free system. It's also the most democratic; the majority of people approve of the candidate, and they have a significant base so someone people actually want is elected, not just a 'lesser of two evils'.

Preferential voting works, and works better then any other system. The problem is that Atlasia doesn't use it properly. If you car breaks down, you don't replace it (unless you have money to burn). You go and get it repaired. Let's repair this one. If it stlll screws up, then obviously it's time to trade it in.








Optionally, people could vote for just the one candidate, and then have the remainder of their preferences distributed by a pre-determined list of preference by the candidates. IE, if Mr. Apple says his preference distribution will be mr. apple-mr. orange-mr. banana, and mr. tangerine votes 1. Apple, his vote would count for mr. apple, then mr. orange. Mr. canteloupe voted mr. apple-mr. banana-mr. orange though, and that's still a perfectly valid vote. mr. strawberry voted mr. apple-write in mr. strawberry though, so that vote doesn't count

[afleitch]

REDIRECTED HERE FROM A PREVIOUS THREAD.

Proposal for electoral reform.

Yes it's European but bear with me

If there are for example 4 positions to be filled, each party nominates 4 people to fill that position, or 4 people come forward from that party wishing to be candidates with the most experienced/preferred candidates/leader etc at the top, then the next best second and so on (or they can be in a random order if you wish to be fairer. How a party orders candidates is up to them). If the party took 100% of the vote, they would take all 4 seats

So for example;

BLUE PARTY  RED PARTY  YELLOW PARTY

Matthew       Paul           Crosby
Mark             John            Stills
Luke             George       Nash
John             Ringo          Young

Voters vote for a party of their choice.

Result: Blue Party 52%
            Red Party  32%
            Yellow Party 16% 

52% of 4 is 2.08 seats theoretically
32% of 4 is 1.28 seats theoretically
16% of 4 is 0.64 seats theoretically

The Blue Party takes 2 seats and the Red Party take 1
So Matthew and Mark are elected as they are the top two names on the Blue Party list and Paul is elected for the Red Party as he is their first name.

NOW...There is one seat left, but the Yellow Party only had enough votes for 0.64 seats, ie not a full seat.

You can either give them the seat by default (as 0.64 is closer to 1 than zero. If they had got 0.49 seats they wouldn't be entitled to any at all as that is closer to zero than 1) This is a simpler idea that the alternatives.

Or you can use maths and the D'hondt system, but youll have to get back to me on that!

[minionofmidas]

What you describe is Hare/Niemeyer (at least if you'd give them a seat for .64.) In a many-ways split election for just four or five seats, it might take ridiculously few votes to win a seat under Hare/Niemeyer.
I'd therefore advocate D'Hondt.
Distribution of four seats using D'Hondt in your example would be
52 - 1st seat for Blue Party
32 - 1st seat for Red Party
52/2=26 - 2nd seat for Blue Party
52/3=17.3 - 3rd seat for Blue Party
(And if we have five seats...2nd Red seat and 1st Yellow seat are both at 16. Smaller party would usually be given the seat in such cases, to counteract the system's immanent pro-larger party bias.)

I would prefer some sort of personalized component, though. For example, you could give every voter one vote for one candidate that counts both for the candidate's party list, and is also used in determining who of that party list is elected first. Or give every voter as many votes as there are seats.

Obviously, I would also advocate doing away with separate constituencies, and electing 5 Senators proportionally every two months for four month terms (as before, really.)


I oppose the idea of splitting the functions of head of state and head of government. We have far too many positions already.
However, what do people think of electing President and VP separately rather than as a ticket?

[KEmperor]

No, listen, all these voting systems being proposed have one major flaw:

They are too complicated.

It is quite clear that the problem we are having is that the current system we use is too damn complicated for everyone to easily count.  This is why we end up with people declaring different people winners.  If there is to be any reform, it needs to be so simple that a member can sit down with a pen and paper and simply tally the votes in a matter of a few minutes.

That's my two cents.

[afleitch]

No, listen, all these voting systems being proposed have one major flaw:

They are too complicated.

It is quite clear that the problem we are having is that the current system we use is too damn complicated for everyone to easily count.  This is why we end up with people declaring different people winners.  If there is to be any reform, it needs to be so simple that a member can sit down with a pen and paper and simply tally the votes in a matter of a few minutes.

That's my two cents.

So one vote, FPTP then? That's the simplest there is. The List System is simple, you just vote once, for your preferred candidate/party, your vote is only counted once, it is not split.

[KEmperor]

No, listen, all these voting systems being proposed have one major flaw:

They are too complicated.

It is quite clear that the problem we are having is that the current system we use is too damn complicated for everyone to easily count.  This is why we end up with people declaring different people winners.  If there is to be any reform, it needs to be so simple that a member can sit down with a pen and paper and simply tally the votes in a matter of a few minutes.

That's my two cents.

So one vote, FPTP then? That's the simplest there is. The List System is simple, you just vote once, for your preferred candidate/party, your vote is only counted once, it is not split.

Problem with that is if you want to split your ticket.

[Peter]

The List System is only appropriate for legislative elections, and thus only our Senate. Given that our Constitution effectively states that all Districts/Regions return only one member, a list system would require a large amount of constitutional changes to implement.

[afleitch]

No, listen, all these voting systems being proposed have one major flaw:

They are too complicated.

It is quite clear that the problem we are having is that the current system we use is too damn complicated for everyone to easily count.  This is why we end up with people declaring different people winners.  If there is to be any reform, it needs to be so simple that a member can sit down with a pen and paper and simply tally the votes in a matter of a few minutes.

That's my two cents.

So one vote, FPTP then? That's the simplest there is. The List System is simple, you just vote once, for your preferred candidate/party, your vote is only counted once, it is not split.

Problem with that is if you want to split your ticket.

I thought tickets only applied in Presidential elections; a list system would obviously not be applied in a presidential election.

[KEmperor]

No, listen, all these voting systems being proposed have one major flaw:

They are too complicated.

It is quite clear that the problem we are having is that the current system we use is too damn complicated for everyone to easily count.  This is why we end up with people declaring different people winners.  If there is to be any reform, it needs to be so simple that a member can sit down with a pen and paper and simply tally the votes in a matter of a few minutes.

That's my two cents.

So one vote, FPTP then? That's the simplest there is. The List System is simple, you just vote once, for your preferred candidate/party, your vote is only counted once, it is not split.

Problem with that is if you want to split your ticket.

I thought tickets only applied in Presidential elections; a list system would obviously not be applied in a presidential election.

Which brings me back to the initial question.  How does this proposal fix the problem we just had with the Presidental election?  And what system should we use for President then?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

My main problem with list systems (and PR in general) is that it breaks the (IMO important) link between a politician and his constituents. If we adopt a list system for Senate elections, why on earth should I bother trying to find out what my constituents think about certain pieces of legislation? Why should I bother helping them out if they have problems? I can just sit back as a CDP list candidate and do f*** all safe in the knowledge that there are enough CDP voters nationally to win the party (and me if I'm nice to the bigwigs in the Party) a list seat election after election.

[afleitch]

Please bear in mind I was throwing ideas to the wind. I just wanted to introduce different arguments into the debate. I have problems with the list system myself, but I believe that those whose interests are best served by the current system will not want any change at all, hence people like myself who have never stood for election and do not hold power will naturally propose reforms that those in power will disagree with. It's all part of a healthy debate.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Please bear in mind I was throwing ideas to the wind.

I realise that and I've no problem with you doing that at all