Plurality Voting Sucks

[A18]

Besides minimalizing the possibility of a 1992-style 'split vote,' Approval Voting would in time show the Two Party monopoly the door. And other than a few rare cases, it shouldn't require any new equipment.

Approval Voting would work exactly how things work now, except "choose one" would become "choose one or more." Voters decide which candidates they approve of, and the guy with the most 'approval' votes wins.

[Gustaf]

That's a poor idea, IMHO. 1 man, 1 vote. Go with Proportional distribution instead, much better system.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Approval voting is kind of a strange system that creates a lot of incentive for strategic voting.  

Preferential voting (instant run-off), also has the potential for strange strategic voting effects, but in rarer cases than either "plurality vote" (FPTP) or approval voting.

[freek]

That's a poor idea, IMHO. 1 man, 1 vote. Go with Proportional distribution instead, much better system.

I agree.

[ilikeverin]

That's a poor idea, IMHO. 1 man, 1 vote. Go with Proportional distribution instead, much better system.

Whee

[Gustaf]

Still 1 man, 1 vote. No one has more influence than another, so there's nothing unfair about it.

It gives an incentive, but less than Plurality. The vote could still be split if one group decided to withdraw its support for another candidate too early (say, Libertarian for Republican) in order to give their prefered guy the win. But that's also true under Plurality.

The current system shares all the cons, but doesn't have the pros.

Instant run off needs new equipment.

What about proportional represenation then? Or preferential voting, for that matter.

And those who are centrist gets more influence than others, since they'll give out more votes.

[Gustaf]

Instant Runoff = Preferential

No one likes proportional representation except public school nerds. Taking geography out of the system isn't a good idea, and to do so would be the only practical way of making it work.

They'd give a single vote of approval to each candidate they liked. So you're pushing the candidates you like ahead, and leaving people like John Kerry behind.

Liking more people doesn't give you more influence, because it doesn't do anything more to push your preferences ahead. For example, if you're pro-Saddam Hussein, but can't decide between him and bin Laden, you vote for both. So now each is one point further ahead.

But pro-Saddam people who are mad at bin Laden over tax cuts or whatever don't want him to win, so they don't give him a point. Bin Laden's base, who insist that Hussein is weak on defense, so they do the opposite.

So the result if Hussein 300, bin Laden 200. Third party candidates like Hitler get 20 or something.

Saddam's supporters got to give him points, bin Laden's got to do likewise. How did voting for both give anyone more influence? You liked Hussein and bin Laden, but disapproved of Hitler's failure to take of Europe. You got your say.

Prefenntial voting does not equal instant run-off...your argument against it was that it would somehow require "new equipment". I don't see this as being true or at least not very difficult in the case of straight preferential voting.

"No one likes proportional representation except public school nerds. "

Oh, OK, I forgot that side of it...it's good to have you present us with these valid, in-depth arguments.

You started off by saying that your system would "show the Two-party monopoly the door". But your above argument is based on there being two major parties. If there are several major parties, like in my country, those who like more than 1 party get more votes and their parties would win all seats. This would make all parties campaign on likeability and render it impossible to do anything radical at all.

[Gustaf]

What's your version of preferencial voting, then?

The vote-counting-thingies can't process the IRV routine.

That's what I'm here for.

Well, this definition of "influence" is new to me. If you like Republicans and Democrats, you're probably loving life here in the States, where the two dominate everything. Yet no one says moderates have more 'influence' under PV.

Liking people on the ballot doesn't make you influential. It just makes you happy with those who actually are influential.

When a third party got a preferencial majority (53%, say), it could withdraw its support from whoever else they had been voting for.

Preferntial voting, the way it works in Australia, you list the candidates in order of preference. This wouldn't be much different from normal voting, I think. I will admit to not being an expert on those systems though.

I don't live in the States, I live in Sweden, and I'm very happy with our proportional system. You would give more influence to the moderates, who would rule the elections. And it would create silly strategic voting.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Plurality voting is made of failure and AIDS. The person who invented it is burning in hell with Reagan, LBJ and Mohammed.

[ilikeverin]

That's a poor idea, IMHO. 1 man, 1 vote. Go with Proportional distribution instead, much better system.

Whee

Wow, I contributed so much valuable insight back then.

*cue StatesRights/Sam Spade/Straha/et al. snarky comment*

[Padfoot]

Plurality voting is made of failure and AIDS. The person who invented it is burning in hell with Reagan, LBJ and Mohammed.

Straha if you're going to go around resurrecting ancient threads like this then at least make sure you have something meaningful to say when you do.  I know that's hard for you, but give it a try.  When in doubt it's probably best not to respond at all.

As for the subject at hand, I'd personally prefer IRV to be implemented.  I think it is the most effective way to get rid of the "wasted vote syndrome" that plagues independent and third party candidates.  It could actually undermine the primary system if candidates utilized it correctly which is something I would love to see.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I did. Read my earlier post in this thread. Also stop presuming you can order me around.

[Padfoot]

I did. Read my earlier post in this thread. Also stop presuming you can order me around.

Perhaps you should try reading mine since I quoted you.  I was obviously responding to the complete lack of any substance or purpose in claiming that plurality voting is made of "failure and AIDS."  The fact that you resurrected a thread that has been dead for over 3 years just to make such a silly statement is a testament to your incessantly annoying inability to contribute anything of any worth to this forum.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Why do you hate America?