Alternative Voting System

[Iceweasel]

You obviously have no clue why we have the electoral college system or what the word "republic" means.

You have the electoral college system because the founders were frightened of too much democracy. And I think it you who does not know the meaning of republic:

Definition of “republic” | Collins English Dictionary

1. a form of government in which the people or their elected representatives possess the supreme power
2. a political or national unit possessing such a form of government
3. a constitutional form in which the head of state is an elected or nominated president

I think you are an idiot. How did I misuse the term republic? And where the fuck do you get the idea the founders were afraid of too much democracy? Public ed? Too much democracy is stupid, it's two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

And what system protects the lamb?

A republic. Like I said.

If the Constitution protects the lamb, it's only because the 2 lions decided to have a Constitution that protected the lamb.

Yes, they decided to form a republic. Holy shit!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Some folks like to narrow down the term Republic for political reasons. I think its mostly elitists who like the corrupt status quo. The founding generation equated Republics and Democracies, which is basically confirmed in a recent Supreme Court Case Arizona vs Arizona. Most of the pics in my gallery deal with this issue.

Most of the problems in politics I think come from to much influence of special interest money.

Some of that could be alleviated by a better voting system. Proportional representation for legislatures I think and preference voting such as outlined in OP for executive positions like Mayor or president.

But we also need a better representation to citizen ratio, closer to that at the time of the founding.

And a national initiative option to keep all these "representatives" in line.

It's called English. Learn to use it. A republic means the citizens elect representatives, we do not vote directly on issues, except some states have ballot measures. It is not complicated.

People are not typically very well informed, don't care or want to learn the details and operate in their own best interests. Having more uninformed people making decisions is a big step backwards.

A representative democracy is a system where the people elect representatives.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You have the electoral college system because the founders were frightened of too much democracy. And I think it you who does not know the meaning of republic:

Definition of “republic” | Collins English Dictionary

1. a form of government in which the people or their elected representatives possess the supreme power
2. a political or national unit possessing such a form of government
3. a constitutional form in which the head of state is an elected or nominated president

I think you are an idiot. How did I misuse the term republic? And where the fuck do you get the idea the founders were afraid of too much democracy? Public ed? Too much democracy is stupid, it's two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

And what system protects the lamb?

A republic. Like I said.

If the Constitution protects the lamb, it's only because the 2 lions decided to have a Constitution that protected the lamb.

Yes, they decided to form a republic. Holy shit!

No, they didn't elect representatives. There are only 3. They vote by direct democracy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How did I misuse the term republic?

Implying it had anything to do with this:

the problem besetting Washington could be solved by a more representative and more highly competitive elections.

So now it's you implying the founders were not afraid of acting stupidly.

And where the fuck do you get the idea the founders were afraid of too much democracy? Public ed? Too much democracy is stupid, it's two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

They were afraid of acting stupidly because they formed a republic? Does. Not. Compute.

Forming a republic didn't protect the 'negroes' in America.

 

[g5000]

I would like to see a change in voting.

I think if you could vote against someone, more people would go.

example; Trump vs Hillary vs 3rd party

Trump is a gasbag that's more into himself than anything else and I won't vote for him.
Hillary is an evil twunt with no place among the living, so I wouldn't vote for her.
3rd party is some milktoast libertarian

so now I have little reason to take my time and vote, but if I could vote against Hillary, I would take the time to do so. This gives a 3rd party a better shot as who is going to be interested in voting against them.

That would be interesting.

If you were still allowed only one vote, but could use it to vote for someone, or use it to vote against someone, that would be awesome.

If you voted against someone, your vote would subtract from their score.

Right now, the only way you can vote against a candidate is to vote for the other candidate. The "lesser of two evils" system of voting. However, when you vote for a lesser evil, you are still voting for evil. And when you vote for someone, they think you are voting for them because you think they are doing something right.

But if you are allowed to vote against someone, then you aren't telling the other person they are doing something right. You are telling them they suck, just not as much as the other person.

 

[CowboyTed]

You obviously have no clue why we have the electoral college system or what the word "republic" means.

You have the electoral college system because the founders were frightened of too much democracy. And I think it you who does not know the meaning of republic:

Definition of “republic” | Collins English Dictionary

1. a form of government in which the people or their elected representatives possess the supreme power
2. a political or national unit possessing such a form of government
3. a constitutional form in which the head of state is an elected or nominated president

I think you are an idiot. How did I misuse the term republic? And where the fuck do you get the idea the founders were afraid of too much democracy? Public ed? Too much democracy is stupid, it's two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

And what system protects the lamb?

For Countries in Europe the have the Court of Human Rights, guess what US don't sign up to that or the ICC (International Criminal Court)(Signed not ratified),....

List is pretty long. So if you want to sue the government you can go over the countries supreme court level to an international body. There has been some big cases taken there.

The US is never going to sign the ICC (Signed not ratified) as it could leave a US soldier open to be for prosecution for war crimes. Yet UK do and have no one ever charged (I think). An ICC might mean someone at the top table could be accountable for their actions, imagine an European Police investigators, investigating the US invasion of Iraq with full transparency...
Now that would make some sh*t their pants...

 

[g5000]

I also believe every ballot for elected office should have a None of the Above option.

If None of the Above wins, all the candidates on the ballot are trashed and not allowed to run again. Then we hold a new election.

 

[TNHarley]

I also believe every ballot for elected office should have a None of the Above option.

If None of the Above wins, all the candidates on the ballot are trashed and not allowed to run again. Then we hold a new election.

I love it!

 

[Iceweasel]

I also believe every ballot for elected office should have a None of the Above option.

If None of the Above wins, all the candidates on the ballot are trashed and not allowed to run again. Then we hold a new election.

Or you can simply do what the Democrats do here. Don't get the governor outcome you want? No problem, simply recount and recount until enough illegal votes delivers your candidate.

 

[CowboyTed]

I would like to see a change in voting.

I think if you could vote against someone, more people would go.

example; Trump vs Hillary vs 3rd party

Trump is a gasbag that's more into himself than anything else and I won't vote for him.
Hillary is an evil twunt with no place among the living, so I wouldn't vote for her.
3rd party is some milktoast libertarian

so now I have little reason to take my time and vote, but if I could vote against Hillary, I would take the time to do so. This gives a 3rd party a better shot as who is going to be interested in voting against them.

That would be interesting.

If you were still allowed only one vote, but could use it to vote for someone, or use it to vote against someone, that would be awesome.

If you voted against someone, your vote would subtract from their score.

Right now, the only way you can vote against a candidate is to vote for the other candidate. The "lesser of two evils" system of voting. However, when you vote for a lesser evil, you are still voting for evil. And when you vote for someone, they think you are voting for them because you think they are doing something right.

But if you are allowed to vote against someone, then you aren't telling the other person they are doing something right. You are telling them they suck, just not as much as the other person.

g5000,

Your almost there... You are really talking about Single Transfer Voting(Alternative Voting).
In a one seat race,
1. Vote as per your preference,
2. Count votes
3. Eliminate last place
4. If your candidate gets eliminated, your vote goes to your next preference.
5. Keep doing 3 & 4 until you get two candidates OR someone gets over half the votes.
6. So all votes(assuming everyone uses all their preferences) will be used for either for the 1st or 2nd place.

Here is Example from Ireland:

For expediency and mathematically, if a candidate can't win transfer of next preference he is eliminated. So that is why a few can be eliminated in one count.

This is much in the spirit of what you wanted, I think.

 

[dcraelin]

Some folks like to narrow down the term Republic for political reasons. I think its mostly elitists who like the corrupt status quo. The founding generation equated Republics and Democracies, which is basically confirmed in a recent Supreme Court Case Arizona vs Arizona. Most of the pics in my gallery deal with this issue.

Most of the problems in politics I think come from to much influence of special interest money.

Some of that could be alleviated by a better voting system. Proportional representation for legislatures I think and preference voting such as outlined in OP for executive positions like Mayor or president.

But we also need a better representation to citizen ratio, closer to that at the time of the founding.

And a national initiative option to keep all these "representatives" in line.

It's called English. Learn to use it. A republic means the citizens elect representatives, we do not vote directly on issues, except some states have ballot measures. It is not complicated.

People are not typically very well informed, don't care or want to learn the details and operate in their own best interests. Having more uninformed people making decisions is a big step backwards.

so-called "uninformed" could hardly do worse than the corporate sell-out "representatives" we have now.

The very existence of ballot measures shows your definition of Republic to be wrong. Republics thru the ages had direct citizen lawmaking.

 

[dcraelin]

I would like to see a change in voting.

I think if you could vote against someone, more people would go.

example; Trump vs Hillary vs 3rd party

Trump is a gasbag that's more into himself than anything else and I won't vote for him.
Hillary is an evil twunt with no place among the living, so I wouldn't vote for her.
3rd party is some milktoast libertarian

so now I have little reason to take my time and vote, but if I could vote against Hillary, I would take the time to do so. This gives a 3rd party a better shot as who is going to be interested in voting against them.

That would be interesting.

If you were still allowed only one vote, but could use it to vote for someone, or use it to vote against someone, that would be awesome.

If you voted against someone, your vote would subtract from their score.

Right now, the only way you can vote against a candidate is to vote for the other candidate. The "lesser of two evils" system of voting. However, when you vote for a lesser evil, you are still voting for evil. And when you vote for someone, they think you are voting for them because you think they are doing something right.

But if you are allowed to vote against someone, then you aren't telling the other person they are doing something right. You are telling them they suck, just not as much as the other person.

It is an intriguing idea.....and might cut down on negative advertising....cause you might not be helping yourself just hurting the other guy.

 

[Iceweasel]

Some folks like to narrow down the term Republic for political reasons. I think its mostly elitists who like the corrupt status quo. The founding generation equated Republics and Democracies, which is basically confirmed in a recent Supreme Court Case Arizona vs Arizona. Most of the pics in my gallery deal with this issue.

Most of the problems in politics I think come from to much influence of special interest money.

Some of that could be alleviated by a better voting system. Proportional representation for legislatures I think and preference voting such as outlined in OP for executive positions like Mayor or president.

But we also need a better representation to citizen ratio, closer to that at the time of the founding.

And a national initiative option to keep all these "representatives" in line.

It's called English. Learn to use it. A republic means the citizens elect representatives, we do not vote directly on issues, except some states have ballot measures. It is not complicated.

People are not typically very well informed, don't care or want to learn the details and operate in their own best interests. Having more uninformed people making decisions is a big step backwards.

so-called "uninformed" could hardly do worse than the corporate sell-out "representatives" we have now.

The very existence of ballot measures shows your definition of Republic to be wrong. Republics thru the ages had direct citizen lawmaking.

Wrong. Ballot measures isn't how we run the national government. We wouldn't need representatives if you were right. LOL.

 

[Skylar]

Listen we see a lot of arguments and frustration here. I just going to point out an alternative voting system which is quite common around the world. US uses the one man one vote system which has an inherit flaw which leads to two parties and a lack of choice for the normal voter. I have used an Irish one here as it is one I know best.

I still hold my view that this type of politics comes from just having only two sides Rep or Dem. If proportional Representation with a Single Vote Transfer (alternative vote) was introduced the hyperbole of energising the base would leave. In countries where it exists there is 'race to the middle', with main political fight between center right and center left.

The fear of being voted out in a caucus by more extreme elements in your party is reduced heavily. Naturally the GOP party would splinter into a Tea Party and the more mainstream center right. The Left would probably do the same with different names.
The Tea Party guys would win seats in certain areas as would the the left party. Add in a few Greens, Texas Party(cause they would have one), workers party, Christian Party.... You also get issue candidates for things like Ban all Muslims, Immigration Reform,.... Some will get seats and some won't...
Whips(leaders) for each party would have more discipline because they have more align principles.

But the main thing will be deals will have to be struck, compromises made to form a working government. Generally a program of government is usually set up with various deals stuck on them. In Europe they publish the program (usually) with aims to achieve in a certain period... So compromises on Gun Laws for Environmental Law are made...

But the main thing is everyone gets more of a say...

There is surprises too... Actually Ireland voted in the first Muslim in Europe in 1992. He was a Doctor in the hospital running on the issue not to reduce services in the hospital. Complete shock he won, to himself included. He got what he wanted too, the main parties wanted the seat back and they knew this was an issue that people wanted. Hey! democracy at work.

Also election season is short, generally 6 - 8 weeks long. A snap election could be 3 weeks, TV & Radio ads are banned with about three 10 min broadcasts from each party. Debates are usually better fun with 5 leaders going at it with various ideas.
But the main thing to do is not alienate anyone, very few get elected on the first count. You are relying on people preference as they go down the list of candidates.
They vote 1 for their favourite, 2 for 2nd... and so on.... Your vote doesn't get lost if your favourite gets knocked out. That's the Single Transfer vote bit.
Then in Ireland we do 3-5 seat constituencies. So there is a quota you must reach to get elected. (It is (Num Votes)/(Number of Seats +1))

The example below is from an Election in my area in 2011. It is a 5 seater so they are electing five people in this area.
View attachment 56537

There is a few things. We count by hand, why? because we do trust machines. Voters count the votes in front of party members (called tally men). These guys can be clairvoyant in knowing who is going to be elected even after the first vote.
Counting usually takes between one to three days, depending how close and if there is recounts. Margins can be razor sharp in win. You can see in the last count there it came down to 17 votes.

If you notice Sean Kyne in was only 54 votes from disqualification in Count 11 but came out of there to win a seat. Mainly because Fidelma in his party who got discounted and got close to 2,000 of her next preference votes.He was actually running against here all day and was behind on the 9th count before getting ahead of her. Then when ahead and she was discounted he gets her transfers.

Honestly, it is exciting with everyone feels their vote makes a difference. Turnout was 70%.

I am not saying this is the best ever but I do feel a certain amount of the problem besetting Washington could be solved by a more representative and more highly competitive elections.

I originally didn't like the idea. But the more I looked into it, the more sense it made. It doesn't really have a significant downside. And it makes elected officials more representative of the actual electorate.

 

[Iceweasel]

I originally didn't like the idea. But the more I looked into it, the more sense it made. It doesn't really have a significant downside. And it makes elected officials more representative of the actual electorate.

Move to Europe. Problem solved!

 

[Skylar]

I originally didn't like the idea. But the more I looked into it, the more sense it made. It doesn't really have a significant downside. And it makes elected officials more representative of the actual electorate.

Move to Europe. Problem solved!

Or....we could just use the system here and enjoy its benefits: a more representative government.

 

[Programmer]

And the second-place candidate wins! Wait, what!?

 

[g5000]

I would like to see a change in voting.

I think if you could vote against someone, more people would go.

example; Trump vs Hillary vs 3rd party

Trump is a gasbag that's more into himself than anything else and I won't vote for him.
Hillary is an evil twunt with no place among the living, so I wouldn't vote for her.
3rd party is some milktoast libertarian

so now I have little reason to take my time and vote, but if I could vote against Hillary, I would take the time to do so. This gives a 3rd party a better shot as who is going to be interested in voting against them.

That would be interesting.

If you were still allowed only one vote, but could use it to vote for someone, or use it to vote against someone, that would be awesome.

If you voted against someone, your vote would subtract from their score.

Right now, the only way you can vote against a candidate is to vote for the other candidate. The "lesser of two evils" system of voting. However, when you vote for a lesser evil, you are still voting for evil. And when you vote for someone, they think you are voting for them because you think they are doing something right.

But if you are allowed to vote against someone, then you aren't telling the other person they are doing something right. You are telling them they suck, just not as much as the other person.

g5000,

Your almost there... You are really talking about Single Transfer Voting(Alternative Voting).
In a one seat race,
1. Vote as per your preference,
2. Count votes
3. Eliminate last place
4. If your candidate gets eliminated, your vote goes to your next preference.
5. Keep doing 3 & 4 until you get two candidates OR someone gets over half the votes.
6. So all votes(assuming everyone uses all their preferences) will be used for either for the 1st or 2nd place.

I've been hearing about this system from Libertarians for decades.

 

[dcraelin]

Some folks like to narrow down the term Republic for political reasons. I think its mostly elitists who like the corrupt status quo. The founding generation equated Republics and Democracies, which is basically confirmed in a recent Supreme Court Case Arizona vs Arizona. Most of the pics in my gallery deal with this issue.

Most of the problems in politics I think come from to much influence of special interest money.

Some of that could be alleviated by a better voting system. Proportional representation for legislatures I think and preference voting such as outlined in OP for executive positions like Mayor or president.

But we also need a better representation to citizen ratio, closer to that at the time of the founding.

And a national initiative option to keep all these "representatives" in line.

It's called English. Learn to use it. A republic means the citizens elect representatives, we do not vote directly on issues, except some states have ballot measures. It is not complicated.

People are not typically very well informed, don't care or want to learn the details and operate in their own best interests. Having more uninformed people making decisions is a big step backwards.

so-called "uninformed" could hardly do worse than the corporate sell-out "representatives" we have now.

The very existence of ballot measures shows your definition of Republic to be wrong. Republics thru the ages had direct citizen lawmaking.

Wrong. Ballot measures isn't how we run the national government. We wouldn't need representatives if you were right. LOL.

you are wrong...see the Supreme Court case I referenced

 

[Iceweasel]

Some folks like to narrow down the term Republic for political reasons. I think its mostly elitists who like the corrupt status quo. The founding generation equated Republics and Democracies, which is basically confirmed in a recent Supreme Court Case Arizona vs Arizona. Most of the pics in my gallery deal with this issue.

Most of the problems in politics I think come from to much influence of special interest money.

Some of that could be alleviated by a better voting system. Proportional representation for legislatures I think and preference voting such as outlined in OP for executive positions like Mayor or president.

But we also need a better representation to citizen ratio, closer to that at the time of the founding.

And a national initiative option to keep all these "representatives" in line.

It's called English. Learn to use it. A republic means the citizens elect representatives, we do not vote directly on issues, except some states have ballot measures. It is not complicated.

People are not typically very well informed, don't care or want to learn the details and operate in their own best interests. Having more uninformed people making decisions is a big step backwards.

so-called "uninformed" could hardly do worse than the corporate sell-out "representatives" we have now.

The very existence of ballot measures shows your definition of Republic to be wrong. Republics thru the ages had direct citizen lawmaking.

Wrong. Ballot measures isn't how we run the national government. We wouldn't need representatives if you were right. LOL.

you are wrong...see the Supreme Court case I referenced

Rather than pissing into the wind, back up your statement. Show us where they say we aren't a republic. This should be good!