Conquer Club

I have come to the conclusion that I like the idea of the "approval voting" method for elections. The more I think about it, I simply fail to see any serious problems with it.

It would also take care of the problem that Phatscotty and PLAYER seem to have, where they feel obligated to vote for a candidate they don't like in order to "not vote for the other guy". This way they could effectively do both, meaning that those smaller party candidates have the opportunity to gain more exposure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

The math nerd in me actually prefers the Borda method, but the paranoid conspiracy theorist in me believes it would be too easy to subvert without being obvious, because of its inherent complexity. But I do think this is actually the best method, aside from that fear:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count

the best voting method is Compulsory.

with this style that silent majority often referred to ....... it's not silent. the advantage is candidates and policies tend be more central and extremism neutralised. the disadvantage is the silent majority votes

greenoaks wrote:the best voting method is Compulsory.

I'm definitely not a fan of compulsory voting. I much prefer to have voters at least have the interest/gumption to want to go vote, as that at least gives a hope of interest/gumption in being informed (yes, I realize that's not necessarily the case). Compulsory voting does not even give that hope among a large number of voters...that doesn't seem to be a good situation.

Woodruff wrote:

greenoaks wrote:the best voting method is Compulsory.

I'm definitely not a fan of compulsory voting. I much prefer to have voters at least have the interest/gumption to want to go vote, as that at least gives a hope of interest/gumption in being informed (yes, I realize that's not necessarily the case). Compulsory voting does not even give that hope among a large number of voters...that doesn't seem to be a good situation.

the problem with non-compulsary is extremists dominate.

only those with a lot of passion for a topic (for or against) tend to vote. because of that politicians represent the extreme positions rather than the middle ground.

democracy should be something everyone is involved in.

greenoaks wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

greenoaks wrote:the best voting method is Compulsory.

I'm definitely not a fan of compulsory voting. I much prefer to have voters at least have the interest/gumption to want to go vote, as that at least gives a hope of interest/gumption in being informed (yes, I realize that's not necessarily the case). Compulsory voting does not even give that hope among a large number of voters...that doesn't seem to be a good situation.

the problem with non-compulsary is extremists dominate.

only those with a lot of passion for a topic (for or against) tend to vote. because of that politicians represent the extreme positions rather than the middle ground.

democracy should be something everyone is involved in.

So if people don't care about something,
and if you force them to do it or participate,
then magically they're going to care about it?

I don't see how compulsory voting is going to make people care about voting, and
even apathy is expressing one's opinion about the democratic system, so even those kinds of eligible voters are involved in the democracy.

About extremes and voting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem

The biggest factor in democratic variation systems is education. A LOT of people cannot be bothered to actually find out about things on which they vote. Usually, people spend a lot of time and care when rights are relatively new, but then get complacent.

There really is a window of time in which people can be readily educated. People need to graduate from high school with a decent understanding of how the world just works, including basic politics. That is a problem today because so many see truth as a changeable political commodity, particularly any kind of science/environmental consequence truth, but also in the realm of economics.

Average citizens don't have to understand big economic theories, but they need to understand how their credit card and mortgage agreements work, the impact of putting substances (ranging from cleaners to medications to even some foods) down the drain, the impact of eating (or not eating) certain things, what their basic rights are and the laws that ensure those rights... etc, etc.

Yet, telling the people the real truth about much of that will mean other people's income is harmed, so it doesn't get done. Without that educational framework, people don't really understand what will happen when they vote one way or another. THAT is the biggest inhibitor of effective voting.... failure to understand the impact of decisions.

When all roads lead to D.C., the voters' ability to change things diminishes.

Imagine the magnitude of one's influence within local elections v. national elections.

Then since the more important policies are decided at D.C., local politics is only left with boring topics like sewage.

De Tocqueville was correct about participation in the local political process as a form of education. Since the government has increasingly centralized over the decades, we find ourselves wondering why people (a) don't give a shit, and (b) don't understand. They've lost that art of self-government.

Now we have people screaming at national government for "MORE" of whatever. It's pretty disgusting.

greenoaks wrote:the best voting method is Compulsory.

with this style that silent majority often referred to ....... it's not silent. the advantage is candidates and policies tend be more central and extremism neutralised. the disadvantage is the silent majority votes

doesn't Australia have compulsory voting?
and don't they have a problem with people drunk voting?
I have to ask myself... if compulsory voting is best... why do people have to drink to a near stupor before they vote?


food for thought

greenoaks wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

greenoaks wrote:the best voting method is Compulsory.

I'm definitely not a fan of compulsory voting. I much prefer to have voters at least have the interest/gumption to want to go vote, as that at least gives a hope of interest/gumption in being informed (yes, I realize that's not necessarily the case). Compulsory voting does not even give that hope among a large number of voters...that doesn't seem to be a good situation.

the problem with non-compulsary is extremists dominate.

only those with a lot of passion for a topic (for or against) tend to vote. because of that politicians represent the extreme positions rather than the middle ground.

Sure, there's some truth to that, particularly regarding those who have the passion for something that is involved in the election.

greenoaks wrote:democracy should be something everyone is involved in.

Oh, I ABSOLUTELY agree with that. The key word there is "should", though...because everyone "should" also be an informed voter. If someone doesn't want to bother to try to be informed (even if they fail at it, that's ok), then I don't want them to vote, quite honestly (though I would never suggest taking away their ability to do so).

fadedpsychosis wrote:

greenoaks wrote:the best voting method is Compulsory.

with this style that silent majority often referred to ....... it's not silent. the advantage is candidates and policies tend be more central and extremism neutralised. the disadvantage is the silent majority votes

doesn't Australia have compulsory voting?
and don't they have a problem with people drunk voting?
I have to ask myself... if compulsory voting is best... why do people have to drink to a near stupor before they vote?

They're Aussies...they don't HAVE to...they just LIKE to. <grin>

Woodruff wrote:I have come to the conclusion that I like the idea of the "approval voting" method for elections. The more I think about it, I simply fail to see any serious problems with it.

It would also take care of the problem that Phatscotty and PLAYER seem to have, where they feel obligated to vote for a candidate they don't like in order to "not vote for the other guy". This way they could effectively do both, meaning that those smaller party candidates have the opportunity to gain more exposure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

The math nerd in me actually prefers the Borda method, but the paranoid conspiracy theorist in me believes it would be too easy to subvert without being obvious, because of its inherent complexity. But I do think this is actually the best method, aside from that fear:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count

Anyway, back to SYSTEMS...any thoughts?

Even if that was the best system, what incentive do the central planners have in changing from the status quo?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Even if that was the best system, what incentive do the central planners have in changing from the status quo?

Oh, none. I don't argue that's a likely event...they're going to want to stick with the system that got them there, after all. I'm just curious how others view different potential systems.

I like this one:




*the burrito comes with the voter pic, so all in all, not a bad deal.

I'm for rehealding elections.


--Andy

I say this: dump the idea of political parties. And regular elections. Decide how many reperesentatives/M.P.s or whatever you want, and work out how many voters you have. Let's say you have 200,million voters ("V") and you want 400 members of government("G") - (just picking figures out of the air). Anyone who can get V divided by G to back them gets a seat - in this case anyone who can get a half-million voters. If they lose support by people withdrawing their votes, then they lose the seat when their support falls below (say)400,000 voters.

I like the idea of no political parties also - make all politicians stand or fall on their own personal principles for how the country should be run.

The problem with that of course is that there is no overall leadership structure in the government, at least none in the ways western democracies tend to have them now. You'd have to hold an election among the politicians after everyone has been elected to decide on a leader, and the potential for political shennanegans at that stage becomes an increased burden on the system's transparency and accountability.

The other problem with that is that it somewhat limits politics to those with the spare cash to promote themself or their favourite politician. As has been found by numerous studies the amount of money thrown at an electoral campaign has a direct correlation with the success of that campaign. We'd end up with a government full of rich people, their cronies, and those who had sold out to corporate lobbyists.

It's a complex set of variables to try and control effectively, and I think this should almost be question number 2. Question number 1 should be "what characteristics do we want our government to have?" Whether that's transparency, flexibility, authority, effectiveness or whatever else. Once we know what kind of government structure we want we would be better informed to discuss the way in which we get a government with those attributes.

Make the President a corporate entity and split him up proportionately. That way Ron Paul can at least be half the President Nixon was.

crispybits wrote:I like the idea of no political parties also - make all politicians stand or fall on their own personal principles for how the country should be run.

I like this as well.

crispybits wrote:The other problem with that is that it somewhat limits politics to those with the spare cash to promote themself or their favourite politician. As has been found by numerous studies the amount of money thrown at an electoral campaign has a direct correlation with the success of that campaign. We'd end up with a government full of rich people, their cronies, and those who had sold out to corporate lobbyists.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Publicly-funded elections make this problem goes away.

This also why, around a century ago, British MPs started to get a slary. Prior to that only those with money could stand. And this meant that they tended to defend the interests of the monied people like themselves. As for campaigning funds, that's a difficult one. If they put me in charge of desigigning the new electoral system, I'd have to get a good think -tank to work on that.

The politicians would form groups regardless of the law because they still have an incentive to logroll.

But informal alliances on individual issues, even vote trading on an indvidual level, are a whole different kettle of fish to partisan politics were the party leaders can order their party to vote in a certain way on a certain issue.

Jimmy is a democrat. He wants to pass a new labour reform bill. He gets the party leadership on his side and they force the bill through by requiring partisan support on this issue.

Jimmy is independent. He wants to pass a labour reform bill. He has to convince, in open debate, a majority of the whole house that his labour reform bill is the right plan for the country, and each member of the house will be expected to vote according to their own conscience.

There are 2 additional problems that I have thought of though:

1) Politicans would need to be some of the most informed people in the world. In order to cast an informed vote on each issue, every politician would need a very good level of knowledge of macro-economics, sociology and anthropology, history, political science, science and technology, the arts and humanities, etc etc.

2) How inefficient would the system be? If partisan support is removed from bills, then politicans who like one aspect of the bill but don't like another will vote it down, whereas they may have toed the party line before and then pushed for amendments later when they had the political capital to ask for partisan support, leading to very little legislation actually being passed...

crispybits wrote:But informal alliances on individual issues, even vote trading on an indvidual level, are a whole different kettle of fish to partisan politics were the party leaders can order their party to vote in a certain way on a certain issue.

Jimmy is a democrat. He wants to pass a new labour reform bill. He gets the party leadership on his side and they force the bill through by requiring partisan support on this issue.

Jimmy is independent. He wants to pass a labour reform bill. He has to convince, in open debate, a majority of the whole house that his labour reform bill is the right plan for the country, and each member of the house will be expected to vote according to their own conscience.

That sounds great if we assume politicians care that much about reforming things for the greater good,
are willing to openly debate and go over all the nuances of every bill before passing one,
and that they would never naturally group together on certain issues.

I don't see what stops networks of informal alliances merging into groups. How could one shape a law which would effectively prohibit partisan politics, and what incentive would the governors have to maintain such a law which only makes it more difficult for them to govern?

crispybits wrote:There are 2 additional problems that I have thought of though:

1) Politicans would need to be some of the most informed people in the world. In order to cast an informed vote on each issue, every politician would need a very good level of knowledge of macro-economics, sociology and anthropology, history, political science, science and technology, the arts and humanities, etc etc.

2) How inefficient would the system be? If partisan support is removed from bills, then politicans who like one aspect of the bill but don't like another will vote it down, whereas they may have toed the party line before and then pushed for amendments later when they had the political capital to ask for partisan support, leading to very little legislation actually being passed...

1. Even if they know a lot, it's not like they're going to magically become general interest-promoting individuals. And if the voters are not informed, then manipulation becomes extremely profitable (in votes and monetarily).

2. Sounds good. Let them argue while everyone else ignores them and governs themselves.

I think the real answer here is an instant hivemind. In fact, I think we should be a lot like these caterpillars in the Amazon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbFMkXTMucA#t=01m25s


--Andy

I'll gladly crawl all over Andy whenever I'm at the polls.