At The Political Frontier — Alaska Considers Instant Runoff Voting
	found on CNN written by carwaxking, edited by John (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Tue 27 Aug 5:38pm
		"Instant runoff voting (IRV) as an alternative to 'plurality takes all' voting has slowly gained advocates in America. Now those advocates are on the cusp of the biggest victory yet: Alaska may become the first state to approve IRV," writes carwaxking. "Essentially, under IRV voters rate their choices. As an example, in a four-person election, with Al, Betty, Chris, and Dave running, people would rank the four candidates from 1-4. Al gets 40% of the 1s cast, Betty 30%, Chris 20%, and Dave 10%. Since nobody has a majority, Dave's 10% gets redistributed - of that 10%, 5% had Al as #2, 3% Betty, and 2% Chris. Now the totals are Al 45%, Betty 33%, and Chris 22%. Still no majority, so Chris's 22% are broken up. Of those 22%, 4% favored Al over Betty, and 18% favored Betty over Al. Total: Al 49%, Betty 51%, Betty wins, and the majority of voters got the candidate they preferred elected. "The best resource, including links to articles about the Alaska vote, is at the Center for Voting Democracy's IRV Page. A significant coalition in Alaska is in favor of IRV; the Democratic Party, which controls the state legislature and stands to lose the most accordingly, is unsurprisingly in opposition."

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 63 commentsbest: 6 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Oh that's simple...   by rombuu       at Tue 27 Aug 6:05pm score of 1 funny     ...I'm sure people who couldn't even tell which freakin' candidate they were voting for in the last election will understand the implications of this perfectly. Granted, most people are smarter than Floridians (as are most domesticated animals and some plants), but still... how long is it going to take to explain this to people? http://drlunch.com The site that helps you decide where to go to lunch!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

19.  Sorry, rombuu...   by Anonymous Idiot       at Tue 27 Aug 11:24pm score of 0.5 clever   in reply to comment 1     but calling a large and heterogenous group of people 'stupid' is wrong... that is unless you're talking about people in Mississippi, Missouri, Kansas, or Texas. Oh, and calling Bush a chimp would have earned you a +1 brilliant, but you didn't include that either. You have to learn who it's okay to broad-brush and stereotype.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  They want to increase voter turnout ...   by MAYORBOB       at Tue 27 Aug 6:09pm score of 1.5 informative     and they expect to get it with a system like that? So, I'm imagining a scenario where only a small percentage of the electorate has actually bothered to analyze and determine what the candidates stand enough to prioritize how they feel about them. In an IRV-type set up, you wouldn't necessarily get the person elected that most people wanted. You might end up with the person elected who was the clear second choice of the electorate instead. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Re: They want to increase voter turnout ...   by jamato       at Tue 27 Aug 6:36pm score of 1 obnoxious   in reply to comment 2     In an IRV-type set up, you wouldn't necessarily get the person elected that most people wanted. Hm... sounds familiar to me... You might end up with the person elected who was the clear second choice of the electorate instead Oh yeah, definitely familiar. The fact is, that what you describe is EXACTLY what happened in the last Presidential election. Jon   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   5.  Re: They want to increase voter turnout ...   by automaticvenus       at Tue 27 Aug 6:52pm score of 1   in reply to comment 3     I think it was SCOTUS that selected the second candidate, not the voters. If it was truly the second choice of the electorate in a presidential IRV, it could easily have been a Democrat. I also think it's certainly preferable to the open primary we just witnessed in Georgia where Denise Majette was an ex-Republican with not only Republican funding but many Republican cross-over votes. I'm just waiting for her to switch parties from D to R should she be elected to her district seat (and, yes, Jim Jeffords switching was for very different reasons). The Democrats in Alaska may be against it because Alaska is a traditional red state and it's highly likely the plurality vote might favor the Republicans, but perhaps not. I'll take the IRV over the open primary and SCOTUS appointing someone to office, but I still prefer the standard party primary run-offs until we get more parties that are truly viable on a national level such as the Greens.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   10.  Re: They want to increase voter turnout ...   by jamato       at Tue 27 Aug 8:09pm score of 1 obnoxious   in reply to comment 5     think it was SCOTUS that selected the second candidate, not the voters. Whether by IRV or judicial fiat, the outcome was the same - the second place candidate took office. Denise Majette was an ex-Republican Interesting - I hadn't heard that during the campaign, and I got to hear all kinds of McKinney ads on local Atlanta radio. I do know that Denise Majette was elected to 3 terms as a county judge (she resigned to run for Congress), but she was always a Democrat, as far as I knew. Can you cite a source? I'm just waiting for her to switch parties from D to R should she be elected to her district seat Highly doubtful. If she does that, Majette will be a one-term Congresswoman. Her district is the most solidly Democratic in Georgia - it always was, and it still is. From a local perspective, it was pretty obvious that Cynthia McKinney was political toast, actually. The Friday before the primary, I was driving around near Emory University, one of the the most liberal areas in the entire state of Georgia, and an area that was previously hardcore McKinney territory. I noticed something interesting: Of the homeowners that displayed political signs in their yards, the Majette signs outnumbered the McKinney signs by at LEAST 10 to 1. When I drove a little further into Southeast Dekalb along Memorial Drive, I noticed that the balance shifted, but not by much - the signs were pretty much 50-50, whereas, in the past, that was an area of unquestioned McKinney support. If you're interested, here's a really terrific summary of the reasons Cynthia McKinney lost her seat in Congress. Jon   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: They want to increase voter turnout ...   by rombuu       at Tue 27 Aug 10:24pm score of 1 obnoxious   in reply to comment 10     Whether by IRV or judicial fiat, the outcome was the same - the second place candidate took office. No, Bush had more electoral votes than Gore. And people thing that folks are going to understand IRV voting when people keep saying dumb things like "Gore really should have won the election because he got more votes". Here's a news flash people... we have never elected Presidents based on total popular vote. Saying Gore had more popular votes than Bush is like saying what the average rainfall in Provo, Utah in October is. It might be an interesting bit of trivia, but it has squat to do with who wins the election. http://drlunch.com The site that helps you decide where to go to lunch!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: They want to increase voter turnout ...   by jamato       at Wed 28 Aug 6:17am score of 0.5 obnoxious   in reply to comment 18     Bush had more electoral votes than Gore But only because of SCOTUS stopping the Florida when the results suited them - in other words, Bush won by judicial fiat, and not through the electoral process. Jon   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   39.  Jeffords   by nmiguy       at Wed 28 Aug 7:32am score of 1 incoherent   in reply to comment 5     At first I thought Jeffords jumping ship was terrible. But now I kinda respect the man. He didn't become a Democrat, he became an Independent. Yes, it cost the Republicans greatly in Congress and shifted power in the House. But his move was (I believe) truly based upon his changing political heart and a feeling that he no longer felt that he was a Republican, idealogically. He'd make an excellent addition to Profiles In Courage. Profiles in Courage, written by JFK, highlighted politicians who made difficult political decisions and were derided at the time, but who did so out of their individual moral caliber. Sorry that this is off topic, but when you brought up Jeffords I imagined the impact the IRV would have on Independent candidates, Green Party candidates and the like. Also, it is an interesting test case to see this in Alaska, as Alaska is not a densely populated state. The system may work better in such an environment as opposed to a densely populated state. Florida is densely populated with many elderly and retired people. Many elderly people suffer from impaired vision, which affected the "butterfly ballot" situation. Also, there's the old saying about teaching an old dog new tricks. While I'm not paining all elderly as mentally incompetent, there may be enough population that will find IRV too difficult in Florida, or in other states. Let's see how it works in Alaska. I wonder if the outcome of an IRV election would be more satisfactory to the general public that the current system.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Re: They want to increase voter turnout ...   by automaticvenus       at Wed 28 Aug 7:32am score of 1   in reply to comment 10     I do know that Denise Majette was elected to 3 terms as a county judge (she resigned to run for Congress), but she was always a Democrat, as far as I knew. Can you cite a source? Here's an article from Atlanta Indymedia. Granted, the article does not state that she was actually registered as a Republican, but rather seems to imply she was since she supported Keyes in 2000. So, perhaps a more accurate phrase to describe her would be as an ex-Republican voter.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   50.  Re: They want to increase voter turnout ...   by Zi       at Wed 28 Aug 9:26am score of 1   in reply to comment 18     "Bush had more electoral votes than Gore." Well, yeah, if you discount all the electoral hanky panky. Even at that, it was a 5-4 vote that resolved the election. I wonder what position right wingers would take if the players were reversed. If Al Gore's brother had been governor in Fl; if say, Janet Reno had been FL's Sec. of State; if the Supreme Court majority was liberal, etc. I suspect they would be singing a different tune. "we have never elected Presidents based on total popular vote. It might be an interesting bit of trivia, but it has squat to do with who wins the election." Maybe that's the problem. So it goes. - Kurt Vonnegut   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   67.  Getting electoral & popular votes to agree   by sglover910       at Thu 29 Aug 2:25pm score of 1   in reply to comment 18     Agreed, Bush won the electoral contest, and that's what counts. And the electoral college is generally a good thing; it's a (more or less) tangible expression of 'e pluribus unum' federalism. Hillary Clinton (among others) was wrong to argue that the system should be scrapped. However.... For the sake of wise governance, it might be best if the popular and electoral vote contests agree. One scheme I've heard uses a 'bonus pool' of electoral votes, which go to the winner of the national popular vote count; in a sense, they'd be 'at large' electoral votes. Anybody have any thoughts or insight about this scheme? An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   7.  It's not rocket science   by emperorpenguin       at Tue 27 Aug 7:13pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 2     C'mon, who could screw this up (other than those already capable of screwing up their ballots)? You pick your favourite candidate, then the next best, then the next. It's a concept that's simple enough for a kid to understand. "What kind of ice cream do you want? Okay, if they don't have that, then what do you want?" If it's too much of a problem for you to pick more than one candidate, fine -- your vote still counts until they get eliminated. BUt if they do -- no ice cream for you. Seriously, this seems like a great idea and I can see no reason it shouldn't be applied more widely. everything moves real slow when it's forty below   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: It's not rocket science   by zanzibar       at Wed 28 Aug 5:10am score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 7     It falls victim to human stupidity. Or human cleverness. Take your pick. Imagine that there are four candidates running, a Republican, a Democrat and some totally unelectable 3rd-party wacko (running on the "shoot garbage into outer-space platform"). Normally nobody'd vote for the 3rd party nutjob. However, under this system, many Democrats may rank him above the Republican candidate, in an effort to keep the Republican out of office. And the Republicans will do the same. It becomes possible at this point that the wacko'd get into office, to everyone's bafflement, simply because the Dems and Republicans sabotaged each other. Now nobody's happy.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   23.  Re: It's not rocket science   by LoRes       at Wed 28 Aug 5:44am score of 2 informative   in reply to comment 22     A scientist named Kenneth Arrows proved that it's mathematically impossible to have a completely fair voting system. The trick is to determine which of the five characteristics of a theoretically perfect system you want to give up: Arrows' theorem. If the theory is right, then IRV is the one with the best trade-offs.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  Re: It's not rocket science   by doogie       at Wed 28 Aug 6:52am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 22     I suspect after a couple of elections under the IRV system, with a couple of elected wackos put in office, all voters would learn that you better be diligent in where you rank the wackos or it could come back to haunt you. Again, the point is to pick best, second best, next best, worst. If you squander your "second best" vote on a wacko, you have no one to blame but yourself. I also suspect that under such a system, some people who would normally strategically pick third party candidates (e.g., Nader) to boost those parties would think twice about it unless they REALLY like the guy, otherwise it could be President Ralph. IRV could actually HELP the major parties if their choices are the only reasonable ones. Enjoy it, 'till they tell you it will kill you...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: It's not rocket science   by ekr       at Wed 28 Aug 7:04am score of 1   in reply to comment 23     There's no doubt that Arrow's theorem is correct, but there's a lot of debate about whether or not IRV is the best of the pack. The major problems are that it's not monotonic (you can cause someone you prefer to lose by voting) and it's susceptible to strategic voting if the third party has any chance of winning. See my previous explanation of this here   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: It's not rocket science   by LoRes       at Wed 28 Aug 7:10am score of 1   in reply to comment 23     I thought I posted 'oops, the Arrow's theorem was already posted', but I must have made a mistake (again). My bad.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  I prefer nutjobs to republicans   by GodSpiral       at Wed 28 Aug 7:31am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 22     There are some theoretical arguments against IRV being perfect, but I don't believe them (the criticism is analytically incomplete bullshit propaganda favouring the status quo). Practically, the only relevant measure of voting systems is minimizing the number of unhappy voters, and maximizing voter relevance. It is not possible to anticipate 1st round voting results, because it is not possible to determine the number of people who vote differently than Other than proportional representation (number of elected officials depends on percentage of votes for party. ex: 1 seat awarded for each 5% or 10%) In your example, the 3rd party wacko would come in first ballot at under 5-10%, and so would be eliminated. The one condition where IRV can be used strategically, is when there is a very close 3 way race, and the 2nd choice for candidates is strongly cyclical ( Wacko's 2nd is Dem, Dem's 2nd is Rep, and Rep's 2nd is Wacko). In this case, I may vote for the Republican (2nd choice: Dem) even though the Rep is necessarily a scumbag, so that he does not come in last on 1st ballot. Note that successful strategic voting options are only available to voters who prefer the "real" 1st round/opinion poll leader, and there is a danger in outstrateging yourself based on opinion polls, since you don't know how many people will deviate from polls to manipulate their preferred outcome. So its dangerous. If all candidates were in the 30-35%, enough strategic voting by those whose first preference is democrats, could put them in 3rd place on the 1st ballot (giving the win to Satanic Republican). Strategic voting manipulation in IRV system is only useful when there is a close 3way race, but is also extremely risky in such a race. All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   46.  Re: It's not rocket science   by tdahnsn       at Wed 28 Aug 8:26am score of 1   in reply to comment 22     "It becomes possible at this point that the wacko'd get into office, to everyone's bafflement, simply because the Dems and Republicans sabotaged each other. Now nobody's happy." No, everyone's partially happy. Your scenario presents two populations each with two goals: 1) Elect 'their' candidate and 2) Make sure the 'other' one doesn't get in office. Neither the democrat or republican got elected. Both sides have 1 of 2 goals met. If either of the other cases were true then one side wouldn't have met any goals. Whether or not it's better to have some goals met by everyone or no goals met by some remains to be seen. Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   64.  Re: It's not rocket science   by Attic Spider       at Wed 28 Aug 6:49pm score of 1   in reply to comment 22     Now nobody's happy Except for those of us who would like to see the Republicrat stranglehold on American politics broken, of course. Aw, he looks like a little insane drunken angel.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   43.  Re: They want to increase voter turnout ...   by oscitant       at Wed 28 Aug 8:12am score of 1   in reply to comment 2     Hmm... I don't follow. This type of setup allows you to vote for the person you really want to win, rather than for the person who has the best chance of beating the person you don't want to win. In the present system, as other posters have noted, you're likely to get the second choice elected because voting for a small party candidate who more closely represents your beliefs is "throwing your vote away." As a resident of Utah, I didn't feel bad voting for Nader, because there was no chance in hell that Gore would win my state, but if I lived in a more moderate state I probably would've voted for Gore, as in voting against Bush. Having to go through such a line of reasoning doesn't seem to fit with the spirit of democracy to me.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Not unique   by jamato       at Tue 27 Aug 6:41pm score of 1.5 astute     Australia's been using a system similar to this since 1984. Last I checked, their democracy hasn't collapsed yet. Jon   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

27.  Re: Not unique   by Petronius       at Wed 28 Aug 6:50am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     Australia also gets very high voter turnouts, since you can be fined for not voting, unless you present something like a doctor's note that you were ill, or you were dying of thirst in the Outback. The fine is about the same as a parking ticket. What rescues us from insignificance is the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers. Carl Sagan   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Non-territorial Voting   by wrestler       at Tue 27 Aug 7:12pm score of 3 intriguing     Today I went from California to Australia (via the internet) to get a piece of information that was available in a book about five feet away, because it was quicker and easier to go to Australia for it. Now I'm sitting here having a conversation with people all over the world, and it's easier than it would be to talk to people in my neighborhood. The point is that distances have become less important, but we're still married to a territorial system of democracy. Here's an alternative suggestion from an old neighbor of mine that makes a lot of sense to me (compliments to the first person to place the source): But if representative government turns out to be your intention there still may be ways to achieve it better than the territorial district. For example you each represent about ten thousand human beings, perhaps seven thousand of voting age -- and some of you were elected by slim majorities. Suppose instead of election a man were qualified for office by petition signed by four thousand citizens. He would then represent those four thousand affirmatively, with no disgruntled minority, for what would have been a minority in a territorial consituency would all be free to start other petitions or join in them. All would then be represented by men of their choice. Or a man with eight thousand supporters might have two votes in this body. Difficulties, objections, practical points to be worked out -- many of them! But you could work them out ... and thereby avoid the chronic sickness of representative government, the disgruntled minority which feels -- correctly! -- that it has been disenfranchised.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  Re: Non-territorial Voting   by jeff.paulsen       at Tue 27 Aug 7:32pm score of 1.5 intriguing   in reply to comment 6     While he was not the first to suggest this, noted hyperlibertarian L. Neil Smith wrote a science fiction story or two in which such "government" as there was, was handled by instantly-transferable proxy votes directly to the representative of your choice. The representative, unlike the voter, was required to be physically present in Congress, and Congress was only in session when a supermajority quorum was present by proxy. If I recall correctly, he also had a 90% supermajority threshold to do pretty much anything. While 90% is deliberately high so as to discourage legislation, some sort of barrier is necessary, I think, in an instant-proxy system, to keep it from devolving into the Athenian tyranny of the majority. -- howl 'Jesus Christ, it's the Goddamned Third Army again and that son-of-a-fucking-bitch Patton!'   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   12.  Re: Non-territorial Voting   by wrestler       at Tue 27 Aug 9:10pm score of 1.5 intriguing   in reply to comment 9     Sounds like L. Neil Smith may have been doing an homage to my first quote, because the passage immediately following it is this: I note one proposal to make this Congress a two-house body. Excellent -- the more impediments to legislation the better. But, instead of following tradition, I suggest one house of legislators, and another whose single duty is to repeal laws. Let the legislators pass laws only with a two-thirds majority ... while the repealers are able to concel any law through a mere one-third minority. Preposterous? Think about it. If a bill is so poor that it cannot command two-thirds of your consents, is it not likely that it would make a poor law? And if a a law is disliked by as many as one-third is it not likely that you would be better off without it? I'd say all of these suggestions are an improvement over status quo.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Re: Non-territorial Voting   by LoRes       at Wed 28 Aug 5:56am score of 1   in reply to comment 12     He already pointed out that it'd be hard to implement practically, but it'd also be hard theoretically. If politics is then led in the same fashion as now, it WILL be even more of a statu-quo, as members of opposing parties will systematically cancel each other's laws. The only solution I see is dissolving political parties, but we all know where it leads. Not good. Now we have to wait until scientists find the genes responsible for 'petty partisanship' ;-P   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   66.  ???   by mjfrederic       at Thu 29 Aug 12:36pm score of 1   in reply to comment 24     Where, exactly, would that lead then?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  Re: Non-territorial Voting   by plutocracywatch       at Wed 28 Aug 7:00am score of 1   in reply to comment 6     Dear Sir, May I assume you do not hail from the more corrupt areas of this nation. Where I came from, every city worker, people whose business did work with the city, and every other person who preferred staying out of the sights of the authorities would have felt pressure to sign such forms of representation. Mt God, even the slave-owning ancient greeks and Romans understood the importance of the secret ballot even it the sci-fi libertarians do not. read   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Re: Non-territorial Voting   by wrestler       at Wed 28 Aug 8:15am score of 1   in reply to comment 29     ...even the slave-owning ancient greeks and Romans understood the importance of the secret ballot even it the sci-fi libertarians do not. Good point. But it isn't clear to me that representation by proxy is incompatible with a secret ballot. There are some amazing schemes for anonymous digital cash that could be adapted to this. Just think of one 'dollar' (vote-voucher) being given to each eligible voter, who could 'spend' (vote) that voucher on a single 'vendor' (candidate).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   49.  Re: Non-territorial Voting   by plutocracywatch       at Wed 28 Aug 8:50am score of 1   in reply to comment 44     If I spend my "dollar" for you vote my interests, would not you know? With the secret ballot, the rep has to take the voter's word that he is a supporter, or would-be supporter. It is a protection for the voter. Under the system suggested, the secret for incumbency is to calculate 50% plus of representation to retain the seat. Better to vote the scoundrels out. read   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   56.  Re: Non-territorial Voting   by wrestler       at Wed 28 Aug 12:06pm score of 1   in reply to comment 49     If I spend my "dollar" for you vote my interests, would not you know? No necessarily. I've read about anonymous digital cash schemes in which the seller doesn't know who the buyer is. In the dollar world, the seller needs to know 'ship to' type info, but not 'bill to' info. In the vote world, the candidate wouldn't need to know 'bill to', and 'ship to' doesn't apply.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   57.  Re: Non-territorial Voting   by plutocracywatch       at Wed 28 Aug 12:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 56     So the pol is the puppet on the strings reacting to the anonymous spenders voting their dollars. This is better than calling, writing, contributing, and voting? How does this help keep them accountable? read   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   58.  Re: Non-territorial Voting   by wrestler       at Wed 28 Aug 12:24pm score of 1   in reply to comment 57     So the pol is the puppet on the strings reacting to the anonymous spenders voting their dollars. Just as the pol is the puppet on the strings reacting to the anonymous voters voting their ballots in traditional elections. This is better than calling, writing, contributing, and voting? In regards to calling, writing and contributing, this scheme is the same as traditional elections. In regards to voting, it has the advantage of far fewer disenfranchised voters. How does this help keep them accountable? Pretty much the same way traditional elections do. If the candidate can't get enough votes, he doesn't get the job. Any new voting scheme doesn't have to be perfect, just better than the alternatives.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   59.  Re: Non-territorial Voting   by plutocracywatch       at Wed 28 Aug 1:38pm score of 1   in reply to comment 58     You say, "Just as the pol is the puppet on the strings reacting to the anonymous voters voting their ballots in traditional elections." Ah, but the pol does not know with certainty who voted for him. His incentive is to win over that voter. Whether he assists that voter or not is dependent upon his conscience not the dollar spent to empower him or not spent to deny him. Sounds like bribery. Why not go back to good old fashioned bribery? Hell, many campaign contributions are just legal graft. You say, "In regards to calling, writing and contributing, this scheme is the same as traditional elections. In regards to voting, it has the advantage of far fewer disenfranchised voters." We don't know that. If half the people won't vote, there is little evidence they would actually go through the work of spending their dollar to influence a piece of legislation. Of course there are many influence peddlers who would. You say, "Pretty much the same way traditional elections do. If the candidate can't get enough votes, he doesn't get the job." "Any new voting scheme doesn't have to be perfect, just better than the alternatives." This is an alternative, as I understand it, to make accountability more fluid, more flexible. And for the reasons already expressed, it doesn't seem like a better idea to me. This solution does not address the real problems of contributors buying officials, insider favoritism, incumbent protection rackets, etc. etc. with the subsequent disenfranchisement of perhaps a majority of the adults in this democratic republic. read   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   63.  Proxy Voting   by GodSpiral       at Wed 28 Aug 3:16pm score of 1   in reply to comment 49     My vision for implementing proxy voting would use a web interface to allow each citizen to select his proxy/representative. Citizens could change their representative at any time, thus being able to follow political decisions as closely as they want (change representative before each vote in congress). Representatives could in turn transfer their representee's votes to another. Representatives would have salary based on a per representee basis. if you're still reading, salary could be up to $1/per voter per year. Voters changing votes midway could pay a $0.50 fee, most of which would be offered to their new candidate, or some such. I would also prefer a non-hierarchichal (no executive ruler) form of government, where each voter could have up to 10 representatives (paid 10 cents each) to cover 6 or 7 broad social agencies as well as Appropriations, General legislative rep, and commander-in-chief of military. All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   68.  Re: Proxy Voting   by emperorpenguin       at Thu 29 Aug 8:11pm score of 1   in reply to comment 63     if you're still reading, salary could be up to $1/per voter per year. Voters changing votes midway could pay a $0.50 fee, most of which would be offered to their new candidate, or some such. Why charge voters for changing votes? Couldn't the representatives salary just be prorated? Charging voters for better representation smacks of plutocracy. everything moves real slow when it's forty below   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   69.  Re: Proxy Voting   by GodSpiral       at Fri 30 Aug 5:53am score of 1   in reply to comment 68     Why charge voters for changing votes? You're right, free vote changes, and prorated representative salaries is also a perfectly valid way to do it. My idea was to give everyone a freebie vote each year. The small fee serves 3 purposes. 1, it helps pay for voter administration, and lets the winning politicians plan and budget reasonably. 2, the extra incentives for winning the yearly representation race, or winning over voters mid-election seems like it would encourage political activism, and new challengers. For instance, if war opportunism pops up mid election, and the existing representatives are framing the debate as invasion vs. covert assassination, then the incentives might encourage representative candidates with better ideas on this one issue to come forward politically. They may not have the political wisdom/experience to be supported for other mundane government issues, so essentially the small fee provides the opportunity for single issue candidates. 3, Ideally there should not be spending decisions made independently of revenue decision, but there might be more opportunities to manipulate the system without a small vote transfer fee, in that some voters could vote for representatives promoting massive spending, and then switch to representatives promoting massive tax cuts. Although other checks should guard against truly inconsistent positions, I think the small fee provides small but useful protection against this and other manipulations such as letting friends/interest groups control your vote for you (account/password sharing). Maybe these concerns aren't real enough, but the fee doesn't equate this system with our current plutocracy. Currently we have voter irrelevance. Politicians compete for appeal to moneyed interests, so that they may use the funds to shepherd us into supporting them. Choosing the politician with the best sounding story, doesn't lead to the best government. It just leads to electing the best liar. All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   61.  Re: Non-territorial Voting   by NasalGoat       at Wed 28 Aug 2:27pm score of 1   in reply to comment 6     Sounds like "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein. --- I like pinball, you should too.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   62.  Re: Non-territorial Voting   by wrestler       at Wed 28 Aug 2:51pm score of 1   in reply to comment 61     You got it.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  It doesn't matter at all.   by jeff.paulsen       at Tue 27 Aug 7:16pm score of 2.5 astute     The system we have now is good enough for me, and so is IRV, so I feel both that we shouldn't change what's working pretty well, and that it's inconvenient but otherwise no big deal to try something else, since it's unlikely to be much better or worse. Kenneth Arrow came up with a list of axioms of voting fairness, and then showed that no system for 3 or more candidates can fulfill them all. You can find online some of the axioms of fairness and systems that do and do not violate them in various ways. Even if you don't like Arrow, it has been mathematically proven (The Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem) that no system of voting can be made "strategy-proof", except a system in which one person's vote counts and no others are counted. As this would be reckoned unfair, we won't use that one. The Theorem: In an election with three or more possible outcomes, a voting rule is strategy-proof if and only if it is dictatorial. Strategy-proof means that there is no possible situation in which a voter, knowing the votes cast by everyone else, benefits by doing other than declaring his true preferences. -- howl 'Jesus Christ, it's the Goddamned Third Army again and that son-of-a-fucking-bitch Patton!'   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  Re: It doesn't matter at all.   by Arcane Gazebo       at Tue 27 Aug 8:31pm score of 2.5 astute   in reply to comment 8     Damn, you beat me to the Arrow's theorem post! :) I don't agree that "it doesn't matter at all". Though we can't satisfy all the fairness axioms, IRV may have some nice properties that make it preferable to strict plurality. In particular it seems to prevent third-party candidates from acting as spoilers. It occurs to me that this reduces the influence of voters on extreme ends of the political spectrum. Assuming most voters are moderates, a moderate candidate can usually plan on facing another moderate in the final runoff, without having to worry about his vote being split with a fringe party. Thus he won't feel as much of a need to cater to the extremists. Looking at the current influence of the religious right on American policy, this aspect of IRV strikes me as a good thing, but others may not agree. Are there any nice properties that strict plurality has over IRV? (I imagine there are, but I haven't taken the time to think about it in depth.) It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: It doesn't matter at all.   by jeff.paulsen       at Tue 27 Aug 9:18pm score of 1   in reply to comment 11     IRV, which in this case looks like a subset of Single Transferable Vote, is not "independent" or "consistent" or "monotonic", but it is guaranteed to never select a C-loser. You should follow the link in my previous post; all I knew going into this thread was Arrow's theorem, and that page helped me out a lot. -- howl 'Jesus Christ, it's the Goddamned Third Army again and that son-of-a-fucking-bitch Patton!'   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   20.  Re: It doesn't matter at all.   by onnel       at Wed 28 Aug 12:24am score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 11     it seems to prevent third-party candidates from acting as spoilers More importantly, it frees people to vote for (and support) 3rd party candidates while still having a "mainstream" candidate as their fallback option. This is a huge advance for the United States and represents a real chance to at least make a dent in the two party system...which is exactly why I'm (sadly) pretty sure we'll never see it used on a large scale. Onnel -- I'm not a thief. I'm a peeping tom.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Re: It doesn't matter at all.   by Arcane Gazebo       at Tue 27 Aug 9:32pm score of 1   in reply to comment 14     Ah, you're quite right. I followed your link but didn't read far enough down before composing my post. The absence of consistency and monotonicity is pretty disturbing IMO... I may have to revise my opinion of IRV. It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Re: It doesn't matter at all.   by emperorpenguin       at Tue 27 Aug 9:11pm score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 8     While I can't argue with Arrow's theorems in that no system is foolproof, it's a stretch to say that all alternative voting systems are therefore going to perform roughly as well as each other in real life. It's fairly easy to construct examples where any system will fail one or more of Arrow's axioms, but in actual; voting situations these will be less relevant. For example, it's easy to show problems with a Condorcet cycle with 5 people, but it's not likely to produce such problems in an election with thousands of voters. I'd say that there is still potential for problems with an instant runoff, but more potential for problems in the first-past-the-post system. Just because all alternatives are doomed to be imperfect doesn't mean some aren't better than others. everything moves real slow when it's forty below   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

26.  It Sounds Like A Great Way To Confuse People   by squeaktoy2000       at Wed 28 Aug 6:34am score of 1     Remember the Presidental election where quite a few people thought they were voting for Gore and ended up voting for Buchanan by accident? That was when they were just trying to vote for one person. This system is so much more complicated, we can easily expect a whole class of voters to basically generate garbage instead of what they want. Not to mention that it also makes a re-count process even more complicated. Forget it! It sounds like someone wants to dump a whole lot of information on me so that they can pull a fast one on me. When was the last time you read the entirety of your credit card statement, or your cell phone bill? I think you get the picture. Information is a weapon used to generate confusion. Basically, I think this question gets at the heart of the difference between Libertarian and Liberal camps. The difference lies in the answer to the question "what to do with the dumb people?" Should they be protected, or should everyone be ultimately responsible for themselves? Since I'm a liberal, you can see how I'd think this voting system takes advantage of the less fortunate. -Despite it all, I'll pity them the day they realize.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

31.  Re: It Sounds Like A Great Way To Confuse People   by veschke       at Wed 28 Aug 7:02am score of 1   in reply to comment 26     "what to do with the dumb people?" Can I quote this in future? I like a snappy encapsulation of political philosophies. And no, I'm not being sarcastic. Cynicism is the opposite of wisdom.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Re: It Sounds Like A Great Way To Confuse People   by squeaktoy2000       at Wed 28 Aug 7:37am score of 1   in reply to comment 31     By all means. I really think it's the central issue between Libertarians & Liberals. If you can think of others, I'd be glad to hear about it in a message (unless you think it's good for the thread). But you'll notice that there's no dumb Libertarians. While you may think this is a sure sign that Libertarianism is the superior stance, but I disagree. Anyway, this post is drifting towards flamebiat, so I'll stop here. -Despite it all, I'll pity them the day they realize.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   55.  Re: It Sounds Like A Great Way To Confuse People   by phenry       at Wed 28 Aug 10:50am score of 1   in reply to comment 42     But you'll notice that there's no dumb Libertarians. I'm guessing you haven't met many Libertarians. phh | Away for 3 years and still in the karma top 50! Woo hoo!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

30.  Terrific post....   by MrFadedGlory       at Wed 28 Aug 7:01am score of 1.5 informative     Let me echo and expand upon some of the opinions offered below (wrestler, yours in particular). Preferential or Optional Preferential voting (IRV sounds like a gardening technique) is unquestionably a fairer system of voting than First Past the Post (the system used in the US and the UK). Why? 1. It allows the opinions of minor parties to be catered for. --> Take the Australian Democrats for example (that's the only way anyone would want to take them). They are a vocal but minor party in Australia. At a polling station in an electorate, the AD candidate hands out a 'How to Vote' card. They know that they will not get enough combined first preference or flow through votes to win, so they direct you on how to allocate your preferences. The most important allocations on this sheet are typically the last and second last which are the 2 major parties, which always end up winning. The important thing here is that the Australian Electoral Commission is obliged to tally these votes and report on them. The majority a government gains is then 'watered down' a bit in this situation. I used to work for current Australian PM, John Howard. I was a staffer for him for about 8 months while I was at university. At the time he was not the PM, he was the 'Opposition Spokesperson for Industrial Relations'. A common tactic that JH employed was to call a Minister to task on an idea they had by stating that they only had 39% of the primary vote. The implication was that they only had their seat in parliament due to people 'settling' for their platform as a compromise. 2. It ensures that the candidate with the most favourable policy gets elected. As MAYORBOB points out below, it is possible that the person with the second best policies or who is second best may be elected (some may say that this is what happened with the current Australian government). This is actually theoretically more favourable than, say the candidate who satisfied 20% of the people's POV getting elected because the remaining 10 candidates split the other 80%. In the preferential system, the eventual winner is the most agreeable to the most people, even if they are everyone's third choice. 3. For the above reasons, the resultant government is generally more centrist than the FPTP alternative. The main caveat to all I have written above is the fact that voting is compulsory in Australia. That's right..you don't vote, you face 3 years in prison and a AUD 30,000 fine. Alway struck me as odd that while preferential voting gives the voter more choice, it relies on removing the most fundamental choice. aka, Michael (Plastic)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

32.  Wait a second...   by bradleytank       at Wed 28 Aug 7:04am score of 2 astute     ...a similar, albeit simpler system is used in the majority of European states. The argument against the single-member constituency system is the fact that in multi-party states (more than two parties running) like Canada, a representative wins if he/she garners 33.4% or more of the vote. Many candidates are placed in office against the wishes of 66.4% of the electorate. This isn't a problem in countries like the US that have enshrined two-party systems. Thing is, Canadian political parties seem to have stiffer ideological membership requirements than those of both United States parties. Because of this, a Canadian candidate tends to reflect the established party line in campaigns, whereas the American candidate is freer which IMHO causes greater fluctuations in voting because in the first case, the voter votes for long-established principle rather than the candidate's stand on issues. So, with five official parties, the ideological lines are clearly drawn, with 25.1% of the vote securing a candidate's position, fragmentation = dissatisfaction. Instead of parties running single candidates in ridings, the Europeans have chosen to stick to a stringent party line during elections, and divvy out seats in Parliament on the basis of aggregate votes. Problem here, though, is that you get a large number of parties that get 1-5% each, which defeats the system, and opens up the possibility of extremist wackos in office. Answer has been to require that seats are only given to parties that get more than 5% of the aggregate vote. Because the end result is usually a divided parliament, coalitions have to be formed in order to pass legislation, which ensures that regardless of a member's ideological commitments, compromises must be made in order for the government to function. So there is no disconnect between left/right as there is in the US and Canada, no flip-flop of legislation and revocation. Seems Alaska is after a hybrid. single-member constituency, yes, but aggregate votes, not votes within ridings, count. Thing is, the coalition virtue (debatable by some) that sold Europe on Proportional Representation is absent, ensuring the above-mentioned flip-flop. The manifest goal, though, which is buried in the link, is to prevent 'fuzzy' numbers, which IMHO ensures only to advance the latent goal of removing the Democrats from office because of their whining about destoying a wildlife reserve in the name of BigOIL. (see page five.) ...you'll take what you're given.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

36.  Correction...   by MrFadedGlory       at Wed 28 Aug 7:15am score of 1   in reply to comment 32     ....what you are talking about is Proportional Representation which is different from what is being proposed here. In PR, everyone gets seats depending the number of votes they get. In the preferential system the least most represented person passes their votes to the next most and then the next most and so on until there are just two remaining, one with a 'clear majority'. Australia uses the PR system to elect it's upper house (Senate). This gives the minority parties great power and imposes some fairly impressive checks and balances. aka, Michael (Plastic)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Re: Correction...   by bradleytank       at Wed 28 Aug 7:32am score of 1   in reply to comment 36     How is this a correction? ...you'll take what you're given.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   41.  Re: Wait a second...   by FlipperBoy       at Wed 28 Aug 7:35am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 32     In the Republic of Ireland, we've had a system much like that proposed in Alaska since our independence from Britain in 1922. Here, it's called Proportional Representation. The most obvious result this has had is that Irish governments are most often coalitions composed of two or more parties. After the election, parties with the highest number of seats go into negotiations with others, usually their most natural allies in the political spectrum, in order to create a government. This requires at the very least giving some regard to the policies of the minor party involved, and several governmental posts. Another result is that we have a lot of political parties. In the experience of my country, this has injected an element of balance into an otherwise typical political landscape, curbing the excesses of the larger established parties, giving voice to more marginal parties (like the greens), and allowing a means to bring down a government down when it has lost the support of the people and it's political allies. So far no wackos either. All in all not a bad thing. "The need to be right is the sign of a vulgar mind."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   48.  Re: Wait a second...   by Linux Ate My Dog!       at Wed 28 Aug 8:31am score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 41     The Dutch experience would echo the Irish experience with regards to balance. As far as wackos go, protest parties usually get such small seats they don't matter that much, but do get other viewpoints heard. The Netherlands is now experiencing an influx in its government of an, um, 'unorthodox' protest party. It was very exciting to see what would happen under the proprotional representation plurality system. First of all, since they didn't get an outright majority, they had to compromise with the more orthodox party that did get huge, and deal with a small party that held swing vote power in parliament. In other words, they have been eencapsulated. That and they are self-destructing because it turns out it is easier to protest than actually govern in a pluralistic society and parliament. The democratic institutions have done their job and balanced the scary experience to something workable. "He's old school." -- byrne   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   53.  Re: Wait a second...   by jmac       at Wed 28 Aug 10:17am score of 1   in reply to comment 41     In academic literature, Ireland's system isn't considered to be an example of proportional representation. The crux of PR systems is that the party representation in parliament should be as close as possible to the actually distribution of party votes in the general electorate. While Single-Transferable-Vote (STV) systems, such as in Ireland, do tend to produce results where the percentage of seats more closely match the percentage of the popular vote than do other majoritarian systems (primarily FPTP), this is not its primary goal; it is mainlyconcerned with producing favourable results at the constituency level. This is in contrast to true PR systems such as The Netherlands and Israel where (with some limitations) the number of seats a party gains is directly related to that party's popular vote.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   65.  Re: Wait a second...   by Space Butler       at Thu 29 Aug 10:26am score of 1   in reply to comment 32     I don't think your numbers are quite right; 25.1% of the vote, in a five-party system, doesn't necessarily guarantee the candidate's position. While Canada has several parties, not all of those parties have equal popularity. For example, in Canada's most recent election, my area had (as I recall) five candidates available: Liberal, Progressive Conservative, New Democratic (I think), Canadian Alliance, and Natural Law. Now, for those who aren't familiar with them, the Natural Law party runs on a platform that includes, IIRC, establishing a small army of several thousand Yogic fliers to radiate an aura of peace and happiness. Needless to say, they don't get many votes, and most of the ones they do get aren't actually due to support of the party. They got something like 0.33% of the vote. The Progressive Conservative candidate, on the other hand, got around 27% of the vote. By your argument, that should secure his position, but because of the imbalance of votes between parties, the Liberal candidate had something on the order of 40-50% of the vote, give or take a bit. Point being, in a five-party vote, your scenario of a candidate winning with just a quarter of the vote is possible, but in my experience not very common.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

35.  A better solution   by plutocracywatch       at Wed 28 Aug 7:14am score of 1     The problem of run-offs, if that is a problem, is better decided by letting a plurality win the race if necessary. An even better idea is to give the voter multiple votes that they can cast. For example, in Illinois prior to the '72 Constitutional re-write, each voter possessed three votes for the state house. Voters could "torpedo" votes to one candidate or spread the wealth. This translated into commies and Republicans winning elections in Chicago and agrarian populists and suburban Birchers winning seats downstate. The breadth of representation was wider than with winner-take-all, geographically-defined districts. One idea floated for Congressional representation is to give each voter the same number of votes as the state has reps in the House. So here in Ohio, we'd each get 17 votes to cast that could go to as many or as few reps as the ballot holds. This would be a boon for the fringe parties like the Libertarians, Greens, and Natural Law who'd actually have a chance of electing someone. The problem is not the cost of a run-off or the winner not winning 50% plus 1. The problem is a system that is so corrupt and unrepresentative that half the eligible don't bother to vote. read   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

45.  another problem with the run off   by nmiguy       at Wed 28 Aug 8:18am score of 1   in reply to comment 35     If it is a 2 candidate race (instead of 4 candidates or 3 candidates) a tie could still be a tie. placing the undesired candidate as 2nd doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference if it is a tie race. Just thought it was worth mentioning...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

51.  Survey Style?   by mrpoopyface       at Wed 28 Aug 9:34am score of 1     I'm definitely not an expert, and I've never given this issue much thought before, but this story got me thinking... Why not do it survey style? Something like... Circe one for each candidate: Mr. A - Awesome Good Whatever Bad Awful Mr. B - Awesome Good Whatever Bad Awful Mr. C - Awesome Good Whatever Bad Awful Mr. D - Awesome Good Whatever Bad Awful Assign point values of +2 through -2 to the rankings, and add up the totals? Seems like it would be simple enough for everybody, and still allow everyone to state their exact preferences. Does anyone with a better grasp on Arrows' Theorem and voting theory have any reasons why something like this would or wouldn't work? We've got provisions, and lots of beer. The key word is survival on the new frontier. --Donald Fagen   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

52.  Re: Survey Style?   by Arcane Gazebo       at Wed 28 Aug 10:06am score of 1   in reply to comment 51     There's a section on Utilitarian Methods in jeff.paulsen's excellent link which is relevant. This looks like a Direct Aggregation of Cardinal Utility method; the major drawback is that voters have incentive to exaggerate their preferences. I may think Al Gore is "Bad", but if I want to increase his chances of winning over "Awful" Bush I should rank Gore "Awesome" instead. It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

54.  Considered, then shot down.   by jowr       at Wed 28 Aug 10:34am score of 1     According to my morning paper, 64% of Alaskans voted it down. I voted for it, because i liked the idea of the runoff voting. The voting "experience" was also very nice, all i did was fill in the little bubbles next to the people i wanted to vote for (yay liberterian), and then i walked over to the little trash-can sized box and put my vote in. The nice lady next to it says its already been counted and pointed out the little LCD display that said my vote is the 120th its counted so far. I mentioned they should send a few of those to florida.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]