NationStates Jolt Archive

In Scientific American a couple of months ago they present an idea called "True Majority Rule" (the real name is the Condorcet vote). In this, the top four canidates are ranked by each voter. (I might have put Gore, Nader, Bush, Buchanan in 2000, while a freind of mine would have put Buchanan, Bush, Gore, Nader, for example.) The first canidate would get a full vote, the second a 3/4 vote, the third a half vote, the fourth a 1/4 vote.

I'll explain the problem with this system in a moment, but here's my idea, and no one yet has told me a problem with it. I call it "pooling". In it, canidates with similar agendas (Gore with Nader, Bush with Buchanan) would pool their votes. Anyone voting for Gore or Nader would contribute to the "Liberal pool", and thus with the consevative pool. Then inside the pool the most sucessful canidate would win. In 2000, for example, the liberal pool would win, and more than likely Al Gore would become president.

What do you think?

Sounds like the Single Transferable Vote (http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votingsystems/systems3.htm#STV) system they use in Ireland (iirc), and kinda like the system they use for the Scottish Parliament (AV+ (http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votingsystems/systems4.htm#AV+)).

I am aginst anything that could have made Gore president

If it makes you feel better, you can replace the politicians with A, B, C, and D. Its just that elections aren't usually as contested as 2000, so it brought the issue to light.

The trasferrable vote makes a lot of sense to me, it reduces the need for tactical voting, means that liberal candidates don't drain votes from those who are merely left leaning, and it makes third parties a real option, rather than a pipe dream.

However, it does mean that extremists get more say, which isn't necessarily a good thing (BNP, BNP)

whoops wrong thread

I have a system I'm trying to develop that is based on the federal parliamentary model (ie: Canada) with separate local (provincial) legislatures. I'm for abolishing any regional representation at the federal level (ie: no geographically based seats) but also for strictly forbidding any local issues (including health care and education) to be discussed by the federal parliament. So in federal politics we are all Canadians.

There would be about 100 reps, and there would be no formal elections. Rather everything will be electronic, and you can place a single vote for as many candidates as you like. The 100 with the most votes become the representatives and each come up for review every 6 months. If they have dropped out of the top 100 then they are replaced. The prime minister is chosen in a similar system but where only the 100 reps can vote.

There will additionally be a non-regional senate whose only job is to shoot down legislation. They are elected the same way except they only come up for review every 2 years or so (thus they can vote in a way that might be unpopular in the short term and not be replaced).

There is more to it of course, like how each candidate has a webpage with a short bio and a complete list of their voting record if they have been a rep. Also notice that there are no parties: each individual is responsible to the electorate for their own legislative behaviour. Being placed on the list of candidates would have some minimal cost, say $100 a year and would be open to all citizens.

I am aginst anything that could have made Gore president

You're against democracy?

I think we had enough difficulty last election with picking only ONE canidate.....imagine ranking them.

The trasferrable vote makes a lot of sense to me, it reduces the need for tactical voting, means that liberal candidates don't drain votes from those who are merely left leaning, and it makes third parties a real option, rather than a pipe dream.

However, it does mean that extremists get more say, which isn't necessarily a good thing (BNP, BNP)

Yeah but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

This system seems to be able to label people/parties too easily.

Take the new Canadian Green Party, their not quite left and not quite Right. The Federal Liberals are centrists so where would they fit in? Parties on either spectrum hate to give the perception of "pooling"; simply put, they want to press their point across at the other sides expense. Some parties also vary wildly in their platforms, offering both traditional left and right wing ideas.

I've always liked proportional representation with say a 5% cut off rate. Fringe parties get a chance, the main parties truly represent their voters and usually more cooperation between parties to form governments.

This system seems to be able to label people/parties too easily.

Take the new Canadian Green Party, their not quite left and not quite Right. The Federal Liberals are centrists so where would they fit in? Parties on either spectrum hate to give the perception of "pooling"; simply put, they want to press their point across at the other sides expense. Some parties also vary wildly in their platforms, offering both traditional left and right wing ideas.

I've always liked proportional representation with say a 5% cut off rate. Fringe parties get a chance, the main parties truly represent their voters and usually more cooperation between parties to form governments.

In my ideal state, the legislature would be by two parts; a parliment divided by party with each party having a two delegates with half the proportional vote; and a senate divided by some arbitary mesure, probably geography, into proportional parts.

However, the elections would be by a pooling system. The pooling would probably be maditory, but parties could still choose which pool to enter. It would be difficult to create a new pool, and would not be encouraged.

How about simply giving the job to who has the most votes.
Period.
No Electoral College.
Popular Vote.

Crazy huh?

*Streaks through thread*

*Streaks through thread*

May you suffer from shrinkage.

How about simply giving the job to who has the most votes.
Period.
No Electoral College.
Popular Vote.

Crazy huh?

It causes the nation to break into parties who are simply warring factions to try to buy votes by appealing to moderate centrists. In effect, it causes the bad kind of politics.

*Streaks through thread*

Curse you! You'd be the first person to beat me on any streaking venture!

*streaks onto next thread*

I am aginst anything that could have made Gore president

You're right, we should just have the Supreme Court install all of our presidents., and have Florida 2000 every election... :roll:

How about simply giving the job to who has the most votes.
Period.
No Electoral College.
Popular Vote.

Crazy huh?

It causes the nation to break into parties who are simply warring factions to try to buy votes by appealing to moderate centrists. In effect, it causes the bad kind of politics.
Also while they are counting the votes you couldn't watch the "red" and "blue" states. How boring!

castration!!!!!

I'll explain the problem with this system in a moment, but here's my idea, and no one yet has told me a problem with it. I call it "pooling". In it, canidates with similar agendas (Gore with Nader, Bush with Buchanan) would pool their votes. Anyone voting for Gore or Nader would contribute to the "Liberal pool", and thus with the consevative pool. Then inside the pool the most sucessful canidate would win. In 2000, for example, the liberal pool would win, and more than likely Al Gore would become president.

What do you think?

I like the basics, but I do not like the pooling idea. Who is to say which party/candidate is "liberal" or "conservative"? And where would libertarians go?

How about simply giving the job to who has the most votes.
Period.
No Electoral College.
Popular Vote.

Crazy huh?

It causes the nation to break into parties who are simply warring factions to try to buy votes by appealing to moderate centrists. In effect, it causes the bad kind of politics.

We already have that now.

Only this way..it would be a true representation of the people.

How about simply giving the job to who has the most votes.
Period.
No Electoral College.
Popular Vote.

Crazy huh?

It causes the nation to break into parties who are simply warring factions to try to buy votes by appealing to moderate centrists. In effect, it causes the bad kind of politics.

We already have that now.

Only this way..it would be a true representation of the people.

Its only a slight inprovement.

Liberatarians could be independent or choose to pool with one of the two parties. Anyway, if a third party pools with the big canidates they greatly improve the chance of winning or getting enough votes to get attention, and as an added bonus reduce the chance of accidentally electing a George Bush (May I remind all the conservatives here that almost anyone voting for Ralph Nader would hate Bush with a passion). If a third party is too stubborn, stupid or attention-deprived to use the pooling system, then they don't deserve to get seats and they probably won't.

I am aginst anything that could have made Gore president

You're against democracy?

An excelent reply to my careless quip. I only meant to say that I am glad the rule of law over ruled the careless emotionalism of some who only care for power and not the true best interest of their nation. What I am truely aginst in Terrorism and those who support, it condone, it or even allow it to exist unchalenged. God bless America, and God bless George W. Bush.

I am aginst anything that could have made Gore president

You're against democracy?

An excelent reply to my careless quip. I only meant to say that I am glad the rule of law over ruled the careless emotionalism of some who only care for power and not the true best interest of their nation. What I am truely aginst in Terrorism and those who support, it condone, it or even allow it to exist unchalenged. God bless America, and God bless George W. Bush.

Oh so you were voting for Bush because of his big anti-terrorism push in the 2000 election? :roll:

Or is that the "careless emotionalism" you are showing, and the "power" of Bush and big business, "not the true best interest of (your) nation"?

God bless America, and may it be run by a man worthy of blessing.

usa #1 bitches

I am aginst anything that could have made Gore president

You're against democracy?

An excelent reply to my careless quip. I only meant to say that I am glad the rule of law over ruled the careless emotionalism of some who only care for power and not the true best interest of their nation. What I am truely aginst in Terrorism and those who support, it condone, it or even allow it to exist unchalenged. God bless America, and God bless George W. Bush.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!

Do I have to Discredit this guy?

Australia's voting system is a bit easier than America's for minor parties to get seats, but I would like to see the system tweaked a little so that a voter need only put in the number of preferences they would like.

At one point in America's history, there was an amendment that had been written that would have replaced the office of President of the U.S. with an executive council of three members. My guess is that bills would have to be approved by two of them; bills that did not get two executive signatures would be vetoed and sent back to Congress. That got me thinking...

The executive strikes me as too concentrated in one person. Why not spread out the power into, say, a group of five or seven? My thought is this: The legislature picks a member of the council, hereafter known as the Speaker of the House so as not to be too verbose. The Speaker is chosen in much the same way European nations choose a Prime Minister. We'll say also, right now, that the Senate no longer exists under this plan - the legislature is one house. Also selecting a candidate is every state legislature in the nation - every Speaker of the Statehouse is eligible for this position to be voted upon on a state-by-state basis. For argument's sake, we'll say that each party picks only one person out of all 50 states to run for this position, and something like the EU's qualified majority voting system is used to select the State Speaker.

Also out of the states is one Governor, to be chosen by his or her fellow Governors under much the same pattern except this is one state, one vote. State judiciaries and federal circuit courts also send a member to be voted upon by the courts, though the U.S. Supreme Court is held separate and does not elect a federal executive.

So far we have: One person from Congress, and three from the states and lower courts. From Congress, two more people are selected for this by a method other than a Congressional vote or selection by the Speaker. The people selected to be part of the executive committee hand-pick replacements from their office. This brings us to six, leaving three spots to be selected by popular vote on a rotating basis every two years. One person is selected to run in 2004, the next in 2006, and the last in 2008, each serving a six-year term. They can serve for as long as they wish, and they hold pretty much the same responsibilities as the President does now, except they vote as a committee. The actual President is chosen from within this group, and he/she can serve as President for up to 12 years.

There are a lot of details that would have to be ironed out (line of succession, how exactly the other two Congressional reps are picked for the executive council, how Congress would be elected, what method the popularly-selected executives would be elected under, etc.) and I will hope to elaborate once I am less tired.

Anyone read... oh shit I've forgotten the name. It's by the same bloke who wrote A Town Like Alice and On The Beach. Anyway, basically this guy is concerned with how popular voting on the "one man, one vote" principle, will lead inevitably to dirty dirty socialist domination in all our beloved Western society (not least in England). It should be noted he was writing in the '50s.

So, he proposed a system where different people got a different number of votes to cast as they chose, based on factors considered valuable to the franchise. Everyone got one basic vote. You got an extra vote for education (a degree or a military commission). An extra vote for having lived overseas for some period. An extra vote for earning some considerable sum of money, of your own bat. And so on. There were six votes you could earn in such a way, and there was a seventh that might be bestowed as an honour, reserved to the Queen's pleasure.

It's an interesting and, I think, appealing idea, albeit containing the potential for abuse.


Ohhhh, edit: the book is In The Wet. Nevil Shute, I think is the author.