NationStates Jolt Archive

Check out this link for definitions:

http://www.ghg.net/redflame/peter/swuusi.htm#glossary

I will use each of the three methods/systems here for determining the results. Therefore there could be three different results. If one system wins using two different systems that system will win as 'best two out three'. If not,
some other method will be used to determine what the most popular system is.

NOTE:
First choice first, second choice second, and third choice implied.

Is this not something in which you are all interested?

Cote d-Ivoire']Is this not something in which you are all interested?
You should provide more context and an emotional hook to get people involved. And a quick explanation on each method, some people won't be bothered to look at the link.

You should provide more context and an emotional hook to get people involved. And a quick explanation on each method, some people won't be bothered to look at the link.

smp is the system where the person who wins either a majority or plurality wins - it used, I believe in all the USA states except Louisiana
under smp there is no runoff, hence 40% to 31% to 29% means the first candidate wins even if more people would prefer the second or third in a runoff

irv is instant runoff voting - you rank your choice when you vote - it can be difficult to explain. In a traditional runoff the 29%(see above) would be elimated and a new election would occur between the top two. In irv this is all ready calculated.

condorcet is similar to irv in that you pick more than one choice the system
calculates all possible elections in a three way between A B and C
there would be three hypothetical elections A vs B --- A vs C --- and B vs C
If A beat B and C s/he wins (or ditto for b or c)-- if not -- well that's where it gets complicated.

oh an emotional hook, well I am pretending be mad, although I don't think that will help (the emoticon, that is)

well two votes, at least that is a start :)

http://www.mediacircus.net/pearlharbor_5.jpg

ok here's an emotional hook;
if we don't find a more democratic form of gov't for the US,
we may have another incident like the one linked to above.

:fluffle:

now I'm getting emotional

:fluffle:

:mp5: :sniper:
IRV is in the lead; it may win seeing as how this thread could drift
away soon, due to lack of interest

Try something like this (I'm assuming you are from the US and you're trying to get answers mostly from US citizens):

"The US voting system is simply broken. The only option are so bad that you can only choose between the least of two, and only two evils. This means that people are either misrepresented or not represented at all and has contributed to the current state of divisionism and of having dumb asses to represent us in most of the federal government.

If it was up to you to reform the voting system, how would you do it?"

Try something like this (I'm assuming you are from the US and you're trying to get answers mostly from US citizens):

"The US voting system is simply broken. The only option are so bad that you can only choose between the least of two, and only two evils. This means that people are either misrepresented or not represented at all and has contributed to the current state of divisionism and of having dumb asses to represent us in most of the federal government.

If it was up to you to reform the voting system, how would you do it?"

None of your %#@! business, you filthy @#$% !

Sorry! I got a little too emotional there. You need to back it off a notch. Maybe start out with a joke as an ice-breaker.

approval voting is the best

6 votes right now
option 3=2 votes
option 4=1 vote
option 5=1 vote
option 6=2 votes
This is a good example of a tie. IRV and Condorcet are tied
if we only look at people's first choice. What that means is
that there is no winner if any of the three systems offered were
used to pick a system. It would still be a tie in all three systems.
Yet, clearly in my mind IRV is more popular because it got one
more vote than condorcet in the second choice vote.
I don't know what system would produce the result which is clearly
logically the winner in the results so far. Any ideas?

Look at the 1992 US Pres election.
Clinton 43
Bush 37.4
Perot 18.9

Had the election been decided by popular votes rather than electoral, what
would the results be under this thread's three choices.
Under SMP Clinton wins since he got more votes than any one else, even
though he didn't win a majority.
Under IRV Perot would be eliminated and it would have been Bush or Clinton.
Bush would have had to win 2/3 of Perot voters. My guess is that Clinton would have won. But under condorcet Perot could be the winner. Here is the scenario, both Clinton supporters and Bush supporters would prefer Perot as their second choice, thinking "Well, I really like my guy and I really don't like Perot but he has to be better than the alternative" (the alternative being Clinton for Bush supporters and Bush for Clinton supporters)

Although Bush would have had to win 2/3 of Perot supporters, that is only true under a popular vote system not an electoral college system.

I do not like any of the three in particular; I much prefer approval voting, Borda counts, and above both, a system not mentioned there.

Cote d-Ivoire']6 votes right now
option 3=2 votes
option 4=1 vote
option 5=1 vote
option 6=2 votes
This is a good example of a tie. IRV and Condorcet are tied
if we only look at people's first choice. What that means is
that there is no winner if any of the three systems offered were
used to pick a system. It would still be a tie in all three systems.
Yet, clearly in my mind IRV is more popular because it got one
more vote than condorcet in the second choice vote.
I don't know what system would produce the result which is clearly
logically the winner in the results so far. Any ideas?at that point, the approval system would have given IRV 5 votes, Condorcet 4 votes, and plurality 3 votes

How many of you are familiar with last year's proposal in Colorado to allocate electors proportional? I believe it to be a reasonable system, but I also believe that every state should use the same system. The current system where most states have winner take all but Maine and Nebraska is problematic. If different states have different systems the potential for a result which unfairly favors one party over the other exists.

Well... the electoral college should probably be dispensed with.

Barring that, although it is fair and discourages cheating to split up the electoral votes, few states will, in light of how it reduces their power within elections.

It is worthwhile to examine the net power distribution of the entire federal system. The slight amplification of large states' power due to the the winner-take-all system of electoral votes is substantially offset by the far greater power of the smaller states (thanks to the senatorial system).