Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Electoral reform

feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2010 3:30:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
For anyone who doesn't know, we have a particularly effed up voting ystem in the UK with constituency boundaries which, amongst other things, typically make a city dweller's vote worth less than that of a country bumpkin.

Our new LibCon government is talking about all sorts of ways of changing the system without changing it too much. Most of the proposals I've heard about are pretty boring but one has sparked my imagination.

It is the concept of a negative or minus vote, whereby as well as casting a vote in favour of one candidate, one can also cast a vote against another one. Minus votes would of course be deducted from a candidate's total. I think it's a great idea and would probably have kept the tories out of power.

Any thoughts on this or other methods of voting and counting votes?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2010 3:37:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/23/2010 3:30:33 PM, feverish wrote:
For anyone who doesn't know, we have a particularly effed up voting ystem in the UK with constituency boundaries which, amongst other things, typically make a city dweller's vote worth less than that of a country bumpkin.

Our new LibCon government is talking about all sorts of ways of changing the system without changing it too much. Most of the proposals I've heard about are pretty boring but one has sparked my imagination.

It is the concept of a negative or minus vote, whereby as well as casting a vote in favour of one candidate, one can also cast a vote against another one. Minus votes would of course be deducted from a candidate's total. I think it's a great idea and would probably have kept the tories out of power.

Any thoughts on this or other methods of voting and counting votes?

yeah, I've liked that since I heard of it in HS.

maybe even having a few voting slots per person.

like one slot for 2 pts.
one for 1
and one for -1

Candidate with the most points wins.

I think this kind of system would skew it towards the moderates.

and would best represent the most people.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2010 3:38:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/23/2010 3:37:45 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
maybe even having a few voting slots per Voter.

fix'd
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2010 3:38:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
For all you know it might've kept Labour out of power, and for much longer, considering that your party has suffered heavily over the past two election cycles. It might've even hurt you more, as I suspect there was more goodwill to Cameron than to Brown.

As for the system itself, I don't really see any efficiency or benefit coming out of it, except maybe novelty. I mean, how exactly does it change the weight of votes at all? In the current system, your vote already deprives the other candidate of a vote; in this system, your vote deprives the candidate of a vote. Nothing much changes.

Preferential ballot seems to be the best way to increase the weight of an individual vote. Brown's AV system should be the way to go.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2010 3:42:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/23/2010 3:38:56 PM, Volkov wrote:
As for the system itself, I don't really see any efficiency or benefit coming out of it, except maybe novelty. I mean, how exactly does it change the weight of votes at all? In the current system, your vote already deprives the other candidate of a vote; in this system, your vote deprives the candidate of a vote. Nothing much changes.

It would help middle of the road candidates.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2010 3:44:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/23/2010 3:42:18 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
It would help middle of the road candidates.

I don't see how it would. Besides, if the voting populace is extremist, it'll vote in extremists. If its moderate, it'll vote in moderates. There's a reason why parties generally seem and almost feel the same - parties adapt to the population's whims and ideals at any given moment.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2010 3:49:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/23/2010 3:44:26 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/23/2010 3:42:18 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
It would help middle of the road candidates.

I don't see how it would. Besides, if the voting populace is extremist, it'll vote in extremists. If its moderate, it'll vote in moderates. There's a reason why parties generally seem and almost feel the same - parties adapt to the population's whims and ideals at any given moment.

You vote 2 points for extremist lib

1 for moderate 3rd party libertarian

-1 for opposing extremist con

CON VOTES

2 con

1 mod libert.

-1 lib.

and what happens????

MOD LIBERTARIANS CARRY THE DAY!!!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2010 3:52:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/23/2010 3:38:56 PM, Volkov wrote:
For all you know it might've kept Labour out of power, and for much longer, considering that your party has suffered heavily over the past two election cycles.

They're not my party.

It might've even hurt you more, as I suspect there was more goodwill to Cameron than to Brown.

Goodwill? lol I think you underestimate the loathing most Brits have for the tories. The legacy of the milk snatcher lives on. Lib Dem supporters are flocking to join the Labour Party after Clegg's deal with Cameron.

As for the system itself, I don't really see any efficiency or benefit coming out of it, except maybe novelty. I mean, how exactly does it change the weight of votes at all? In the current system, your vote already deprives the other candidate of a vote; in this system, your vote deprives the candidate of a vote. Nothing much changes.

I think it would clearly favour the moderates and smaller main parties like the Lib Dems and greens. It would reduce the kind of fear voting where people pick the lesser of two evils rather than the party that fits their ideology. I think it would also encourage voting as people are often more motivated by negative than positive emotion.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2010 3:53:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/23/2010 3:49:24 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
You vote 2 points for extremist lib

1 for moderate 3rd party libertarian

-1 for opposing extremist con


CON VOTES

2 con

1 mod libert.

-1 lib.

and what happens????

MOD LIBERTARIANS CARRY THE DAY!!!

And again, what is the difference between this and preferential ballot?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2010 3:55:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/23/2010 3:52:26 PM, feverish wrote:
Goodwill? lol I think you underestimate the loathing most Brits have for the tories. The legacy of the milk snatcher lives on. Lib Dem supporters are flocking to join the Labour Party after Clegg's deal with Cameron.

Yet the Tories still remain ahead in the polls. Isn't that funny.

I think it would clearly favour the moderates and smaller main parties like the Lib Dems and greens. It would reduce the kind of fear voting where people pick the lesser of two evils rather than the party that fits their ideology. I think it would also encourage voting as people are often more motivated by negative than positive emotion.

It's simply preferential ballot, that's all. It may or may not benefit smaller parties - it certainly fails to in Australia.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2010 3:57:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/23/2010 3:53:27 PM, Volkov wrote:
preferential ballot?

I wouldn't know, as I don't know what those are.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2010 3:59:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/23/2010 3:49:24 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
mod libert.

What blasphemy is this?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2010 3:59:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/23/2010 3:57:07 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 5/23/2010 3:53:27 PM, Volkov wrote:
preferential ballot?

I wouldn't know, as I don't know what those are.

You have the option of ordering all candidates/parties for preference - the order may influence the way votes are managed.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2010 4:00:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/23/2010 3:59:06 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 5/23/2010 3:49:24 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
mod libert.

What blasphemy is this?

MINE!

I already discussed it with you, at least once, THOROUGHLY.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2010 4:02:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/23/2010 3:59:52 PM, Puck wrote:
At 5/23/2010 3:57:07 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 5/23/2010 3:53:27 PM, Volkov wrote:
preferential ballot?

I wouldn't know, as I don't know what those are.

You have the option of ordering all candidates/parties for preference - the order may influence the way votes are managed.

I guess this is a form of preferential ballot then.

now if the 'negative vote' has a more powerful effect than simply different positive values...

i wouldn't know...

I guess trial runs would have to be done.

and I gotta go.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2010 4:02:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/23/2010 4:00:41 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
MINE!

I already discussed it with you, at least once, THOROUGHLY.

I can't recall the discussion you are referring to.

By what twisted strand of reasoning can you possibly arrive at the paradoxical conclusion that is a moderate libertarian?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2010 4:14:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/23/2010 3:57:07 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I wouldn't know, as I don't know what those are.

Almost the same thing, except instead of +2 points, +1 point, etc., you rank candidates by preference.

Let's say there are three candidates: A, B and C.

A is the first choice for candidate of 3 people, the second choice for 5, and third for 2.

B is the first choice of 4, second choice of 2, and third choice of 4.

C is the first choice of 2, second choice of 3, and third choice of 5.

Because C has the lowest first choice votes, he's eliminated. The people who voted for him as first choice have their second choice votes activated - let's say both voted for A as their second choice. A then has 5 votes, compared to B's 4 - therefore A is the winner.

The idea is that voters that vote for third parties can get their votes counted, but their candidate doesn't make it, their votes still end up counting toward the winner, dependent on their second choices. It makes third party votes count more in a system originally designed for two.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2010 8:59:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/23/2010 4:14:21 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/23/2010 3:57:07 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I wouldn't know, as I don't know what those are.

Almost the same thing, except instead of +2 points, +1 point, etc., you rank candidates by preference.

Let's say there are three candidates: A, B and C.

A is the first choice for candidate of 3 people, the second choice for 5, and third for 2.

B is the first choice of 4, second choice of 2, and third choice of 4.

C is the first choice of 2, second choice of 3, and third choice of 5.

Because C has the lowest first choice votes, he's eliminated. The people who voted for him as first choice have their second choice votes activated - let's say both voted for A as their second choice. A then has 5 votes, compared to B's 4 - therefore A is the winner.

The idea is that voters that vote for third parties can get their votes counted, but their candidate doesn't make it, their votes still end up counting toward the winner, dependent on their second choices. It makes third party votes count more in a system originally designed for two.

yeah, that doesn't get the moderate in.

The other system does.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2010 9:02:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/23/2010 8:59:49 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
yeah, that doesn't get the moderate in.

The other system does.

Sure it does.

If the moderate gets the most preferential votes, then they get in. If they're the second choice of more extremist voters who have their candidate knocked out, they get in.

Besides, the point of the democratic system isn't to "get in moderates" - it's the choice of the individuals as to whom they want to represent them, "moderate" or not.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2010 9:19:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/23/2010 9:02:09 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/23/2010 8:59:49 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
yeah, that doesn't get the moderate in.

The other system does.

Sure it does.

If the moderate gets the most preferential votes, then they get in. If they're the second choice of more extremist voters who have their candidate knocked out, they get in.

Besides, the point of the democratic system isn't to "get in moderates" - it's the choice of the individuals as to whom they want to represent them, "moderate" or not.

the moderates represent the Conservatives better than a liberal would

They represent Libs better than a conservative would.

and they represent middle of the road folk better than all.

IN the other system party primaries end of polarizing party candidates and govt. switches back and forth from Con to Lib... with A whole lot of people losing out no matter who gets in... and no consistency in government.

If there are 4000 hard core Conservatives, 0 moderates, and 4000 hard core Libs

I would STILL say A government that splits the difference between the two positions is Most Fair.

However in reality its more like 1000 hc, Cons 2000 semi cons, 2000 wishy washy, etc....

Splitting the difference between poles is the best option.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2010 9:25:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
That's all well and fine, matt, but if you want to try and take such a case to the voters, I wish you luck, because you won't be getting any support. It's not an idea based on fairness - it's an idea based on "I want a preferred outcome despite how people vote." Fairness implies proper representation and the ability of better weighted votes to increase the representation that people choose. If no one chooses moderates, then how does it end up being fair? Focus on changing people's attitudes instead of their votes.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2010 9:29:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/23/2010 9:25:03 PM, Volkov wrote:
That's all well and fine, matt, but if you want to try and take such a case to the voters, I wish you luck, because you won't be getting any support. It's not an idea based on fairness - it's an idea based on "I want a preferred outcome despite how people vote." Fairness implies proper representation and the ability of better weighted votes to increase the representation that people choose. If no one chooses moderates, then how does it end up being fair? Focus on changing people's attitudes instead of their votes.

this discussions not about what the stupid masses will support.

it's about what is a good idea.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2010 9:33:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/23/2010 9:25:03 PM, Volkov wrote:
That's all well and fine, matt, but if you want to try and take such a case to the voters, I wish you luck, because you won't be getting any support. It's not an idea based on fairness - it's an idea based on "I want a preferred outcome despite how people vote." Fairness implies proper representation and the ability of better weighted votes to increase the representation that people choose. If no one chooses moderates, then how does it end up being fair? Focus on changing people's attitudes instead of their votes.

it's fair because if you want the government to have 2 widgets, and I want it to have 4 widgets...

and we're both absolutely Adamant in our position.

the best solution isn't to make it have 2 sometimes and 4 othertimes depending on who happens to carry a slight majority this year.

it's to just compromise and have 3.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Lukas
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 9:43:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
My only concern about this kind of ER in Britain is that certain minority parties like the BNP would do better under this system, which worries me.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 9:45:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 9:43:57 AM, Lukas wrote:
My only concern about this kind of ER in Britain is that certain minority parties like the BNP would do better under this system, which worries me.

I would think they'd get a decent number of negative votes? No?

I guess if people are too concerned about their direct opponent they might not lob the negative at the 3rd party... even if they really hate them most.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 10:33:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 9:43:57 AM, Lukas wrote:
My only concern about this kind of ER in Britain is that certain minority parties like the BNP would do better under this system, which worries me.

That's exactly the point I was about to make but you got there before me.

The likes of BNP and UKIP have a lot of support but this isn't translated into votes because their far-right wing sympathisers know that their vote would be wasted and just vote Tory instead.

I hate the Tories, of course, but I'd rather have their closet racists as MP's than a bunch of out-and-out fascist boot boys sitting in the Houses of Parliament.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 2:47:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 10:33:00 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 5/24/2010 9:43:57 AM, Lukas wrote:
My only concern about this kind of ER in Britain is that certain minority parties like the BNP would do better under this system, which worries me.

That's exactly the point I was about to make but you got there before me.

The likes of BNP and UKIP have a lot of support but this isn't translated into votes because their far-right wing sympathisers know that their vote would be wasted and just vote Tory instead.

I hate the Tories, of course, but I'd rather have their closet racists as MP's than a bunch of out-and-out fascist boot boys sitting in the Houses of Parliament.

I don't think it would work out like that. I think in areas where the extremists were known to have a strong following, supporters of other parties would agree to co-operate to vote them down. But maybe I am being idealistic and naive.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 2:54:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/24/2010 2:47:37 PM, feverish wrote:
At 5/24/2010 10:33:00 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 5/24/2010 9:43:57 AM, Lukas wrote:
My only concern about this kind of ER in Britain is that certain minority parties like the BNP would do better under this system, which worries me.

That's exactly the point I was about to make but you got there before me.

The likes of BNP and UKIP have a lot of support but this isn't translated into votes because their far-right wing sympathisers know that their vote would be wasted and just vote Tory instead.

I hate the Tories, of course, but I'd rather have their closet racists as MP's than a bunch of out-and-out fascist boot boys sitting in the Houses of Parliament.

I don't think it would work out like that. I think in areas where the extremists were known to have a strong following, supporters of other parties would agree to co-operate to vote them down. But maybe I am being idealistic and naive.

I bet most conservative voters would vote -1 lib either way; press the advantage

prolly enough libs'd vote down the other party, but they'd give up the advntg.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2010 3:04:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/23/2010 4:14:21 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/23/2010 3:57:07 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I wouldn't know, as I don't know what those are.

Almost the same thing, except instead of +2 points, +1 point, etc., you rank candidates by preference.

Let's say there are three candidates: A, B and C.

A is the first choice for candidate of 3 people, the second choice for 5, and third for 2.

B is the first choice of 4, second choice of 2, and third choice of 4.

C is the first choice of 2, second choice of 3, and third choice of 5.

Because C has the lowest first choice votes, he's eliminated. The people who voted for him as first choice have their second choice votes activated - let's say both voted for A as their second choice. A then has 5 votes, compared to B's 4 - therefore A is the winner.

The idea is that voters that vote for third parties can get their votes counted, but their candidate doesn't make it, their votes still end up counting toward the winner, dependent on their second choices. It makes third party votes count more in a system originally designed for two.

that sounds kind of like our voting system. it's called proportional representation and it's fairly long winded, but i'll attempt to summarise it if anyone is interested. i think it's a fairly good system, but there are a few holes in it. it's the perfect system, though, for a nation of alcoholics, because it generates huge excitement and the count takes ages, so it makes for a mighty session. not that we're a nation of alcholics.
signature