Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Ranked voting

n7
Posts: 1,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 2:29:53 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Do you support ranked voting as opposed to first past the post? It seems much more democratic to me than our current system. It appears FPTP always gives us a bipartisan selection in which many vote *against* a candidate instead of *for* a candidate. They vote for what the believe is the lesser evil instead of who they think would be ideal.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 2:34:45 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 2:29:53 AM, n7 wrote:
Do you support ranked voting as opposed to first past the post? It seems much more democratic to me than our current system. It appears FPTP always gives us a bipartisan selection in which many vote *against* a candidate instead of *for* a candidate. They vote for what the believe is the lesser evil instead of who they think would be ideal.

Isn't this instant-runoff voting?
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 2:58:18 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 2:29:53 AM, n7 wrote:
Do you support ranked voting as opposed to first past the post? It seems much more democratic to me than our current system. It appears FPTP always gives us a bipartisan selection in which many vote *against* a candidate instead of *for* a candidate. They vote for what the believe is the lesser evil instead of who they think would be ideal.

I am all for IRV, The thing is, on the POTUS level, IRV is a solution to a problem that does not exist. It does not change the predominance of the two party system, and as a matter of fact, shouldn't
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 3:04:58 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 2:29:53 AM, n7 wrote:
Do you support ranked voting as opposed to first past the post? It seems much more democratic to me than our current system. It appears FPTP always gives us a bipartisan selection in which many vote *against* a candidate instead of *for* a candidate. They vote for what the believe is the lesser evil instead of who they think would be ideal.

It's harder to purchase candidates when there's less than 50% chance for a return on the crony bribe.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 3:10:47 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 3:04:58 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/31/2016 2:29:53 AM, n7 wrote:
Do you support ranked voting as opposed to first past the post? It seems much more democratic to me than our current system. It appears FPTP always gives us a bipartisan selection in which many vote *against* a candidate instead of *for* a candidate. They vote for what the believe is the lesser evil instead of who they think would be ideal.

It's harder to purchase candidates when there's less than 50% chance for a return on the crony bribe.

You are seriously the most jaded person on the site.

Since all politics are nothing more than a sham to you, why do you even bother posting? Why even read the news?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 3:16:49 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 3:10:47 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/31/2016 3:04:58 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/31/2016 2:29:53 AM, n7 wrote:
Do you support ranked voting as opposed to first past the post? It seems much more democratic to me than our current system. It appears FPTP always gives us a bipartisan selection in which many vote *against* a candidate instead of *for* a candidate. They vote for what the believe is the lesser evil instead of who they think would be ideal.

It's harder to purchase candidates when there's less than 50% chance for a return on the crony bribe.

You are seriously the most jaded person on the site.

Since all politics are nothing more than a sham to you, why do you even bother posting? Why even read the news?

To see who is doing it better.

I mean, how else do you decide who wins a presidential debate other than by how easily they can evade the truth about themselves?
n7
Posts: 1,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 3:59:13 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 2:34:45 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 10/31/2016 2:29:53 AM, n7 wrote:
Do you support ranked voting as opposed to first past the post? It seems much more democratic to me than our current system. It appears FPTP always gives us a bipartisan selection in which many vote *against* a candidate instead of *for* a candidate. They vote for what the believe is the lesser evil instead of who they think would be ideal.

Isn't this instant-runoff voting?

That's one type of system. There are others like Borda, Bucklin, or my favorite Condorcet.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
n7
Posts: 1,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 4:00:26 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 2:58:18 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/31/2016 2:29:53 AM, n7 wrote:
Do you support ranked voting as opposed to first past the post? It seems much more democratic to me than our current system. It appears FPTP always gives us a bipartisan selection in which many vote *against* a candidate instead of *for* a candidate. They vote for what the believe is the lesser evil instead of who they think would be ideal.

I am all for IRV, The thing is, on the POTUS level, IRV is a solution to a problem that does not exist. It does not change the predominance of the two party system, and as a matter of fact, shouldn't

Wouldn't it make it easier to change the predominance? Why shouldn't there be other party options?
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Subutai
Posts: 3,143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 7:23:57 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 2:29:53 AM, n7 wrote:
Do you support ranked voting as opposed to first past the post? It seems much more democratic to me than our current system. It appears FPTP always gives us a bipartisan selection in which many vote *against* a candidate instead of *for* a candidate. They vote for what the believe is the lesser evil instead of who they think would be ideal.

There are two major problems with the U.S. political voting system. One, the electoral college. It was instated in the 1700s mostly because the Founding Fathers wanted a effective, but democratic way to prevent populists from coming to power. But now, that just seems undemocratic. Not only that, but it forces candidates to focus on swing states alone, and allows for the possibility that a president could be elected even if they got less than the popular vote.

The other is the winner-take-all system. In other words, whoever gets the most votes wins completely. Most European countries have a parliamentary system. This allows for more third party candidates to actually get elected to the legislature. In addition, the populace doesn't vote on the president, they elect the representatives who vote on the president. That means that those third party legislatures have sway over who gets elected president.

Of course, there are even better alternatives, like the Condorcet method, which are better than both these systems. It's just that the U.S.'s is particularly bad.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 10:46:37 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 2:58:18 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/31/2016 2:29:53 AM, n7 wrote:
Do you support ranked voting as opposed to first past the post? It seems much more democratic to me than our current system. It appears FPTP always gives us a bipartisan selection in which many vote *against* a candidate instead of *for* a candidate. They vote for what the believe is the lesser evil instead of who they think would be ideal.

I am all for IRV, The thing is, on the POTUS level, IRV is a solution to a problem that does not exist.

If there was IRV in all states in 2000, Gore would have probably become president.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 1:20:48 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
"Of course, there are even better alternatives, like the Condorcet method, which are better than both these systems. It's just that the U.S.'s is particularly bad."
If you don't like the way we do things here, why don't you go back to where you came from?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 2:03:30 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 10:46:37 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/31/2016 2:58:18 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/31/2016 2:29:53 AM, n7 wrote:
Do you support ranked voting as opposed to first past the post? It seems much more democratic to me than our current system. It appears FPTP always gives us a bipartisan selection in which many vote *against* a candidate instead of *for* a candidate. They vote for what the believe is the lesser evil instead of who they think would be ideal.

I am all for IRV, The thing is, on the POTUS level, IRV is a solution to a problem that does not exist.

If there was IRV in all states in 2000, Gore would have probably become president.

Doubtless. That does not change either of my points.

I say this often enough, but the POTUS is a position to represent all Americans. Third party's operate at the fringe, representing a narrow interest. Hate the two party system as much as you like, but the effect is stability.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 3:32:13 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 2:29:53 AM, n7 wrote:
Do you support ranked voting as opposed to first past the post? It seems much more democratic to me than our current system. It appears FPTP always gives us a bipartisan selection in which many vote *against* a candidate instead of *for* a candidate. They vote for what the believe is the lesser evil instead of who they think would be ideal.

I support RCV for single winner elections as it yields fairer results which more accurately reflect the views of the people. Let's hope Maine passes it next Tuesday
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 3:42:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 2:03:30 PM, TBR wrote:
At 10/31/2016 10:46:37 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/31/2016 2:58:18 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/31/2016 2:29:53 AM, n7 wrote:
Do you support ranked voting as opposed to first past the post? It seems much more democratic to me than our current system. It appears FPTP always gives us a bipartisan selection in which many vote *against* a candidate instead of *for* a candidate. They vote for what the believe is the lesser evil instead of who they think would be ideal.

I am all for IRV, The thing is, on the POTUS level, IRV is a solution to a problem that does not exist.

If there was IRV in all states in 2000, Gore would have probably become president.

Doubtless. That does not change either of my points.

It does, in that IRV would have an impact on the United States, and it is a real problem.

I say this often enough, but the POTUS is a position to represent all Americans. Third party's operate at the fringe, representing a narrow interest. Hate the two party system as much as you like, but the effect is stability.

So, your argument is that IRV is bad because it legitimizes third parties?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 3:47:07 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 3:42:11 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/31/2016 2:03:30 PM, TBR wrote:
At 10/31/2016 10:46:37 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/31/2016 2:58:18 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/31/2016 2:29:53 AM, n7 wrote:
Do you support ranked voting as opposed to first past the post? It seems much more democratic to me than our current system. It appears FPTP always gives us a bipartisan selection in which many vote *against* a candidate instead of *for* a candidate. They vote for what the believe is the lesser evil instead of who they think would be ideal.

I am all for IRV, The thing is, on the POTUS level, IRV is a solution to a problem that does not exist.

If there was IRV in all states in 2000, Gore would have probably become president.

Doubtless. That does not change either of my points.

It does, in that IRV would have an impact on the United States, and it is a real problem.
No. The point I made is, IRV would NOT elevate a third party candidate to the WH.


I say this often enough, but the POTUS is a position to represent all Americans. Third party's operate at the fringe, representing a narrow interest. Hate the two party system as much as you like, but the effect is stability.

So, your argument is that IRV is bad because it legitimizes third parties?
Yea, you could infer that.

Let me put it another way. If you have a moderate third party, I hardly see why they would need to buck either of the two existing partys. If on the other hand, the third party represents a vertical electorate, they simply should NOT win. The POTUS can not be a place for the fringe of the political spectrum's.
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 3:51:32 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 3:47:07 PM, TBR wrote:
No. The point I made is, IRV would NOT elevate a third party candidate to the WH.

Of course it wouldn't, and that isn't even the point of IRV. The purpose of IRV in the United States would be to redirect third party votes to the two main parties, thus being way more democratic in nature, and in fact reinforce the two party system.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 3:56:27 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 3:51:32 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/31/2016 3:47:07 PM, TBR wrote:
No. The point I made is, IRV would NOT elevate a third party candidate to the WH.

Of course it wouldn't, and that isn't even the point of IRV. The purpose of IRV in the United States would be to redirect third party votes to the two main parties, thus being way more democratic in nature, and in fact reinforce the two party system.

I understand where you are going, but it still makes no actual sense. Simply allowing people to register a more extreme vote (the third party) only to have the second choice be the more moderate (left/right) candidate from the major party is pointless.

IRV should (and can) work on the races where having a third party candidate can win, and can represent the majority of the candidates constituents.
n7
Posts: 1,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 7:22:22 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 1:20:48 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
"Of course, there are even better alternatives, like the Condorcet method, which are better than both these systems. It's just that the U.S.'s is particularly bad."
If you don't like the way we do things here, why don't you go back to where you came from?

Wtf, I come from the U.S. This attitude is a very bad to begin with, why should people be able to change their system if they so please?

Also, if you don't like British taxation, then go find new land.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.