What's the best way to run an election?

What's the best way to run an election? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

VanIsleKnight -> What's the best way to run an election? (8/12/2009 8:37:49 PM)
Personally I am a fan of the "I vote for Adam, Adam gets one vote, Bob gets none." If 1500 people voted for Adam, and 1200 people voted for Bob, then Adam should win. Then again, that would make it extraordinary difficult then for the less populated but just as important and part of this country places like the Prairies or in my case, anywhere that isn't Ontario and Quebec. What to do what to do... but it would be nice if the nation of Canada (or your nation here) didn't revolve around trying to get one or two of the strong provinces to your side.

DomKen -> RE: What's the best way to run an election? (8/12/2009 8:49:25 PM)
Proportional voting is a much better system if you want a broad range of positions represented. In simple terms have some number greater than 1 number of representatives per district. Allow parties to slate no more than 1 less than the total number of representative the district gets on the ballot. Allow each person to cast a number of votes equal to the number of representatives to be elected and allow for voters to vote for the same candidate as many times as they have votes. Under this scheme a minority party always gets at least one representative from each district. Which broadens each party, i.e. liberal urban Republicans and conservative rural democrats, as well as opening up the entire system to smaller parties, a party could slate a single candidate and their supporters could cast all their votes for the single candidate.

VanIsleKnight -> RE: What's the best way to run an election? (8/12/2009 9:15:43 PM)
I -think- I understood that, but I'd need some visual aide to confirm it. What I perceive though is that if there are three candidates on the ballot, a person would be allowed to vote 3 times? That sounds like it wouldn't help at all, since people that are stubbornly left or right wing would just pile all their votes in for whoever they're used to voting for.

TheHeretic -> RE: What's the best way to run an election? (8/12/2009 9:28:11 PM)
Quibbling over the details aside (one man/one vote), I would be supportive of proportional representation in the House, and I suspect the breaking of the two-party sytem there would soon enough have an impact in the Senate and who gets elected to the Executive branch as well, both State and Federal. As for the Electoral College, when I have to choose between bitter politicians doing Letterman (and their fan club) and the clear vision of the founders, it isn't a tough choice. It was not intended that the population centers in a few states should get to dominate the debate.

Arpig -> RE: What's the best way to run an election? (8/12/2009 9:36:52 PM)
The election being about getting Quebec or Ontario on side is a misconception fostered by the media coverage. Each election is fought out riding by riding, each riding having the same weight as all others. In actual fact, all provinces except Ontario, Alberta and BC have more ridings than they are entitled to by population alone. The proposed legislation put forward in 2008 would in fact grant those 3 provinces 32 extra seats.

VanIsleKnight -> RE: What's the best way to run an election? (8/12/2009 9:44:23 PM)
I didn't know that, though I've only just become interested in politics. Yay knowledge!

DomKen -> RE: What's the best way to run an election? (8/12/2009 9:54:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VanIsleKnight I -think- I understood that, but I'd need some visual aide to confirm it. What I perceive though is that if there are three candidates on the ballot, a person would be allowed to vote 3 times? That sounds like it wouldn't help at all, since people that are stubbornly left or right wing would just pile all their votes in for whoever they're used to voting for. The difference is if a district has 3 representatives, no more than 2 can be from any 1 party. Therefore a district will always elect one representative from a minority party. As a matter of fact if the conservatives all use their 3 votes to vote for one candidate and the liberals all use their 3 votes to vote for one their prefered candidate then that leaves one seat unfilled for a third party candidate.

Arpig -> RE: What's the best way to run an election? (8/12/2009 10:19:11 PM)
You know DK, the problem with your idea is twofold. First it will massively increase the number of politicians, each of whom has to be paid his very cushy wages & benefits. And second in your example immediately above: quote: The difference is if a district has 3 representatives, no more than 2 can be from any 1 party. Therefore a district will always elect one representative from a minority party. As a matter of fact if the conservatives all use their 3 votes to vote for one candidate and the liberals all use their 3 votes to vote for one their prefered candidate then that leaves one seat unfilled for a third party candidate. The 3rd party candidate who will fill that seat will have received no votes. Why, if nobody voted for him, should he get a seat? In order for proportional representation to work, what one has to do is simply replace the people on the ballot with the names of the parties, and then count all the votes, and then divide up the seats according to the number of votes each party got as a percentage of the total. So the Conservatives would get, say 46% of the seats, the Liberals 24%, the Marxist-Leninists 1% and so on.

DomKen -> RE: What's the best way to run an election? (8/12/2009 11:08:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig You know DK, the problem with your idea is twofold. First it will massively increase the number of politicians, each of whom has to be paid his very cushy wages & benefits. And second in your example immediately above: quote: The difference is if a district has 3 representatives, no more than 2 can be from any 1 party. Therefore a district will always elect one representative from a minority party. As a matter of fact if the conservatives all use their 3 votes to vote for one candidate and the liberals all use their 3 votes to vote for one their prefered candidate then that leaves one seat unfilled for a third party candidate. The 3rd party candidate who will fill that seat will have received no votes. Why, if nobody voted for him, should he get a seat? In order for proportional representation to work, what one has to do is simply replace the people on the ballot with the names of the parties, and then count all the votes, and then divide up the seats according to the number of votes each party got as a percentage of the total. So the Conservatives would get, say 46% of the seats, the Liberals 24%, the Marxist-Leninists 1% and so on. The simple solution to not expanding the total number of elected representatives is to simply enlarge the districts. As to the example you mistakenly assume that only liberals and conservatives vote. You ignore the center, far left, far right, libertarians and socialists amongst others. The fact is the system I describe was used in In Illinois from between 1870 to 1980. It was a great shame that it was ended.

rightwinghippie -> RE: What's the best way to run an election? (8/13/2009 12:51:01 AM)
Heck, People in Florida can't even figure out how to vote now, and you want to make it more complicated? Seems like a bad Idea to me. I like the idea of replacing the House with a system where people vote for parties not individuals, in a national election. While keeping the Senate as it is, representatives elected by the people of a state. Let the Smaller parties have a voice in relation to thier actuall support. Why did the people of Illinois decide to do away with that system DomKen? And in 110 years no one else saw any merit in the idea? Why?

DomKen -> RE: What's the best way to run an election? (8/13/2009 7:05:24 AM)
Illinois ended it because a 'reformer' campaigned for it under the guise of reducing the number of paid representatives. You can easily google numerous reports since then saying Illinois politics has suffered due to the change. Proportional representation of one sort or another is by far the most common way to hold elections world wide. Only in the US is it rare.

rightwinghippie -> RE: What's the best way to run an election? (8/13/2009 10:10:42 AM)
But the system you are advocating is "Cumulative Voting" , Which is not the same thing as I am advocating "Poprtional Representation". Actually I want to have a mix of one house Nationally porpotional (closed list), and the other geographicaly based(status quo). And think extra complicated voting systems are a bad idea, like the people of Illinois who used one apperantly feel also. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation You are correct that Porpotional Representation is the most common electoral form used in the world. But not that it was used in Illinois as you claim.

DomKen -> RE: What's the best way to run an election? (8/13/2009 10:17:23 AM)
Did you read the links you posted? From cumulative voting: quote: Cumulative voting (also accumulation voting or weighted voting) is a multiple-winner voting system intended to promote proportional representation while also being simple to understand.

rightwinghippie -> RE: What's the best way to run an election? (8/13/2009 11:20:34 AM)
I sure did read the links I posted. More than simply a out of context snipet. For example the next sentance establishes specifically what the system you described in Illinos is, "Cumulative voting is used frequently in corporate governance, where it is mandated by many U.S. states, and it was used to elect the Illinois House of Representatives from 1870 until its repeal in 1980. It was used in England in the late 19th century to elect school boards. Currently, some communities in the United States use cumulative voting, all resulting from consent decrees in cases brought under the federal Voting Rights Act. Among them are Peoria, Illinois for half of its city council, Chilton County, Alabama for its county council and school board, and Amarillo, Texas for its school board and College Board of Regents [1]." Hardly the most common system in the world As Arpig pointed out Cumulative voting forces some in above thier actuall level of support. At times making sure the minority gets a voice is the right thing to do, hence court ordered Cumulative voting schemes. But it is not an attempt to accurate represent the porpotions of voters, but to sort of represent them. Hence it is classified as Semi Porpotional. Cumulative voting, is a distinct thing from Porpotional Representation. There is a neat little chart on the links. Just because something is intended to do something does not make it so. All electoral systems have advantages and disadvantages. The quote you posted only shows an attempt to include a degree of porpotionality to the process. It can be similar to the fact that the USA is not a democracy, but we have some democratic principles. To use my previous example. In Florida people could not figure out how to vote a butterfly ballot. While I don't find cumulative voting perplexing, people that can't find the bubble next to the name will. The more parts a system has the more likley it is to have problems. Keep it simple. Which I think Closed list voting for the lower house does nicley. Partes have primarires, publish thier lists, and people vote for a party (or 2 or 3) in a national election, for the House. Maybe lower the number of Reps, and put in Indian tribes also. While Keeping the Senate as it is, elected by the people of each state.

DomKen -> RE: What's the best way to run an election? (8/13/2009 11:59:04 AM)
Cumulative voting is one system of proportional representation which is the most common system in the world. Closed lists rewards party hacks and denies people locally responsive representatives. I oppose it for that reason. Cumulative voting is not complicated and works well for all sorts of election right now and worked in Illinois in statewide form for 110 years and it does result in people having directly elected representatives who are responsive to local concerns.

rightwinghippie -> RE: What's the best way to run an election? (8/13/2009 12:21:53 PM)
The size of the districts do matter a great deal in this discussion also. The larger the district the smaller the amount of local representation people get. An extreme would be one representative for each person, total absolute direct democracy. Which just wouldnt work. Or the other extreme would be one representative for all the citizens of the single district of the nation, a Czar. Not the best system, though proven workable over time. It seems like the parties that put up HACKS would get fewer votes, and less power, as opposed to the cumulative system you advocate where some party HACKS would placed in power at levels above thier actuall support. It is true that changing the lower house as I advocated would eliminate the local congressman entirerly. The trade off being that Minor parties would get to have seats, and be forced to put up or shut up, and actually get in the game. Make the 2%ers actually deal with budgets and ect. And the ALternative Parties that do have good ideas to get recognized, perhaps becoming mainstream. While keeping the Senate as it is now, elected by the people of a state. That wasn't the original plan. The system you cited from Illinois is a Cumulative system, not a Porpotional one. Porpotinal Representation is the most common form of voting used. Voting for lists/parties, either open or closed. But theat is already clear. The system you advocated, used by Illinois for 110 years, is used by zero national governments for everything, and a few variants are used in isolated cases. We can agree to disagree on this however, it all good. And I still think that simple is better in matters such as these. Less parts less parts to malfuntion and start lawsuits. See Florida and people who can't find the bubble next to the name.

Arpig -> RE: What's the best way to run an election? (8/13/2009 8:50:22 PM)
The problem with the cumulative voting as I understand it (or at least the way DK explained it) is that assume there are 3 candidates and 1000 voters. A gets 499 votes, B gets 499 votes,and C gets 2 votes....all three are elected. It seems wrong to me that somebody with so few votes should still be seated.

DomKen -> RE: What's the best way to run an election? (8/13/2009 8:57:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig The problem with the cumulative voting as I understand it (or at least the way DK explained it) is that assume there are 3 candidates and 1000 voters. A gets 499 votes, B gets 499 votes,and C gets 2 votes....all three are elected. It seems wrong to me that somebody with so few votes should still be seated. Let me make it more clear, Each voter gets multiple votes. in this case he could vote, having 2 votes to cast, one vote for each of 2 candidates or 2 votes for one candidate. Each party could have up to 2 candidates on the ballot. Therefore in a 1000 voter district is possible that 2 groups of 499 will each cast both there votes for a single candidates and the 3 representative will win a seat with only 2 votes but it is much more likely that the voters will split their votes and the outcome will be less imbalanced. However the US does not force people to vote and as absurd as it may seem it is possible virtually every voter in a congressional district might fail to vote and the winner would emerge with only a handful of votes.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125