Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: Jonathan Lundell wrote: All of this would be finessed by the National Popular Vote idea: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ It'd effectively result in a national FPTP plurality election, hardly ideal, but definitely an improvement. The Electoral College is, btw, a good example of a case in which an election method has a profound and obvious effect on the nature of the campaign. US presidential candidates have no motivation to campaign in California, New York, Texas, and many other states (they show up for fundraising events, but that's about it). If California is close, Obama has surely lost the election, and similarly Texas and McCain. The states in play vary somewhat over time, but I rather imagine contain a minority of the electorate. Could the national popular vote lead to a similar effect, only opposite? The candidates would have an incentive to visit the cities, because they could reach many voters in little time; and thus the effect would move from being biased away from cities (in the large states) to being biased towards them. Better might be a weighted vote (but who'd set the weights?). Population disparities are often greater /within/ states than between them (IIRC, the most extreme ratio is in Texas, with Harris County [Houston] vs. Loving County). No state has an electoral college for its gubernatorial election, so look at those if you want to know what the effect would be on urban vs. rural campaigning. A lot of people seem to believe that the primary purpose of the EC is to give less populous states an advantage, but I disagree. Yes, it's true that smaller states have more electoral votes per capita, but: 1. Senatorial votes would be nearly irrelevant today if the House district size had been kept at 30,000 as intended. 2. The winner-take-all system tends to favor large states anyway. Based on #1, I doubt that the Framers ever really seriously thought about what the proper balance of per-state votes and per-population votes was. It seems that the more important considerations were: 1. that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations (Federalist 68). 2. It allowed a state that limited voting to white male landowners to have the same amount of influence as one with universal suffrage. Neither of which is particularly relevant today. However, it's hard to change the Constitution. Maybe it would be more feasible to make reforms that aren't perceived as shifting the balance of power between states. For example, * Define the Electoral College apportionment as the Huntington-Hill apportionment of 435 votes between the states, plus two additional votes for each state, plus 3 votes for D.C. (The House could change size later without affecting the presidential election.) * However, we'd cut out the middleman (i.e. abolish the office of Elector) and just assign electoral votes based on a state's popular vote. * For conducting the popular vote, states would get a choice between Range Voting or a Condorcet ranking. * Each state would submit a ranking of candidates based on the popular vote, and this would be treated as a ranked ballot. Like: 55: Obama McCain Barr (CA) 34: McCain Obama Barr (TX) 31: Obama McCain Barr (NY) etc. If there are only two candidates (and voters in Range ballot states are rational and give a 1.0 to one candidate and 0.0 to the other), this will give the same results as the status quo! Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
(snip) However, it's hard to change the Constitution. Maybe it would be more feasible to make reforms that aren't perceived as shifting the balance of power between states. For example, * Define the Electoral College apportionment as the Huntington-Hill apportionment of 435 votes between the states, plus two additional votes for each state, plus 3 votes for D.C. (The House could change size later without affecting the presidential election.) (snip) There is another issue with the suggestion of using Huntington-Hill to populate the Electoral College that perhaps also is worth addressing. (The author may well have known this but has not said so.) The Huntington-Hill method (a.k.a. Equal Proportions) is the method currently used to determine states' apportionments for the U.S. House of Representatives. It is known that the method has a built-in bias in favour of small states, just as Greatest Divisors (a.k.a. Jefferson) has a bias for large states, whereas the only divisor method that avoids this is Major Fractions (Webster). This has been known since work by by Balinski and Young in the 1970s, and you can read a short article by Young summarising this at: www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200104/backpage.cfm Attempting to change the apportiornment method as well, rather goes against the strategy described of not attempting reforms that are perceived as affecting the balance of power, but it may still be something to think about. In terms of population then, both houses of the U.S. Congress give extra influence to small states like Wyoming, whereas the Senate was created as it is precisely as a countervailing force to the large states, in the so-called Great Compromise. Arguably the House of Reps should not have the same characteristic. (Off-topic: are other people finding the threading of electorama messages confusing? For some time it has separated subject from message body and sent double copies of the latter. But no-one has mentioned this AFAICT.) Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Stephen Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In terms of population then, both houses of the U.S. Congress give extra influence to small states like Wyoming, whereas the Senate was created as it is precisely as a countervailing force to the large states, in the so-called Great Compromise. Arguably the House of Reps should not have the same characteristic. The effect is pretty small though. Also, the automatic one seat rule also benefits the small states and the Huntington-Hill rule achieves it automatically, which is elegant. Another option would be to 'just' increase the House size to 10,000 and that would virtually completely eliminate the small state EC bias. (Off-topic: are other people finding the threading of electorama messages confusing? For some time it has separated subject from message body and sent double copies of the latter. But no-one has mentioned this AFAICT.) I am using gmail, and some threads are not properly threading, some posts appear to be the start of a new thread. Also, I think gmail automatically only shows double mails once. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
Raph Frank wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Stephen Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In terms of population then, both houses of the U.S. Congress give extra influence to small states like Wyoming, whereas the Senate was created as it is precisely as a countervailing force to the large states, in the so-called Great Compromise. Arguably the House of Reps should not have the same characteristic. The effect is pretty small though. In fact, for the current decade, the effect is completely non-existent, as Webster and H-H produce the same apportionment. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
Raph Frank Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 12:44 PM Ballot access is pretty open in the UK, and you don't see lots of former party members running. Yes, ballot access is pretty open in the UK for any individual, party or group. However, you should be aware that, since the 1998 legal requirement for the registration of political parties, a candidate can use a party description (and optionally, a party emblem) ONLY if that candidate's nomination paper is counter-signed by the registered Nominating Officer of that party. Thus each party has total control of which candidates may use its name or any of its registered descriptions or its registered emblems. The law prevents new parties from registering names, descriptions or emblems that could cause confusion with already registered names, descriptions and emblems. Candidates who stand as independents have the option of using the description Independent or of having no description at all. Such candidates are not permitted to have any emblem on the ballot paper. James No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.1/1733 - Release Date: 19/10/2008 18:02 Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 1:08 PM, James Gilmour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raph Frank Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 12:44 PM Ballot access is pretty open in the UK, and you don't see lots of former party members running. Thus each party has total control of which candidates may use its name or any of its registered descriptions or its registered emblems. Right. The point I am trying to make is that even without ballot access laws (and sore loser laws), the nomination of a major party is critical to being elected. Candidates who aren't nominated by their party tend not to bother to run, as they have little if any hope. The exception would be an incumbent or someone who can convince the voters that he actually does have a chance, but they are exceptions not the rule. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 4:44 AM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah. A candidate would run if they were legally allowed to. A candidate who isn't a diehard loyalist to his party probably wouldn't see much point in stepping down graciously and letting the winner of the primary slide into spot 1.5th place. However, without the party logo beside his name, he will lose (unless he is exceptional in some way). Candidates won't bother to run if they are certain to lose and party supporters won't vote for a non-party member unless there is a really good reason to. Ballot access is pretty open in the UK, and you don't see lots of former party members running. anyway, this isn't quite as powerful as pure asset voting. It is like contingent vote vs IRV. You are right, but it isn't like a ranked ballot. The negotiations happen at the party level after the number of seats per party are known. Under IRV, the transfers happen based on ballot changes. I am most near to myself. By any sensible definition, my distance from myself is always zero. I know exactly what I want, why can't I be my own elector instead of delegating the tasks to people wih increasingly vaguer connections to me? So, vote for yourself. The problem with doing that is that then you have to make a trip to the State capital to participate in the negotiations. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: =Potential competition is also relevant. Primaries are unlikely to put forward unpopular candidates if a popular loser could potentially shoot them in the foot. This would give primaries more incentive to pick someone favorable to the entire electorate, rather than the faction that chose to participate in their primary. Well there is some tactics involved. However, the person who receives the party's nomination has a massive advantage. There is a large number of voters who will vote based purely on the party nomination. Thus, in order not to split the votes, the rest of the party's supporters would need to vote for that candidate too. =How do the parties nominate individuals in the UK? It is decided by the central/national party leadership and there is some consultation with the local party members. =Why can't a represent myself with an IRV ballot? It isn't a big stretch of the imagination for me to delegate my vote to a program, essentially. Or should I be limited to casting a vote for someone who can actually win the election? You could probably vote for someone who has declared how they intend to transfer. The idea with Asset is that you are delegating to someone who has a mind, rather than a set of rules. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:55 AM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My thoughts on primaries were challenged. Let me explain: Primaries may be the rational response to FPTP. It doesn't matter. Without Draconian sore loser, candidate oppression laws the parties would have no way of stopping popular primary rejects from running. Well, it depends on how popular the candidate is. There would be some candidates who can disregard primary results and some who can't. It only works for very popular candidates. A reasonable number of candidates wouldn't be able to pull it off. You have to convince all the supporters of the party that you are the one who is going to win and not the one with your (old) party's label. You also have to convince them that setting aside the primary (democratic) result is acceptable and also deflect accusation that you will end up splitting the vote. If 80% of candidates have to accept primary results, then they serve some function. At the point where they are strictly voluntary vote pooling agreements, I argue they break so much continuity with the current system as not to be regarded as the same thing. You mean, it would be a completely different system? I am not sure it would be that much different if they were voluntary ... except that they possibly wouldn't happen. The Electoral College: Asset voting as a single winner voting method makes no sense. Sure it does, think of it like IRV but with intelligent vote transfers. This helps solve some of the defects. I am not entirely in favour of asset voting in this case, but it isn't completely unreasonable. My problem is that there are conflicts of interest. For example, let's say there are 3 candidates and the supporters have utilities of: 45: A(100)B(70)C(0) 10: BA=C 45: C(100)B(70)A(0) B is the condorcet winner. Both A's and C's supporters would rather have B elected than a 50% chance of their favourite being elected (70 utility vs (50/50 chance between 100 and 0) ). However, since the electors are likely to be much more partisan, the makeup of the electors is likely to be something like 45: A(100)B(10)C(0) 10: BA=C 45: C(100)B(10)A(0) In this instance, both A's and C's electors would be willing to hold out. The end result is that B's supporters must pick one or other of them. One possible tactic for B's supporters would be to flick a coin in public and say that they will 100% support the winner of the coin toss, unless the loser agrees to support B. Ofc, that can be countered by A and C committing to their candidate publicly too. Who would break first :p. First of all, this violates unrestricted domain. Voters should not have arbitrary limits placed on what they are able to vote for. What limits? Surely, the same applies to Congress, you are picking a group of people to act on your behalf. The Senate: The United States' heritage as a federation has no impact whatsoever on the legitimacy of bending the will of the people. See You Can't Have it Both Ways. The States agreed to it and that only makes sense as part of a federation. Two Parties: I think we pretty much agree that the Democrats and Republicans actively prevent competition through silly laws and their perpetual monopoly on power. I say monopoly because they are both relatively centrist. At least that is the impression I get. There is an argument that this is a natural result of the 2 party system. If a party keeps losing, it moves towards the centre to pick up more votes. The other party then starts to lose, so it moves too. In the end, they are very close to each other. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:30 AM, Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:55 AM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My thoughts on primaries were challenged. Let me explain: Primaries may be the rational response to FPTP. It doesn't matter. Without Draconian sore loser, candidate oppression laws the parties would have no way of stopping popular primary rejects from running. Well, it depends on how popular the candidate is. There would be some candidates who can disregard primary results and some who can't. It only works for very popular candidates. A reasonable number of candidates wouldn't be able to pull it off. Just because they can't pull it off won't stop them from trying. I think the only reason candidate accept the results of primaries is because they are forced to. The obstacles facing an independent candidate are formidable. They aren't prevented from running for want of trying. You have to convince all the supporters of the party that you are the one who is going to win and not the one with your (old) party's label. You also have to convince them that setting aside the primary (democratic) result is acceptable and also deflect accusation that you will end up splitting the vote. If 80% of candidates have to accept primary results, then they serve some function. At the point where they are strictly voluntary vote pooling agreements, I argue they break so much continuity with the current system as not to be regarded as the same thing. You mean, it would be a completely different system? I am not sure it would be that much different if they were voluntary ... except that they possibly wouldn't happen. What I am saying is, without legal force, primaries would be very different. I was trying to say that my earlier criticism of primaries does not apply to this because it candidates are not coerced into participating in the primary. They can run without participating at all in the world absent the add-ons to FPTP. The Electoral College: Asset voting as a single winner voting method makes no sense. Sure it does, think of it like IRV but with intelligent vote transfers. This helps solve some of the defects. I said this because I don't see it accomplishing anything. First of all the current system does not allow transfers, so that is pretty much out of the question. Second I don't think it's going to give so much power to people who weren't elected by name in the first place. I am not entirely in favour of asset voting in this case, but it isn't completely unreasonable. My problem is that there are conflicts of interest. For example, let's say there are 3 candidates and the supporters have utilities of: 45: A(100)B(70)C(0) 10: BA=C 45: C(100)B(70)A(0) B is the condorcet winner. Both A's and C's supporters would rather have B elected than a 50% chance of their favourite being elected (70 utility vs (50/50 chance between 100 and 0) ). However, since the electors are likely to be much more partisan, the makeup of the electors is likely to be something like 45: A(100)B(10)C(0) 10: BA=C 45: C(100)B(10)A(0) In this instance, both A's and C's electors would be willing to hold out. The end result is that B's supporters must pick one or other of them. One possible tactic for B's supporters would be to flick a coin in public and say that they will 100% support the winner of the coin toss, unless the loser agrees to support B. Ofc, that can be countered by A and C committing to their candidate publicly too. Who would break first :p. That is one of the many problems I have with asset voting. In the single winner case its faults are more obvious. I'm not sure that any modfication to asset voting is sufficient to solve your problem. I think the faults that plague IRV plague Asset Voting as well (albeit to a lesser extent because of the restrictions placed on who you can vote for). First of all, this violates unrestricted domain. Voters should not have arbitrary limits placed on what they are able to vote for. What limits? Surely, the same applies to Congress, you are picking a group of people to act on your behalf. That is correct. I was comparing single winner asset voting to a competitor like IRV or some Condorcet method. It is definitely more restrictive than either IRV or Condorcet. Compared to FPTP, it is about as expressive except you haven't a clue how your vote will transfer in the future. The Senate: The United States' heritage as a federation has no impact whatsoever on the legitimacy of bending the will of the people. See You Can't Have it Both Ways. The States agreed to it and that only makes sense as part of a federation. Two Parties: I think we pretty much agree that the Democrats and Republicans actively prevent competition through silly laws and their perpetual monopoly on power. I say monopoly because they are both relatively centrist. At least that is the impression I
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:30 AM, Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, it depends on how popular the candidate is. There would be some candidates who can disregard primary results and some who can't. It only works for very popular candidates. A reasonable number of candidates wouldn't be able to pull it off. Just because they can't pull it off won't stop them from trying. I think the only reason candidate accept the results of primaries is because they are forced to. The obstacles facing an independent candidate are formidable. They aren't prevented from running for want of trying. Right, but there is a difference between being prevented due to logistical problems and it being illegal. What I am saying is, without legal force, primaries would be very different. I was trying to say that my earlier criticism of primaries does not apply to this because it candidates are not coerced into participating in the primary. Candidates aren't coerced into participating in the primaries, they do it because the want the party nomination. If the parties ran their own private primaries, then they candidates would still have to participate if they want the nomination. They can run without participating at all in the world absent the add-ons to FPTP. I think you underestimate the value of having a major party nomination in FPTP. No matter how it works, the nomination of one of the two major parties is almost essential to winning. The only people who might be able to get around it are previous winners/incumbents. I said this because I don't see it accomplishing anything. First of all the current system does not allow transfers, so that is pretty much out of the question. Second I don't think it's going to give so much power to people who weren't elected by name in the first place. It does allow transfers. If you were elected as an Elector for the Green party, you are perfectly allowed to vote for the Republican candidate and can accept instructions based on the outcome of the Green-Republican negotiations. Ofc, in some states, that would be illegal. I'm not sure that any modfication to asset voting is sufficient to solve your problem. I think the faults that plague IRV plague Asset Voting as well (albeit to a lesser extent because of the restrictions placed on who you can vote for). Some of the benefits are that the votes are transferred based on intelligence/tactics, this makes it potentially more resistant to strategy. Think of it like declared strategy voting, except you pick a person to implement your strategy. Compared to FPTP, it is about as expressive except you haven't a clue how your vote will transfer in the future. If you vote for one of the expected top-2, you would probably be sure that he would keep your vote. Trusting elected officials is part of representative democracy. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:30 AM, Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, it depends on how popular the candidate is. There would be some candidates who can disregard primary results and some who can't. It only works for very popular candidates. A reasonable number of candidates wouldn't be able to pull it off. Just because they can't pull it off won't stop them from trying. I think the only reason candidate accept the results of primaries is because they are forced to. The obstacles facing an independent candidate are formidable. They aren't prevented from running for want of trying. Right, but there is a difference between being prevented due to logistical problems and it being illegal. What I am saying is, without legal force, primaries would be very different. I was trying to say that my earlier criticism of primaries does not apply to this because it candidates are not coerced into participating in the primary. Candidates aren't coerced into participating in the primaries, they do it because the want the party nomination. Because they cannot even run otherwise. I know it isn't the same as a gun to your head, but it wouldn't even occur if they didn't have an artificial monopoly on power. If the parties ran their own private primaries, then they candidates would still have to participate if they want the nomination. There would be more competition at least. They can run without participating at all in the world absent the add-ons to FPTP. I think you underestimate the value of having a major party nomination in FPTP. No matter how it works, the nomination of one of the two major parties is almost essential to winning. The only people who might be able to get around it are previous winners/incumbents. I think you underestimate the ego of candidates. They probably would run if they could. I said this because I don't see it accomplishing anything. First of all the current system does not allow transfers, so that is pretty much out of the question. Second I don't think it's going to give so much power to people who weren't elected by name in the first place. It does allow transfers. If you were elected as an Elector for the Green party, you are perfectly allowed to vote for the Republican candidate and can accept instructions based on the outcome of the Green-Republican negotiations. Ofc, in some states, that would be illegal. There's the anti-faithless elector law... but that isn't a transfer. It's an insincere vote. You only get one shot at making your vote if you are an elector. That makes it far inferior to even single winner asset voting. I'm not sure that any modfication to asset voting is sufficient to solve your problem. I think the faults that plague IRV plague Asset Voting as well (albeit to a lesser extent because of the restrictions placed on who you can vote for). Some of the benefits are that the votes are transferred based on intelligence/tactics, this makes it potentially more resistant to strategy. No, it makes strategy the norm. Think of it like declared strategy voting, except you pick a person to implement your strategy. That would arguably make it easier, in fact incredibly simple, to vote strategically, but do you actually want that to happen? Compared to FPTP, it is about as expressive except you haven't a clue how your vote will transfer in the future. If you vote for one of the expected top-2, you would probably be sure that he would keep your vote. Which would ruin the point of asset-voting to begin with. Trusting elected officials is part of representative democracy. Trusting voters is part of democracy. Why force them to trust candidates more? Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because they cannot even run otherwise. I know it isn't the same as a gun to your head, but it wouldn't even occur if they didn't have an artificial monopoly on power. Do you consider making them legally compulsory (sore loser laws) and practically compulsory (via plurality) to be the same thing. When you say making the voluntary, you meant by changing the voting system? There would be more competition at least. Why? There would still only be one per major party. I think you underestimate the value of having a major party nomination in FPTP. No matter how it works, the nomination of one of the two major parties is almost essential to winning. The only people who might be able to get around it are previous winners/incumbents. I think you underestimate the ego of candidates. They probably would run if they could. I think you need to define 'could' in this case. I mean legally allowed, but you seem to mean practically allowed. There's the anti-faithless elector law... but that isn't a transfer. It's an insincere vote. You only get one shot at making your vote if you are an elector. That makes it far inferior to even single winner asset voting. I mean that the process would be - Some Green Party members are elected as Electors - Greens Electors have balance of power - Greens + Republicans make a deal - Greens tell their electors to vote Republican - Green electors do as 'recommended' by their party leadership No, it makes strategy the norm. Not for the voters, you just pick someone who you agree with and is good at negotiating. That would arguably make it easier, in fact incredibly simple, to vote strategically, but do you actually want that to happen? The ideal voting system is one where you just tell it what you want and it picks the highest utility (or honest condorcet winner) and that there is no strategic incentive to lie. This isn't possible to do except by a random method. Trusting voters is part of democracy. Why force them to trust candidates more? Well, the more electors that there are, the 'nearer' you can be to the elector and thus the more likely you can find someone who is trustworthy. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because they cannot even run otherwise. I know it isn't the same as a gun to your head, but it wouldn't even occur if they didn't have an artificial monopoly on power. Do you consider making them legally compulsory (sore loser laws) and practically compulsory (via plurality) to be the same thing. No. I think that primaries would be less important if they were not legally compulsory. I think they would be used less frequently When you say making them voluntary, you meant by changing the voting system? Not necessarily. By eliminating dumb ballot access and sore-loser laws. What incentive would candidates have to participate in primaries? If they did it for press coverage alone you might have more than two primaries that compete for candidates or something. There would be more competition at least. Why? There would still only be one per major party. The set of candidates who have a reasonable shot at winning but would probably lose a primary under the dem or repub system would probably make their own primary as a way of generating attention. I think you underestimate the value of having a major party nomination in FPTP. No matter how it works, the nomination of one of the two major parties is almost essential to winning. The only people who might be able to get around it are previous winners/incumbents. I think you underestimate the ego of candidates. They probably would run if they could. I think you need to define 'could' in this case. I mean legally allowed, but you seem to mean practically allowed. Ah. A candidate would run if they were legally allowed to. A candidate who isn't a diehard loyalist to his party probably wouldn't see much point in stepping down graciously and letting the winner of the primary slide into spot 1.5th place. There's the anti-faithless elector law... but that isn't a transfer. It's an insincere vote. You only get one shot at making your vote if you are an elector. That makes it far inferior to even single winner asset voting. I mean that the process would be Ok... but you only get one shot. It has a potential to transfer once. At best that makes it contingent vote. - Some Green Party members are elected as Electors - Greens Electors have balance of power - Greens + Republicans make a deal - Greens tell their electors to vote Republican - Green electors do as 'recommended' by their party leadership perhaps this belongs on the asset voting thread. anyway, this isn't quite as powerful as pure asset voting. It is like contingent vote vs IRV. cross-apply my asset voting arguments here. No, it makes strategy the norm. Not for the voters, you just pick someone who you agree with and is good at negotiating. the good at negotiating part is strategy, it does not matter if you delegate it. Somewhere along the process strategic voting becomes vastly more common. It has simply become so normal, so fundamental to the system that not much is thought of it. That would arguably make it easier, in fact incredibly simple, to vote strategically, but do you actually want that to happen? The ideal voting system is one where you just tell it what you want and it picks the highest utility (or honest condorcet winner) and that there is no strategic incentive to lie. They don't exist, sadly. This isn't possible to do except by a random method. Yep. Trusting voters is part of democracy. Why force them to trust candidates more? Well, the more electors that there are, the 'nearer' you can be to the elector and thus the more likely you can find someone who is trustworthy. I am most near to myself. By any sensible definition, my distance from myself is always zero. I know exactly what I want, why can't I be my own elector instead of delegating the tasks to people wih increasingly vaguer connections to me? Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse - parties/primaries
This topic has inspired an ocean of words - too many to respond to in detaii. I will respond based on my memory of New York State law - I believe close enough to be useful. Elections in which the voter can only name one candidate, such as FPTP, desperately need primaries to help each party submit only one to the general election. They still have headaches from similar candidates outside the party. Elections permitting more complete expression of voter desires, such as Range and Condorcet, may still desire primaries, but their need is less desperate. Elections need to support all of: Groups of voters taking part as organized parties. The most sincere wannabe candidates taking part. Keep the size within reason for those running the election. Keep the size within reason for understanding and intelligent participation by voters. I am sending out a Wilson-Pakula writeup - shows how desperate parties can get to try to control voters. Let's look at a ballot for governor. Ten lines, but Tom is on three of them: Rep and Dem because voters from those parties petitioned - legal, but not likely that party leadership would tolerate (and they do not have to if Tom is not a member of their party). Tom's - because his friends petitioned him as an independent for a few extra votes - thus a better chance for the three counts getting him elected governor. Ten lines could mean ten parties each owning a ballot line for the next four years (takes X votes to win such). Rep and Dem are established parties, probably get X and thus continue. Tom's 'party is just Tom but if it gets X he has the right to expand it into a real party (though he can choose not to). Note that there are two classes of nomination petitions: For primary, signatures must come from party members. Note that, besides petitioning, party leadership can do nominating for primaries. Independent for general election takes more because any voter can sign. For either the rules must look for a balance: Not so easy that the election gets swamped with candidates. Not so hard that there are no candidates. After losing in the primary, can a candidate run independent in the general election? Perhaps, with proper petition signatures. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026 Do to no one what you would not want done to you. If you want peace, work for justice. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
Actually, Maine and Nebraska do NOT apportion electoral college seats in a proportional way. Instead of statewide winner-take-all (as in all other states), they use plurality winner-take-all in each congressional district within the state, with the remaining two seats going to the statewide plurality winner. The results COULD be roughly proportional or even LESS proportional than statewide winner-take-all by happenstance of how supporters of various candidates are distributed around the state. However, with true proportional distribution of electors, there is also the increased likelihood of no majority winner in the electoral college, which throws the election of president to the House of Representatives, with one vote for each state (my tiny state of Vermont delegation gets one vote and the massive state of California delegation gets one vote)...which is even LESS proportional than the electoral college makeup. Terry Bouricius - Original Message - From: Kathy Dopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 10:11 PM Subject: Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 02:17:14 +0100 From: Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse The Electoral College should meet and then make its decision. This is compounded by the fact that all states have switched to winner takes all methods of selecting the electors, so it is double broken. That is not quite true. There are two states, Maine and one other (I forget which) that proportionally split their electoral votes. Recently there was an effort by Republicans to have CA split its electoral votes proportionally - but Dems fought it because it would have virtually guaranteed that Republicans win the Presidential contest. Kathy Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
On Oct 17, 2008, at 6:17 PM, Raph Frank wrote: 9) Elections on Tuesday why not make election day a holiday? or hold it on weekends? I thought they were held over multiple days with 'early voting', or was that changed? There was a useful piece on this subject this morning on NPR http://www.npr.org./templates/story/story.php?storyId=95862852 (the audio isn't available as I write, but should be up shortly). Well over half the United States (31 or 34, ISTR) have early voting, leaving a significant minority that do not. California, or at least some CA counties, push early voting fairly hard, and a growing percentage of voters in the state vote before election day--more than a third, recently, IIRC. You can vote by mail, or by stopping by the registrar's office, which is set up with several voting booths; that's what I did last week. California goes a bit too far, in my view, in that voting starts about 30 days before Election Day, which tends to draw out an already too- long campaign season. I ran for my local school board a few years back, and it's hard to run for local office knowing that more than a third of your voters will be voting before the height of the campaign (in this case a series of debates sponsored by various community groups during October). Why thirty days? I don't really know; I assume it was in the more is better category of decision making. Oregon, which is 100% vote-by-mail, says 14-18 days, which seems like more than enough. All that considered, I rather miss the sense of community of a local polling place. Mine have been in somebody's garage, or a local fire station, until my precinct became vote-by-mail, under a California election code provision that allows registrars to designate very small precincts as such. Why Tuesday, by the way? The usual explanation sounds plausible enough: In 1845, before Florida, California, and Texas were states or slavery had been abolished, Congress needed to pick a time for Americans to vote. We were an agrarian society. We traveled by horse and buggy. Farmers needed a day to get to the county seat, a day to vote, and a day to get back, without interfering with the three days of worship. So that left Tuesday and Wednesday, but Wednesday was market day. So, Tuesday it was. In 1875 Congress extended the Tuesday date for national House elections and in 1914 for federal Senate elections. http://www.whytuesday.org/answer (yes, there's an organization and website dedicated to the issue; no doubt it's not the only one) Tuesday voting obviously isn't universal; is it strictly a US peculiarity? Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) Primaries are anti-utilitarian. Without primaries, then the result of a plurality election is either random, or more likely decided by the 2 party leaderships. 2) The Government enforcing any way for parties to operate is bad. Agreed, but even without government rules, I think that it is in the best interests of parties to have primaries. The second point I don't agee with because Median Voter would suggest that candidates would be more centrist on average if primaries didn't exist. I like moderates better than Democrats or Republicans and I think they are better for the country... I don't think so. It really depends on the selection process for the Republican and Democrat candidates. It is possible that the men 'in smoky rooms' would pick candidates who are more centrist. If not, then you get the same type of candidates picked. If you let anyone who wants to be on the ballot be on the ballot, how bad would that really be? Right, I think we agree here. I think an average voter would not get confused by large numbers of candidates. If they were organizes reasonably, the voter strictly benefits because they could always voter against unknown candidates as a matter of principle. Most do, so I don't see what people are whining about. There is a balance here. If the rule is to easy, then you get people registering 100 names just for the fun of it. The 2000 signature rule means that it requires to much effort for the joke to be worth it. In Ireland, there is a deposit. You get your deposit back if you are supported by enough voters. I think it is around 25% of a quota. It is a good idea. But it seems like it was broken from the start. The Electoral College should meet and then make its decision. I have to disagree with you on that one. I do not see it doing anything useful. It either corrects the people's will (in which case it is paternalistic and evil) or it does nothing making it a giant waste of resources. It is like asset voting. Your representative negotiates on your behalf until a majority is achieved. As with most things, it would benefit a lot from PR. It might also be worth using the Electoral College to fill a vacancy in the VP position, without needing Senate approval. Ofc, that is moving in the direction of a parliamentary system. Well, in theory, the US is a federation, not a democracy. In any case, that requires 100% of the States to agree for it to be changed. Umm federation and democracy are not mutually exclusive. Well, to a certain extent. I guess I mean that the US is not unitary, it is a federation. It comes down to sovereignty. In a unitary democracy, a majority of all the citizens is the final judge on all issues and thus holds sovereignty. In Ireland, a majority can change the constitution in any way that they please. This makes Ireland a democracy. This is not the case in the US, you don't have the concept of holding a referendum of all the citizens and that being the final judge. Your consitution is changed by 75% of the States (and 2/3 of both Houses) and not 50% of the people. Sovereignty is divided and split between the citizens based on place of residence. You have some powers relating to your state and some relating to the US as a whole. In Ireland, a majority could impose its will on a minority, while in the US a majority is limited in what it can impose on a minority (if it happens to be protected by (or is) a majority in one of the States) Anyway, my opinion might be biased because I live in California, the state most screwed over by the system. I do not buy the whole prevent tyrannical regions from taking over nonsense b/c preventing tyranny is a civil rights issue not a voting system issue. Attempting to design some system to subvert the will of the voters for their own good is not to be trusted. The whole 'States are not allowed to leave' rule does give some weight to your argument. However, the theory was that the federal government wasn't meant to be 'the government'. Also, you are allowed to leave California, if those other States have got it so good. In fact, I think that having the States do the redistricting is better than allowing Congress do it. If the States were independently controlled, then there is less of a conflict of interest. Not exactly. You just have mini conflicts of interest that don't all line up in one direction instead of one big one. Isn't that better? However, the 2 party system is entrenched, so the State legislatures aren't independent. yep exactly. This might arguably be better. Well then, we disagree. Random conflicts of interest should at least partially cancel out, but under the 2 party system, that isn't the case. The ideal is a body that is elected specifically to decide on boundaries. Also, I think deciding on boundaries would be a perfect example of where some of the random ballot
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Kathy Dopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is not quite true. There are two states, Maine and one other (I forget which) that proportionally split their electoral votes. Recently there was an effort by Republicans to have CA split its electoral votes proportionally - but Dems fought it because it would have virtually guaranteed that Republicans win the Presidential contest. Yeah, it is the whole 'unilateral disarmament' issue. A reasonable idea would be for a group of States to get together and all agree (by compact maybe) to switch to proportional. If the group as a whole has the same proportion of support for each party as it currently casts its votes, then it doesn't change the balance, but it means that those States now matter as they are no longer locked down by one or other of the parties. I think this would be a better policy than the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It would even be possible to create a compact if the States were unbalanced. The last (disadvantaged) State to enter would be allowed to assign some of its seat to the majority winner and then the rest proportionally. Ofc, that requires that each State to be certified as a Republican and/or Democrat State. Maybe, it could be based on the the results of the last 4 elections. I think there are a reasonable number of States which are solid for one party or another. Also, it would probably be necessary to allow States to assign their two Senate EC voters to the majority winner. Otherwise, small States wouldn't join, though maybe that doesn't matter. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
On Oct 18, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Raph Frank wrote: A reasonable idea would be for a group of States to get together and all agree (by compact maybe) to switch to proportional. If the group as a whole has the same proportion of support for each party as it currently casts its votes, then it doesn't change the balance, but it means that those States now matter as they are no longer locked down by one or other of the parties. I think this would be a better policy than the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Better in what sense? Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) Primaries are anti-utilitarian. Without primaries, then the result of a plurality election is either random, or more likely decided by the 2 party leaderships. With primaries, the result of a plurality election is random. 2) The Government enforcing any way for parties to operate is bad. Agreed, but even without government rules, I think that it is in the best interests of parties to have primaries. That really isn't our concern. They can if they wish, but they should be neither penalized nor rewarded (by the voting system) for doing so. The second point I don't agee with because Median Voter would suggest that candidates would be more centrist on average if primaries didn't exist. I like moderates better than Democrats or Republicans and I think they are better for the country... I don't think so. It really depends on the selection process for the Republican and Democrat candidates. Think of it this way. Median Voter says that there is a general tendency for the two FPTP parties to become more alike in order to gather more votes. Thus the FPTP winner (if two candidates compete) is likely to the one closest to the center. Democrats and Republicans vote in their own primaries. Therefore the winner of the Democratic primary will be a mid-Democrat. This isn't the same as a centrist, far from it. It is possible that the men 'in smoky rooms' would pick candidates who are more centrist. If not, then you get the same type of candidates picked. The alternative is no primaries at all, not this. If you let anyone who wants to be on the ballot be on the ballot, how bad would that really be? Right, I think we agree here. Yep. I think an average voter would not get confused by large numbers of candidates. If they were organizes reasonably, the voter strictly benefits because they could always vote against unknown candidates as a matter of principle. Most do, so I don't see what people are whining about. There is a balance here. If the rule is too easy, then you get people registering 100 names just for the fun of it. Hmm perhaps. Or we could do without this entirely and just have EVERY candidate be a write-in. The 2000 signature rule means that it requires to much effort for the joke to be worth it. I suppose. In Ireland, there is a deposit. You get your deposit back if you are supported by enough voters. I think it is around 25% of a quota. Actually, that isn't such a bad idea. If you can give enough money to the government to compensate for wasting people's time with a silly candidacy, I say go for it. It is a good idea. But it seems like it was broken from the start. The Electoral College should meet and then make its decision. I have to disagree with you on that one. I do not see it doing anything useful. It either corrects the people's will (in which case it is paternalistic and evil) or it does nothing making it a giant waste of resources. It is like asset voting. Your representative negotiates on your behalf until a majority is achieved. They don't actually meet and discuss it. They just cast their vote and are done with it (sometimes honestly, sometimes not). It would be great if they did discuss it. That might actually make the Electoral College worthwhile. As with most things, it would benefit a lot from PR. agreed It might also be worth using the Electoral College to fill a vacancy in the VP position, without needing Senate approval. Ofc, that is moving in the direction of a parliamentary system. I like parliamentary systems. They appear to be less corrupt on average. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index That would be a legitimate function of an Electoral College. Performing maintenance elections when someone dies, is kicked out etc. I would say just use the next best guy from the previous election, but whatever. Well, in theory, the US is a federation, not a democracy. In any case, that requires 100% of the States to agree for it to be changed. Umm federation and democracy are not mutually exclusive. Well, to a certain extent. I guess I mean that the US is not unitary, it is a federation. It comes down to sovereignty. In a unitary democracy, a majority of all the citizens is the final judge on all issues and thus holds sovereignty. That isn't such a bad idea. In Ireland, a majority can change the constitution in any way that they please. This makes Ireland a democracy. It seems pretty hard to nail down exactly what a democracy is. It makes it certainly is a democratic and not republican trend to allow voters to do this. This is not the case in the US, you don't have the concept of holding a referendum of all the citizens and that being the final judge. Your consitution is changed
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
Multiple candidates from a constituency? I assume NOT for this post - that is a major topic. Plurality/FPTP as the election method? That is what we have in the US, needs replacing and I will note some of the reasons below. Approval as a replacement election method? Simple, but unable to provide for Best/Soso/Worst voting. IRV as a replacement election method? Better, but too enthused about electing other than who voters like best. Range as a replacement election method? Better, and its ratings sound great until you try to use them. Condorcet as a replacement election method? Competing with Range. Its rankings are simpler than ratings. Range backers claim ratings are better. On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:56:58 -0700 Greg Nisbet wrote: On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The United States uses FPTP, surprise surprise. However how bad would FPTP really be if you remove some of the stupidity? 1) Primaries Especially the presidential primaries. Why Iowa and New Hampshire I ask you? The Republican winner-takes-state primaries are especially bad. The will of the people is distorted. And the winners of primaries get legal protection. This shouldn't be an issue at all. Parties should be allowed to pick whoever they want, however they want. I think, if you are going to have plurality, then it's probably better to have them than not. In FPTP parties NEED primaries - a party cannot afford to divide its members' votes among multiple candidates. Only some states have primaries run by the state. Makes sense if their voters prefer this. Thanks for bringing this up, it is a perfectly valid criticism. I don't disagree with this point, but it technically isn't in conflict with what I said. First of all I argue two things, I didn't state them initially. 1) Primaries are anti-utilitarian. 2) The Government enforcing any way for parties to operate is bad. It's sort of catch-22 I know. But think of it this way, we allow people to conduct elections based on FPTP. None of us advocated banning private FPTP elections. However, that does not stop us from criticizing their choice of method. The second point I don't agee with because Median Voter would suggest that candidates would be more centrist on average if primaries didn't exist. I like moderates better than Democrats or Republicans and I think they are better for the country... As soon as you get past two parties, FPTP is in trouble at the general election - voters cannot completely express their desires among more than two candidates. 2) Sore loser laws If you lose a primary, you can't even run in some areas. The state will attempt to prevent you from stealing votes away from your party. Yeah, that is bad, candidates should be allowed to run if they want. If you let anyone who wants to be on the ballot be on the ballot, how bad would that really be? A DISASTER! Mechanics become difficult. Voters cannot learn enough of all to sort them out. Etc. A party with sufficient voters can reasonably nominate a candidate. Makes sense for a reasonable sized group of voters to nominate a candidate without formally getting involved in parties for this. As to losers - they chose to try for party backing and got rejected - not the same as someone who only got approval outside the parties. 3) Really bad ballot access laws. If people can't even run... it doesn't matter what voting method you are using. Agreed. Apparently, a federal law that allowed anyone with 2000 signature automatic ballot access to any given race would be unlikely to result in more than 10 or so on any given ballot. Would anyone bother to collect 100k signatures in order to put 50 names on the ballot? I think an average voter would not get confused by large numbers of candidates. If they were organizes reasonably, the voter strictly benefits because they could always voter against unknown candidates as a matter of principle.
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 8:13 PM, Jonathan Lundell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 18, 2008, at 11:26 AM, Raph Frank wrote: I'm still not getting it. Perhaps I'm not following the mechanism you're suggesting. I meant if they actually managed PR, but yeah, it is hard to come up with a specific compact that doesn't have defection incentives. I do agree that there are cases where a proportional EC with free-agent electors could have a better (in the sense of more democratic) result than FPTP--say in 1992, where FPTP elects Clinton, but a PR EC elects Bush1 by combining Bush and Perot electors, or in 2000 Nader+Gore electors defeat Bush2 (absent SCOTUS interference, anyway). Yeah, that is what I was thinking of, it allows a majority to be formed if the plurality winner doesn't have a majority. It also allows support to shift over time. It's hard to imagine the mechanism, though, especially since without universal (by state) participation, any significant state not playing would have a strong edge (unless, I suppose, the compact states agreed to compensate...wheels within wheels). One option would be to assign 80% of the seats in each compact State by PR based on say PR-STV. The remaining seats would be assigned using d'Hondt over the whole compact, by party, but would include seats obtained by the parties in non-compact States. This would mean that if a party loses out due to States existing outside the compact, there is a pool of seats available to rebalance things. Also, it would cancel out the effects of non-compact States, only votes within the compact would actually matter. Ofc, the non-compact States might decide not to say who won until the last minute, so it still has problems. The advantage of NPV is that it's simple and doable, even without the consent of small states currently over-represented in the College. Does that offset the distinct downside of entrenching FPTP plurality? Maybe so, unless the alternative is business as usual. Yeah, that is pretty reasonable. If PR isn't possible, my next favourite would be that the NPV used approval voting (or at least allowed states to decide to use approval). Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 02:14:29 +0100 Raph Frank wrote: On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do we measure 'sincere'? In most places in the US N backers place a candidate on a party primary ballot, and N2 (usually a larger number) directly on the general election ballot. Also voters can usually vote for others via write-in. N and N2 NEED to be based on the number of potential nominators and getting a 'reasonable' quantity of candidates. Maybe the best plan would be to say that the X candidates who receive the most signatures are placed on the ballot. There might also be a minimum number of signatures allowed. I said to have X as a goal, but making it a rigid requirement has problems: Can include candidates with unreasonably weak 'sincerity'. Can exclude truly 'sincere' candidates (perhaps a limit somewhere, but making N large enough can make excess candidates difficult). Note that having ONE candidate for a primary is reasonable - even one for a general election can be adequate, given one GOOD one. Probably the 2 major parties would be exempted (for practical reasons). This makes no sense, though the N could, and probably should, be based on party membership. Also, write-ins should be allowed. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026 Do to no one what you would not want done to you. If you want peace, work for justice. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The United States uses FPTP, surprise surprise. However how bad would FPTP really be if you remove some of the stupidity? 1) Primaries Especially the presidential primaries. Why Iowa and New Hampshire I ask you? The Republican winner-takes-state primaries are especially bad. The will of the people is distorted. And the winners of primaries get legal protection. This shouldn't be an issue at all. Parties should be allowed to pick whoever they want, however they want. I think, if you are going to have plurality, then it's probably better to have them than not. 2) Sore loser laws If you lose a primary, you can't even run in some areas. The state will attempt to prevent you from stealing votes away from your party. Yeah, that is bad, candidates should be allowed to run if they want. 3) Really bad ballot access laws. If people can't even run... it doesn't matter what voting method you are using. Agreed. Apparently, a federal law that allowed anyone with 2000 signature automatic ballot access to any given race would be unlikely to result in more than 10 or so on any given ballot. Would anyone bother to collect 100k signatures in order to put 50 names on the ballot? Also, there are some criminal laws linked to this, so collecting signatures could put you at risk. 4) The Electoral College Someone explain to me how this makes sense. We elect a group of 538 people who will then elect one person. Umm... why elect these people? They aren't doing anything complicated, they are just signing their name and the name of a candidate. Electing Congress makes sense, how else would you handle the loads of legislation that they create every so often? It is a good idea. But it seems like it was broken from the start. The Electoral College should meet and then make its decision. This is compounded by the fact that all states have switched to winner takes all methods of selecting the electors, so it is double broken. 5) The Senate States aren't represented by their population. This means rural bias etc. How can their opinion be regarded as representing America's? Well, in theory, the US is a federation, not a democracy. In any case, that requires 100% of the States to agree for it to be changed. OTOH, if you want to be evil, you could strip the Senate of all its power, that would 'only' require 75% of the States. 6) The House Whose bright idea was it to let the states decide how to redistrict themselves? Seriously. The same people who let legislatures redistrict for themselves. In fact, I think that having the States do the redistricting is better than allowing Congress do it. If the States were independently controlled, then there is less of a conflict of interest. However, the 2 party system is entrenched, so the State legislatures aren't independent. 7) Gerrymandering In addition to (6) and gerrymandering at the local level, the state boundaries themselves were gerrymandered. It was mostly due to slavery, but the vestiges of these funky decisions still remain. There are also a ton of low-population states between California and the Mississippi River, whose brilliant idea was that? I think that once off gerrymandering isn't as bad as gerrymandering after the census. It isn't self reinforcing. As time passes, things change. With Congressional boundaries, they are re-adjusted as things change to cancel it out. You can't readjust State boundaries. 8) Two Parties This might be a consequence of FPTP, but seriously. The Libertarian Party, the third largest, is still TINY by comparison to the Democrats and Republicans. It is no wonder we have so many independents in this country. Many people dislike both parties but have no idea what to do. The UK and Canada seem to manage more parties. There is a need for 3rd parties to concentrate their efforts on specific areas. The problem is that the 2 parties use their power to reinforce the 2 party system. Also, each level of government is held by the 2 parties, so it is hard to break it. Anyway, maybe the Libertarians should pick a state and focus all their national effort on getting a Libertarian elected to the House of Representatives in that State. Once they achieve that, they can move on to getting a second one elected from the State. Ofc, their seat would likely be gerrymandered away since their Representative wouldn't be a member of one of the two parties. Maybe the reason that 3rd parties are more viable in the UK and Canada is that there is more independence in setting the boundaries. This means that they can't be gerrymandered out of existence if they manage to get one seat. 9) Elections on Tuesday why not make election day a holiday? or hold it on weekends? I thought they were held over multiple days with 'early voting', or was that changed? Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The United States uses FPTP, surprise surprise. However how bad would FPTP really be if you remove some of the stupidity? 1) Primaries Especially the presidential primaries. Why Iowa and New Hampshire I ask you? The Republican winner-takes-state primaries are especially bad. The will of the people is distorted. And the winners of primaries get legal protection. This shouldn't be an issue at all. Parties should be allowed to pick whoever they want, however they want. I think, if you are going to have plurality, then it's probably better to have them than not. Thanks for bringing this up, it is a perfectly valid criticism. I don't disagree with this point, but it technically isn't in conflict with what I said. First of all I argue two things, I didn't state them initially. 1) Primaries are anti-utilitarian. 2) The Government enforcing any way for parties to operate is bad. It's sort of catch-22 I know. But think of it this way, we allow people to conduct elections based on FPTP. None of us advocated banning private FPTP elections. However, that does not stop us from criticizing their choice of method. The second point I don't agee with because Median Voter would suggest that candidates would be more centrist on average if primaries didn't exist. I like moderates better than Democrats or Republicans and I think they are better for the country... 2) Sore loser laws If you lose a primary, you can't even run in some areas. The state will attempt to prevent you from stealing votes away from your party. Yeah, that is bad, candidates should be allowed to run if they want. If you let anyone who wants to be on the ballot be on the ballot, how bad would that really be? 3) Really bad ballot access laws. If people can't even run... it doesn't matter what voting method you are using. Agreed. Apparently, a federal law that allowed anyone with 2000 signature automatic ballot access to any given race would be unlikely to result in more than 10 or so on any given ballot. Would anyone bother to collect 100k signatures in order to put 50 names on the ballot? I think an average voter would not get confused by large numbers of candidates. If they were organizes reasonably, the voter strictly benefits because they could always voter against unknown candidates as a matter of principle. Most do, so I don't see what people are whining about. Also, there are some criminal laws linked to this, so collecting signatures could put you at risk. 4) The Electoral College Someone explain to me how this makes sense. We elect a group of 538 people who will then elect one person. Umm... why elect these people? They aren't doing anything complicated, they are just signing their name and the name of a candidate. Electing Congress makes sense, how else would you handle the loads of legislation that they create every so often? It is a good idea. But it seems like it was broken from the start. The Electoral College should meet and then make its decision. I have to disagree with you on that one. I do not see it doing anything useful. It either corrects the people's will (in which case it is paternalistic and evil) or it does nothing making it a giant waste of resources. This is compounded by the fact that all states have switched to winner takes all methods of selecting the electors, so it is double broken. 5) The Senate States aren't represented by their population. This means rural bias etc. How can their opinion be regarded as representing America's? Well, in theory, the US is a federation, not a democracy. In any case, that requires 100% of the States to agree for it to be changed. Umm federation and democracy are not mutually exclusive. Anyway, my opinion might be biased because I live in California, the state most screwed over by the system. I do not buy the whole prevent tyrannical regions from taking over nonsense b/c preventing tyranny is a civil rights issue not a voting system issue. Attempting to design some system to subvert the will of the voters for their own good is not to be trusted. OTOH, if you want to be evil, you could strip the Senate of all its power, that would 'only' require 75% of the States. 6) The House Whose bright idea was it to let the states decide how to redistrict themselves? Seriously. The same people who let legislatures redistrict for themselves. In fact, I think that having the States do the redistricting is better than allowing Congress do it. If the States were independently controlled, then there is less of a conflict of interest. Not exactly. You just have mini conflicts of interest that don't all line up in one direction instead of one big one. However, the 2 party system is entrenched, so the State legislatures aren't
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
On Oct 17, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Greg Nisbet wrote: I think you need to prove you have some 'valid reason' to vote early. Anyway, I know there are some restrictions that make it inconvenient otherwise who would show up at the polls? Depends on the state. In California, you just have to ask, and many county registrars encourage you to ask. You can ask for a single election, or become a permanent absentee voter. Oregon is exclusively vote-by-mail, as is my precinct in California. Since mail-in ballots must be received by election day (postmarks don't count), it's inherently an early-voting system. In California, ballots are mailed out about 30 days before the election, which makes life difficult for candidates. Oregon says 14-18 days, which seems more than adequate. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 02:17:14 +0100 From: Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse The Electoral College should meet and then make its decision. This is compounded by the fact that all states have switched to winner takes all methods of selecting the electors, so it is double broken. That is not quite true. There are two states, Maine and one other (I forget which) that proportionally split their electoral votes. Recently there was an effort by Republicans to have CA split its electoral votes proportionally - but Dems fought it because it would have virtually guaranteed that Republicans win the Presidential contest. Kathy Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
On Oct 17, 2008, at 7:11 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote: Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 02:17:14 +0100 From: Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse The Electoral College should meet and then make its decision. This is compounded by the fact that all states have switched to winner takes all methods of selecting the electors, so it is double broken. That is not quite true. There are two states, Maine and one other (I forget which) that proportionally split their electoral votes. Recently there was an effort by Republicans to have CA split its electoral votes proportionally - but Dems fought it because it would have virtually guaranteed that Republicans win the Presidential contest. That is not quite true. Maine and Nebraska assign their electoral votes by the winner in each congressional district, and the two extra votes by the statewide vote. In practice, neither state has ever split their electoral vote (though Obama may have a shot at the district containing Omaha this year). Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
