![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Imagine there's no Nader...
Or rather, no debate over whether a vote for Nader, or anyone else, is *really* a vote for someone else.
Imagine being able to vote for who you *WANT*, unabashedly, not who is your lesser of two evils choice.
Imagine being able to vote your conscience, not your strategy.
Imagine having more than two choices in any race.
Imagine having your opinion count as much as your vote.
We have none of that now.
I am one of the undecided in this presidential race. I know that shocks many of you, but deal. I am a fiscal conservative, and a social liberal. I find Bush's social stances and foreign policies to be abhorrent. I find Kerry's economic and health care plans to lead to insanity. (Bush hasn't been much better, but hey, if we're reduced to lesser of two evils...) Right now I'm leaning, vaguely, towards Kerry. Vaguely. I'd like to have my opinion count, however, instead of being a reductionist and simplistic lesser of two evils approach. (And please, if you're going to try and sway my mind one way or another here, please don't bother. This isn't the place for it. Any such comments will be summarily deleted. Contact me elsewhere.)
Single-vote voting is quite frankly, one of the worst ways of deciding a broad spectrum situation. It works great for yes/no answers, but it does not work for instances where the choice is one of many, or even multi-faceted.
There are several options: Instant Runoff Voting being one used in France and Australia, and one that keeps coming to the top of the heap in analyses of voting methodologies: Condorcet voting, or ranked voting. (Pop that into google and take a peek.)
I know at this point some of you are going to be thinking "Oh yeah, I've heard of that one, it's too hard to understand." Well, no. The mathematics behind it are actually quite easy, but the presentation of the formalisms behind them are opaque in my opinion. To the voter, however, it's as simple as choosing dinner at a restaurant that may or may not have what you want in the back.
"What's your first choice?"
"Okay, if we don't have that, what's your second choice?"
"And your third?"
"Anything else? No? Okay, thanks."
You choose your absolute top pick candidate... *ANY* candidate, not just the top two offerings from the major media and spin machines we call parties. Then pick your next choice. And so on. If you absolutely never want to see a particular someone, don't ever select them. It's just that simple.
Think you could handle that? I think you could. I also think that it makes it *easier* on the voter, not harder. Instead of having to weigh all the possible outcomes of "If I vote for *them*, than will it really mean that that *other* guy will win when I can't stand him?" it becomes what it really should be: "Who do I want in that seat?" Anyone can understand that, it's simple, direct, and to the point. No strategic maneuvering required of the average citizen, just "Who do you want?"
The way it works from the voter's viewpoint is as easy as first grade math. Assume there are 4 candidates. (I know it's a stretch in this political environment, but consider - if South Africa can pull this off, we can too.) You really like Albertson, you can't stand Brown under any circumstances, Conrad has you mildly intrigued, but only slightly more than Denisovich. You would vote for Albertson, Conrad, and Denisovich in that order, leaving Brown out.
There are four candidates, so Albertson gets 4 pts from you. Conrad gets 3, Denisovich 2, and Brown *none*. Yup, you can leave any candidates you really don't like utterly in the cold, so it still has that "Aha! Take *that* asshole!" feel-good aspect. Add up the total points, and the person with the most points wins. Easy.
The amazing thing about this system is that it allows for full-on popular vote voting, eliminating the need for the broken electoral college. I know I've rallied for the retention of the electoral college, but *only* if we continue on the equally broken 'one person = one vote' path. It's because of the threat of 'tyranny of the majority' that we *need* some artificial construct like the electoral college. With ranked voting, that need goes away, and we can have true representative voting. Finally.
An interesting aside: what we have now is equivalent to Condercet voting under two requirements: 1) only two candidates, and 2) nobody votes for a second place choice.
Well, the political machinery has ensured requirement 1, and requirement 2 is met only if the voter can't *STAND* the second choice. Ie, our current system *promotes* a climate of hatred and opposition. You want to stop the inane polarization of our system? Bring in Condorcet voting, eliminating 'Us' and 'Them', and creating a system that encourages collaboration and compromise, not hatred and rhetoric. Political polarization isn't the Republicans fault, or the Democrats. It's simply the inevitable outcome of an outdated and broken voting system that could only have led down this path.
Now, I've brought this up with folks before, and many (including some who should have known better) have assumed I am calling for a parliamentary system. Nothing could be further from the truth. Parliamentary systems are how you set up the representative body and its legal procedures and machinations, this is about how you *select* representatives. Very different. Would the resulting Congress look superficially a bit like a parliament, with a mixed bag of party affiliations and alliances? Perhaps. Would it more accurately reflect the make up of this country's citizens and their opinions? Definitely. Would it have parliamentary procedures and formation/destruction of 'governments'? No. Only the selection process would change, and drastically for the better.
And for the record, my ranked voting for Prez 2004:
McCain, Clarke, Dean, Kucinich
Note that neither of the two current candidates are in there... but I could vote my conscience, not merely what was offered to me by political machines.
And isn't that what voting is *supposed* to be?
"Who do you *WANT*?"
Just imagine...
Imagine being able to vote for who you *WANT*, unabashedly, not who is your lesser of two evils choice.
Imagine being able to vote your conscience, not your strategy.
Imagine having more than two choices in any race.
Imagine having your opinion count as much as your vote.
We have none of that now.
I am one of the undecided in this presidential race. I know that shocks many of you, but deal. I am a fiscal conservative, and a social liberal. I find Bush's social stances and foreign policies to be abhorrent. I find Kerry's economic and health care plans to lead to insanity. (Bush hasn't been much better, but hey, if we're reduced to lesser of two evils...) Right now I'm leaning, vaguely, towards Kerry. Vaguely. I'd like to have my opinion count, however, instead of being a reductionist and simplistic lesser of two evils approach. (And please, if you're going to try and sway my mind one way or another here, please don't bother. This isn't the place for it. Any such comments will be summarily deleted. Contact me elsewhere.)
Single-vote voting is quite frankly, one of the worst ways of deciding a broad spectrum situation. It works great for yes/no answers, but it does not work for instances where the choice is one of many, or even multi-faceted.
There are several options: Instant Runoff Voting being one used in France and Australia, and one that keeps coming to the top of the heap in analyses of voting methodologies: Condorcet voting, or ranked voting. (Pop that into google and take a peek.)
I know at this point some of you are going to be thinking "Oh yeah, I've heard of that one, it's too hard to understand." Well, no. The mathematics behind it are actually quite easy, but the presentation of the formalisms behind them are opaque in my opinion. To the voter, however, it's as simple as choosing dinner at a restaurant that may or may not have what you want in the back.
"What's your first choice?"
"Okay, if we don't have that, what's your second choice?"
"And your third?"
"Anything else? No? Okay, thanks."
You choose your absolute top pick candidate... *ANY* candidate, not just the top two offerings from the major media and spin machines we call parties. Then pick your next choice. And so on. If you absolutely never want to see a particular someone, don't ever select them. It's just that simple.
Think you could handle that? I think you could. I also think that it makes it *easier* on the voter, not harder. Instead of having to weigh all the possible outcomes of "If I vote for *them*, than will it really mean that that *other* guy will win when I can't stand him?" it becomes what it really should be: "Who do I want in that seat?" Anyone can understand that, it's simple, direct, and to the point. No strategic maneuvering required of the average citizen, just "Who do you want?"
The way it works from the voter's viewpoint is as easy as first grade math. Assume there are 4 candidates. (I know it's a stretch in this political environment, but consider - if South Africa can pull this off, we can too.) You really like Albertson, you can't stand Brown under any circumstances, Conrad has you mildly intrigued, but only slightly more than Denisovich. You would vote for Albertson, Conrad, and Denisovich in that order, leaving Brown out.
There are four candidates, so Albertson gets 4 pts from you. Conrad gets 3, Denisovich 2, and Brown *none*. Yup, you can leave any candidates you really don't like utterly in the cold, so it still has that "Aha! Take *that* asshole!" feel-good aspect. Add up the total points, and the person with the most points wins. Easy.
The amazing thing about this system is that it allows for full-on popular vote voting, eliminating the need for the broken electoral college. I know I've rallied for the retention of the electoral college, but *only* if we continue on the equally broken 'one person = one vote' path. It's because of the threat of 'tyranny of the majority' that we *need* some artificial construct like the electoral college. With ranked voting, that need goes away, and we can have true representative voting. Finally.
An interesting aside: what we have now is equivalent to Condercet voting under two requirements: 1) only two candidates, and 2) nobody votes for a second place choice.
Well, the political machinery has ensured requirement 1, and requirement 2 is met only if the voter can't *STAND* the second choice. Ie, our current system *promotes* a climate of hatred and opposition. You want to stop the inane polarization of our system? Bring in Condorcet voting, eliminating 'Us' and 'Them', and creating a system that encourages collaboration and compromise, not hatred and rhetoric. Political polarization isn't the Republicans fault, or the Democrats. It's simply the inevitable outcome of an outdated and broken voting system that could only have led down this path.
Now, I've brought this up with folks before, and many (including some who should have known better) have assumed I am calling for a parliamentary system. Nothing could be further from the truth. Parliamentary systems are how you set up the representative body and its legal procedures and machinations, this is about how you *select* representatives. Very different. Would the resulting Congress look superficially a bit like a parliament, with a mixed bag of party affiliations and alliances? Perhaps. Would it more accurately reflect the make up of this country's citizens and their opinions? Definitely. Would it have parliamentary procedures and formation/destruction of 'governments'? No. Only the selection process would change, and drastically for the better.
And for the record, my ranked voting for Prez 2004:
McCain, Clarke, Dean, Kucinich
Note that neither of the two current candidates are in there... but I could vote my conscience, not merely what was offered to me by political machines.
And isn't that what voting is *supposed* to be?
"Who do you *WANT*?"
Just imagine...
Nice.
The biggest threats right now to such a system are voters who try and play strategically with it, like they do now... the old rules don't apply, and you have to break the machiavellian mindset. If voters fiddle with the rankings just to try and stick it to someone (instead of voting their conscience), you can end up with a veritable unknown winning.
Assume that a everyone in the country is polarized to hate the 'opposing' candidate. (Not a stretch.) Now assume that Nader is a choice equal with the other two in Condorcet voting.
Repubs vote for Bush, then Nader, and not at all for Kerry, thinking "Well, I'll just give some points to Nader, and that'll put him in front of Kerry in the end... that'll show 'em!" even though they don't really want to see Nader in there.
Dems do the same, but Kerry, Nader, and none for Bush.
So assume 100 million voters. Kerry gets 50M * 3 = 150M pts. Bush gets an equal number. Nader gets 100M * = 200M.
Oops, Nader won. Nobody *wanted* him, but he wins *because people tried to strategically vote*. You simply can't do it with Condorcet voting, so don't try.
It'll take some voter education, but god knows we need that in this country anyway. :P
OTOH, if people genuinely felt that Nader (or whoever) was the best second choice, then everyone wins to some degree. They didn't get their first choice, but they also didn't get the guy they can't stand.
Re: Nice.
On a more serious note, "voter education" is exactly why I don't see this ever happening. Sadly, the masses seem to prefer a simple Yes/No option. They want to believe in a black and white world with one right choice and one wrong choice.
Re: Nice.
*sigh*
Of course, you *can* always just vote for one person if you feel like it, and give no points to the other candidates, treating it like now if you prefer.
So, the alternate decision is ...
- vote for any other candidates besides Nader who might be on the ticket -- assuming that they are an actual preferred choice
- only vote with ones party affiliation and personally restrict oneself to one vote, giving all your points to either Bush or Kerry
Correct? Or would the system you're recommending require that points be put forth for at least two candidates?Hrm. Wasn't one of the failures behind communism the idea that once people realized that the system would be good for all, that they're turn their backs on basic human nature and be more cooperative than greedy? If it's basic American instinct to stick it to the enemy, maybe this wouldn't be the best system for our country?
Re: So, the alternate decision is ...
There's no 'all your points'. They aren't allocated out of a pool. Your first choice gets N pts (for N candidates), period. If you choose no one else, they all get zero from you. If you rank all N, then your first choice still gets N points, and the last guy 1.
You get to vote for whom you want, only for whom you want, and in the order that would prefer.
And... as I said just above, you can vote for a single person just like now, if you want, and treat it as a single choice voting, 'sticking it to' everyone else in the bargain by giving them zero points.
Re: So, the alternate decision is ...
Essentially there is no way to vote 'strategically'. You just can't. If you try, you shoot yourself in the foot.
Scary concept, no? That you might be able to just vote simply, directly, and honestly?
Actually, it's a suggestion I've heard before ...
The number of "points" is equal to the number of candidates. Got it.
Can distribute "points" however you want. Got it. Thanks.
Despite criticism, I'm in favor of the idea just because it'd be the start of chance. Even if we didn't stick with ranked voting, it'd be progress, at least.
Re: Actually, it's a suggestion I've heard before ...
Actually, you've almost got the points thing I think. :) I'll actually give it a formalism whirl:
Assume N candidates.
First pick gets N pts.
Second pick gets N-1 pts.
Third pick gets N-2 pts.
...
Nth pick gets 1 pt.
The number of points going to a particular spot in your ranking is absolute. If you only pick one person, they get N pts. If you pick two, the first choice still gets N, the second choice gets N-1. If you pick three, the first choice *still* gets N, the second choice *still* gets N-1, and numero tres gets N-2.
Now at first glance it appears that the more people you vote for, the more 'votes' you get. Nuh-uh. Because all the people you don't select get 0, the most powerful vote of all - a solid 'NO'.
This is where the math happens behind the scenes - what the system essentially does is create pair-wise races, which is statistically great (but a pain in the butt to maintain), and presents it to the voter as a *simple choice*. Best of both worlds.
Re: Actually, it's a suggestion I've heard before ...
A, B, C, and D are having an ice cream party, and trying to decide between Chocolate, Vanilla, Strawberry and Rocky Road. They decide to try ranked voting: (oh this is going to look like hell in here)
A B C D
Choc 4 0 3 4
Van 2 0 4 0
Straw 1 3 1 0
RRoad 3 4 2 0
A says "I like chocolate best, then Rocky Road, then vanilla, and I'll have strawberry if that's what everyone else wants."
B says "I love Rocky Road, like strawberry, can't stand chocolate or vanilla."
C says "Vanilla is my favorite, followed by chocolate, then Rocky Road, and I guess I can eat strawberry if I have to."
D says "I just want chocolate, that's it. Nothing else."
Tally up the points across the rows, and we get: Chocolate: 11, Vanilla: 6, Strawberry: 5, and Rocky Road: 9.
A and D are very happy, C is okay with it, B is really peeved.
But watch what happens if you get some level of compromise:
B is really upset with the outcome, and says to D "Is there *nothing* else you'll eat?" and D realizes that well, actually, Rocky Road isn't so bad after all, if he really thinks about it, since it's mostly chocolate anyway, so D ranks Rocky Road 2nd, giving it 3 more pts.
And Rocky Road wins. Now B is very happy, A and D are pretty happy, and C can live it. And no one is really pissed off.
Straight plurality voting is actually pretty artificial. The above is the sort of give and take we do every day in our lives in social settings to make decisions that a group can live with. I think that if the voting populace can be shown that this isn't anything new, that they already know how to do it, and why, it'll be as easy as cake to sell.
Or as easy as ice cream.