Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

I have a new voting proposal.

Page 1 of 3 [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

09 Sep 2012, 7:50 pm

If you don't want to vote for a particular candidate you have the alternative option of voting against the candidate you hate the most. A vote against a candidate counts as a negative vote, cancelling out exactly one positive vote.

Thoughts?



MDD123
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

09 Sep 2012, 8:30 pm

So we'd elect the candidate we disliked the least



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

09 Sep 2012, 9:21 pm

marshall wrote:
If you don't want to vote for a particular candidate you have the alternative option of voting against the candidate you hate the most. A vote against a candidate counts as a negative vote, cancelling out exactly one positive vote.

Thoughts?
When there are more than two parties, then anyone who wants to maximize his influence on the system would make negative votes.

When there are X parties, a negative vote counts the same as doing (X-1) positive votes. Thus people making negative votes will have quite an advantage over those who don't. If all people were rational voters, everyone would be voting negatively.

Then we might as well change the system to allowing only negative votes. Which would indeed degenerate into what MDD123 is predicting.

Though maybe electing the least disliked candidate (in average) is a better choice overall. But there is a risk that the winners would be the blandest and nothing revolutionary would ever happen.


_________________
.


Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

09 Sep 2012, 10:07 pm

Abolish political parties.

That's what I'd do.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Sep 2012, 10:08 pm

Tensu wrote:
Abolish political parties.

That's what I'd do.


And how would you do that without violating the Constitution.

ruveyn



Shatbat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,791
Location: Where two great rivers meet

09 Sep 2012, 10:17 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_ ... ty_theorem

I'd read about it on another book. Basically, it states mathematically the impossibility of creating a perfect voting system.


_________________
To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day. - Winston Churchill


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

09 Sep 2012, 10:21 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Tensu wrote:
Abolish political parties.

That's what I'd do.


And how would you do that without violating the Constitution.

ruveyn
I don't think he mentioned anything about doing it specifically in the states.

But if consensus to abolish political parties is reached, it is always possible to change the constitution.


_________________
.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,959
Location:      

09 Sep 2012, 10:46 pm

marshall wrote:
If you don't want to vote for a particular candidate you have the alternative option of voting against the candidate you hate the most. A vote against a candidate counts as a negative vote, cancelling out exactly one positive vote.Thoughts?

Able gets 3+ and 2- votes.
Baker gets 19+ and 20- votes.
Charles gets 99+ and 100- votes

Who should win? The guy with only 1 total vote? Really? :roll:

I have a simpler idea: Why not just vote against someone by voting for someone else?


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

10 Sep 2012, 1:32 am

Or better yet, why not help create a grassroots movement to promote a better class of people to run for offices in hopes that one of these days you can leave the polling place without feeling like you need a shower!


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

10 Sep 2012, 1:38 am

Why not just vote 3rd party? I'm not seeing the advantages of this system.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

10 Sep 2012, 1:51 am

two alternate proposals: first, instant runoff: ie, I vote for candidate x, but if x doesn't get a majorirty, then I vote for candidate y. Would allow people to vote for 3rd parties without feeling like they're 'throwing away thier vote.' Second, an end to the electoral college so that the votes of everyone, not just those in swing states, actually counts in presidential elections.



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

10 Sep 2012, 1:56 am

LKL wrote:
two alternate proposals: first, instant runoff: ie, I vote for candidate x, but if x doesn't get a majorirty, then I vote for candidate y. Would allow people to vote for 3rd parties without feeling like they're 'throwing away thier vote.' Second, an end to the electoral college so that the votes of everyone, not just those in swing states, actually counts in presidential elections.

The electoral college is what insured that rural areas and interests (I don't mean lobbyists) get a say in the election.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Sep 2012, 5:14 am

As an exercise look up Arrow's Theorem.

ruveyn



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,959
Location:      

10 Sep 2012, 10:15 am

John_Browning wrote:
Or better yet, why not help create a grassroots movement to promote a better class of people to run for offices in hopes that one of these days you can leave the polling place without feeling like you need a shower!

With so many special interests, what makes for a better class with one group would make for something heinous with another.

Dox47 wrote:
Why not just vote 3rd party? I'm not seeing the advantages of this system.

America already has 30+ parties, but only two of them receive the majority of financial support. I suppose if you could get Branson or Gates to back the Greens, then they might have a chance, but then they'd have to come up with a better candidate than the one they have now.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


Thom_Fuleri
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 849
Location: Leicestershire, UK

10 Sep 2012, 11:55 am

marshall wrote:
If you don't want to vote for a particular candidate you have the alternative option of voting against the candidate you hate the most. A vote against a candidate counts as a negative vote, cancelling out exactly one positive vote.

Thoughts?


Isn't that the system currently in place?



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

10 Sep 2012, 12:00 pm

Fnord wrote:
marshall wrote:
If you don't want to vote for a particular candidate you have the alternative option of voting against the candidate you hate the most. A vote against a candidate counts as a negative vote, cancelling out exactly one positive vote.Thoughts?

Able gets 3+ and 2- votes.
Baker gets 19+ and 20- votes.
Charles gets 99+ and 100- votes

Who should win? The guy with only 1 total vote? Really? :roll:

I have a simpler idea: Why not just vote against someone by voting for someone else?


This thread is my stab at facetious satire. I think in the political climate we're in the major party candidates would get more negative than positive votes. A write in for Mickey Mouse could theoretically win. As a real solution I'd actually prefer an instant runoff system but I'm feeling the powers that be aren't interested. Having more than two parties they have to bribe makes things too complicated for them.