Gary Johnson Debates Obama and Romney Live

[420]

What we need is not to tout one person to get in there but to tout a fudnamental change to the system

such as iniatiate alternative voting, watch this fantastic video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

Wow, that's an awesome explanation.  I've been saying for years that we need instant run-off voting.  I even wrote to my state representatives about it, but I got no response.

yeah i better start calling it instant runoff voting keep my names correct

a similar video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqblOq8BmgM

Aren't they both correct terms?  Personally, I prefer instant runoff because it's more obvious what it means from the name.

That video's not bad, but I liked the jungle animals even better.

yup. we're turtle & owl voters

[Richy_T]

Runoff voting has its own issues and is a pain to actually apply (I've been through it. Though it is only a short term pain and that shouldn't really affect adoption). Personally, I'm a big fan of approval voting. Though I really don't expect anything to change anytime soon.

[Topazan]

I really ought to decide which voting scheme I'm most in favor of, but really almost all of them would be better than the current system.

I don't think it's out of the question that at least a few states may adopt a different scheme.

[420]

Runoff voting has its own issues and is a pain to actually apply (I've been through it. Though it is only a short term pain and that shouldn't really affect adoption). Personally, I'm a big fan of approval voting. Though I really don't expect anything to change anytime soon.

explain approval voting?

[Richy_T]

Runoff voting has its own issues and is a pain to actually apply (I've been through it. Though it is only a short term pain and that shouldn't really affect adoption). Personally, I'm a big fan of approval voting. Though I really don't expect anything to change anytime soon.

explain approval voting?

It's pretty straightforward. Take all the candidates running and apply a "Yes" or "No' against their name. The one with the most "Yes"s win. It's still not perfect but it has a lot going for it and most of the objections that people have straight away usually prove not valid with a bit of thought.

[420]

Runoff voting has its own issues and is a pain to actually apply (I've been through it. Though it is only a short term pain and that shouldn't really affect adoption). Personally, I'm a big fan of approval voting. Though I really don't expect anything to change anytime soon.

explain approval voting?

It's pretty straightforward. Take all the candidates running and apply a "Yes" or "No' against their name. The one with the most "Yes"s win. It's still not perfect but it has a lot going for it and most of the objections that people have straight away usually prove not valid with a bit of thought.

i see instant runoff as having all of the benefits of that plus more

vote in order of whoever u want, but u can just leave off who u dont like or vote who you least like the lowest number

1. gary johnson
2. rand paul
3. gill stein
4. Governator
5. mitt romney
6....
7....
8....
..
.
55. turtle in a bathtub
56. Obama

[Richy_T]

i see instant runoff as having all of the benefits of that plus more

vote in order of whoever u want, but u can just leave off who u dont like or vote who you least like the lowest number

1. gary johnson
2. rand paul
3. gill stein
4. Governator
5. mitt romney
6....
7....
8....
..
.
55. turtle in a bathtub
56. Obama

And you end up with Obama (some of the time). The problems with instant runoff are well documented. It is an improvement on first-past-the-post but still ends up with poor selections in quite a large number of cases. It does tick the "one man, one vote" box which is a stumbling point for a lot of people who oppose approval voting. Approval voting does that sometimes as well but it seems as if there's always going to be problems with selecting a very few people to represent a large number. (Though it often applies in other cases such as choosing where to eat). Martin Gardner has an interesting article on it though I have only ever seen it in dead tree form.

[420]

i see instant runoff as having all of the benefits of that plus more

vote in order of whoever u want, but u can just leave off who u dont like or vote who you least like the lowest number

1. gary johnson
2. rand paul
3. gill stein
4. Governator
5. mitt romney
6....
7....
8....
..
.
55. turtle in a bathtub
56. Obama

And you end up with Obama (some of the time). The problems with instant runoff are well documented. It is an improvement on first-past-the-post but still ends up with poor selections in quite a large number of cases. It does tick the "one man, one vote" box which is a stumbling point for a lot of people who oppose approval voting. Approval voting does that sometimes as well but it seems as if there's always going to be problems with selecting a very few people to represent a large number. (Though it often applies in other cases such as choosing where to eat). Marting Gardner has an interesting article on it though I have only ever seen it in dead tree form.

I need you to elaborate. We're not aiming to make the system directly favor libertarians, we want people to be able to vote for who they really want to represent them

How could a yes/no system be better than complete ranking; are you thinking its too complicated for the average sheeple?

[Richy_T]

I need you to elaborate. We're not aiming to make the system directly favor libertarians, we want people to be able to vote for who they really want to represent them

How could a yes/no system be better than complete ranking; are you thinking its too complicated for the average sheeple?

No, I mean objectively that in a good percentage of cases, it results in the selection of the candidate that not the most favored choice of all concerned. It's a perverse outcome but it's pretty well known. I think there is some good info on Wikipedia also. In particular, it has this (amongst others) to say about IRV: 

The participation criterion states that "the best way to help a candidate win must not be to abstain".[34] IRV does not meet this criterion: in some cases, the voter's preferred candidate can be best helped if the voter does not vote at all.

and

The Condorcet winner criterion states that "if a candidate would win a head-to-head competition against every other candidate, then that candidate must win the overall election". It is incompatible with the later-no-harm criterion, so IRV does not meet this criterion.

I'd recommend reading around the various pages on the voting systems. It's fascinating reading (if you're that way inclined) and quite possibly could produce an epiphany about the relation of the governers to the governed.

[420]

I need you to elaborate. We're not aiming to make the system directly favor libertarians, we want people to be able to vote for who they really want to represent them

How could a yes/no system be better than complete ranking; are you thinking its too complicated for the average sheeple?

No, I mean objectively that in a good percentage of cases, it results in the selection of the candidate that not the most favored choice of all concerned. It's a perverse outcome but it's pretty well known. I think there is some good info on Wikipedia also. In particular, it has this (amongst others) to say about IRV: 

The participation criterion states that "the best way to help a candidate win must not be to abstain".[34] IRV does not meet this criterion: in some cases, the voter's preferred candidate can be best helped if the voter does not vote at all.

and

The Condorcet winner criterion states that "if a candidate would win a head-to-head competition against every other candidate, then that candidate must win the overall election". It is incompatible with the later-no-harm criterion, so IRV does not meet this criterion.

I'd recommend reading around the various pages on the voting systems. It's fascinating reading (if you're that way inclined) and quite possibly could produce an epiphany about the relation of the governers to the governed.

so saying that someone who was a bunch of people's second choice but not as many's first choice would be elected and violate these principles?

[Richy_T]

so saying that someone who was a bunch of people's second choice but not as many's first choice would be elected and violate these principles?

Yes. Which is not to say that it's necessarily a dealbreaker. I should have included the link the the page(s)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Past_the_Post_electoral_system

There are other systems too. Approval voting just ticks the right boxes for me.

[stochastic]

What we need is not to tout one person to get in there but to tout a fudnamental change to the system

such as iniatiate alternative voting, watch this fantastic video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

Wow, that's an awesome explanation.  I've been saying for years that we need instant run-off voting.  I even wrote to my state representatives about it, but I got no response.

yeah i better start calling it instant runoff voting keep my names correct

a similar video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqblOq8BmgM

Randomly select 10,000 people from the population and ask them who they choose.  You have your answer.  The hard part is getting a random sample.  The hard part for voting is going to the voting station.

[Richy_T]

Maybe just go to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTOQUnvI3CA

[420]

What if there's 3 presidents all sharing power

[420]

another good vid to fix gerrymandering, ft. bitcoins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY

[Richy_T]

What if there's 3 presidents all sharing power

Ssshh. That's NBC's new sitcom.

[420]

What if there's 3 presidents all sharing power

Ssshh. That's NBC's new sitcom.

haha, if thats true, they'll show how it wouldn't work then people wouldn't ever go for the idea

[Richy_T]

What if there's 3 presidents all sharing power

Ssshh. That's NBC's new sitcom.

haha, if thats true, they'll show how it wouldn't work then people wouldn't ever go for the idea

Wait, what? Who but you said anything about sharing power?

[Topazan]

You know, after doing some research on the various systems, I think I've been convinced to support approval voting.

I've seen that instant run-off doesn't eliminate the spoiler effect, and approval voting is easier to understand and closer to what we have now.

[420]

You know, after doing some research on the various systems, I think I've been convinced to support approval voting.

I've seen that instant run-off doesn't eliminate the spoiler effect, and approval voting is easier to understand and closer to what we have now.

how does it not eliminate spoiler effect...