420
|
|
October 10, 2012, 06:45:31 AM |
|
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=wqblOq8BmgMAren'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
|
Donations: 1JVhKjUKSjBd7fPXQJsBs5P3Yphk38AqPr - TIPS the hacks, the hacks, secure your bits!
|
|
|
Richy_T
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 2268
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
October 10, 2012, 06:07:48 PM |
|
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.
|
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
|
Topazan
|
|
October 10, 2012, 06:47:30 PM |
|
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.
|
Save the last bitcoin for me!
|
|
|
420
|
|
October 11, 2012, 12:57:04 AM |
|
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?
|
Donations: 1JVhKjUKSjBd7fPXQJsBs5P3Yphk38AqPr - TIPS the hacks, the hacks, secure your bits!
|
|
|
Richy_T
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 2268
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
October 11, 2012, 02:28:01 AM |
|
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.
|
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
|
420
|
|
October 11, 2012, 02:30:11 AM |
|
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
|
Donations: 1JVhKjUKSjBd7fPXQJsBs5P3Yphk38AqPr - TIPS the hacks, the hacks, secure your bits!
|
|
|
Richy_T
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 2268
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
October 11, 2012, 03:11:53 AM Last edit: October 11, 2012, 03:32:16 AM by 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.
|
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
|
420
|
|
October 11, 2012, 03:24:54 AM |
|
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?
|
Donations: 1JVhKjUKSjBd7fPXQJsBs5P3Yphk38AqPr - TIPS the hacks, the hacks, secure your bits!
|
|
|
Richy_T
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 2268
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
October 11, 2012, 03:42:42 AM |
|
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.
|
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
|
420
|
|
October 11, 2012, 04:03:45 AM |
|
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?
|
Donations: 1JVhKjUKSjBd7fPXQJsBs5P3Yphk38AqPr - TIPS the hacks, the hacks, secure your bits!
|
|
|
|
stochastic
|
|
October 11, 2012, 04:29:02 AM |
|
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=wqblOq8BmgMRandomly 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.
|
Introducing constraints to the economy only serves to limit what can be economical.
|
|
|
Richy_T
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 2268
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
October 11, 2012, 04:36:29 AM |
|
|
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
|
420
|
|
October 11, 2012, 04:55:04 AM |
|
What if there's 3 presidents all sharing power
|
Donations: 1JVhKjUKSjBd7fPXQJsBs5P3Yphk38AqPr - TIPS the hacks, the hacks, secure your bits!
|
|
|
|
Richy_T
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 2268
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
October 11, 2012, 02:55:06 PM |
|
What if there's 3 presidents all sharing power
Ssshh. That's NBC's new sitcom.
|
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
|
420
|
|
October 11, 2012, 10:04:48 PM |
|
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
|
Donations: 1JVhKjUKSjBd7fPXQJsBs5P3Yphk38AqPr - TIPS the hacks, the hacks, secure your bits!
|
|
|
Richy_T
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 2268
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
October 11, 2012, 10:31:15 PM |
|
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?
|
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
|
Topazan
|
|
October 12, 2012, 06:08:10 PM |
|
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.
|
Save the last bitcoin for me!
|
|
|
420
|
|
October 14, 2012, 10:10:07 PM |
|
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...
|
Donations: 1JVhKjUKSjBd7fPXQJsBs5P3Yphk38AqPr - TIPS the hacks, the hacks, secure your bits!
|
|
|
|