Preferential Voting: A Tea Party Plan for Victory
The worst things have been bipartisan. Deficits are bipartisan. Old talking points aside, it is an open secret that the elder statesmen of both established parties accept their own folkways about Keynesian conventions like the multiplier effect. The jointly held beliefs of Democrats and Republicans escape whenever we hear the jargon of neo-Keynesian economics in various congressional hearings. We see this shared outlook whenever a president of one party renominates the Fed chairman nominated by that of another.
Most unavoidably similar of all, we saw a Republican president leave office championing a stimulus package as the signature domestic policy of his last year, to be replaced by a Democrat that made the signature domestic policy of his first year another stimulus package.
The tea party movement of 2009, founded on fiscal responsibility, rightly insists it is not an organ of either established party and, learning that neither establishment is sincere in sobering up, we, as the song says, won’t be fooled again.
We’re all apprehensive about the Republican Party co-opting the tea party movement. We’ve seen so many times the party out of power pledge that they’ve sobered up and insist that the new faces arriving are something different, but we know they have only mothballed neo-Keynesian economics that advocates a mixed economy that we see as always folding in more state control as the batch progresses.
So we’re no GOP pawns, but major media outlets have already set that perception. We’re struggling to set an agenda that both prevents that Republican takeover from happening and demolishes the media-created perception that we’re merely small-minded stooges of the Grand Old Party. We can slice through this Gordian Knot in one blow by destroying the barriers to multiparty viability on the ballot.
Instead of retooling the system how about we return to what built our nation, made it great and sustained it; broken limbs, knot holes and all right up to and through the mid 1950s?
“One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Now all we need are campaign posters that say, “American Citizens are looking for a few good candidates with enough courage and guts to serve our country instead of themselves!”
Australia uses a preferential voting system and it doesn’t seem to produce a superior outcome.
Perhaps a greater degree of voter satisfaction, but still the same set of poor candidates.
“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves…”
Points well taken, but would it work in America? Because what we could end up with is something similar to a parliamentary system in the sense of having to form coalitions to gain a majority for passing legislation. Unless I am missing something here, a party that is in the minority with the most votes could end up in the majority. Even the PR system has the potential to increase the role of government, and given that pols are pols, that politicking requires compromises, even getting “good” candidates elected doesn’t mean that they will do as they promise. And if you intend this system only for the president, and a third party candidate is elected, his election will not guarantee that essential legislation will get passed, or that harmful legislation will not get passed. And you can’t underestimate the role of the remaining MSM, and the brainwashers, whoops, make that educators…never mind, leave it at brainwashers. Both played a leading role in helping the phony get elected. I suggest banning socialism and other fascist ideologies as forms of government, but not the freedom to talk about them. There are a lot of other measures that are needed, because it is not so much about elections as what the people who are elected do after they get in office.
“Most unavoidably similar of all, we saw a Republican president leave office championing a stimulus package as the signature domestic policy of his last year, to be replaced by a Democrat that made the signature domestic policy of his first year another stimulus package”
And yet, it was only when the democrat did it that the movement miraculously appeared. 8 years of fiscal bleeding from the eyeballs – no tea parties. A few months of a democrat in the whitehouse – voila, tea parties everywhere.
Sure you’re not GOP stooges. You just didn’t think of it before, right? Here’s betting your memory will fade when a rep’s back in the oval office. I’m sure you’re down on all deficits – it’s just that you’re only vocal about them when the other guy’s got the controls.
Preferential voting: a system for losers.
I would not mind preferential voting. But you would have to get rid of the “instant” runoff for it to be something not open to manipulation. If it were to take the place of primaries in selecting the top two to run in the election than maybe.
Unfortunately I believe it would give us more McLaims than Reagans. More of the musshy middle than true leaders of Conservatism. While the far left, with their control of media, unions and buying of the vote, not to mention outright fraud ‘ala ACORN, would still get thier radical scum elected.
You present an interesting idea. Bravo for thinking outside “the box”.
Nice idea, but it will never be enacted, because as you say, the 2 major parties will never ever abdicate their positions of power on the ballot. I think that the Tea party movement would be better off forming as a genuine political party…just as the Republican Party did in the ashes of the Whig Party in the 1840′s and 1850′s. The GOP has lost touch with it’s base and right now the climate is right for a supersessionist party to steal their thunder. Most GOP Congressmen and Senators are merely Dem Lite now. They have no real grasp of what many members of their party who only vote genuinely want.
The Tea Party movement has begun to enciate what the GOP USED to be about, before it’s leadership lost sight of what the party is. Now, the Tea Party has a chance to pick up not just disaffected Republicans, but more conservative Democrats as well. Addtionally, with the mood of moderate independents being what it is now…there is a real possibility of bringing in people of that nature as well.
In short, it’s time to displace the GOP (which has become centre left) with a centre right party which relfects the ideals and beliefs of a majority of Americans.
This is a fascinating article. I want to hear from all sides as to what is wrong with this idea. It strikes me as parlimentary. It also obviously would encourage a dramatic rise in the influence of third parties, not just the Tea Partiers either. The Communists and Constitutionalists would each gain. You can be assured that some crazy green party would also gain more political power. To form an effective governing coalition there would need to be some serious horse trading. I also wonder what the Constitutional impact would be.
I am really looking forward to others opinions. I expect I will learn quite a bit in the proceess.
Yes yes! This would have prevented McCain from being the Repub candidate in ’08. Remember in the primaries it was McCain 30% and anybody else 70% — only that 70% got split among 4 or 5 guys. The system we have now made sure the guy most people DIDN’T want got in. Sheesh.
After this year of Tea Parties the Republican power brokers here in Colorado got together last week and announced who the Republican candidate for governor will be. No election. No primary. No asking the voters. The candidate will be S.M. Sure there will be a primary “election” in a few months, but everyone knows who will win. The fix is in.
And if 2 or 3 guys/gals run against this idiot, they’ll split the non-establishment vote.
Here is a first and only occurance. I think Vivo has a point when she/he says it is a system for losers. The 2nd and 3rd place finishers have far more influence in a preference system.
I also agree with Yes Yes. It might be a better way of sorting out in a primary although I think the solution is closed primaries so we can avoid awful candidates like McCain.
Won’t work. 21 states isn’t enough to make a difference. Changing the laws of another 12 states might. You need 2/3′s, which would be 33, if my math is correct.
Then there is the reality of power sharing. Checks and balances built into the Constitution will prevent any rump parties from having any sort of influence in congress. They won’t get committee seats, they won’t get any bills thru committees.
Sorry it just won’t work.
While the Constitution doesn’t say anything about a bi-party system, nothing else will work under the Constitution as it stands now.
That means a Constitutional Convention;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Article V.
As long as we are having a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution, The problem you are trying to fix indirectly with multiple parties and a list type ( you don’t call it that, but proportional voting ends up the same place as list voting) election process can be addressed directly.
The real problem in Washington is that it’s full of crooks. Crooks really don’t care about anything except the money. That is why they change parties at the drop of a dime. Having 3 or 4 parties to change to won’t make any difference.
A simple law making it illegal to charge fees for lobbying would do more. Or taxing lobbyists at about 500% of their ‘earnings’ would be even better. Taxing lobbyists would be legal, in my humble 1st amendment protected opinion, since smokers, rich people, those that buy expensive cars, etc, are already taxed beyond what other citizens pay.
Take the money out of crime and the crime stops.
Not going to happen, unless the voters force the issue. You should get behind changing the rules, instead of creating more parties to hide the crooks in.
Where do we find these petitons? We as a people need to take control once again.
We end up with two parties dominating politics because we have a winner-take-all outcome system. In such a system you always whittle the number of major parties down to two.
Changing the style of voting, as you propose, will not expand the system beyond two parties.
Simple straightforward elections work just fine, but only if a minimum fraction of the population pays attention, acts in good faith, and votes intelligently. No amount of tinkering can substitute for that.
we actually have a no party system. the repubs and dems have very little party discipline compared to a European party. theses quick fix ideas are not the solution.
the tea-party people have to come to terms with the fact they are on the right. the right needs better organization, train candidates and run in every congressional district and accept being defeated many times. look at all the democratic defeats in the last 40 years and yet they have achieved so much.
Fiscal conservatives need to organize and commit to the republican party. form a strong faction and compete in the primaries to control the repubs. when you lose in the primaries smile and vote for the social conservative in the general.
12. JBS: “The real problem in Washington is that it’s full of crooks. Crooks really don’t care about anything except the money. That is why they change parties at the drop of a dime. Having 3 or 4 parties to change to won’t make any difference.
A simple law making it illegal to charge fees for lobbying would do more. Or taxing lobbyists at about 500% of their ‘earnings’ would be even better. Taxing lobbyists would be legal, in my humble 1st amendment protected opinion, since smokers, rich people, those that buy expensive cars, etc, are already taxed beyond what other citizens pay.
Take the money out of crime and the crime stops.
Not going to happen, unless the voters force the issue. You should get behind changing the rules, instead of creating more parties to hide the crooks in.”
How are the people going to wrest enough power from these crooks in order to be able to change any rules. Beyond it being the pertinent issue of our gov’t officials being crooks, it’s all about the haves lording power over the have-nots. More than the money, it’s the power they covet and are not about to let go of. The only way out of this, IMHO, is for blood to spill…..
Preferential voting is a cure for the symptom but it ignores the disease
1. The state Government is no longer represented in the Federal government
2. The US money supply is run by private bankers
3. The federal government in its presant form is an unconstitutional behemoth.
The bottom line is it doesnt matter who get elected.. the real government the the beauracracy elected officials are merely window dressing.
This is what is called the Administrative state. Politician play around the edges but the progressive behemoth remains largely untouched except it grows and grows…Kill the behemoth. This is the only solution.
This is what is called the Administrative state. Politician play around the edges but the progressive behemoth remains largely untouched except it grows and grows…Kill the behemoth. This is the only solution.
Wondering aloud: Would this have resolved the ‘Ross Perot’ effect?
Term limits is the simplest solution, even if it requires a constitutiona amendment. No one should be able to build a career as a politician, and without career politicians the corrupt deals between lobbyists and elected officials would disappear–you couldn’t rely on the Murthas and Delays to be there for decades shoveling cash and contracts your way.
Term limits was one of the promises broken by the Republican class of 94. Maybe the Republicans can get back into power by placing it at the top of the list this time.
As noted by others already, approval voting would undermine a two-party system; which is precisely why the current two parties would never allow its adoption at the national level. (A constitutional convention dominated by party apparatchik is not likely to change this.) That being said, it is a system used in several countries and by several professional associations here in the US. At the local level, and perhaps the state level, it might have a chance. If incorporated at the local and state levels it might affect the pool of candidates for national elections. Long shot though, very long shot.
Preferential voting, weighted voting, multiple runoffs, and voting “against” all suffer from the same drawback: they’re indifferent to the actual qualities of the candidates.
Broadly speaking, America’s political problem arises from the incentives built into extra-Constitutional governance: the ability to steal under color of law is more attractive to would-be thieves than to honest men. Friedrich Hayek nailed this in The Road to Serfdom, which I heartily recommend to anyone who hasn’t yet read it.
In a sense, the problem is us, the citizenry, which is the one and only enforcement agency for the Supreme Law of the Land. We didn’t stand to our duty when we were first called upon to do so — roughly 1890, the start of the Progressive Era. Hangings and tar-and-featherings that should have taken place…didn’t. Nor have we improved on our Nineteenth Century non-performance in the decades since.
I used to think None of the Above was “the fix.” Now I think nothing but a complete moral renewal of America will suffice. To repose your hopes on anything less is taking the short end of the bet.
Alternative voting systems (a good phrase for web searches), of which there are many and sundry, each have their quirks. Mathematical analysis reveals that no system is “best” for all situations. Each can be “gamed” by vested interests. What our Founders did was choose one that distanced political decisions from the raw electorate and its factions… to both the good and ill of the nation over the past two plus centuries. While we might debate the qualities of each particular AVS, changes such as term limits can be just as, or more, influential.
Yeah, I’ve been wondering why politicians still advocate the Keynesian theories nearly all of which have been shown to be false… just another reason to replace these legislator-for-life, wannabe royalty.
Before discarding the 2-party system, you might want to consider what happens in multi-party systems. The Weimar Republic is a good place to start looking. The French 4th Republic and the Italian 1st Republic are also worth considering.
You might also want to look at countries smaller than Germany, France, and Italy; but remember: the USA is much bigger than Germany, France, and Italy.
Third parties are losers. It is a historical fact. Perhaps the little tea party “patriots” who spout their populism should go back and read up on a little bit of history. Populist movements are doomed to failure. They always are. There is nothing substantial backing them. Their third party candidates rarely, if ever, win. All the little “patriots” are going to do is split the vote and insure that Nancy Pelosi is Speaker for Life.
I just don’t call that patriotic. I call it a recipe for disaster, suicidal and pathetic.
SJR
The Pink Flamingo
Preferential voting is a recipe for political instability. In Australia we have had years of pressure groups and minority parties holding the government to ransom over their own hobby horses and this has resulted in dirty electoral deals and compromise legislation which is not effective in many cases. Minor parties don’t “Keep the bastards honest”, they keep them impotent. If you don’t want a senate infested with single issue fruitcakes, Watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside)and holy rollers, then don’t even think about it.
Mr. Porretto: I wouldn’t write off “None of the Above.” I have long felt it would be a useful tool.
Part of our problem is that everyone wants that single magic bullet that solves all problems. Life doesn’t work that way. I think we need to make use of a number of tools. Preferential voting may be one, as might “None of the Above.” Each tool may have limited success on its own, but together they may provide the help we’re looking for.
I also think the Tea Partiers should start collecting money, and keep it in Tea Party hands. Don’t donate to the GOP! Starve that beast! They should only get Tea Party money if they publicly sign a pledge, listing any number of possible positions that embrace a return to small, Constitutional government (I’m sure such a list could be easily created).
Pref voting is just not gonna work but nice try:)
One major problem is that the ‘no party’ candidate couldn’t raise any money to sustain his/her campaign.
One could have a GOP candidate sign all kinds of pledges but that will not reduce the entrenched bureaucracies in state capitols and especially in DC-a sincere problem that no one has addressed.
Wait! Wait! Wait! There is another way. It’s called GOOOH.com This stands for “Get Out Of Our House” The idea is to take control of the house of representatives. Check out there web site at
http://www.GOOOH.com
term limits and make it a part time job. No pension or health care.
Re: Matthew
A fairly large number of people voted the democrats in power because they were tired of republican excesses, and believed the democrat promises of small government. Same deal with Obama; he campaigned as a small government moderate. It was only after they discovered that the democrats were as bad, and even worse than the republicans that you got the tea parties.
When one party is giving you the shaft, you vote them out; when both parties are giving you the shaft, you riot.
Why?
The primaries are where the most effective vote is. Use the primary to vote out the incumbent reguardless of party…even if they win they will know there is a bogey at their 6.
Do NOT send money to DC either. Pick your hopeful and mail direct.
We don’t need your stinking “preferential voting”.
“PREFERENTIAL VOTING” IS ALSO KNOWN AS “INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING” OR “IRV” AND IT **SUCKS** REPEAT **SUCKS**. IT’S A SCAM.
CHECK OUT THIS VIDEO WHICH EXPLAINS IT IN DEPTH.
http://www.youtube.com/user/SJVoter#p/u/10/5ZGTnp3cgFY
Some of the comments miss the point. Preferential voting would avoid the spoiler effect. Both parties lost elections due to spoilers in recent years (Republicans from Perot in 1992 and Democrats from Nader in 2000.)
Thoughtful work has already been done to help establish preferential voting, also known as Instant Runoff Voting:
http://accuratedemocracy.com/c_irv.htm
http://www.fairvote.org/
not a bad idea but the BEST idea is still term limits. A simple constitutional amendment to limit ALL federal employees to 12 years in any position would stop MOST of our problems with power grabbing legislation
My wife is an Australian and I have to agree with #2. It doesn’t seem to help any. Though they ALSO have MANDITORY voting, i.e. vote or be FINED $500. (I think is what she said.) I’m sorry as much as I want more participation from our lazy population, I’m not sure forcing them to vote would help any.
Then it’d just go to the fanciest talker who gets all the media attention. Oh wait…
Re #35
The way that the algorithm was done is faulty. First, if you have three candidates, you will not have just 3 possible groups of voters as you can have as many as 5 for each first choice candidate.
Candidate 1st Candidate 2nd Candidate 3rd
2 Sam Manny Joel
2 Sam Joel Manny
6 Sam Manny
8 Sam Joel
21 Sam
2 Joel Manny Sam
2 Joel Sam Manny
5 Joel Manny
7 Joel Sam
19 Joel
0 Manny Sam Joel
2 Manny Joel Sam
3 Manny Sam
5 Manny Joel
15 Manny
Also, I wonder why the person who went out campaigning did not sway any more of the third candidate’s followers? Seriously, he swayed 10% of the voters from one person and not even two from the other? If you honestly believe that youtube video as accurate, I would like to ask you if you have ever wanted to own some Arizona ocean front property.
There’s a simple answer to the bureaucrats- fire them! We need to elect a President who will fire the bureaucrats.
We have run out of time for reform;
The sequence will be: Economic collapse,
Government collapse, Ad hoc Recovery,
from the Grass roots up.
Those who step up to lead the people
through the coming hard times will
be “elected” by acclamation of the
people; When the recovery is complete,
they will, like the Founding Fathers,
establish a formal government designed
to resist attack by fools and knaves
in latter days.
Heinlein had right on the qualifications
for office: Serve before rule, willing
to duel; If a good ruler is willing to
risk death to eliminate a bad one, the
bad guys will be few and far between.
While I’m not opposed to some sort of ranked choice ballot system in theory, the version most often touted by its proponents (instant runoff voting) fails my own personal litmus test: not all votes are equal.
While the second, third or even fourth choice of some voters will count and will help to elect the lesser of their assorted evils, those voters whose first choice ultimately comes in second will never have their second choice counted. Since not all votes are treated the same, I reject the system.
RE: #35
First of all, there is a different between being “comprehensive” and “inaccurate.” Yes the video does not take into account every single possibility. It simplifies some things. But do you claim that the situations it hypothesizes are not possible? Are you saying they are impossible? Because if you are not so claiming, then the video is not “inaccurate.” It is incomplete at best. So your point then becomes, “Well gee, IRV works ‘most’ of the time”? Goody.
Second, do you claim that the algorithm the video employs is not exactly the IRV algorithm? Are you saying the “true” IRV algo would come up with a different result under precisely the same conditions? Please explain. Because as far as I can see, you sound suspiciously like a FairVote shill.
38. Gozer the Carpathian:
“My wife is an Australian and I have to agree with #2. It doesn’t seem to help any. Though they ALSO have MANDITORY(sic) voting, i.e. vote or be FINED $500. (I think is what she said.) I’m sorry as much as I want more participation from our lazy population, I’m not sure forcing them to vote would help any. ”
This sounds like a practical idea:
If you don’t vote, pay a TAX of $xx.
Voting would be taken seriously, or the State coffers would get some needed revenue.
And move voting day to SUNDAY!
Ballot Bailouts:
“One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Eh? The reference to god wasn’t ADDED until the mid-50′s. The pledge itself isn’t that old (in the scheme of things)
The US is a Christian nation and a Constitutional Republic. Repeal the 17th amendment and a new electoral scheme is unnecessary.
“Same deal with Obama; he campaigned as a small government moderate. It was only after they discovered that the democrats were as bad, and even worse than the republicans that you got the tea parties.”
So what has he done so far that wasn’t part of his campaign platform?
“…a Republican president leave office championing a stimulus package as the signature domestic policy of his last year, to be replaced by a Democrat that made the signature domestic policy of his first year another stimulus package.”
That is WRONG.
Bush’s was not stimulus. It was a bailout of financial institutions. All $375 billion (the other half of the montrosity was left for Obama) bailout money has strings attached. They have to be paid back, unless the company is bankrupt, e.g. CIT. But Obama used part of the bailout money to take over GM and Chrysler and gave them to the unions. In addition, the Dems passed the stimulus package of similar amount, (may be to confuse the American people) to earmark for their favored industries and their friends and families. This “stimulus” money has no strings. Thus, phantom jobs are created in phantom districts, 7 jobs are created to produce 7 pairs of boots for the Corp of engineers. 50 jobs for Toro to produce a couple of lawn mowers. A couple of millions to buff up a border crossing between the US and Canada, a crossing that is used by at most 2 people a day. And $87 million to set up the website to track the stimulus money.
The Republican and the Democratic politicians are two faces of the same greedy beast. But the bailout package and the stimulus package are two different beasts.
re: 45 and Ballot Bailouts:
“One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
There is no comma between “nation” and “under”: “One nation under God . . . “
Instead of 3rd party that will only be supported by 3rd party people, why not take back/take the republican party.
that option will give additional drone-votes, just as the far left took over the democratic party and now enjoy the leverage of those drones.
3rd party will help obama and that is the last thing on the agenda. Palin took over de republican party in Alaska after some house cleaning. Let’s follow that example
Or we could just have a runoff two weeks later of the top two candidates if on did not receive the majority in the regular election.
44. vivo:
This sounds like a practical idea:
If you don’t vote, pay a TAX of $xx.
Voting would be taken seriously, or the State coffers would get some needed revenue.
And move voting day to SUNDAY!
We would still have voters informed by a propagandistic liberal/dnc media casting ill informed votes. Nothing would be taken seriously by that.
If you want well informed voting, then let only those who pay income taxes vote. It would also be fair.. “He who pays the Piper , Calls the Tune”. IN fact we should have “progressive” voting. For every thousand one pays in income taxes, after refund, one gets one vote.
#4 Matthew is wrong. The tea party movement started under the Bush administration.
In theory, preferential voting works – Minneapolis recently adopted preferential voting. Question – will preferential voting survive the idiot effect? Hanging chads, anyone? Last year during the Coleman – Franken recount the poll judges had to interpret the intent of the voter – name circled instead of oval filled, check or X next to the name, oval filled then crossed out and another oval filled in … And this was with simple, old fashioned paper and pencil ballots.
Here in Europe various countries have this system of voting. It produces hung parliaments with the balance of power being held by a few fringe party representatives like the greens. So you finish up with no clear direction for government. Also when the party holding the balance of power doesn’t get what it wants. it resigns from government and an election is necessary. This is not a good idea.
I’d like a system where a person can have multiple votes, based on education, accomplishments, military service, etc. I saw a YouTube video before the last election in which people coming out of a primary voting facility responded to the question “Do you think Obama’s choice of Sarah Palin as running mate is good?” with YES! To give those people the same vote that I have is ridiculous.
I expect to see Soros’ money strongly behind any third part movement. What better way to ensure that the Democrats are re-elected in perpetuity?
I enjoy reading all the ideas put forth in these comments. I agree that another political party needs to come to power but the most important thing is that this crazy administration and congressional majority be voted out in 2010 & 2012. Any mistake made in 2010 can be addressed in 2012. The voter has the power of term limits — we just need to exercise it. Starting a 3rd party that lays out
the desired platforms would give like minded individuals a standard to hold the politicians to. The incumbant must always feel like an endangered species. But it is imperative that support for any viable candidate that can remove any democrat must not be split until this partiular bunch is history. If republicans are too dumb to catch on, it will be their turn soon enough.
56. TexExec: Mr. Rip van Winkle,wake up! Who says you only have one vote? You board the ACORN jet on voting day to vote in different states, or send in a few absentee to different states. Your votes will be counted. If you lived in Chicago, you could rise up from your everlasting resting place to vote. In Washington state, your missing votes will be found in empty garages, abandoned warehouses. In Minnesota, your make up votes will be counted a few times until the chosen got over the top. In other districts, your absentee votes will be dumped into the regular votes pool. Once in the pool, the Court will say since nobody can distinguish between legit and illegit votes, all votes must be counted. Knock, knock! Rip, wake up, you have multivotes already! Make sure you support the right people. Actually, it doesn’t matter, the right people will be elected regardless how you voted your multivotes. Unless the chosens were so bad, e.g. NJ, Va, not even multivotes, missing votes, dead voters’ vote could help them, then, only then will you see a different face in office.
Pretty soon, like the hockey stick graph hardcoded in the Climategate’s computer program, the number of votes “won” by each candidate will be recorded in data files before voting booths are open. See, instead of wasting time finding votes in outlining areas, or waking up the dead to go vote, you can hard code the desired number of votes in data files, no one will know.
Btw, the AG decrees that ACORN can continue to receive your tax dollars, Congress’s defund vote was to gull you the gullibles. The California AG promised ACORN to go after the pimp and his whore and exonerate ACORN. ACORN has long memories and longer files.
So anyone who disagrees with you loses his vote? TexExec, you are an elitist. Whether you mean to or not, you are shilling for the Ivory Tower, the Ivy League, and the Left.
Or maybe you are just trying to get payback for the oil companies, who found Sarah Palin to be a very tough bargainer.
Doesn’t LA use this vote line up. And don’t they sometimes get to choose between 4 Democrats? How about returning to paper ballots–the kind you receive after showing your identification and that you view going into a ballot box.
Kazooskibum:
“Matthew is wrong. The tea party movement started under the Bush administration”
Some evidence, please. I have it getting started in feb 2009.
#36 has the best two references explaining IRV.
One of the corrollaries to Murphy’s Law is that before you can do anything, you have to do something else first.
The problems we have today are a result of the system we have to choose our representatives. If you want to change the behavior of the players, then you have to change the system.
That means instituting IRV in each of the 50 states and that will have to be done by referendum, because the two major parties will not allow this change in the state legislatures.
I have more discussion on the topic on my blog.
NO to preferential voting. They have that in Minneapolis and St. Paul MN. It really makes no sense. Unless you also weigh the votes. 1 vote for first place, 1/2 vote for 2nd, 1/4 for 3rd, 1/8 for 4th, etc.
A better system would be country wide closed primaries, where only those declared for a particular party could vote in the primary for there candidates. The problem we have now is cross over voting, in many areas.
The other thing needed are providing proof of citizenship and proof of residence to vote, and must register no later than 30 days before the election. If you move within that time you must vote at your previous residence’s polling place.
Once you have proof of citizenship and residence, you can vote provided you have a photo ID. Photo ID does no good unless you know the person is eligible to vote.
Well argued piece. We need to get out of the bind of “support the lesser of two evils or else.” And no matter what you do in primaries, too often the major party nominees will be disappointing, but one will at least by better than the other.
In response to mndasher in #64, Everyone has one and only one vote with this system. No one ever has a vote cast for two people at same time (which it sounds like your system of partial votes would do, which then gets strange. Preferential voting is like a series of rounds of runoff elections, with one vote in each round.
And it’s not a parliamentary system. We already have factions in Congress – whether they have third party names or not. What we need is more elections with choices we can believe in
Those stating opposition to preferential voting wrongly state that it would result in a parliamentary system, or that it is wrong because it doesn’t magically produce better candidates. What it does is prevent the total perversion of our system that occurs when a split-the-opposition strategy can win. When Corzine (Democrat) was running for reelection as NJ governor, he was running slightly behind the Republican, but there was a third-party candidate splitting the conservative vote. Corzine’s campaign put out robot phone calls supporting the third party candidate! Fortunately, Corzine lost anyway, but how do you preferential party naysayers feel about that scenario?
Again, here are great references on how to help institute preferential (instant runoff) voting (from my comment #36):
http://accuratedemocracy.com/c_irv.htm
http://www.fairvote.org/
“Points well taken, but would it work in America? Because what we could end up with is something similar to a parliamentary system in the sense of having to form coalitions to gain a majority for passing legislation.”
The winners in a preferential voting system are the radicals who cannot get elected any the way. In Australian, it is the Greens (The are probably more, I do not know).
Money would still be a requirement and, forgive me for pointing this out, organization. How woud you like the AARP to have a few seniors as its nominated candidates supporting the AARP (Government) Line.
What about a few environmental candidates supported by the full force of the environmntal lobby.
No, no, no!
Here is the cure:
Extend the franchise only to males over 35 who have at least a highschool education, no criminal redord and own real estate. Such must also pass a true/false test on the basic facts of history, law, economics and party platforms.
Then we can say goodbye to the parties of the Egregious Elephant and the Jerkoff Jackass.
Ranked voting works well for everyone EXCEPT party bosses of both corporate parties. It ends the spoiler effect so you can vote for who you really want without fear of taking votes from your second-best candidate and electing the worst candidate. On the right, Tea Party and libertarian candidates can get more traction against the Republican Establishment; on the left, progressives, greens and other “radicals” can get more consideration from voters. (Sorry, you can’t help “your” side only.) Ranked voting encourages more candidates and thus a broader range of opinions, reduces the influence of big money, and leads to more positive, issue-based campaigns. Please avoid knee-jerk reactions (they use it in Minnesota, so I oppose it!) and think it through: this is an issue on which populists/activists on both the right and the left can find common ground.