My Finish Predictions - Iowa

[Platypus]

Why can't you just vote?

I agree

Or at least alternate vote.

I'm actually quite a fan of the AV system; at least in theory you have to get 50% of the voters to win; its more democratic and fairer to minor parties without damaging the bigger ones (ie Greens get 8% first round, but prefrences go to Dems, so Dems don't lose anything)

[Gustaf]

Why can't you just vote?

I agree

Or at least alternate vote.

I'm actually quite a fan of the AV system; at least in theory you have to get 50% of the voters to win; its more democratic and fairer to minor parties without damaging the bigger ones (ie Greens get 8% first round, but prefrences go to Dems, so Dems don't lose anything)

You mean like they have in Australia?

[© tweed]

I don't know how they vote in australia, I just know that I like Mark Latham.

[Platypus]

Yep, and New Zealand.

We have some aussies on the board, we should ask them if it's a good system or not

From what I've read of the process, it's good-and fair.

[© tweed]

Carey is Australian.

[Gustaf]

Carey is Australian.

And a few others as well. (ABD?) I visited Australia during an election year, the last one, and they seemed less worked up about politics than a lot of other countries. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is up to your personal views I guess. The problem with it is that it's too complicated, but that's not an argument in the case of caucus voters, of course.

[© tweed]

Carey is Australian.

And a few others as well. (ABD?) I visited Australia during an election year, the last one, and they seemed less worked up about politics than a lot of other countries. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is up to your personal views I guess. The problem with it is that it's too complicated, but that's not an argument in the case of caucus voters, of course.

I have never been in the southern Hemisphere.

[Gustaf]

Carey is Australian.

And a few others as well. (ABD?) I visited Australia during an election year, the last one, and they seemed less worked up about politics than a lot of other countries. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is up to your personal views I guess. The problem with it is that it's too complicated, but that's not an argument in the case of caucus voters, of course.

I have never been in the southern Hemisphere.

It can be nice, if the season is right. My parents were making a business trip to Asia, so we visited Hongkong, Singapore and Australia over a period of three weeks. It was highly enjoyable, especially with elections coming up in both sovereign countries! (Though the elections in Singapore aren't very exciting...)

[© tweed]

The furthest south I have been is Cozumel and Cancun in Mexico.  Never been to europe either...or the states in between the american coasts.

[Michael Z]

Carey is Australian.

And a few others as well. (ABD?) I visited Australia during an election year, the last one, and they seemed less worked up about politics than a lot of other countries. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is up to your personal views I guess. The problem with it is that it's too complicated, but that's not an argument in the case of caucus voters, of course.

I have never been in the southern Hemisphere.

It can be nice, if the season is right. My parents were making a business trip to Asia, so we visited Hongkong, Singapore and Australia over a period of three weeks. It was highly enjoyable, especially with elections coming up in both sovereign countries! (Though the elections in Singapore aren't very exciting...)

I envy you, seriously. A trip to SE Asia is my lifetime ambition.

Anyway, my prediction for Iowa:

1. Dean
2. Kerry
3. Edwards
4. Gephardt

[© tweed]

How is a vacation an ambition?

[Michael Z]

Well, I'm totally fascinated by Southeast Asian culture, especially Hong Kong and Japan, and it's a place I've always wanted to visit.

[Gustaf]

Well, I'm totally fascinated by Southeast Asian culture, especially Hong Kong and Japan, and it's a place I've always wanted to visit.

It is interesting...Japan is a world of its own, definitely. Very weird country, didn't really like it, to be honest. Too childish...

Have you read the Asian suite by James Clavell? (Shogun, Whirlwind, King Rat, etc) They're very good.

[Michael Z]

Have you read the Asian suite by James Clavell? (Shogun, Whirlwind, King Rat, etc) They're very good.

I haven't actually, but I'll keep them in mind. Thanks for the recommendation.

[Gustaf]

Have you read the Asian suite by James Clavell? (Shogun, Whirlwind, King Rat, etc) They're very good.

I haven't actually, but I'll keep them in mind. Thanks for the recommendation.

You're welcome.

They are set in Japan, Hongkong and Iran, respectively. Ans stretches over three centuries. They give good insights into Asian culture while being thrilling reads.

[Platypus]

I've been to Canuckistan, Malaysia, Singapore and Australia.

After college, I think i'll backpack around Europe

[Gustaf]

I've been to Canuckistan, Malaysia, Singapore and Australia.

After college, I think i'll backpack around Europe

OK, you've been to the most places then...

Be sure not to miss out Sweden!

[© tweed]

Zeigermann--if you want to go, just go!  Nothing presumably would be stopping you unless you are financially limited or work 24-7.

[Carey]

Carey is Australian.

I am indeed, and like all other voting systems, preferential voting has its pros and cons. It's good because firstly, you can be guaranteed that somebody will not be elected with a small percentage of the public's approval, secondly because it allows compromise, and thirdly it's a third party firendly system (third parties aren't seen as 'spoilers' and there isn't that much shame for voting for them, as well as third parties can win some elections, due to the fact that they could be most people's 2nd choice)

The downside, of course, is that often the winner isn't the candidate who initially had the most support, as well as the fact that it requires you to vote for everyone. However, I like it.

It works as follows: when you vote, you are given a list of candidates to vote for. Each of them have a box in front of their name. In each box, you rank them with numbers, descendingly (ie. 1 for first choice, 2 for second and so on until the boxes are filled) then the votes are counted. If a candidate has 50% + 1 or more of the votes, he/she wins. However, if the candidate has 50% or less, that's when the preferences kick in.

For example, let's make a hypothetical election between Candidate A, B, C and D.

The initial results (number 1 votes) are as follows:

Candidate A   54%
Candidate B   40%
Candidate C     4%
Candidate D     2%

Candidate A would automatically win because it has more than 50% of the vote. However, if this were the scenario:

Candidate A    46%
Candidate B    40%
Candidate C    10%
Candidate D      4%

There would be no initial winner, because nobody has more than 50%. What would happen in this scenario, is the candidate with the least votes would be eliminated (in this case, Candidate D) and all the ballots with his/her vote as number 1, will be reassigned based on the number 2 vote. So let's say that from the ballots for D, 2% chose A as their second choice, 1% chose B and 1% chose C, the second round results would look like this:

Candidate A    48%
Candidate B    41%
Candidate C    11%

Still nobody would have more than 50% of the vote, so the next candidate (Candidate C) will be eliminated, and all the number 2 votes from the C ballots (if their second choice was D, then their 3rd choices are counted) and all the 3rd choices of the old D ballots inside this group are counted, and added on to the totals. Lets say in this scenario, A only gets 1% and the other 10% went to B. The results would look like this:

Candidate A    49%
Candidate B    51%

Candidate B would win the election. Even though, initially, Candidate A had the most votes (and under most other electoral systems would be the winner,) the fact is most voters preferred Candidate B, to Candidate A, so B'd win.

That's how it works. Sorry if this post was long and confusing, but I thought I'd explain it to anybody who was confused about it.

[Inmate Trump]

I'm afraid I hope you're right about Dean finishing third. Why not help out poor Edwards and vote for him directly, huh?

Edwards?  Now there's a shocker.  He wouldn't even be able to win his own home state.

[southernnorthcarolina]

I've never seen anything quite like this -- an important race where any of four candidates are seen as plausible winners two days out.  And let's not forget, there are at least two more legitimate candidates, Clark and Lieberman (though the latter is about done, I think) who are not contesting Iowa, but who are working the Granite State hard while the rest are in Iowa.

It seems to me that of the four Iowa competitors, Edwards just might be in the best shape at least for the short term, because even a 3rd-place showing would beat the expectations of two weeks ago.  Gephardt must win Iowa, period, according to the common wisdom with which I agree, for once.  If he can't win in Iowa, Democrats in other primary states will conclude, he can't win anywhere.  My guess is that Dean and Kerry could both survive a 2nd-place finish, but nothing lower.  After all, both have been considered the clear leader at various times; a 3rd-place finish might signify that "the emperor has no clothes."

As startling as it is for this NC Republican to ponder, Edwards could actually win in Iowa, and if he does, he's a player.  He'd need to follow up with at least a 3rd-place showing in New Hampshire, no easy thing even if he does surprise in Iowa (I can't imagine him finishing ahead of either Dean or Kerry there, even granting the momentum he'd have).  It might be a 3rd-place battle in NH between Edwards and Clark to see whose campaign continues on in the South.

Edwards, in my judgment, is still a long shot for the Dem nomination.  But stranger things have happened.  If he pulls the shocker in Iowa, it becomes a plausible scenario.

And what an odd election we'd have if Edwards were the nominee.  The Dems would still write off the South, excepting Florida, and maybe Louisiana and Arkansas.  Edwards would have no chance of carrying his own state against W barring unforseen and catastrophic events, and the same would apply for much of the South.  What states carried by W in 2000 would Edwards target?  Florida, West Virginia, Missouri, and Ohio (the last a state where GOP performance of late has been dangerously lackluster).

I can't remember a more interesting primary/caucus ever having been put on by the "other" party.

Oh, and GO PANTHERS!

[Platypus]

Carey is Australian.

I am indeed, and like all other voting systems, preferential voting has its pros and cons. It's good because firstly, you can be guaranteed that somebody will not be elected with a small percentage of the public's approval, secondly because it allows compromise, and thirdly it's a third party firendly system (third parties aren't seen as 'spoilers' and there isn't that much shame for voting for them, as well as third parties can win some elections, due to the fact that they could be most people's 2nd choice)

The downside, of course, is that often the winner isn't the candidate who initially had the most support, as well as the fact that it requires you to vote for everyone. However, I like it.

It works as follows: when you vote, you are given a list of candidates to vote for. Each of them have a box in front of their name. In each box, you rank them with numbers, descendingly (ie. 1 for first choice, 2 for second and so on until the boxes are filled) then the votes are counted. If a candidate has 50% + 1 or more of the votes, he/she wins. However, if the candidate has 50% or less, that's when the preferences kick in.

For example, let's make a hypothetical election between Candidate A, B, C and D.

The initial results (number 1 votes) are as follows:

Candidate A   54%
Candidate B   40%
Candidate C     4%
Candidate D     2%

Candidate A would automatically win because it has more than 50% of the vote. However, if this were the scenario:

Candidate A    46%
Candidate B    40%
Candidate C    10%
Candidate D      4%

There would be no initial winner, because nobody has more than 50%. What would happen in this scenario, is the candidate with the least votes would be eliminated (in this case, Candidate D) and all the ballots with his/her vote as number 1, will be reassigned based on the number 2 vote. So let's say that from the ballots for D, 2% chose A as their second choice, 1% chose B and 1% chose C, the second round results would look like this:

Candidate A    48%
Candidate B    41%
Candidate C    11%

Still nobody would have more than 50% of the vote, so the next candidate (Candidate C) will be eliminated, and all the number 2 votes from the C ballots (if their second choice was D, then their 3rd choices are counted) and all the 3rd choices of the old D ballots inside this group are counted, and added on to the totals. Lets say in this scenario, A only gets 1% and the other 10% went to B. The results would look like this:

Candidate A    49%
Candidate B    51%

Candidate B would win the election. Even though, initially, Candidate A had the most votes (and under most other electoral systems would be the winner,) the fact is most voters preferred Candidate B, to Candidate A, so B'd win.

That's how it works. Sorry if this post was long and confusing, but I thought I'd explain it to anybody who was confused about it.

No, it was clear and concise. Thank you

I think the Australian mix of compulsory and altenate vote is best; in theory, at least, any candidate must have support of 50% +1 of the electorate to be elected. Here allyou need 20% :rolleyes:

(Plus, incumbents win in low turnouts)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Des Moines Register:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Iowa Poll Numbers

Kerry-------------26%
Edwards---------23%
Dean-------------20%
Gephardt--------18%

[Platypus]

Well, make that 23% +1 for Edwards.

It's him, Dean or Kerry, but, as the article said, the shine has come off Dean. Kerry is OK, but a bit too conservative. Edwards is conservative but charismatic, a bit like Clinton; he would have a fair chance of winning. I still think he'd make the best VP of the lot, and that Gephardt, Kerry or Dean would be better Presidents, but Edwards is the most likely to be elected.