Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 31, 2015, 02:48:58 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  An idea I had for a voting system
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: An idea I had for a voting system  (Read 2456 times)
tpfkaw
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8715
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« on: July 16, 2010, 06:32:08 pm »
Ignore

I'm sure there's a name for this, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

What if, on each ballot, you could vote for as many candidates as you wanted to? You could check the box next to every candidate you would find acceptable. This could even mean that you check the box next to every candidate, although that would be the functional equivalent of not voting at all. Whoever has the most votes at the end is declared the winner.

This would fully eliminate any "spoiler effect," while allowing as much ideological rigidity or pragmatism as people feel like, and produce something pretty darn close to the most-preferred Condorcet winner, without having a ridiculously complicated voting and/or counting system. It would essentially be more fair for everyone.
Logged
Senator PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23479
United States


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2010, 06:36:42 pm »
Ignore

     That's called approval voting. It definitely has its merits, though I think range voting (where you rate each candidate from 0 to 100) would be preferable.
Logged

tpfkaw
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8715
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2010, 06:58:20 pm »
Ignore

That's called approval voting. It definitely has its merits, though I think range voting (where you rate each candidate from 0 to 100) would be preferable.
Eh - sounds like it would be too subjective and emotional, too complicated, and far too susceptible to tactical voting.
Logged
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22410
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 16, 2010, 07:01:57 pm »
Ignore

Both proposals are quite bad.
Logged
Barnes
Roy Barnes 2010
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5608
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2010, 07:17:28 pm »
Ignore

Both proposals are quite bad.
Logged

Barnes MP
Speaker of the Parliament of South America
Chairman of the Social Liberals
Senator PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23479
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: July 16, 2010, 08:13:29 pm »
Ignore

That's called approval voting. It definitely has its merits, though I think range voting (where you rate each candidate from 0 to 100) would be preferable.
Eh - sounds like it would be too subjective and emotional, too complicated, and far too susceptible to tactical voting.

     How would it be any more susceptible to tactical voting than approval voting? It's basically the same thing only with options for opinions between full approve & full disapprove.
Logged

tpfkaw
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8715
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: July 16, 2010, 08:27:35 pm »
Ignore

How would it be any more susceptible to tactical voting than approval voting? It's basically the same thing only with options for opinions between full approve & full disapprove.
If people give their chosen candidate 100% and every other candidate 0%, which violates the spirit of the idea (that people honestly give their appraisal of each candidate). The idea behind approval voting is not hurt as much by such tactical voting, since it's an up/down approve/don't approve thing, rather than asking people how much they approve of each candidate. Plus, people will feel significant pressure to vote tactically (for example, if I only agree with John Kerry 70%, but he's my most preferred candidate, I'll rate him 100%, not 70%).
Logged
feeblepizza
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2947
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.45, S: -0.26

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: July 16, 2010, 11:37:33 pm »
Ignore

Both ideas are terrible. People just have to just make up their minds.
Logged

Senator PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23479
United States


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: July 19, 2010, 07:22:25 pm »
Ignore

How would it be any more susceptible to tactical voting than approval voting? It's basically the same thing only with options for opinions between full approve & full disapprove.
If people give their chosen candidate 100% and every other candidate 0%, which violates the spirit of the idea (that people honestly give their appraisal of each candidate). The idea behind approval voting is not hurt as much by such tactical voting, since it's an up/down approve/don't approve thing, rather than asking people how much they approve of each candidate. Plus, people will feel significant pressure to vote tactically (for example, if I only agree with John Kerry 70%, but he's my most preferred candidate, I'll rate him 100%, not 70%).

     I suppose there is a point to be had that it would be needlessly more complicated than approval voting when they would probably be about the same in practice.
Logged

Jbrase
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6008
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: July 19, 2010, 09:25:09 pm »
Ignore

Or how about you select 1 person. Person with most votes wins. done. Why do people insist on making it more complicated than that?
Logged
Bacon King
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17142
United States


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2010, 12:40:45 am »
Ignore

     That's called approval voting. It definitely has its merits, though I think range voting (where you rate each candidate from 0 to 100) would be preferable.

If you want a ranking system not susceptible to abuse, you'd want something like Condorcet.
Logged

BK without all the crazy drugs just wouldn't be BK.
Senator PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23479
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2010, 12:27:04 pm »
Ignore

     That's called approval voting. It definitely has its merits, though I think range voting (where you rate each candidate from 0 to 100) would be preferable.

If you want a ranking system not susceptible to abuse, you'd want something like Condorcet.

     Condorcet would probably be ideal in the United States, actually, due to the lack of a centrist party to make it boring. Tongue
Logged

tpfkaw
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8715
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: July 20, 2010, 02:40:30 pm »
Ignore

Condorcet would probably be ideal in the United States, actually, due to the lack of a centrist party to make it boring. Tongue
But it's too complex, both in voting and counting. Plus nobody can agree how to count it, or what constitutes a winner. This is far simpler, yet leads to roughly the same outcome.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58767
India


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: August 08, 2010, 05:56:06 am »
Ignore

Condorcet would probably be ideal in the United States, actually, due to the lack of a centrist party to make it boring. Tongue
But it's too complex, both in voting and counting. Plus nobody can agree how to count it, or what constitutes a winner. This is far simpler, yet leads to roughly the same outcome.
No, it doesn't. It leads to a fairly random outcome that may or may not be sorta like Condorcet. If you think Condorcet's too complex (although the situations you refer to in which there's any doubt about the winner are not substantially more common than exact ties in fptp, frankly), use IRV.

Or how about not having quite such a powerful single individual, electable by any form of simple majority, in the first place? That would certainly be the most rational choice.
Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines