An idea I had for a voting system
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 04:24:14 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  An idea I had for a voting system
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: An idea I had for a voting system  (Read 4138 times)
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 16, 2010, 06:32:08 PM »

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
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,112
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2010, 06:36:42 PM »

     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
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2010, 06:58:20 PM »

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
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 16, 2010, 07:01:57 PM »

Both proposals are quite bad.
Logged
Barnes
Roy Barnes 2010
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,556


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2010, 07:17:28 PM »

Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,112
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 16, 2010, 08:13:29 PM »

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
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 16, 2010, 08:27:35 PM »

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
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,910
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.45, S: -0.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 16, 2010, 11:37:33 PM »

Both ideas are terrible. People just have to just make up their minds.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,112
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 19, 2010, 07:22:25 PM »

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
CatoMinor
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,007
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 19, 2010, 09:25:09 PM »

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
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,820
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2010, 12:40:45 AM »

     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
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,112
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2010, 12:27:04 PM »

     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
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 20, 2010, 02:40:30 PM »

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
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 08, 2010, 05:56:06 AM »

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
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.031 seconds with 11 queries.