Breaking News: Preferential Voting is Unconstitutional

[Akno21]

I certainly oppose a change to our current preferential system, because if we go back to casting a single vote, our winners will either not have a majority, or we'll have to spend time on a runoff, which could have already been settled by PV.

Preferential voting also ensures that a candidate cannot win simply with a small base of very committed supporters; they must appeal to a broader range of voters in order to win.

Which is precisely what the VP dislikes about it.

What I dislike is that a person with an even smaller base to start out with can win. It's unfair and should be done away with.

It's unfair that a person rejected by 63% of the voters should win.

And it's still unfair that the person who voters might have overwhelmingly rejected in the first place win the election. We campaign to get the vote of the voters. We don't make up signs that say "District 1 Wants So and So For Senator....that is, if candidate A and B don't have enough votes to win..."

If they overwhelmingly rejected him they would place him last or not place him at all. We campaign to get people's vote, and in many cases hope they will say, "Well, he's not my first choice, but if placing him 2nd will prevent a radical from winning, I'll do it".

Well nice jab at me, Akno. "...Prevent a radical from winning..." I am not a radical and you were probably one of the most liberal members of the Senate. So much for stopping a radical...

Anyway, it's my opinion that allowing someone to say "Well he's not my first choice but here's my three candidate back up plan..." is unfair.

You then say it encourages people to run? How? If there are three people in a race, how is it encouraging more to join? If anything, people stay away. It's hard, in that situation, to get a majority of the vote so someone will say to themselves "Well there are already three people running and I while I believe I can get the most votes, it's going to be nearly impossible for me to get over 50%."

Had you been elected you would have been the third-most Conservative member of the Senate.

I don't see how that is unfair.

It encourages people to run because they know they can at least take a stab at it, without putting the bigger name from their party or at least general side of the spectrum at risk of losing. Running for office is fun, even if you don't win. Did you enjoy running for office, even if you lost? I know I did.

Third most conservative out of three conservative Senators. So what's your point...?

People can "take a stab at it" in the popular vote system, too, Akno. Your theory isn't making sense.

Yes I did have fun running for office but let's not change the subject. People don't run for the purpose of "having fun." You don't use the reason "Well atleast they had fun." to defend a voting system.

But you can't take a stab at it without risking defeat for your general political side in an election using the USA voting system.

Actually, in fantasy elections, I can defend a system by saying that. The point of this is to have fun in politics. It's to act like your idol, barnstorming, proposing bills, GOTV, etc.

You take risks when you run for office, Akno.

My point is that if you feel the system is unfair, someone shouldn't be telling you "Well it's just for fun."

You may feel the system is unfair, and to you, it is, it is inherently unfair to very polarizing people, such as yourself, and to a similar extent, myself.

[Keystone Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A very polarizing person can still win with the Preferential voting system. In ways, it can actually help win them the election...

Candidate A - 25%
Candidate B - 49%
Candidate C - 26%

Candidate A is now gone

Candidate B - 49%
Candidate C - 51%

Candidat C seems pretty polarizing but thanks to this system, he just won the election. Still seem unfair?

[Akno21]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A very polarizing person can still win with the Preferential voting system. In ways, it can actually help win them the election...

Candidate A - 25%
Candidate B - 49%
Candidate C - 26%

Candidate A is now gone

Candidate B - 49%
Candidate C - 51%

Candidat C seems pretty polarizing but thanks to this system, he just won the election. Still seem unfair?

If were polarizing he wouldn't have gotten all of A's second preferences.

[Keystone Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A very polarizing person can still win with the Preferential voting system. In ways, it can actually help win them the election...

Candidate A - 25%
Candidate B - 49%
Candidate C - 26%

Candidate A is now gone

Candidate B - 49%
Candidate C - 51%

Candidat C seems pretty polarizing but thanks to this system, he just won the election. Still seem unfair?

If were polarizing he wouldn't have gotten all of A's second preferences.

True. I guess my example wasn't that good 

However, Jake provided an example earlier. Maybe you can address his point.

[Akno21]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A very polarizing person can still win with the Preferential voting system. In ways, it can actually help win them the election...

Candidate A - 25%
Candidate B - 49%
Candidate C - 26%

Candidate A is now gone

Candidate B - 49%
Candidate C - 51%

Candidat C seems pretty polarizing but thanks to this system, he just won the election. Still seem unfair?

If were polarizing he wouldn't have gotten all of A's second preferences.

True. I guess my example wasn't that good 

However, Jake provided an example earlier. Maybe you can address his point.

By rejecting, I mean placing last or not placing at all. In Jake's first example, 64% may not have voted for Can A 1st pref, but they may have voted for him 2nd pref. The candidates he has winning wouldn't win if they got preferenced last, as I mean by rejection.

[Jake]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A very polarizing person can still win with the Preferential voting system. In ways, it can actually help win them the election...

Candidate A - 25%
Candidate B - 49%
Candidate C - 26%

Candidate A is now gone

Candidate B - 49%
Candidate C - 51%

Candidat C seems pretty polarizing but thanks to this system, he just won the election. Still seem unfair?

If were polarizing he wouldn't have gotten all of A's second preferences.

True. I guess my example wasn't that good 

However, Jake provided an example earlier. Maybe you can address his point.

By rejecting, I mean placing last or not placing at all. In Jake's first example, 64% may not have voted for Can A 1st pref, but they may have voted for him 2nd pref. The candidates he has winning wouldn't win if they got preferenced last, as I mean by rejection.

They still rejected him. If they wanted him, they would've voted for him.

[Gabu]

Well, here's the way both systems essentially work:

First past the post:

Whoever is most popular among the largest group wins, regardless of how much support the others had.

Example:

A: 35%
B: 33%
C: 32%

A wins even though 65% of the population didn't support him the highest.

Preferential Voting:

Whoever has the broadest support among the entire populace wins, even if the candidate wasn't the most popular among any one group.

Example:

First round:

A: 35%
B: 33%
C: 32%

But C's ideology was very close to B's, so all of C's voters put down B as their second choice.

Second round:

A: 35%
B: 65%

B wins even though he wasn't the most popular candidate among a single group.

It's not really true to say that, in the second example, 67% of voters rejected B.  Since 33% of voters voted for him and 32% of voters liked him enough to make him their second preference, he really did have the 65% support that he got in the second round - it just wasn't as strong as A's 35% support, since 32% of that 65% were second-preference votes.  In both cases, 65% of voters rejected candidate A one way or another; it just didn't propel A to victory due to vote-splitting in the latter example as it did in the former example.

[Gabu]

They still rejected him. If they wanted him, they would've voted for him.

Placing someone as your second preference isn't "rejecting" that person.  It's just saying that you don't quite like that candidate enough to place him first.

[Jake]

They still rejected him. If they wanted him, they would've voted for him.

Placing someone as your second preference isn't "rejecting" that person.  It's just saying that you don't quite like that candidate enough to place him first.

You're rejecting him for the job by not placing him first.

[Gabu]

They still rejected him. If they wanted him, they would've voted for him.

Placing someone as your second preference isn't "rejecting" that person.  It's just saying that you don't quite like that candidate enough to place him first.

You're rejecting him for the job by not placing him first.

Is the silver medallist in Olympic gymnastics "rejected" by the judges?

[Keystone Phil]

They still rejected him. If they wanted him, they would've voted for him.

Placing someone as your second preference isn't "rejecting" that person.  It's just saying that you don't quite like that candidate enough to place him first.

You're rejecting him for the job by not placing him first.

Is the silver medallist in Olympic gymnastics "rejected" by the judges?

Well if you want to use that type of example, what are the losing candidates rewarded with?

[Jake]

Well, here's the way both systems essentially work:

First past the post:

Whoever is most popular among the largest group wins, regardless of how much support the others had.

Example:

A: 35%
B: 33%
C: 32%

A wins even though 65% of the population didn't support him the highest.

Preferential Voting:

Whoever has the broadest support among the entire populace wins, even if the candidate wasn't the most popular among any one group.

Example:

First round:

A: 35%
B: 33%
C: 32%

But C's ideology was very close to B's, so all of C's voters put down B as their second choice.

Second round:

A: 35%
B: 65%

B wins even though he wasn't the most popular candidate among a single group.

It's not really true to say that, in the second example, 67% of voters rejected B.  Since 33% of voters voted for him and 32% of voters liked him enough to make him their second preference, he really did have the 65% support that he got in the second round - it just wasn't as strong as A's 35% support, since 32% of that 65% were second-preference votes.  In both cases, 65% of voters rejected candidate A one way or another; it just didn't propel A to victory due to vote-splitting in the latter example as it did in the former example.

What about if all the C-B and B-C voters put A 3rd. By your logic, all candidates wre approved by 100%.

[Gabu]

They still rejected him. If they wanted him, they would've voted for him.

Placing someone as your second preference isn't "rejecting" that person.  It's just saying that you don't quite like that candidate enough to place him first.

You're rejecting him for the job by not placing him first.

Is the silver medallist in Olympic gymnastics "rejected" by the judges?

Well if you want to use that type of example, what are the losing candidates rewarded with?

I'm not sure what you mean.

What about if all the C-B and B-C voters put A 3rd. By your logic, all candidates wre approved by 100%.

Well, if you only have three candidates, putting one in third place has basically the same effect as not listing a third-place vote at all, so that wouldn't effect the outcome in any way.

At any rate, I see what you're saying, but I still stand by my assertion that preferential voting lets the person with the broadest range of support win, even though that person may have not received the most first-preference votes.

Now, whether or not that's the best method of electing people is in debate, but that's its effect.

[Jake]

Well if you want to use that type of example, what are the losing candidates rewarded with?

I'm not sure what you mean.

He means the silver/bronze medalists get medals, what do the losing candidates get?

What about if all the C-B and B-C voters put A 3rd. By your logic, all candidates wre approved by 100%.

Well, if you only have three candidates, putting one in third place has basically the same effect as not listing a third-place vote at all, so that wouldn't effect the outcome in any way.

At any rate, I see what you're saying, but I still stand by my assertion that preferential voting lets the person with the broadest range of support win, even though that person may have not received the most first-preference votes.

Now, whether or not that's the best method of electing people is in debate, but that's its effect.

Maybe we're both making differant points. A candidate elected by preferential voting will have more people who like him, but less that like him more than others. A candidate elected by 1st past the post might be less liked than the first guy, but everyone who votes for him likes him the best.

IMO, preferential voting isn't a bad idea if applied to American congressional elections, but as long as we have the electoral college, we can't have preferential voting. As far as Atlasia, we have a real need for it with as many parties as we have.

[Gabu]

Maybe we're both making differant points. A candidate elected by preferential voting will have more people who like him, but less that like him more than others. A candidate elected by 1st past the post might be less liked than the first guy, but everyone who votes for him likes him the best.

IMO, preferential voting isn't a bad idea if applied to American congressional elections, but as long as we have the electoral college, we can't have preferential voting. As far as Atlasia, we have a real need for it with as many parties as we have.

What are the points you're making?  I was under the impression that you weren't in favor of preferential voting in Atlasia; now I'm confused.

[Keystone Phil]

They still rejected him. If they wanted him, they would've voted for him.

Placing someone as your second preference isn't "rejecting" that person.  It's just saying that you don't quite like that candidate enough to place him first.

You're rejecting him for the job by not placing him first.

Is the silver medallist in Olympic gymnastics "rejected" by the judges?

Well if you want to use that type of example, what are the losing candidates rewarded with?

I'm not sure what you mean.

You were going to bring up that gymnasts who don't receive gold medals aren't rejected but actually rewarded. I thought it was a poor example since a losing candidate is not rewarded when they don't win the top prize.

I'll be very honest with everyone right now: I'm at the point where it's too annoying to even look at this subject. I mean you have Gabu giving the example of gymnasts not getting the gold medal comparing it to the voting system, then I respond and I probably understood it differently...it's just becoming a mess.

[Gabu]

You were going to bring up that gymnasts who don't receive gold medals aren't rejected but actually rewarded. I thought it was a poor example since a losing candidate is not rewarded when they don't win the top prize.

Well, what my point was is that a second-place preference is not rejecting the candidate; it's just saying that you don't like that candidate quite as much as the one you put in your first-place preference.  It's the same deal as with the second-place finisher in an olympic sport with judges: the judges didn't reject that person, they just didn't like him or her quite as much as the first-place finisher.

I'll be very honest with everyone right now: I'm at the point where it's too annoying to even look at this subject. I mean you have Gabu giving the example of gymnasts not getting the gold medal comparing it to the voting system, then I respond and I probably understood it differently...it's just becoming a mess.

Yes, I get the sense after reading Jake's last topic that there's some form of connection not happening here...

[Jake]

Maybe we're both making differant points. A candidate elected by preferential voting will have more people who like him, but less that like him more than others. A candidate elected by 1st past the post might be less liked than the first guy, but everyone who votes for him likes him the best.

IMO, preferential voting isn't a bad idea if applied to American congressional elections, but as long as we have the electoral college, we can't have preferential voting. As far as Atlasia, we have a real need for it with as many parties as we have.

What are the points you're making?  I was under the impression that you weren't in favor of preferential voting in Atlasia; now I'm confused.

I don't like it in Atlasia, but it is necessary because there are only a few voters and ties are commonplace.

[WMS]

Gabu won the final round tie because he had more first preference votes.

That's what I don't like, if I could quote some parts of a message from WMS on this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I actually agree on this. 

In strict constitutional tradition and to limit the power of democracy, I believe that tied races in the Senate should be decided by the regional governors, tied races in the governorship and other smaller regionwide offices should be decided by the senior senator from that region and tied races in the Presidency should be decided by vote of the Senate, with the tiebreaking vote (if necessary) coming from the outgoing (or incoming) VP.

WE DON'T HAVE REGIONAL SENATORS!

*ahem*

However, you'd like the MW constitution because our 3rd tiebreak (after 1st prefs and an instant runoff between only the tied candidates) is a panel of Senators of states representing the Midwest

Thank you Governor I was just about to say that. Many Districts overlap into several regions, D5 is the most obvious example of this. WE DO NOT HAVE REGIONAL SENATORS thus a governor deciding the winner is not acceptable.

Okay...
1. Yes, I am VERY opposed to the first preference vote rule, for the reason stated above: it makes a mockery of preferential voting by still making the spoiling of elections possible. If everyone who preferenced me lower than first but still above Harry knew their votes would count less than those voters who preferenced Harry first, would they still do that? A tie is a tie, damnit! And I thought each vote was equal...
2. The MW Constitution is fine except for the first preference voting bit. It played a role in the exact manner in which I cast my vote...
3. At this point, we do not have Regional Senators. However, there is a move afoot in the Senate to re-establish them, and as long as a mechanism for moving states between Regions as necessary is included - *cough, cough* - it is fine by me. Perhaps the new Regional Senators - how would you establish which of the two District Senators gets converted into a Regional Senator, anyway? Hmm? - could determine Regional ties and the remaining District Senators could determine District ties? Or maybe you can just hold bloody runoffs...

[Platypus]

The 'pure' form of preferential voitng, as is used in Australia, doesn't have the first preference rule, it goes the other way (so if it is a tie in the final round, it goes to the second-to-last round). Thats what i'd prefer, but whatever.