Poll on preferential voting
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:26:39 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Poll on preferential voting
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Author Topic: Poll on preferential voting  (Read 6198 times)
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 25, 2004, 10:50:13 PM »

And since we aren't doing one vote per person, why aren't we allowed to do the following...

1) Keystone Phil
2) Keystone Phil

See what I'm saying? I could have won that way while others would be divided on the second ballot. But wait...that is unfair, though! You're voting for someone more than once! Yep, I am. Just as others did in this election. One vote per person.

You wouldn't have won by doing that.  You clearly don't understand how preferential voting works.  Only the 2nd place votes of previously eliminated candidates are counted!

My second vote would go to my second vote count. I DO know how this works. Akno's second vote tally added to his first had him win. If everyone that supported me did that, it would have been added on and I could have won. It's unfair though. Just like preferential voting.
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: July 25, 2004, 10:50:15 PM »

How are the situations different?  Earlier in this thread, you posted: One person = one vote.  If you truly believe that, than you have to admit that the EV system unfairly gave the election to the loser.

I am in favor of keeping EV, by the way.  My point is, we have a system, everyone knows what the rules are, and by the rules in place, Bush won.  Same thing here.

If you advocate repealing PV here but not EV in the USA, you are obviously favoring whatever system happens to be advantageous to you politically, and this is not based on any deep concept of what is fair or unfair.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 25, 2004, 10:53:35 PM »

How are the situations different?  Earlier in this thread, you posted: One person = one vote.  If you truly believe that, than you have to admit that the EV system unfairly gave the election to the loser.

I am in favor of keeping EV, by the way.  My point is, we have a system, everyone knows what the rules are, and by the rules in place, Bush won.  Same thing here.

If you advocate repealing PV here but not EV in the USA, you are obviously favoring whatever system happens to be advantageous to you politically, and this is not based on any deep concept of what is fair or unfair.

They aren't the same. We don't go in the booth in November and vote for more than won candidate JUST IN CASE they don't get a majority. You're favoring of preferential voting means someone gets a majority. Would it be fair for me to then say that you have to support American Presidential elections that way? of course not. These are two different situations. If you think I'm being a hypocrite for not supporting Pref. but support the EV, you must be a hypocrite for supporting Pref in Atlas politics but not in American politics.
Logged
Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,148


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 25, 2004, 10:53:57 PM »

And since we aren't doing one vote per person, why aren't we allowed to do the following...

1) Keystone Phil
2) Keystone Phil

See what I'm saying? I could have won that way while others would be divided on the second ballot. But wait...that is unfair, though! You're voting for someone more than once! Yep, I am. Just as others did in this election. One vote per person.

You wouldn't have won by doing that.  You clearly don't understand how preferential voting works.  Only the 2nd place votes of previously eliminated candidates are counted!

My second vote would go to my second vote count. I DO know how this works. Akno's second vote tally added to his first had him win. If everyone that supported me did that, it would have been added on and I could have won. It's unfair though. Just like preferential voting.

No, this is not how PV works.

There is no "2nd vote count".   Here are the votes that were counted in the final run-off in the Senate race:

- 1st place votes for you
- 1st place votes for Akno
- The 2nd and 3rd place votes of those who voted for me or Bullmoose.

PV simply makes sure that everyone's vote is counted...but each voter's vote is only counted once in the final run-off.    It doesn't matter who your supporters ranked 2nd...they were already having their vote counted for you.
Logged
Josh/Devilman88
josh4bush
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,079
Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: July 25, 2004, 10:55:07 PM »

yes
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: July 25, 2004, 10:55:30 PM »

And since we aren't doing one vote per person, why aren't we allowed to do the following...

1) Keystone Phil
2) Keystone Phil

See what I'm saying? I could have won that way while others would be divided on the second ballot. But wait...that is unfair, though! You're voting for someone more than once! Yep, I am. Just as others did in this election. One vote per person.

You wouldn't have won by doing that.  You clearly don't understand how preferential voting works.  Only the 2nd place votes of previously eliminated candidates are counted!

My second vote would go to my second vote count. I DO know how this works. Akno's second vote tally added to his first had him win. If everyone that supported me did that, it would have been added on and I could have won. It's unfair though. Just like preferential voting.

And no, you don't understand how this works.  You were never eliminated, so the 2nd choices of people voting for you were never counted.  So even if everyone voting for you had filled out their ballot with Keystone Phil as their first, second, third, and fourth choice, the outcome would have been no different.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 25, 2004, 10:55:48 PM »

And since we aren't doing one vote per person, why aren't we allowed to do the following...

1) Keystone Phil
2) Keystone Phil

See what I'm saying? I could have won that way while others would be divided on the second ballot. But wait...that is unfair, though! You're voting for someone more than once! Yep, I am. Just as others did in this election. One vote per person.

You wouldn't have won by doing that.  You clearly don't understand how preferential voting works.  Only the 2nd place votes of previously eliminated candidates are counted!

My second vote would go to my second vote count. I DO know how this works. Akno's second vote tally added to his first had him win. If everyone that supported me did that, it would have been added on and I could have won. It's unfair though. Just like preferential voting.
  It doesn't matter who your supporters ranked 2nd...they were already having their vote counted for you.

No what I'm saying is that 2nd vote, just like how it was for Akno, would count as a totally different vote. Is that fair? Nope. And my point is neither is preferential voting.
Logged
Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,148


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 25, 2004, 11:00:10 PM »

And since we aren't doing one vote per person, why aren't we allowed to do the following...

1) Keystone Phil
2) Keystone Phil

See what I'm saying? I could have won that way while others would be divided on the second ballot. But wait...that is unfair, though! You're voting for someone more than once! Yep, I am. Just as others did in this election. One vote per person.

You wouldn't have won by doing that.  You clearly don't understand how preferential voting works.  Only the 2nd place votes of previously eliminated candidates are counted!

My second vote would go to my second vote count. I DO know how this works. Akno's second vote tally added to his first had him win. If everyone that supported me did that, it would have been added on and I could have won. It's unfair though. Just like preferential voting.
  It doesn't matter who your supporters ranked 2nd...they were already having their vote counted for you.

No what I'm saying is that 2nd vote, just like how it was for Akno, would count as a totally different vote. Is that fair? Nope. And my point is neither is preferential voting.

The 2nd place votes of your supporter's (and Akno's) never counted for anything, because you made the final run-off.   It didn't matter who you ranked 2nd or 3rd or 4th.  The only time your 2nd place vote matters is if the candidate you supported 1st get eliminated at some point during the counting.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: July 25, 2004, 11:02:33 PM »

Hey all you guys say how this is what the people want and I respect your opinions. However, how do you feel about the poll located on this thread? We've been arguing but have you looked at the results of this? The people obviously don't like this system, contrary to what some here belief.
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: July 25, 2004, 11:03:35 PM »
« Edited: July 25, 2004, 11:04:20 PM by Fritz »

Oh, I see...you're suggesting a system that actually is unfair, and comparing it to PV.  Well in this case, it really isnt the same.
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: July 25, 2004, 11:06:54 PM »

Hey all you guys say how this is what the people want and I respect your opinions. However, how do you feel about the poll located on this thread? We've been arguing but have you looked at the results of this? The people obviously don't like this system, contrary to what some here belief.

Yes, the yes votes are catching up.
Logged
Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,148


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: July 25, 2004, 11:10:23 PM »

Hey all you guys say how this is what the people want and I respect your opinions. However, how do you feel about the poll located on this thread? We've been arguing but have you looked at the results of this? The people obviously don't like this system, contrary to what some here belief.

The poll is currently tied.  PV has always been a contentious issue.  I remember when we first tried to bring it up it passed by one vote, but basically caused a constitutional crisis and was repealed in a re-vote just to keep peace on the forum.

It will always be controversial because it can be confusing and a lot of people don't understand it.  But unlike FPTP, it allows people to vote honestly and not have to worry about throwing away their vote.

And if we didn't have PV, the forum would soon revert to the same boring two-party structure the real US has (because the voting system necessitates it), and our elections would be a lot less interesting.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: July 25, 2004, 11:26:51 PM »

Part of that is probably due to the fact that the name is confusing to those who have no experience with this system outside of this forum, especially as evideniced by the fact that KP took so long to figure out that each person got only one vote.  Calling it instant runoff voting would make it easier to comprend, since essentially what happend was that an election was held, then a runoff between the top three candidates, and then a runoff between the top two candidates of the first runoff without having to go to polling booth three separate times.  My main complaint with the system is that there seems to be no upper limit on the number of candiates that can run in an election. What we need are mechanisms to encourge limits, say by limiting voters to the casting of a certain number of preferences, or by only allowing the organized parties to place candidates on the ballot and limiting the voters to placing only a single write-in preference in.  Otherwise, we could easily end up with a twenty candidate presidential race.
Logged
YRABNNRM
YoungRepub
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,680
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: July 26, 2004, 12:55:12 AM »

I like Preferential Voting for Presidential elections but I think that it should be up to the regions themselves whether they want to use it for their elections. I'm not sure its necessary for Senate elections though...

But overall, I really could care less in the fashion I vote, just as long as the candidate I cast my vote for wins and my voice is heard Smiley
Logged
Platypus
hughento
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,478
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: July 26, 2004, 03:32:19 AM »

The ONLY truly democratic system is ione where you get the support of the majority of voters. To represent a group of poeple, it is ESSENTIAL you have the support of the majority of them.

How can someone truly represent a state, a district, or a nation when they only receive 25% of the possible vote,  as Bush did? Whilst I personally advocate compulsory voting, because it is fairer, I can understand the objection. But what problem exists with preferential voting.

Everybody has an equal vote-no different to the non-preferential system.

So that arguments' dead.

The system has worked well in many many places, both in real life and on the forums, many times. Australia has had it for decades, and every single election that it has been used in Atlasia, the result has been better for democracy and the voters, who actually chose, by a majority, who would represent them.

The fact is, it's a more democratic system.

I am more then willing to answer ANY questions you have on the system, it's democratic basis, or anything else on Preferential voting.
Logged
JohnFKennedy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,448


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: July 26, 2004, 05:42:42 AM »

Why don't we have preferential voting in the poll Grin

I personally support the preferential voting system and will vote against repealing it. I think it has done more good than harm and encourages people to run for office instead of sitting on the sideline while others run.

Without preferential voting we have a problem, remember the North Eastern Gubernatorial Race.

First race was a tie between .Andrew and Siege40 with a few votes cast for other candidates.

We have a run-off the following weekend with just those two. Again we have a tie.

If it wasn't for the fact that .Andrew and Siege40 decided to share power, we would have had to have had another election, and maybe another.

This way keeps it a lot simpler and means we can elect people quicker.
Logged
Akno21
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,066
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: July 26, 2004, 06:37:07 AM »

Keystone Phil- You are doing exactly what most Democrats did in the aftermath of 2000- trying to change the system because it killed you LAST TIME. I was against changing the EC because in knew that in 2004, or 2008, or anytime, it could be reversed and Democrats would win the EC and Republicans the PV. You should stop trying to win an election thats over.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: July 26, 2004, 09:02:13 AM »

The CES will try to resolve this dispute
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: July 26, 2004, 09:41:05 AM »

Keystone Phil- You are doing exactly what most Democrats did in the aftermath of 2000- trying to change the system because it killed you LAST TIME. I was against changing the EC because in knew that in 2004, or 2008, or anytime, it could be reversed and Democrats would win the EC and Republicans the PV. You should stop trying to win an election thats over.

Wrong Akno. I'm not trying to change the system so I benefit, I'm changing for others to benefit. I lost but I want to make sure others don't lose because of an unfair system. So I kindly ask that you don't accuse me of being a sore loser and wanting to win the election when I graciously conceded and wished you the best of luck as Senator.
Logged
JohnFKennedy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,448


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: July 26, 2004, 09:42:39 AM »

Keystone Phil- You are doing exactly what most Democrats did in the aftermath of 2000- trying to change the system because it killed you LAST TIME. I was against changing the EC because in knew that in 2004, or 2008, or anytime, it could be reversed and Democrats would win the EC and Republicans the PV. You should stop trying to win an election thats over.

Wrong Akno. I'm not trying to change the system so I benefit, I'm changing for others to benefit. I lost but I want to make sure others don't lose because of an unfair system. So I kindly ask that you don't accuse me of being a sore loser and wanting to win the election when I graciously conceded and wished you the best of luck as Senator.

I'd still like to know why it is an unfair system, States hasn't told me yet but maybe you will Phil.

As I see it, the winner with preferential voting is the preferred candidate of the majority of the voters to the other candidates.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: July 26, 2004, 09:53:06 AM »

Keystone Phil- You are doing exactly what most Democrats did in the aftermath of 2000- trying to change the system because it killed you LAST TIME. I was against changing the EC because in knew that in 2004, or 2008, or anytime, it could be reversed and Democrats would win the EC and Republicans the PV. You should stop trying to win an election thats over.

Wrong Akno. I'm not trying to change the system so I benefit, I'm changing for others to benefit. I lost but I want to make sure others don't lose because of an unfair system. So I kindly ask that you don't accuse me of being a sore loser and wanting to win the election when I graciously conceded and wished you the best of luck as Senator.

I'd still like to know why it is an unfair system, States hasn't told me yet but maybe you will Phil.

As I see it, the winner with preferential voting is the preferred candidate of the majority of the voters to the other candidates.

But this candidate is being prefered down the line. Someone's first choice should be their only choice. It's like saying well if my first 3 candidates fail, I'll support so and so. If someone wins a plurality of votes, they worked hard to EARN that plurality. This system wants to deny those who have more votes. Let's say there are 13 voters. Candidate A receives 6 votes. Candidate B gets 3, Candidate C gets 2 votes and Candidate D 2 votes. Candidate's C and D get eliminated eventually and the 2nd preference votes add up from those 2 candidates and Candidate B has 7 votes. So the final tally...Candidate A - 6. Candidate B - 7. Basically thanks to more than one vote, Candidate B wins.

It's unfair because people get more than one vote.
Logged
JohnFKennedy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,448


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: July 26, 2004, 10:04:07 AM »

Keystone Phil- You are doing exactly what most Democrats did in the aftermath of 2000- trying to change the system because it killed you LAST TIME. I was against changing the EC because in knew that in 2004, or 2008, or anytime, it could be reversed and Democrats would win the EC and Republicans the PV. You should stop trying to win an election thats over.

Wrong Akno. I'm not trying to change the system so I benefit, I'm changing for others to benefit. I lost but I want to make sure others don't lose because of an unfair system. So I kindly ask that you don't accuse me of being a sore loser and wanting to win the election when I graciously conceded and wished you the best of luck as Senator.

I'd still like to know why it is an unfair system, States hasn't told me yet but maybe you will Phil.

As I see it, the winner with preferential voting is the preferred candidate of the majority of the voters to the other candidates.

But this candidate is being prefered down the line. Someone's first choice should be their only choice. It's like saying well if my first 3 candidates fail, I'll support so and so. If someone wins a plurality of votes, they worked hard to EARN that plurality. This system wants to deny those who have more votes. Let's say there are 13 voters. Candidate A receives 6 votes. Candidate B gets 3, Candidate C gets 2 votes and Candidate D 2 votes. Candidate's C and D get eliminated eventually and the 2nd preference votes add up from those 2 candidates and Candidate B has 7 votes. So the final tally...Candidate A - 6. Candidate B - 7. Basically thanks to more than one vote, Candidate B wins.

It's unfair because people get more than one vote.

How do you know they worked hard to earn those votes? Somebody may merely be voting down party lines. Let us take the Senate District 4 election that caused so much controversy as an example.

M won on a write-in despite never even knowing about it, did he earn those votes for him?

The system doesn't work to deny those who receive a plurality of votes from winning, in fact I believe you are the first to receive a plurality who has lost the election although I may be mistaken on that.

Preferential Voting means that the candidate who is more prefered by everybody wins. In this case more people prefered Akno21 to you to be their Senator and so he was ranked higher.

You say that this means people get more than one vote, well, really they don't as only one of their preferences counts in the end.

If their first preference candidate is out then it goes to their second and they then may win. Only one of their preferences counts in the end, they do not all count for something when we get down to the final run-off.

Preferential Voting prevents problems such as those that occurred during the North-Eastern Gubernatorial Election where the race was tied not once, but twice. If preferential voting had been used we would have had an outcome straight off the first vote as we had other candidates who received less than both Siege40 and .Andrew.

Preferential Voting means we can get someone into the Senate or the Presidency quicker which means we don't have a gap of say two weeks with an open Senate seat. It took two and a half weeks to pick a Governor for the North-Eastern Region. If that happens in the Senate then legislation can just freeze-up and nothing happens. It allows us to elect a candidate quickly and easily and the one who the majority of people like better than the other alternative that they would have in the run-off.

Preferential Voting also encourages more people to seek the offices. Back when we didn't have it, as NickG said, the Progressives and Democrats just agreed not to run candidates against each other so that they could control a monopoly.

This way grants everybody a chance to run without fear of reprisal for their ideology, it allows more people to take part in the fun of campaigning and elections which is what this is supposed to be about.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: July 26, 2004, 10:11:03 AM »

You just don't want to accept that preferential voting means One voter, MORE THAN ONE vote. You can make it sound like the fair system and the will of the people. The poll shows that Atlasians don't want it. They are the voters. Put aside your political interests because I know that some of you consider that in this decision. If I was to lose by popular vote, I'd be happier losing that way than losing because someone had more than one vote.

One voter = one vote. The people want it. Listen to them.
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,551
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: July 26, 2004, 10:15:51 AM »

I voted that it should be repealed and soon!
Logged
JohnFKennedy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,448


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: July 26, 2004, 10:21:53 AM »

You just don't want to accept that preferential voting means One voter, MORE THAN ONE vote. You can make it sound like the fair system and the will of the people. The poll shows that Atlasians don't want it. They are the voters. Put aside your political interests because I know that some of you consider that in this decision. If I was to lose by popular vote, I'd be happier losing that way than losing because someone had more than one vote.

One voter = one vote. The people want it. Listen to them.

Phil, I cannot say whether or not the people want it with regards to this poll.

Thirty-two people have voted in this poll, we have a total of one-hundred-and-nine registered voters.

That means that less than thirty percent of registered voters have voted in this poll.

Seventeen have voted to repeal preferential voting, that is sixteen percent of registered voters to the nearest percent.

I am not saying that the majority support preferential voting, but that we don't know what the majority support.

I am not putting my political interests in the way, it made little difference in my last Senatorial race so it has yet to affect me personally.

I am afraid to say I disagree that it means more than one vote as ultimately only one preference is counted meaning you ultimately only vote for that person so effectively you have cast one vote in the final run-off.

As I have said, this saves time and allows legislation to pass through quickly.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  
« 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 0.059 seconds with 12 queries.