Un-votes (from the Atlas section)

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

There are some posts about negative votes occuring in an election - and even thought it was a mistake, I kinda like the idea.

I've been kicking around the idea of a un-vote system.

A) Each person gets one vote - they can use it as either a positve vote for a candidate or a negative vote against a candidate.  So they could vote and + 1 for candidate A or vote -1 towards candidate B.

B) Each person gets a positive and a negative vote - they could positively vote for A and negatively vote for B, +1 for A and -1 for B (or only use one of those options)

Such a system, though crazy , might force candidates to not go negative against one another so that the other sides voters would be less likely to cast a negative vote against them.  The end result could be candidates who have more broad support.

[Nation]

Heh, in a state like Wyoming or North Dakota, a candidate could get enough un-votes to be in the negatives for a total.

[Kghadial]

What if both candidates got a negative total? what would you propose when that happens? I'd say neither wins

Problem (or bonus?) with the negative vote system is that it would let a lot of third parties have a solid chance.  If the two major candidates assail each other all the live long day. Then a third party candidate might not attract any negative votes and BAM we got governor Nader of Wisconsin. Something like this might happen (assuming say ... 10000 votes to keep it simple).

If you can vote either negative against a candidate, or positive for, but not both ....

Candidate A:    2500 positive votes and 2490 negative votes

Candidate B:  2450 positive votes and 2300 negative votes

Nader:   240 positive votes and 20 negative votes

[Gustaf]

I like it, but I think there should be as many votes as candidates, and you can aither vote in favour or against or abstain.

[Emsworth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So we don't allow voters to cast a positive and a negative vote for the same candidate- thereby permitting an abstention?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

It'd be easier just to have a NOTA option

[Platypus]

preferential/alterate voting is the way to go.

They use it in Australian and NZ, and I am a big fan of their political system of compulsory preferential voting. IN NZ, it is half by party, half by locality, in australia it is all by locality.

If there were three candidates for a seat, say, a Liberal, ALP and One Nation, and the initial vote was:

ALP: 50122
ON: 3299
LIB: 48518

In the US system the ALP candidate would win with less then half of the vote. In Australia, however, the One Nation candidate would be eliminated, and the voes for him/her would then be split between the ALP candidate and the Liberal, using the second preferences of the voters, making the new total look like this:

ALP: 50296
LIB: 51643

So the Liberal actually had more support with the pulic then the ALP candidate. (I dislike this seat, I think )

With the added bonus of compulsory voting, at least in theory a candidate must have the support of 50%+1 of the VAP to be elected-true democracy, I believe.

If Australia becomes a Republic, It would be the world's most democratic country-even if they do elect idiots like Howard.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

A)  It's not as fun as un!  (new slogan for un-voting system)

B) Don't insult Libs by presuming that ON would make them their second choice

C) Compulsory voting is terribly un-democratic.  It forces individuals who have not been paying attention to the system to cast a ballot that they are too uninformed to make a proper decision on.  People should have the right to opt out if they so choose, even though it is one of their most fundamental responsibilities.

[Gustaf]

A)  It's not as fun as un!  (new slogan for un-voting system)

B) Don't insult Libs by presuming that ON would make them their second choice

C) Compulsory voting is terribly un-democratic.  It forces individuals who have not been paying attention to the system to cast a ballot that they are too uninformed to make a proper decision on.  People should have the right to opt out if they so choose, even though it is one of their most fundamental responsibilities.

A) 'un' is pronounced...'un'

B) They probably would, like it or not...

C) Also, the possibility of protesting against the legitimacy of the system is vitally important in an open, democratic state.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

A) un as in the un-voting system
pronounced "unn"

[Platypus]

A)  It's not as fun as un!  (new slogan for un-voting system)

B) Don't insult Libs by presuming that ON would make them their second choice

C) Compulsory voting is terribly un-democratic.  It forces individuals who have not been paying attention to the system to cast a ballot that they are too uninformed to make a proper decision on.  People should have the right to opt out if they so choose, even though it is one of their most fundamental responsibilities.

1. Al would have won with al(ternate voting). (It needs work...)

2. Hmmn, who will people who vote for ON preference? The right wing Liberals (biggest misnomer in poitics) or the left wing ALP? Also, I put a coupe of hundred preferences to the ALP from ON.

3. All you have to do is turn up and recieve your ballot. Then you can eat it if you want, doesnt matter. People can always protest by not voting, but if people actually turn up to the ballot box, they are more likely to vote-and if they know thy have to vote, they are more likely to pay attention. Sure, some people will just vote along pry lines, but that already happens here with the parties radical bases. if everyone had to vote, the true voice of the people would be heard because fringe groups would have less power over the parties. Also, third parties could be significantly more sucessful b/c if people voted for them then it wouldn't hurt anyone else. If we had preferential voting Nader would have won 5% or so, and Gore would still have won the presidency.

There are only three ways, in theory, that a candidate can get over 50% of the VAP-1. they are the only candidate; 2. turnout is high and there are very few candidates, or they win in a landslide 3. Turnout is high and there is preferencial voting. The first isn't democratic; the second never happens here, and the third has worked in Australia and New Zealand for decades.

[Gustaf]

A)  It's not as fun as un!  (new slogan for un-voting system)

B) Don't insult Libs by presuming that ON would make them their second choice

C) Compulsory voting is terribly un-democratic.  It forces individuals who have not been paying attention to the system to cast a ballot that they are too uninformed to make a proper decision on.  People should have the right to opt out if they so choose, even though it is one of their most fundamental responsibilities.

1. Al would have won with al(ternate voting). (It needs work...)

2. Hmmn, who will people who vote for ON preference? The right wing Liberals (biggest misnomer in poitics) or the left wing ALP? Also, I put a coupe of hundred preferences to the ALP from ON.

3. All you have to do is turn up and recieve your ballot. Then you can eat it if you want, doesnt matter. People can always protest by not voting, but if people actually turn up to the ballot box, they are more likely to vote-and if they know thy have to vote, they are more likely to pay attention. Sure, some people will just vote along pry lines, but that already happens here with the parties radical bases. if everyone had to vote, the true voice of the people would be heard because fringe groups would have less power over the parties. Also, third parties could be significantly more sucessful b/c if people voted for them then it wouldn't hurt anyone else. If we had preferential voting Nader would have won 5% or so, and Gore would still have won the presidency.

There are only three ways, in theory, that a candidate can get over 50% of the VAP-1. they are the only candidate; 2. turnout is high and there are very few candidates, or they win in a landslide 3. Turnout is high and there is preferencial voting. The first isn't democratic; the second never happens here, and the third has worked in Australia and New Zealand for decades.

1. No, it's great!

2. The ON are weirdo-Nazis, those people have voting patterns that are very hard to predict.

3. So you just have to show up? That's slightly better, but still infringes people's liberties. The state shouldn't have that kind of power, that's what I feel.

There is PP as well, but let's not get into that, huh?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

100% correct Gustaf!

[Gustaf]

100% correct Gustaf!

Thanks.

[Platypus]

20% right Gustaf. The state shouldn't force people to do so, so its not like pople will be forced at gunpoint to vote. But a reasonable fee for not voting ($20, perhaps) is enough of an incentive. In theory that would mean we are paying people $20 to vote! (I know it's skewed logic )

[© tweed]

In this election, the "un-votes" system would help Kerry because the anti-Bush anti-Kerry voters on the left would vote against Bush instead of for Nader,  if you know what I mean.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

20% right Gustaf. The state shouldn't force people to do so, so its not like pople will be forced at gunpoint to vote. But a reasonable fee for not voting ($20, perhaps) is enough of an incentive. In theory that would mean we are paying people $20 to vote! (I know it's skewed logic )

Sheesh...You are SUCH a Democrat....

What happens if they refuse to pay the fee?

[Gustaf]

20% right Gustaf. The state shouldn't force people to do so, so its not like pople will be forced at gunpoint to vote. But a reasonable fee for not voting ($20, perhaps) is enough of an incentive. In theory that would mean we are paying people $20 to vote! (I know it's skewed logic )

Sheesh...You are SUCH a Democrat....

What happens if they refuse to pay the fee?

Dose this mean that I am 20% Dem and 100% Rep?

The state shouldn't pay people to vote either, that's almost as bad as charging them for it...

And I second Don's quetion...what if they don't pay?

[Platypus]

3-strikes and you face a judge. I wonder wat the judges would do.

Corey, what happens in OZ?